Israel definitely has a peace partner in Hamas :rolleyes [Archive]

Politeia utopia

14-03-2007, 17:21

How? Hamas' reason for existence is to DESTROY Israel. At least the old PLO's ultimate goal - a home and nation for the Palestinian people - was not incompatible with Israel's continued existence. On that slim piece of common ground, the two found a place to negotiate, and more was done in a couple of years to improve the lot of BOTH sides than in the forty years before.

But where can you find a common ground with people who's fundamental purpose is to kill you?

First of all if Israel and Hamas would get along just fine there would not be any need for a peace agreement now would there?

Second, the destruction of Israel is not the sole reason for Hamas' existence, nor for its support. Hamas has become a broad organization, which would foremost strive for a better life for the Palestinian people.

Militant groups have changed their positions throughout history. Eventually relinquishing their unattainable and extreme demands, and accepting peace on more acceptable terms.

The first step is a willingness to halt the violence, and return to politics. Hamas seems willing to make this first step, moreover it seems to have the support needed to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people. Still, it would be political suicide to accept Israel at this point in time. However a cease fire would allow Hamas to make these concessions in time.

Dododecapod

14-03-2007, 17:48

First of all if Israel and Hamas would get along just fine there would not be any need for a peace agreement now would there?

I'm not looking for "getting along just fine". While that would be a great ultimate goal, right now I'm just looking for just one area of common ground where both parties can start negotiationg from.

To have negotiations, you have to have some reason for both sides to sit down and actually start talking. I'm not seeing one.

Second, the destruction of Israel is not the sole reason for Hamas' existence, nor for its support. Hamas has become a broad organization, which would foremost strive for a better life for the Palestinian people.

Yet, it's own official documentation refutes your position.

Militant groups have changed their positions throughout history. Eventually relinquishing their unattainable and extreme demands, and accepting peace on more acceptable terms.

This is true. It's what happened to the PLO, after all. But in almost every case, one of two things have happened:

1: The extremist group modified it's demands before requesting talks;

2: The extremist group was on the ropes and was forced to accept less than it originally wanted.

Neither is true of Hamas.

The first step is a willingness to halt the violence, and return to politics. Hamas seems willing to make this first step, moreover it seems to have the support needed to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people. Still, it would be political suicide to accept Israel at this point in time. However a cease fire would allow Hamas to make these concessions in time.

Here's where your argument falls on it's face. Israel has given Hamas cease-fires. Repeatedly. What happens?

Hamas catches it's breath, prepares it's people, and launches a new round of attacks.

Israel isn't stupid. They aren't going to keep making the same stupid mistake over and over again. And trusting Hamas to keep a ceasefire has proven to be a stupid mistake.

Politeia utopia

14-03-2007, 18:14

[…] To have negotiations, you have to have some reason for both sides to sit down and actually start talking. I'm not seeing one.

Yet, it's own official documentation refutes your position.

This is true. It's what happened to the PLO, after all. But in almost every case, one of two things have happened:

1: The extremist group modified it's demands before requesting talks;

2: The extremist group was on the ropes and was forced to accept less than it originally wanted.

Neither is true of Hamas.

Here's where your argument falls on it's face. Israel has given Hamas cease-fires. Repeatedly. What happens?

Hamas catches it's breath, prepares it's people, and launches a new round of attacks.

Israel isn't stupid. They aren't going to keep making the same stupid mistake over and over again. And trusting Hamas to keep a ceasefire has proven to be a stupid mistake.

Hamas is changing; it has become a broad popular movement, with many activities besides its militant/terrorist activities. A political party will ultimately produce leaders that are not part of the militant branch of the organization. Its first goal will be a viable Palestinian state, for this is the first goal of the people it represents. Granted they would be very glad if Israel were to make place for a Palestinian state, but do not discard their willingness to compromise in return for a better life of their popular support base; the Palestinian people.

Extremist groups have generally modified their demands as a direct result of (secret) talks; the PLO and IRA for example. Official or unofficial documentation does not matter in this regard.

Hamas and Israel have had very short periods of cease fire, followed by escalations from both parties. Israel for one never stopped to execute “terrorists”/ “members of Hamas”. I never said that keeping a cease fire and peace talks going was easy. For, it is always hard especially in the short run when there is an absolute lack of trust amongst the parties. However it is the most viable option in the long run and Israel is strong enough to seek peace with Hamas.

RLI Rides Again

14-03-2007, 18:16

Lunatic Goofballs

14-03-2007, 18:17

Israel isn't stupid. They aren't going to keep making the same stupid mistake over and over again. And trusting Hamas to keep a ceasefire has proven to be a stupid mistake.

Hamas never agreed to any of the previous ceasefires anyway. :p

The blessed Chris

14-03-2007, 18:20

Frankly, who fucking cares? Every possible route for peace and reconciliation has been tryed, and has been proven impossible. Why doesn't the west simply apologise to the Arabic world for having foisted Israel upon them, and then allow the conflict to take its course?

RLI Rides Again

14-03-2007, 18:49

Personally I think we should paint the whole of Israel and the occupied territories a nice, soothing shade of blue, then nobody would get angry.

http://www.jakesonline.org/lightblue.gif

If this works then we could add fluffy bunny rabbits and kittens later.
Well, it's as likely to work as any of the other peace plans :p

Zarakon

14-03-2007, 19:17

Yeah, it's such a great system. They're peace partners while one of them wants to destroy the other and the other classifies them as terrorists and assasinates their leaders.

It's kind of like American politics, actually, only in America they only do character assasinations.

Lunatic Goofballs

14-03-2007, 19:18

Kryozerkia

14-03-2007, 19:34

We've all seen the Road Map to Peace?

Here's what the other side wants...

BEFORE

http://weaselhut.net/before.gif

AFTER

http://weaselhut.net/after.GIF

..and that is why peace will never work.

Israel wants it all and the Palestinians want the Israelis gone...

Thus leaving the only viable solution...

n00k teh area!

Drunk commies deleted

14-03-2007, 19:41

How expensive would it be to just dose the water supply for Palestine and Israel with MDMA for a couple of years?

RLI Rides Again

14-03-2007, 19:43

Why not? I'll get the paint. :)

Nobody seems to have any better ideas, what've we got to lose? :D

Nodinia

14-03-2007, 19:52

Personally I think we should paint the whole of Israel and the occupied territories a nice, soothing shade of blue, then nobody would get angry.
If this works then we could add fluffy bunny rabbits and kittens later.
Well, it's as likely to work as any of the other peace plans :p

Too like UN blue. The Americans would veto it.

Szanth

14-03-2007, 20:07

Nobody seems to have any better ideas, what've we got to lose? :D

n00k teh area!

Soviestan

14-03-2007, 22:33

Johnny B Goode

15-03-2007, 00:58

Corneliu

15-03-2007, 01:56

Corneliu

15-03-2007, 01:57

Well, at this point it's hard to tell who is in charge in the Palestinian areas.

They seem to spend a lot of time right now, killing each other, breaking the ceasefires they just agreed to with each other.

The ceasefire watch is rather sad to watch. Apparently, they can't even trust each other to keep to an agreement of any kind for more than a few hours.

Mind you, the mainstream media cuts them a break - if the killing involves only a few score Palestinians, the media says that the ceasefire "is holding".

And when one Palestinian dies by the Israelis, it is Israel that is blamed for breaking the cease-fire regardless of circumstances.

Corneliu

15-03-2007, 01:59

Israel should nevertheless attempt to come to some form of agreement with Hamas.

They've tried.

Corneliu

15-03-2007, 02:02

Maybe its Hamas that doesn't have a peace partner with Israel. yeah thats right.

:rolleyes:

Dunlaoire

15-03-2007, 03:26

Ah OK

Israel has no partner in Hamas, how things have changed
it used to be that Israel had no partner in the PLO.
It seems that just no one is willing to be a partner for peace, oh they
all say they are, but bulldoze a few buildings, keep up the curfews
and the random roadblocks, stop people getting to work or school or hospital.
Kill them or prevent them getting treatment until they die on a whim and soon their true colours
show through.

Of course how can you have peace with people who reserve the right
to maim and kill.

Suicide bombs =/= peacemakers
Guided Missiles = peacemakers

oh btw in case IDF and their ilk actually bring any intelligence to bear on this
negotiations are most needed with people who hate you most.
You don't need peace talks with your friends or has that point escaped you all.

Politeia utopia

15-03-2007, 11:34

I would like to add that the title of the piece “Hamas says still seeks Israel's destruction” is highly misleading.

The article is mostly about al-Qaeda attacking Hamas on grounds that Hamas has taken the path of idle chit-chat. As a reaction to flaming from al-Qaeda, hamas responds that is does not relinquish its goals. These goals remain obvious:

“We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank.”

Note that this is accurate representation of the best-case scenario for the Palestinian people: The entire former mandate area of Palestine under Palestinian control, with the Jews abandoning the land, leaving only the number of Jews present before 1900. As a direct result of this goal its charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

The best-case scenario for the Israeli people would be that it would get the entire former mandate area of Palestine with Arabs abandoning the West bank (Gaza is of lesser importance), leaving only a small number of Arabs as citizens. Israel does not have a charter calling for the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but this goal has already been attained.

Both parties have win-sets: this is the room between the desired goal and the maximum of concessions it can make without losing domestic support, in order to reach an agreement. There is no room for agreement if we were to look to the best case scenarios of either party. However, as long as win-sets overlap there will be room for agreement.

The Oslo agreements broke, because the win-sets did not overlap. The Israeli government tried to make a deal it could not sell to its populace (outside its winset). Nethanyahu consequently won the elections. Extremists on either side have always been able to reduce the win-set of the other party through terror, and this time was no exception.

Today the situation is not that different from the situation thirteen years ago. For, very little has changed. But if at first you don’t succeed try and try again. It is quite likely that Hamas, as a representative of the Palestinian people (the PLO can no longer play that role) and Israel have overlapping win-sets. For they would both desire prosperity and a return to normal life for their people. The last part of the article shows that there may well be room for agreement:

“Hamas leaders have offered a long-term truce with Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

At the very least it would be a great starting point for new (secret) negotiations, in this respect criminalizing and isolating Hamas, as has been done since their electoral victory, may well have been a major mistake in the long run.

Callisdrun

15-03-2007, 12:08

Andaras Prime

15-03-2007, 12:10

How can any Palestinian accept peace talks while their land is occupied and their people impoverished by the Zionist aggressor? Where places like the Abu Dis ghetto are created where thousands of Palestinians live in near inhumane conditions, only to wait for hours on end to get through the checkpoint into Israel to find the only work to feed their children, many being attacked by border guards or angry Zionist settlers. No Palestinian should ever even accept for a moment the occupation of their land by a foreign power, nor should they suffer the illegal and illegitimate racist Zionist regime to exist.

Politeia utopia

15-03-2007, 12:30

Sometimes, when I'm feeling cynical (which is often), I think maybe we should just cease all involvement with this problem and let them have at each other until they're all either tired of fighting or dead. Horrible, I know, but it's certainly discouraging watching them.

Sometimes this seems to be the case, however appearances can be misleading. For we have not been truly committed to a viable two-state. Consequently we should start to become truly committed, using both sticks and carrots to increase the win-sets (room for agreement) for both parties.

The Palestinians are quite down already, and the stick is already used to beat Hamas to the negotiating table. Promise more support in establishing a viable, stable and economically feasible Palestinian state according to the two-state principle.

Israel thinks it can currently afford to wait. It can not, since the constant state of war is eroding the liberal nature of the Israeli state as well as having a detrimental effect on the psychological health of the population. Thus we should start using the stick to beat Israel to the negotiating table. Israel has some carrots already ($65 billion US foreign aid 1946-1996, access to military technology, having nuclear weapons) Let us temporarily reduce the carrots, but we should commit ourselves to additional measures to guarantee Israeli safety when they reach an agreement according to the two-state principle.

Callisdrun

16-03-2007, 01:17

True, we have always favored carrots with Israel and sticks with the Palestinians. Perhaps there might be some steps taken if we balanced this.

Congo--Kinshasa

16-03-2007, 03:39

There is never going to be peace, so why even hope for it?

QFT.

Ohshucksiforgotourname

16-03-2007, 03:47

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1229777020070312

Hamas says still seeks Israel's destruction

The article pretty much says it plainly. Lets not also forget the anti-semitic Hamas Charter, which Hamas hasn't ammended, also calls for the destruction of Israel and bases its "conclusions" on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I'm posting this thread to show that no matter what some poorly educated members of this forum may say, Israel doesn't have a partern in Hamas. They had one in Abbas, but Hamas has limited his scope.

You're right; Israel trusting Hamas is like hens trusting a fox to guard the henhouse; they do so at THEIR OWN peril.

Also, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (PEZ) is just a bunch of nonsense that anti-Semites conjured up so they could have an "excuse" to kill Jews.

Israel should nevertheless attempt to come to some form of agreement with Hamas.

How? Hamas' reason for existence is to DESTROY Israel. At least the old PLO's ultimate goal - a home and nation for the Palestinian people - was not incompatible with Israel's continued existence. On that slim piece of common ground, the two found a place to negotiate, and more was done in a couple of years to improve the lot of BOTH sides than in the forty years before.

But where can you find a common ground with people who's fundamental purpose is to kill you?

You CAN'T.

But something else you can't do is get that through the thick, empty heads of the news media. They are so insane that they think Israel actually CAN (and even SHOULD) trust Hamas not to attack them.

You can't have peace with a group who's goal is your own destruction.

That is so basic and fundamental as not to even be funny; what IS funny is that the news media and anti-Semites don't believe it, and don't want anybody else to believe it either.

I'm not looking for "getting along just fine". While that would be a great ultimate goal, right now I'm just looking for just one area of common ground where both parties can start negotiationg from.

To have negotiations, you have to have some reason for both sides to sit down and actually start talking. I'm not seeing one.

Yet, it's own official documentation refutes your position.

This is true. It's what happened to the PLO, after all. But in almost every case, one of two things have happened:

1: The extremist group modified it's demands before requesting talks;

2: The extremist group was on the ropes and was forced to accept less than it originally wanted.

Neither is true of Hamas.

Here's where your argument falls on it's face. Israel has given Hamas cease-fires. Repeatedly. What happens?

Hamas catches it's breath, prepares it's people, and launches a new round of attacks.

Israel isn't stupid. They aren't going to keep making the same stupid mistake over and over again. And trusting Hamas to keep a ceasefire has proven to be a stupid mistake.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ohshucksiforgotourname

16-03-2007, 03:54

How can any Palestinian accept peace talks while their land is occupied and their people impoverished by the Zionist aggressor? No Palestinian should ever even accept for a moment the occupation of their land by a foreign power, nor should they suffer the illegal and illegitimate racist Zionist regime to exist.

That land does NOT rightfully belong to the so-called "Palestinians"; the JEWS are the rightful owners of that land, because it was given to them by England's Balfour Declaration in the early 20th century. The Palestinians are the ones occupying the land illegally.

And what you call the "illegal and illegitimate racist Zionist regime" is actually a HUMANE provision for the Jewish race, nor is it illegal or illegitimate. The Jewish race, everywhere they have gone since the time of Christ, have been persecuted, tortured, and made to suffer the very things you claim the Palestinians are suffering now. They (the Jews) have never been safe in ANY land, nation, or country, EXCEPT THE LAND OF PALESTINE; the "Palestinians" have not been in the same situation (i.e. wandering from nation to nation, being persecuted all the time). Giving Palestine to the Jews is only just and humane; the "Palestinians" can easily find other countries to live in; they just insist on having the land of Israel so they can keep the Jews wandering from place to place in hopes of exterminating them.

Congo--Kinshasa

16-03-2007, 03:54

Ohshucksiforgotourname

16-03-2007, 04:05

Note that this is accurate representation of the best-case scenario for the Palestinian people: The entire former mandate area of Palestine under Palestinian control, with the Jews abandoning the land, leaving only the number of Jews present before 1900. As a direct result of this goal its charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

The best-case scenario for the Israeli people would be that it would get the entire former mandate area of Palestine with Arabs abandoning the West bank (Gaza is of lesser importance), leaving only a small number of Arabs as citizens. Israel does not have a charter calling for the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but this goal has already been attained.

I would like to point out here:

1. Hamas' charter calls for DESTRUCTION of Israel as a Jewish state.
2. Israel has NO charter calling for destruction of ANYBODY.

Israel wants to live and let live, but Hamas refuses to go along with it, so Israel must defend themselves.

“Hamas leaders have offered a long-term truce with Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

ROTFLMAO

That is the FUNNIEST thing I have seen all day! Hamas offering a "long term truce" with Israel! I don't believe Hamas will hold up their end of it.

ROTFLMAO

Ohshucksiforgotourname

16-03-2007, 04:11

Ohshucksiforgotourname

16-03-2007, 04:14

Sometimes this seems to be the case, however appearances can be misleading. For we have not been truly committed to a viable two-state. Consequently we should start to become truly committed, using both sticks and carrots to increase the win-sets (room for agreement) for both parties.

The "two states" THEMSELVES are not committed to recognizing each other as sovereign nations, therefore until that changes there can BE no "viable two-state."

Politeia utopia

16-03-2007, 19:14

[…] what IS funny is that the news media and anti-Semites don't believe it, and don't want anybody else to believe it either.

There is a lot of anger in your posts. And I would like to point out that I do not mean to offend you, rather I believe that an agreement could be reached if the international community were to truly commit itself to it.

I would like to point out here:

1. Hamas' charter calls for DESTRUCTION of Israel as a Jewish state.
2. Israel has NO charter calling for destruction of ANYBODY.

As I have stated before, Israel has already accomplished the destruction of any viable Palestinian state.

That land does NOT rightfully belong to the so-called "Palestinians"; the JEWS are the rightful owners of that land, because it was given to them by England's Balfour Declaration in the early 20th century. The Palestinians are the ones occupying the land illegally.

This twice-promised land was also promised to the Arabs (mc Mahon), but the allies secretly divided the lands among themselves among (Sykes-Picot). The land did not belong to the British to give.

[…] [Israel] is actually a HUMANE provision for the Jewish race, nor is it illegal or illegitimate. The Jewish race, everywhere they have gone since the time of Christ, have been persecuted, tortured, and made to suffer the very things you claim the Palestinians are suffering now. They (the Jews) have never been safe in ANY land, nation, or country, EXCEPT THE LAND OF PALESTINE; the "Palestinians" have not been in the same situation (i.e. wandering from nation to nation, being persecuted all the time). Giving Palestine to the Jews is only just and humane; the "Palestinians" can easily find other countries to live in; they just insist on having the land of Israel so they can keep the Jews wandering from place to place in hopes of exterminating them.

As I understand it correctly, you acknowledge neither the Palestinians as a people nor their right to a place to live. Though I am well aware this viewpoint exists, I would rather hope that people were to show more humanity.

I agree that Israel has a right to exist, and that this state can only be a Jewish state. That said, I believe that Israel has a moral obligation to all people living there. That is why they should allow for a viable Palestinian state, and compensate those unable to return to Israel. The Palestinians have the right to a place to live as well as to a government that represents them. If Israel cannot be convinced of its duty to the wellbeing of these people, then the international community should press them to do so. For the current situation damages not only the Palestinians, but also the Israeli national psyche; a constant state of war is not healthy, nor is this amount of power over people at roadblocks etc. (see the Stanford experiment)

I hope you will one day see that a two-state solution is the way to go, despite the short-term difficulties.

Dododecapod

16-03-2007, 20:50

The land did not belong to the British to give.

Wrong. The British held the Mandate under League of Nations rules; while there were some limits to their actions, dividing it up and giving it to ethnic groups was CERTAINLY within their purview.

Prior to that, the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire; before that the Caliphate; before that, Rome.

And before that, it was Judea. The Palestinians have never owned the land they live on.

All that said, I support your position that they deserve a state of their own. I just understand that it's not likely ever to happen as long as Israel sees such a state as a threat to it's existence. And Hamas is not helping the situation in any way.

Andaras Prime

17-03-2007, 00:57

Corneliu

17-03-2007, 01:45

Question: How much did the Jews pay for the land?

Game. Set. Match.

Some of it was bought and paid for.

I do not have the numbers however.

*sends the match into overtime*

IDF

17-03-2007, 07:52

Question: How much did the Jews pay for the land?

Game. Set. Match.

How much did the Palestinians pay for the land?

Roma Islamica

17-03-2007, 08:27

How much did the Palestinians pay for the land?

The Palestinians are the descendants of the people who were living on that land since antiquity. Palestine has always been a multiethnic area since the Hebrews first moved in thousands of years ago. The Palestinians are a mixture of Canaanite, Aramaean, Philistine, Persian, Assyrian, Latin, Circassian, Greek, Turkish, Arab, Hebrew, and whoever else has happened to inhabit that land. They happen to speak Arabic however, and most, though not all of them, are Muslims. The modern Israelis however, have a documented immigration to that land. And by the way, MOST of them didn't pay for an inch of that land.

Burn.

Andaras Prime

17-03-2007, 09:02

How much did the Palestinians pay for the land?

Umm, it's Palestine, therefore it belongs to Palestinians. The Jews just flooded the country with immigrants and dirty money, and forced their way through violence and terrorism into getting a state, which the British did for various political reasons, none of which were peace, and also I hope you aren't condoning imperialism. Roma Islamica is very much right on this issue, barely anything was paid for the land. In fact if you actually bother to look up the numbers I think this little debate will be over very soon. The Jews basically mass immigrated to Palestine and started attacking the Palestinians directly. Of course the traditional Jewish 'truth' on the matter would say that 'after the holocaust, the Jews needed a new home, so they went to the land of Canaan, a barren desert, and after that the desert bloomed'. And if their was any ever mention of the lands original inhabitants, it was 'oh and they were some people who didn't like this, but they were Nazis'.

Europa Maxima

17-03-2007, 09:22

Don't you people ever tire of these threads? :p

New Burmesia

17-03-2007, 12:12

Don't you people ever tire of these threads? :p
It woulkd seem not. I used to bother, but why partake in the 1000th Israel/Palestine debate when every one has their own, unmoveable opinion anyway?

Corneliu

17-03-2007, 12:43

Umm, it's Palestine, therefore it belongs to Palestinians.

According to whom?

United Beleriand

17-03-2007, 13:26

United Beleriand

17-03-2007, 13:27

According to whom?Justice.

Kryozerkia

17-03-2007, 13:36

Wrong. The British held the Mandate under League of Nations rules; while there were some limits to their actions, dividing it up and giving it to ethnic groups was CERTAINLY within their purview.

Prior to that, the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire; before that the Caliphate; before that, Rome.

And before that, it was Judea. The Palestinians have never owned the land they live on.

All that said, I support your position that they deserve a state of their own. I just understand that it's not likely ever to happen as long as Israel sees such a state as a threat to it's existence. And Hamas is not helping the situation in any way.

One of the common misconceptions is how the British viewed the Palestinian concept of ownership.

Even if the Palestinian themselves didn't own that piece of land, the could own the olive trees or whatever they tended to on that land. It's a rather odd form of ownership, but nonetheless, it is still a form of.

But when the British took over, they lost even just that because the British imported the west concept of ownership.

Kryozerkia

17-03-2007, 13:43

Nodinia

17-03-2007, 14:16

Non Aligned States

17-03-2007, 14:24

Some of it was bought and paid for.

I do not have the numbers however.

*sends the match into overtime*

Some of it. Not all IIRC. Thereby, they'd be squatters in the places that they didn't buy. Well armed squatters, but squatters nevertheless.

Nodinia

17-03-2007, 14:51

Some of it was bought and paid for.

I do not have the numbers however.

Roughly 8% of the total area. I believe the Jewish Virual Library has the correct figure in Dunums. Just divide that into the total area of the mandate and there you go.

United Beleriand

17-03-2007, 15:09

Prior to that, the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire; before that the Caliphate; before that, Rome. And before that, it was Judea.Judea was not an independent political entity. It was under Ptolemaic rule before the Romans took over. Before that, Macedonian rule. Before that, Persian rule. Before that, Babylonian rule. Before that, Assyrian rule. Before that, Hebrew and Israelite (which is not the same as Jew-ish) and Hyksos rule (=Indo-europeans, e.g. Philistines=Peleshtim=Pelastoi=Pelasgoi, allied with Mitanni as well as the Aegeans/Pelasgians and Arzawans), all in an age when Egypt was not sufficiently exercising its rule over the Levant. Before that, Egyptian rule or dependency. And of course there were always the native Canaanites, the Hurrians, the Hivites, and the Pœn, and a number of other semitic as well as indo-european tribes.
As a matter of fact, the name "Yehuda" does not at all surface as a tribal name prior to the Persian era, Jews as such just did not exist prior, and although they claim thus, they are not the equivalent of Israelites or even Hebrews (both groups were not Jew-ish and they did not have the later Jew-ish religion of Judaism).

The Palestinians have never owned the land they live on.But the Jews did? Especially those who have not even lived there in the pest part of two millennia?

Dododecapod

17-03-2007, 15:52

But the Jews did? Especially those who have not even lived there in the pest part of two millennia?

Yes. Because they control the government and functions of statehood.

My point is not that one predates the other, but that the group the land was supposedly "stolen from" never controlled that land in the first place. This makes the idea that the land was stolen from the Palestinians ludicrous.

United Beleriand

17-03-2007, 16:11

Yes. Because they control the government and functions of statehood.Now. But not when Israel was created or prior. And surely not when the rotten Balfour Declaration was made.

My point is not that one predates the other, but that the group the land was supposedly "stolen from" never controlled that land in the first place. This makes the idea that the land was stolen from the Palestinians ludicrous.So someone whose family has lived in a land for millennia has no right to remain there and live on the soil that feeds him?

Nodinia

17-03-2007, 17:27

My point is not that one predates the other, but that the group the land was supposedly "stolen from" never controlled that land in the first place. This makes the idea that the land was stolen from the Palestinians ludicrous.

I'd say being driven off what was you and yours land for at least a few centuries by groups of armed men makes the idea that it wasn't ludicrous.

IDF

17-03-2007, 18:31

The Palestinians are the descendants of the people who were living on that land since antiquity. Palestine has always been a multiethnic area since the Hebrews first moved in thousands of years ago. The Palestinians are a mixture of Canaanite, Aramaean, Philistine, Persian, Assyrian, Latin, Circassian, Greek, Turkish, Arab, Hebrew, and whoever else has happened to inhabit that land. They happen to speak Arabic however, and most, though not all of them, are Muslims. The modern Israelis however, have a documented immigration to that land. And by the way, MOST of them didn't pay for an inch of that land.

Burn.

The Palestinians are actually descendents of Arab warriors who invaded and captured the land in the 7th century. They are not indigenous to that land. There is also the fact that during the years of Jewish Aliyah to the land, the Arab population quadrupled. This happened because many Arabs moved to Palestine, where British money had made the economic environment a beneficial one. They certainly aren't native as you would say.

The Jews did pay for their land. The land given in partition was primarily the land owned by the Jews. The exception of course being the Negev.

The partition gave 5,500 miles sq to the Jews. Of this, 3,850 miles sq or 70% of the land was the Negev Desert. Most of the land was uninhabitted by anyone, Arab or Jew. The only areas of the Negev that were occupied were along portions of the Egyptian Border and Beersheba. These areas were given to the Arabs.

The remainder of the land was the area primarily inhabitted by Jews, who by the way had LEGALLY purchased their land.

If you look at a topographical map of the land, you would see that the Arab population centers were all in the hill regions. The central area (which contains the West Bank today) was the central hills of Palestine. The other large concentrations of Arab populations were in Gaza and the Upper Galilee.

The Jews settled in the valleys. These would be the Hula Valley, the Jezreel Valley, and the Coastal Plain. No Arabs lived in these areas because they were malaria infested swamplands. There is a reason the Jews were sold that land, no one wanted out. Outside of port cities such as Jaffa, Haifa, and Acco, there were almost no Arabs lived in these lands.

When partition came, you will see the partition plan was almost exactly in line with the topographical maps. If you look at contour lines, you would see the low areas formerly comprised of swamp lands went to the Jews (they purchased the majority of the land there). The high areas which were traditionally Arab went to the Arabs. Of course once again the Negev is the exception here, but the only populations in there would be Bedouin. The Bedoins are traditionally nomadic so it really didn't matter too much who's border they were within.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/JewishOwned.gif

If you look at this map and look at the partition plan, you will see it pretty much mirrors the land given by partition

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/oren/UN%20Palestine%20Partition%20Plan.gif
Once again, the Negev is an exception because it was pretty much unoccupied except for the areas given to the Arabs.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan used the most logical lines based on land ownership.

IDF

17-03-2007, 18:41

Umm, it's Palestine, therefore it belongs to Palestinians. The Jews just flooded the country with immigrants and dirty money, and forced their way through violence and terrorism into getting a state, which the British did for various political reasons, none of which were peace, and also I hope you aren't condoning imperialism. Roma Islamica is very much right on this issue, barely anything was paid for the land. In fact if you actually bother to look up the numbers I think this little debate will be over very soon. The Jews basically mass immigrated to Palestine and started attacking the Palestinians directly. Of course the traditional Jewish 'truth' on the matter would say that 'after the holocaust, the Jews needed a new home, so they went to the land of Canaan, a barren desert, and after that the desert bloomed'. And if their was any ever mention of the lands original inhabitants, it was 'oh and they were some people who didn't like this, but they were Nazis'.
Mr. Nazi posts again:

The land is called Palestine because the Romans renamed it that around the year 70 in an attempt to erase any mention of the Jews. Before that, the land was known as Judea for descendents of the Tribe of Judah had been the land's inhabitants. I addressed most of your points in my post preceding this one.

As for violence, it didn't begin until Haj Amin al-Husseini, leader of the Arabs in the area and Nazi agent, began organizing gangs to attack Jews on kibbutzim and in cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Tiberias_massacre
he Haganah and other groups weren't formed until after the Arabs started attacking Jews, who BTW were legally living on purchased land.
Haganah wasn't even established until after the 1920 and 1921 Arab riots instigated by Hitler's later ally.

The Jewish acts of violence were regretable, but the Arabs instigated the violence. The Jewish groups were formed to protect the Jews. Later terrorist groups were formed with the intent of reprisal. These are groups like the Irgun. They are a dark part of our history and should be rightfully condemned, but the fact remains the Arabs did far worse to the Jews than anything the Irgun has done. Sure the Deir Yassin massacre was bad, but the Arabs conducted dozens of such massacres. This of course doesn't justify anything the Irgun did. I'm just pointing out your anti-semitic double standard where killing Jews is OK while Jew killing Arab is terrorism.

Now do you have anything else to say Nazi?

What was dirty about the money BTW? Is it the fact Jews owned the money?

The Zionists probably want to replace it with a military base, or a Synagogue that couples as a Bank too.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12338929&postcount=2

Nodinia

17-03-2007, 19:22

The Jews did pay for their land. .

..the 8% of it they bought before the war, yes. The other roughly 92% was taken during the war of independence, and - where the Arab owners were either driven off or fled - seized after the war, under legislation brought in for the purpose.

Gauthier

17-03-2007, 19:27

Hamas has always been the perfect partner for Israel.

A bunch of apeshit extremists who fling shit and blow shit up at anything Israel does, which gives the Israelis an excuse to not have to make any significant magnanimous gestures towards the Palestinians and continue the apartheid.

Dododecapod

17-03-2007, 19:36

Now. But not when Israel was created or prior. And surely not when the rotten Balfour Declaration was made.

So someone whose family has lived in a land for millennia has no right to remain there and live on the soil that feeds him?

Under the rules that the world has followed for centuries, frankly, no. Exactly the same thing happened to the various American Indian tribes, the Mehica and other central and South American nations, and the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Of late, the rules have changed; but that was not so in the 1940s.

Colonization is a rather ugly thing, and I'm glad the world now recognizes that. But it is not really reversible. Just as the modern descendents of the invaders of the Americas and Australia bear no responsibility for their ancestors' actions, neither do the current generation of Israeli born citizens of Israel bear such a responsibility. Guilt is not inheritable.

To now remove those citizens from Israel would be as much a wrong as any initial thievery. The current generation would fight - and they would be right to. It is, after all, the land of their birth.

IDF

17-03-2007, 19:40

..the 8% of it they bought before the war, yes. The other roughly 92% was taken during the war of independence, and - where the Arab owners were either driven off or fled - seized after the war, under legislation brought in for the purpose.
And that is incorrect because that 8% is including everything of the 11,000 sq miles of the Mandate. I have already pointed out 70% of what was given to the Jews was not owned by anyone as it was an unoccupied barren desert. The few occupied regions of it were given to the Arabs.

So the Jews were only given about 1,650 acres of land that wasn't desert. They owned well over half of that land. The Arabs who did move into the valley regions didn't do so until after the Jews had already moved in and removed the malaria and mosquito infested swamps.

As for Arab land owners driven off. more Jews were driven off by Arabs (800,000-900,000 vs. 450,000) so that is a wash.

New Burmesia

17-03-2007, 19:53

This is going off on a tangent, but every map of the UN partition plan I've seen has been slightly different - usually the city of Jaffa, the Israeli/Transjordan border being separated by a small Palestinian strip and whether Israel 'proper' is connected to the Negev or separated by Gaza/West Bank. I know it's details, but I'm a pedant who would like to know why that is.

Nodinia

17-03-2007, 20:42

As for Arab land owners driven off. more Jews were driven off by Arabs (800,000-900,000 vs. 450,000) so that is a wash.

Over 20 years, in which numbers are mixed immigrants. There is however, a state of Israel. Which brings us to the present day. There is no Palestinian state. Nor is there an excuse for the settlements.

United Beleriand

17-03-2007, 20:47

Just as the modern descendents of the invaders of the Americas and Australia bear no responsibility for their ancestors' actions, neither do the current generation of Israeli born citizens of Israel bear such a responsibility. [b]Guilt is not inheritable.[/i]If the children continue the sins of the parents, it is.
Those families who were removed from their ancestral homes are still alive, and unlike in the Americas they are still there to return to the land of their parents and grandparents who lived of and on that very soil.

Roma Islamica

17-03-2007, 20:51

The Palestinians are actually descendents of Arab warriors who invaded and captured the land in the 7th century. They are not indigenous to that land. There is also the fact that during the years of Jewish Aliyah to the land, the Arab population quadrupled. This happened because many Arabs moved to Palestine, where British money had made the economic environment a beneficial one. They certainly aren't native as you would say.

The Jews did pay for their land. The land given in partition was primarily the land owned by the Jews. The exception of course being the Negev.

The partition gave 5,500 miles sq to the Jews. Of this, 3,850 miles sq or 70% of the land was the Negev Desert. Most of the land was uninhabitted by anyone, Arab or Jew. The only areas of the Negev that were occupied were along portions of the Egyptian Border and Beersheba. These areas were given to the Arabs.

The remainder of the land was the area primarily inhabitted by Jews, who by the way had LEGALLY purchased their land.

If you look at a topographical map of the land, you would see that the Arab population centers were all in the hill regions. The central area (which contains the West Bank today) was the central hills of Palestine. The other large concentrations of Arab populations were in Gaza and the Upper Galilee.

The Jews settled in the valleys. These would be the Hula Valley, the Jezreel Valley, and the Coastal Plain. No Arabs lived in these areas because they were malaria infested swamplands. There is a reason the Jews were sold that land, no one wanted out. Outside of port cities such as Jaffa, Haifa, and Acco, there were almost no Arabs lived in these lands.

When partition came, you will see the partition plan was almost exactly in line with the topographical maps. If you look at contour lines, you would see the low areas formerly comprised of swamp lands went to the Jews (they purchased the majority of the land there). The high areas which were traditionally Arab went to the Arabs. Of course once again the Negev is the exception here, but the only populations in there would be Bedouin. The Bedoins are traditionally nomadic so it really didn't matter too much who's border they were within.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/JewishOwned.gif

If you look at this map and look at the partition plan, you will see it pretty much mirrors the land given by partition

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/oren/UN%20Palestine%20Partition%20Plan.gif
Once again, the Negev is an exception because it was pretty much unoccupied except for the areas given to the Arabs.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan used the most logical lines based on land ownership.

Nope, none of that is true. It simply doesn't agree with history, or genetics for that matter. The genetics of the Palestinians are indistinguishable between the Muslim and Christian populations, and are similar to other peoples of the Levant and significantly differ from the peoples of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian peninsula in general. Pure garbage and propaganda with nothing to back it up.

BURN SQUARED.

Roma Islamica

17-03-2007, 20:53

Dododecapod

17-03-2007, 21:06

If the children continue the sins of the parents, it is.
Those families who were removed from their ancestral homes are still alive, and unlike in the Americas they are still there to return to the land of their parents and grandparents who lived of and on that very soil.

But for those children, it is now THEIR ancestral land.

And why do you assume the families displaced in the Americas are not still alive? If you allow guilt to be generational, then none of us are worthy to call where we live "home" - it was taken by someone, sometime, in the past.

A generation has passed in Israel, and that is all it takes. Please, do prevent future colonizations; but attempting to "repair" the past will only cause greater suffering and wrong.

IDF

17-03-2007, 21:36

Nope, none of that is true. It simply doesn't agree with history, or genetics for that matter. The genetics of the Palestinians are indistinguishable between the Muslim and Christian populations, and are similar to other peoples of the Levant and significantly differ from the peoples of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian peninsula in general. Pure garbage and propaganda with nothing to back it up.
This is how your post reads
http://www.fanforhire.com/images/comical_ali.jpg
"There are no Jews in Israel. It has been inhabited by Palestinians since the Big Bang."

---------------

Now in all seriousness, I brought up facts, you haven't. All you have done is deny without any support. The Palestinians arrived in that land in 637 when they conquered it.

BURN SQUARED.
You burned no one. You just showed everyone who reads this forum you're a fool.

IDF

17-03-2007, 21:37

IDF

17-03-2007, 21:40

Over 20 years, in which numbers are mixed immigrants. There is however, a state of Israel. Which brings us to the present day. There is no Palestinian state. Nor is there an excuse for the settlements.

The fault of a lack of a Palestinian state is 100% on the Arabs.

They could've had one in 1937 had they accepted the Peel Comission.

They could've had one in 1947 had they accepted partition.

They could've had one in 1948 had they not allowed themselves to be taken advantage of by Egypt and Jordan.

They could've had one post 1967 if Egypt and Jordan were willing to discuss Israel's offers of land for peace.

They could've had on in 2000 if Arafat would've sat down and negotiated with Clinton and Barak instead of going down the war path.

The Palestinians never miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Nodinia

17-03-2007, 22:04

The fault of a lack of a Palestinian state is 100% on the Arabs.

And so we're back to "blame the victim".

IDF

17-03-2007, 22:08

And so we're back to "blame the victim".

When they declared war on Israel, they were hardly being the victims. They had multiple chances to have a state. It isn't my fault or Israel's that they seem to have a talent for fucking themselves over repeatedly.

Maybe if they accepted either Peel Commission or the UNSCOP's Partition plans, they wouldn't be in the state they are in.

Roma Islamica

17-03-2007, 22:21

This is how your post reads
http://www.fanforhire.com/images/comical_ali.jpg
"There are no Jews in Israel. It has been inhabited by Palestinians since the Big Bang."

---------------

Now in all seriousness, I brought up facts, you haven't. All you have done is deny without any support. The Palestinians arrived in that land in 637 when they conquered it.

You burned no one. You just showed everyone who reads this forum you're a fool.

Nope, you deny history and genetics. Typical Zionist. Also using images of Arab leaders....all I can say is wow. You can post pictures and say "no no no" all you want, but you deny facts. The fact is, the Palestinians have always been there, Palestine wasn't some empty desert when the Imperialist European Zionists arrived, and the Palestinians are genetically Levantine. How else do you explain the Christian populations of the Levant? They obviously didn't come with the "Arab warriors" as you put it. And genetically, there is no difference between a Christian and Muslim Palestinian. That is fact. Look it up. Oh, and let's just pretend for a second that they did indeed come in the 7th century. That's a good 1300 years before the European Zionists came.

BURN CUBED.

Roma Islamica

17-03-2007, 22:23

Correcting past errors is necessary, no matter how hurtful it is. But how would the return of those Jews whose parents and grandparents had come to Palestine to create a state and cleanse the land, as the Zionists and Ben Gurion had planned, cause suffering? It would only cause relief to the Arabs, now dubbed Palestinians, who have lived under this foreign rule for the past 60 years. And those Jews would not have to live with the violent reaction to their occupation anymore. Well, and since Americans are so fond of Jews, they could surely give them half of one of their states, couldn't they? The UN would surely draw up a partition plan....

Exactly, since the Israelis are so good at making an "empty desert bloom" they can go live in the deserts in the Southwest. We'll see if they can make that bloom. Ha.

United Beleriand

17-03-2007, 22:24

...but attempting to "repair" the past will only cause greater suffering and wrong.Correcting past errors is necessary, no matter how hurtful it is. But how would the return of those Jews whose parents and grandparents had come to Palestine to create a state and cleanse the land, as the Zionists and Ben Gurion had planned, cause suffering? It would only cause relief to the Arabs, now dubbed Palestinians, who have lived under this foreign rule for the past 60 years. And those Jews would not have to live with the violent reaction to their occupation anymore. Well, and since Americans are so fond of Jews, they could surely give them half of one of their states, couldn't they? The UN would surely draw up a partition plan....
Give them southern Texas, they are good at building tall walls.

Nodinia

17-03-2007, 22:27

When they declared war on Israel, they were hardly being the victims. .

The Palestinians were mostly in their homes and villages. It was Egypt and Jordan etc that "declared war".

They had multiple chances to have a state. .

One, in 1947, as far as I can tell.

New Burmesia

17-03-2007, 22:30

One, in 1947, as far as I can tell.
When it was subsequently invaded and used as a battleground between Israel/Jordan. Hardly an opportunity for a viable state which they suddenly threw away.

Neo Undelia

17-03-2007, 22:33

You burned no one. You just showed everyone who reads this forum you're a fool.

No. He showed that he's a reasonable person who actually looks at all the information available.
You on the other hand have shown yourself time and time again to be a hateful little man who sees no problem belittling the legacy of persecution against the Jews by calling everyone who disagrees with you an anti-Semite.

It grows most tiresome.

Kryozerkia

17-03-2007, 22:39

When they declared war on Israel, they were hardly being the victims. They had multiple chances to have a state. It isn't my fault or Israel's that they seem to have a talent for fucking themselves over repeatedly.

Maybe if they accepted either Peel Commission or the UNSCOP's Partition plans, they wouldn't be in the state they are in.
There were Jews in the area who also refused to accept the 1947 Partition Plan. They didn't all jump on the bandwagon with equal zeal. There were dissenters amongst both sides. The whole Mid East crisis does NOT leave the Israelis with their hands clean. They are as much at fault as the Palestinians.

Their standing army formed from the groups (Haganah and Irgun - a group that deliberately launched retributive attacks on Arab civilians who were not involved in the conflict) that sprung up following the initial Arab revolts, and received support from the British.

They may not be the main conflict instigators today, though some may disagree, but they were far from perfect in their actions. The Israelis are not perfect and they had more than eaten their share of the pie; they had seconds because the Arabs had a extra large slice. A vicious cycle...

By the way, I have read some of your posts responding to others here and I see no point in calling people Nazis simply because they are not owing down and kissing the ground, thanking some fictional bearded asshole in the clouds for Israel's existence, which, according to scripture, as Israel is a theocracy and the reason given for its existence is that the land is holy to their religion, actually isn't supposed to exist until the Jews have their Messiah.

Drunk commies deleted

17-03-2007, 22:42

Blah blah blah. Your people did this, your people did that. Nobody can get their shit together and just draw a line somewhere so that the Palestinians can have a viable state and the Israelis can maintain their security. Fuck it. The fighting will go on, people will keep dying and suffering, and the usual crowd will keep arguing about it on NS. I guess it keeps things interesting.

Roma Islamica

17-03-2007, 22:42

And what of the 900,000 Jews forced out of Arab lands? Aren't they entitled to compensation? I guess they don't matter to you since they are Jews.

The refugee situation is a wash. Both sides fucked up there, but you can't reverse history.

Most of the Jews weren't forced out of Arab lands, though I won't say it didn't happen at all. Most of them (though some did stay) just left for Israel because they jumped at the chance for a "Jewish" State, and it apparently didn't matter to them who they had to displace and kill to get that land.

They got theirs though, because even today Mizrahi Jews play second fiddle to the European Ashkenazi Colonialists.

New Burmesia

17-03-2007, 22:44

A vicious cycle...
...and it continues today.

Pyotr

17-03-2007, 22:58

They got theirs though, because even today Mizrahi Jews play second fiddle to the European Ashkenazi Colonialists.

I guess that's why 3 of Israel's top political figures are Mizrahi Jews.

Neo Undelia

17-03-2007, 23:52

I guess that's why 3 of Israel's top political figures are Mizrahi Jews.
The attorney general of the US is Hispanic and the Secretary of State is black.
Guess what? Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Kryozerkia

18-03-2007, 00:09

The attorney general of the US is Hispanic and the Secretary of State is black.
Guess what? Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Sure it does. :D

Neo Undelia

18-03-2007, 00:11

Sure it does. :D
:D
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/images/condi_01.jpg

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 00:20

:D
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/images/condi_01.jpg

haha i'm so proud. i can actually read that with my shitty Arabic skillz. :D

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 00:32

Israel should nevertheless attempt to come to some form of agreement with Hamas.

In fairness, how do you come to an agreement with someone who wants your destruction?

Neo Undelia

18-03-2007, 00:35

haha i'm so proud. i can actually read that with my shitty Arabic skillz. :D

Ooh. What does it say? I just thought it looked funny.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 00:43

Nope, you deny history and genetics. Typical Zionist.

Genetics proves very little. We dont really have enough knowledge of genetics to distinguish between races on a large scale

Also using images of Arab leaders....all I can say is wow. You can post pictures and say "no no no" all you want, but you deny facts. The fact is, the Palestinians have always been there, Palestine wasn't some empty desert when the Imperialist European Zionists arrived.

Then why, when Mark Twain went there in 1867 (just a few years before the first Allyah), did he see the following

"There is not a solitary villiage throught its whole extent...there are two or three small clusters of bedoin tents but not a single perminant habitation...unpopulated deserts"

The Arab population of Palestine was much lower than the Jewish portions in the regions of the Jewish state in 1947.

the Palestinians are genetically Levantine. How else do you explain the Christian populations of the Levant? They obviously didn't come with the "Arab warriors" as you put it

No, they probebely migrated there peacefully and lived with the Jews, unlike the Arabs.

And genetically, there is no difference between a Christian and Muslim Palestinian. That is fact. Look it up.

I wouldn't expect so. Its a religion

Oh, and let's just pretend for a second that they did indeed come in the 7th century. That's a good 1300 years before the European Zionists came.

And the Arabs were there a good couple of thosuand years after the Jews were there originally

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 00:57

Justice.

According to no one. Palestine is not a recognized countryat the moment. Not to mention, they have never been a country to begin with. They never had a country of their own. So tell me, when did they have a country of their own? NEVER!!!

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 00:59

Some of it. Not all IIRC. Thereby, they'd be squatters in the places that they didn't buy. Well armed squatters, but squatters nevertheless.

I'll agree with ya for the most part.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 01:08

Ooh. What does it say? I just thought it looked funny.

It says, "Rice talking about the birth of a new Middle East,".

IDF

18-03-2007, 01:17

Nope, you deny history and genetics. Typical Zionist. Also using images of Arab leaders....all I can say is wow. You can post pictures and say "no no no" all you want, but you deny facts. The fact is, the Palestinians have always been there, Palestine wasn't some empty desert when the Imperialist European Zionists arrived, and the Palestinians are genetically Levantine. How else do you explain the Christian populations of the Levant? They obviously didn't come with the "Arab warriors" as you put it. And genetically, there is no difference between a Christian and Muslim Palestinian. That is fact. Look it up. Oh, and let's just pretend for a second that they did indeed come in the 7th century. That's a good 1300 years before the European Zionists came.

BURN CUBED.

You are the one who denies history if you do not back up the fact the Jews were there first. I did post facts in my first post responding to yours. You never at all answered my questions about the quadrupling of Arab populations (which of course occurred because Arabs from other nations also moved to the area). You also ignored my points on the fact the Jews moved to areas unoccupied by anyone else because living in the swamps meant danger from malaria.

As for genetics, of course they aren't different. Religion means jack shit as to your genetic make-up. Just ask Ethiopian Jews about that one.

Another poster brought up the rest of the points I was going to so I won't repeat his stuff and continue to waste my time.

All you've done is ignore my long post and not provide any real argument.

IDF

18-03-2007, 01:17

They could get the hell out of the West Bank that they are illegally occupying. That would help.

Because everything in Gaza improved when Israel pulled out.

Utracia

18-03-2007, 01:18

In fairness, how do you come to an agreement with someone who wants your destruction?

They could get the hell out of the West Bank that they are illegally occupying. That would help.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 02:17

They could get the hell out of the West Bank that they are illegally occupying. That would help.

Its not illegal, it fits UN resolution 242 fine.

Thats the point though. Some of the groups just want Israel to withdraw from the west bank & gaza, but Hammas just wants to wipe out all the Jews.

Utracia

18-03-2007, 02:28

Because everything in Gaza improved when Israel pulled out.

But not the West Bank. Going only partway doesn't do anything for you. They are still occupying the territory and recklessly killing Palestinian civilians keeping the anger alive. But than I suppose teaching either side restraint is a lost cause.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 02:33

But than I suppose teaching either side restraint is a lost cause.

I dont think that last part is true. Israel signs cease fires with the Palestians and then Israel keep to it while the Paleistians fire rocket after rocket.

Dunlaoire

18-03-2007, 02:38

In fairness, how do you come to an agreement with someone who wants your destruction?

Doesn't Israel want the destruction of Hamas?

So what point are you making?

Dunlaoire

18-03-2007, 02:41

I dont think that last part is true. Israel signs cease fires with the Palestians and then Israel keep to it while the Paleistians fire rocket after rocket.

While Israel never keeps up curfews, random road blocks and assassinations at all.

Ah I'm forgetting, when Israeli's attack palestinian's that is never a breach of
ceasefire whereas if a palestinian child throws a tin can over a wall that is always a breach of ceasefire.

My bad.

I keep forgetting to use variable standards, silly me.

Utracia

18-03-2007, 02:45

I dont think that last part is true. Israel signs cease fires with the Palestians and then Israel keep to it while the Paleistians fire rocket after rocket.

Seems to be rather pointless with Israelis remaining in the West Bank and continuing to kill Palestinians. Of course if extremists break down the cease fire and than Isrealis respond by killing a bunch of kids in a wild attempt to get a terrorist than Israel is hardly helping now is it?

Non Aligned States

18-03-2007, 03:05

I'll agree with ya for the most part.

Oh goody, let's go one up then. Would you agree that squatters are illegal tenants of land then, regardless of how much firepower they have?

Because squatters are a bit of a problem here, with quite a few building large houses on land that doesn't belong to them. Quite a few of them resorted to drastic measures to keep the houses after government demolition crews got to work.

F1 Insanity

18-03-2007, 03:22

The root of the problem is the Arab link to the Nazis.

Nazism was very popular in the middle east during WW II. Some Arab leaders (like mufti Al-Husseini, uncle of Yassir Arafat who incidentally died of AIDS) cut a deal with Hitler for a final solution of the jewish question in the middle-east (to that effect).

Then the Nazis lost. Some fled to south America, others to the middle east. Most notably Aloys Brunner (rumoured still alive in Syria, now 93 years old) and Otto Skorzeny (adviser to the Egyptian government).

They advised Arab states to attack Israel right the moment it was proclaimed (right where it used to be). Arab states advised their friends in the regions (who after 1967 started calling themselves 'Palestineans' for obvious propaganda purposes) to get out while they would drive the 'Zionist entity' into the sea. Of course, total incompetence of Arab armies shows itself again and again and the record of all Arab states vs Israel in wars is now 0 for 4.

Syria is now ruled by the Ba'ath party (or rather, the national socialist Arab workers party, as it was founded with Nazi help). This party also controlled Iraq up to 2003.

Here are some falsehoods mentioned time and time again:

1.Before 1948, Palestine was an independent state for the Palestineans
The people now called Palestineans started calling themselves that in 1967 after the latest Arab humiliation in a war with Israel. They did so for obvious propaganda purposes. Before, they were never known as Palestineans or referred to themselves as that.
Also, Palestine was never an independent state for anyone. Naming yourself after an area doesn't make you the owner.

2.Israel commits genocide
Some genocide that be. Palestineans, in the period 1948-2006, have been the fastest growing group anywhere on the planet

3.Israel uses disproportionate violence
When Nazi wannabes want you dead and your country in the sea, you don't react to their agression with one hand tied behind your back.

If you divide the political spectrum in left-right (which is a simplistic one dimensional view), you have to divide it as follows:
-the more state control over the economy you like, the more leftist you are
-the less state control over the economy you like, the more rightist you are

In this definition, the Nazis belong on the left (Godwin's law acknowledged yet ignored by me). Therefore its no surprise it's mainly people from the left who keep telling and believeing the ridiculous anti-jewish and anti-Israel propaganda.

How is it the UN has 6 permanent subcommittes investigating Israel and none investigating Zimbabwe, Sudan, China or North Korea?

Did you know that the protocols of the learned elders of Zion were a forgery by the Russian imperial secret police? You did, but most Arab children are being taught that the protocols are real. Many kids TV shows are showing the infamous 'blood libel' (ie jews kidnap non jewish kids and killing them for the blood etc...). Arab kids are indoctrinated with this stuff day in day out.

The traditional salute by the military wings of Hamas, Hizb'Allah and Ba'ath is the Nazi salute. Pictures available-a-plenty on the internet.

Pyotr

18-03-2007, 03:31

If you divide the political spectrum in left-right (which is a simplistic one dimensional view), you have to divide it as follows:
-the more state control over the economy you like, the more leftist you are
-the less state control over the economy you like, the more rightist you are
That is a ridiculously simplified definition.

In this definition, the Nazis belong on the left (Godwin's law acknowledged yet ignored by me). Therefore its no surprise it's mainly people from the left who keep telling and believeing the ridiculous anti-jewish and anti-Israel propaganda.
Nazis are left, therefore all the left are Nazis. Converse fallacy much?

Fascism is a right-wing ideology, end of story. Mussolini and Hitler hated socialists, Communists, Democrats, Trade Unionists, and liberals. They formed nationalist, corporatist and militaristic states.
How is it the UN has 6 permanent subcommittes investigating Israel and none investigating Zimbabwe, Sudan, China or North Korea?
I call BS.

F1 Insanity

18-03-2007, 03:58

Fascism is a right-wing ideology, end of story. Mussolini and Hitler hated socialists, Communists, Democrats, Trade Unionists, and liberals. They formed nationalist, corporatist and militaristic states.

Fascism belongs on the left because it advocates state control of the economy.

Fascism did not oppose socialism, it opposed the German socialist party whose leaders had signed the Versailles treaty.

Fascism didn't oppose communism on ideological grounds (Hitler ordered that former communists be allowed to join because they had the right revolutional mentality). Fascism opposed communism because of the perceived 'jewish' control over it. Fascism differed from communism mainly that fascism divided people by race (advocating some to be expelled/killed), and communism divided them by class (advocating that some be expelled or killed like the 'kulaks' Lenin was so fond of hanging).

As a matter of fact, despite 60 years of leftist frantically denying it, Nazi Germany was at the time the ultimate welfare state. This amongst other reasons is why Germans kept supporting the regime for so long.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805079262

Industrialists who had considered Hitler their saviour were quickly disappointed as the party took de facto control of all the means of production, forbade companies from firing people, heavily subsidized workers perks like holidays, cars etc... Some industrialists fled the country after having their assets seized and incorporated into the state company 'Hermann Goering Werks' or some like Fritz Thyssen ended in concentration camps. Local nazi thugs frequently blackmailed companies into making 'voluntary' contributions or else businesses would be put out of business.

Nazi eugenics was inspired by progressives such as Margaret Sanger who in the 1920s advocated that nature wasn't doing its work and undesirable elements like disabled people had to be removed. Eugenics remained popular in progressive circles even after 1945. Sweden forcibly sterilized tens of thousands of physically and mentally disabled people until the late 1970s.

As seen with the Terry Schiavo episode, it was leftists who advocated that euthanasia in such cases was good. No conservative supports that.

And as for nationalism, I think you will find that countries like North Korea and Cuba are rabidly nationalist (and communist at the same time). Nationalism isn't limited to 'the right'.

It may be the generally accepted position that fascism is right wing, but evidence certainly puts a question mark or 2 behind that.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 04:04

I call BS.

Then prove it.

Utracia

18-03-2007, 04:19

snip

Have you taken the political compass quiz? I'd be interested in the results.

Pyotr

18-03-2007, 04:40

Fascism belongs on the left because it advocates state control of the economy.
Only one small tenet of leftism, your completely ignoring several other huge factors.

Fascism didn't oppose communism on ideological grounds (Hitler ordered that former communists be allowed to join because they had the right revolutional mentality). Fascism opposed communism because of the perceived 'jewish' control over it. Fascism differed from communism mainly that fascism divided people by race (advocating some to be expelled/killed), and communism divided them by class (advocating that some be expelled or killed like the 'kulaks' Lenin was so fond of hanging).
Fascism opposed Socialism, Communism, Democrats, Social Democrats, liberals, homosexuals, trade unionists, virtually any group/ideology associated with leftism. Mussolini and the Nazis controlled the economy through corporatist policies, which are right wing mind you. They gave power and control to civic assemblies representing economic, professional, political, and agrarian groups, essentially, business cartels, massive corporations.

Fascists even identified themselves as right wing, and called their enemies left wing. I don't think of fascism as mainstream right(like you think of it as mainstream left) I identify them as far, extremist right.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 05:51

You are the one who denies history if you do not back up the fact the Jews were there first. I did post facts in my first post responding to yours. You never at all answered my questions about the quadrupling of Arab populations (which of course occurred because Arabs from other nations also moved to the area). You also ignored my points on the fact the Jews moved to areas unoccupied by anyone else because living in the swamps meant danger from malaria.

As for genetics, of course they aren't different. Religion means jack shit as to your genetic make-up. Just ask Ethiopian Jews about that one.

Another poster brought up the rest of the points I was going to so I won't repeat his stuff and continue to waste my time.

All you've done is ignore my long post and not provide any real argument.

No, genetics matter because:

1. Obviously the fact that Christian and Muslim Palestinians, and Levantines in general share similar genetics is indeed relevant because the Arabs were Muslims. The fact the Arabized Christian population is the same as the Arab(ized) Muslim population, and the fact that Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians are genetically different from those of the Arabian peninsula shows that the Semitic Christians of the Levant are indeed the same people as the Muslims in that region.

2. Most of your "facts" are Zionist propaganda and don't even merit any sort of response.

3. Most scholars agree that the current Palestinian population has ties to the land that go back millenia. The fact that they are Arabized doesn't change that.

4. Modern Ashkenazi Jews, at best, are descendants of Jews who left the land 2000 years ago and Europeans, and at worst, have very little "Jewish" blood left in them at all.

5. Last I heard, Jerusalem and Haifa are not swamps. And yeah, the Jews definitely moved there.

6. The Jews paid for relatively little of the land that is now "Israel", and stole the vast majority of it. This has been said over and over again, and is indeed, the main point of the discrepancy.

BURN. AGAIN.

btw, your arguments suck.

IDF

18-03-2007, 06:29

No, genetics matter because:

1. Obviously the fact that Christian and Muslim Palestinians, and Levantines in general share similar genetics is indeed relevant because the Arabs were Muslims. The fact the Arabized Christian population is the same as the Arab(ized) Muslim population, and the fact that Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians are genetically different from those of the Arabian peninsula shows that the Semitic Christians of the Levant are indeed the same people as the Muslims in that region.
The fact the populations are the same is the same reason most Jews today appear to be European. There were likely mixed marriages that led to a blending of the people. It happens all over the world.

Just look at Hispanics. Before the Age of Colonialism, the people living in Latin America would appear like other Native Americans. The Spanish colonists also likely resembled other Spaniards. Today the majority of those living in Latin America resemble neither group.

2. Most of your "facts" are Zionist propaganda and don't even merit any sort of response.
I posted facts. I gave real numbers about the land, not propaganda. The Arab population did quadruple due to immigration. That is a fact. You're a liar if you deny it.

The Arabs didn't occupy the lower lands. That is also a fact. The valleys were malaria infested swamps. Are you enough of a fool to deny that one too?

The Jews who lived there pre-1947 owned the land they were on. How else could they have lived there before there was a Jewish State to govern the land? After all it was governed by either the Ottomans or the British during those periods.

These facts aren't propaganda. They are facts and your ignoring them only makes it even more clear that they are true and you lack the creativity or are too honest to pull shit out of your ass to combat them.

3. Most scholars agree that the current Palestinian population has ties to the land that go back millenia. The fact that they are Arabized doesn't change that.
The Jews also go back several milenia. The Jews never left the land. Even those who did leave never did so willingly. It was only when the Assyrians, Babylonians, and later the Romans took them and cast them into slavery and scattered them.

While most Jews were forced to leave, some were able to stay. Since Cyrus the Great returned the Jews to Judea, there has been a constant Jewish presence in the area. Even after the Diaspora, some Jewish settlements in Jerusalem, Tzfat, Tverya, and Tzippori were left untouched. The Jews have lived uninterrupted in these areas since the 6th century BCE.

4. Modern Ashkenazi Jews, at best, are descendants of Jews who left the land 2000 years ago and Europeans, and at worst, have very little "Jewish" blood left in them at all.
The Jews never left the land. Not only did we keep a constant presence in the land, but we also never willingly left. Dumbasses who know nothing about history say the Jews left on their own. That isn't true. The Jews who left were forced out by either the Assyrians, Babylonians, and finally the Romans in the year 70

Living among Europeans for 2000 years would of course change how the Jews appear. The Persian Jews appear as normal Persians after having lived in that land for the 2,700 years since the Assyrian Captivity.

Looks also mean nothing. DNA testing has found common genes among Jews.

5. Last I heard, Jerusalem and Haifa are not swamps. And yeah, the Jews definitely moved there.
I stated that with the exception of cities that was the case. You obviously need reading comprehension courses. BTW, on my list I also put Jaffa and Acre as cities where Arabs and Jews lived together.

Jerusalem is in the hill valley of the country and not the swamp area. Haifa is in the coastal plains, but it was inhabited for the same reason Jaffa and Acre were, they are port cities. I should also point out the Jews settling in those areas were there legally as they had to pay for their rent or buy land if they built homes there.

6. The Jews paid for relatively little of the land they stole. This has been said over and over again, and is indeed, the main point of the discrepancy.
They paid for most of the land which was occupiable. I gave numbers. Of the 1650 acres that weren't part of the unoccupied Negev Desert, the Jews owned a majority of that land.

BTW, did you even read the maps I posted? Map comprehension isn't that difficult. They teach you that stuff in 4th grade.

BURN. AGAIN.

btw, your arguments suck.
Here is a note, don't say BURN! at the end of every post. Here is the impression I get from it:

Real intelligent.:rolleyes:

Saying burn, isn't that something that dumbass TV characters in high school like Mike Kelso say.

Burn man
Burn
Burn Burn
Burn

BURN!

I'm so high right now let's go around in the circle

Burn

Burn!

Yeah that means my argument is totally right even though I can't back up facts and can't pull shit out of my ass because I have no grounds for my argument

Go ahead keep on saying it, you're only making yourself look more and more like a fool.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 06:51

The fact the populations are the same is the same reason most Jews today appear to be European. There were likely mixed marriages that led to a blending of the people. It happens all over the world.

Just look at Hispanics. Before the Age of Colonialism, the people living in Latin America would appear like other Native Americans. The Spanish colonists also likely resembled other Spaniards. Today the majority of those living in Latin America resemble neither group.

I posted facts. I gave real numbers about the land, not propaganda. The Arab population did quadruple due to immigration. That is a fact. You're a liar if you deny it.

The Arabs didn't occupy the lower lands. That is also a fact. The valleys were malaria infested swamps. Are you enough of a fool to deny that one too?

The Jews who lived there pre-1947 owned the land they were on. How else could they have lived there before there was a Jewish State to govern the land? After all it was governed by either the Ottomans or the British during those periods.

These facts aren't propaganda. They are facts and your ignoring them only makes it even more clear that they are true and you lack the creativity or are too honest to pull shit out of your ass to combat them.

The Jews also go back several milenia. The Jews never left the land. Even those who did leave never did so willingly. It was only when the Assyrians, Babylonians, and later the Romans took them and cast them into slavery and scattered them.

While most Jews were forced to leave, some were able to stay. Since Cyrus the Great returned the Jews to Judea, there has been a constant Jewish presence in the area. Even after the Diaspora, some Jewish settlements in Jerusalem, Tzfat, Tverya, and Tzippori were left untouched. The Jews have lived uninterrupted in these areas since the 6th century BCE.

The Jews never left the land. Not only did we keep a constant presence in the land, but we also never willingly left. Dumbasses who know nothing about history say the Jews left on their own. That isn't true. The Jews who left were forced out by either the Assyrians, Babylonians, and finally the Romans in the year 70

Living among Europeans for 2000 years would of course change how the Jews appear. The Persian Jews appear as normal Persians after having lived in that land for the 2,700 years since the Assyrian Captivity.

Looks also mean nothing. DNA testing has found common genes among Jews.

I stated that with the exception of cities that was the case. You obviously need reading comprehension courses. BTW, on my list I also put Jaffa and Acre as cities where Arabs and Jews lived together.

Jerusalem is in the hill valley of the country and not the swamp area. Haifa is in the coastal plains, but it was inhabited for the same reason Jaffa and Acre were, they are port cities. I should also point out the Jews settling in those areas were there legally as they had to pay for their rent or buy land if they built homes there.

They paid for most of the land which was occupiable. I gave numbers. Of the 1650 acres that weren't part of the unoccupied Negev Desert, the Jews owned a majority of that land.

BTW, did you even read the maps I posted? Map comprehension isn't that difficult. They teach you that stuff in 4th grade.

Here is a note, don't say BURN! at the end of every post. Here is the impression I get from it:

Real intelligent.:rolleyes:

Saying burn, isn't that something that dumbass TV characters in high school like Mike Kelso say.

Burn man
Burn
Burn Burn
Burn

BURN!

I'm so high right now let's go around in the circle

Burn

Burn!

Yeah that means my argument is totally right even though I can't back up facts and can't pull shit out of my ass because I have no grounds for my argument

Go ahead keep on saying it, you're only making yourself look more and more like a fool.

You've said nothing of substance. I gave you facts, and all you can do is ignore them and say other garbage which has no relevance whatsoever to anything. People tell you over and over again that that is the case, and that in fact, what I have said is indeed correct. Therefore, I'm going to stop addressing what you've said, because it's pointless. You're an idiot, and you lie. However, I will say one thing.

Are you that much of an idiot to just CONJECTURE that the Latin Americans LIKELY resembled one thing or another? Fucking hell you're retarded. Your conjecture is correct, but if you read a book every once in a while, you'd know you're not saying anything new. They're called Mestizos you idiot. See, obviously you know nothing about history that you have to say they "likely" looked a certain way. And no, the Jews didn't HAVE to mix. Look at Gypsies. They usually still look like Gypsies. Not that that matters. The real point is that Ashkenazi Jews have a European mentality, and for all intents and purposes are European. They are colonists, plain and simple.

IDF

18-03-2007, 07:01

You've said nothing of substance. I gave you facts, and all you can do is ignore them and say other garbage which has no relevance whatsoever to anything. People tell you over and over again that that is the case, and that in fact, what I have said is indeed correct. Therefore, I'm going to stop addressing what you've said, because it's pointless. You're an idiot, and you lie. However, I will say one thing.
I posted known history. That is substance. I posted facts on land number, I've posted maps, etc. I posted geographical notes on the area. You have posted nothing.

Funny to say I haven't posted anything of substance. We have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Are you that much of an idiot to just CONJECTURE that the Latin Americans LIKELY resembled one thing or another? Fucking hell you're retarded. Your conjecture is correct, but if you read a book every once in a while, you'd know you're not saying anything new. They're called Mestizos you idiot. See, obviously you know nothing about history that you have to say they "likely" looked a certain way. And no, the Jews didn't HAVE to mix. Look at Gypsies. They usually still look like Gypsies. Not that that matters. The real point is that Ashkenazi Jews have a European mentality, and for all intents and purposes are European. They are colonists, plain and simple.
Fine it isn't conjecture, it's a fact that when groups live in the same area they intermarry and thus the ethnic groups merge. It happened in Latin America, it happened in the Middle East, and it happened in Europe to Jews who were sent there as part of the Diaspora.

BTW, Metsizo is a word you can use, but Hispanic is the far more common term. (and you have the balls to call me an idiot.)

I know more about history than you do. Ditto for geography and logic. I also have the ability to research. I think you might want to try it sometime. Google is your friend in debates.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let me say this:

You haven't posted facts. All you have done in this thread is say "you have no facts."

I have posted exact numbers. I have posted maps. Those are facts and evidence. Perhaps you should learn how to do them and post again.

I also think you should learn how to properly debate someone. Flaming and saying "BURN" aren't proper debate.

Neither is saying someone has no facts when he indeed posted facts while you on the other hand didn't and pulled shit out of your ass.

Soviestan

18-03-2007, 07:07

Blah. Honestly, I don't care anymore. There is never going to be peace, so why even hope for it?

There can be peace its very simple. Similar to Kashmir, if the jews stop try to take Muslim land there will not be this conflict and violence. There will be peace under Islamic rule, its just a matter of time.

IDF

18-03-2007, 07:14

There can be peace its very simple. Similar to Kashmir, if the jews stop try to take Muslim land there will not be this conflict and violence. There will be peace under Islamic rule, its just a matter of time.Yep because Islamic nations don't fight eachother:rolleyes:

Just because everyone in a region has the same religion doesn't mean there will be peace. Wars will just develop among sects. If the Jews were to be kicked out of Israel then the Muslims would resort to more Shiite vs. Sunni wars. Sort of like how Europe used to have Catholic vs. Protestant wars.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 07:15

BTW, Metsizo is a word you can use, but Hispanic is the far more common term. (and you have the balls to call me an idiot.)

I've already established that pretty much everything else you said was garbage, and it's pretty much agreed upon in this thread, so...

NO. Hispanic means, of Spain, of Spanish culture, etc. Mestizo means mixed, specifically in the New World context, of mixed Native and European heritage. Mulatto means of mixed Black African and European heritage. And so forth. Hispanic simply means of Spanish culture, meaning anyone who belongs to a Hispanic culture is Hispanic. It doesn't matter their racial, or even ethnic origin. And this is fact. That's why on racial categories in the US they put "White (non-Hispanic)" and "Black (non-Hispanic)" because there are many White and Black Hispanics. Hispanic is designated as an "ethnicity" though, this is not true either. It's simply a way to group Hispanophones. For instance, Spaniards are considered Hispanic and are European. Argentinians are also Hispanic and European, many of whom are of Italian, Welsh, and German origin, but are still considered Hispanic. Dominicans are often Black African and Mulatto.

Just figured I'd educate your ignorant self.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 07:17

Yep because Islamic nations don't fight eachother:rolleyes:

Just because everyone in a region has the same religion doesn't mean there will be peace. Wars will just develop among sects. If the Jews were to be kicked out of Israel then the Muslims would resort to more Shiite vs. Sunni wars. Sort of like how Europe used to have Catholic vs. Protestant wars.

No, sectarian issues became a problem when the West interfered like in Iraq and encouraged them to fight. The US used Shias and Kurds. You can argue and Saddam was oppressing them, and he was, but the fact of the matter is the US used them to fight Sunnis who did nothing to them, fueling tensions.

For instance, in Pakistan no one gives a shit if you're Shia or Sunni. Same in Lebanon. Poor argument.

Aryavartha

18-03-2007, 07:52

No, sectarian issues became a problem when the West interfered like in Iraq and encouraged them to fight. The US used Shias and Kurds. You can argue and Saddam was oppressing them, and he was, but the fact of the matter is the US used them to fight Sunnis who did nothing to them, fueling tensions.

For instance, in Pakistan no one gives a shit if you're Shia or Sunni. Same in Lebanon. Poor argument.

I am sure it was the west that killed Imam Hussein too.

You are grossly wrong about Pakistan at least.

Google on Sipah e Sahaba and Lashkar e Jhangvi and the Shia response Sipah e Muhammed.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 12:43

*snip*

Well done IDF!

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 12:47

Just as the modern descendents of the invaders of the Americas and Australia bear no responsibility for their ancestors' actions, neither do the current generation of Israeli born citizens of Israel bear such a responsibility. Guilt is not inheritable.

To the anti-semite UB it is inheritable.

To now remove those citizens from Israel would be as much a wrong as any initial thievery.

The word ethnic clensing comes to mind.

The current generation would fight - and they would be right to. It is, after all, the land of their birth.

And that'll make things 10x worse than they are now.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 12:49

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 12:52

And what of the 900,000 Jews forced out of Arab lands? Aren't they entitled to compensation? I guess they don't matter to you since they are Jews.

The refugee situation is a wash. Both sides fucked up there, but you can't reverse history.

Both sides did indeed fuck up the refugee situation. That is probably the worst tragedy of this whole affairs. :(

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 12:55

When it was subsequently invaded and used as a battleground between Israel/Jordan. Hardly an opportunity for a viable state which they suddenly threw away.

After Israel was attacked did they invade. and ya know what? The West Bank went to Jordan in 1947 and the Gaza Strip went to Egypt in 1947.

United Beleriand

18-03-2007, 12:59

Ancestrial homeland my ass. They were not even there till the 7th century as IDF pointed out.

In truth, the Israelites have a much longer claim on the land than the Palestinians do.
Bollocks. Palestinian Arabs are the descendants of exactly those people who lived there since the great immigration waves into Canaan in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE. With the Islamic conquest these people only changed their religion and partially their language, but not their descent. And the people coming form the Hejaz in that time were the same as those living in Palestine already anyways.
And Israelites don't exist anymore. And if you even can't distinguish Israelites from Israelis it is pretty clear that you do in fact have nothing to argue with. You are just as dumb as IDF in his arab-hating rant.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:03

There were Jews in the area who also refused to accept the 1947 Partition Plan. They didn't all jump on the bandwagon with equal zeal. There were dissenters amongst both sides. The whole Mid East crisis does NOT leave the Israelis with their hands clean. They are as much at fault as the Palestinians.

Which most of us here are not denying.

Their standing army formed from the groups (Haganah and Irgun - a group that deliberately launched retributive attacks on Arab civilians who were not involved in the conflict) that sprung up following the initial Arab revolts, and received support from the British.

Which has been posted before, by IDF!

They may not be the main conflict instigators today, though some may disagree, but they were far from perfect in their actions. The Israelis are not perfect and they had more than eaten their share of the pie; they had seconds because the Arabs had a extra large slice. A vicious cycle...

Sad but true.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:04

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:06

In fairness, how do you come to an agreement with someone who wants your destruction?

You can't. That is why they are not dealing with the Palestinian Government:

Israel: Shun new Palestinian government (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/18/mideast/index.html)

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:09

They could get the hell out of the West Bank that they are illegally occupying. That would help.

And a civil war nearly erupted between Fatah and Hamas when that occured. Do you firmly want Palestinian on Palestinian civil war? It'll make Iraq look like a summer day care.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:11

I dont think that last part is true. Israel signs cease fires with the Palestians and then Israel keep to it while the Paleistians fire rocket after rocket.

Pretty much accurate.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:12

Doesn't Israel want the destruction of Hamas?

So what point are you making?

They want hamas to leave them alone.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:14

Oh goody, let's go one up then. Would you agree that squatters are illegal tenants of land then, regardless of how much firepower they have?

For the most part yes. Depends if the land is owned or not :D

Because squatters are a bit of a problem here, with quite a few building large houses on land that doesn't belong to them. Quite a few of them resorted to drastic measures to keep the houses after government demolition crews got to work.

I'm not going to say your wrong because they are part of the problem.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:17

There can be peace its very simple. Similar to Kashmir, if the jews stop try to take Muslim land there will not be this conflict and violence. There will be peace under Islamic rule, its just a matter of time.

And if the arabs stop killing innocent men, women, and children and renounce violence, you are right that peace will reign. Until both sides are willing to throw down their weapons, there will be no peace.

Understand that concept?

United Beleriand

18-03-2007, 13:17

I dont think that last part is true. Israel signs cease fires with the Palestians and then Israel keep to it while the Paleistians fire rocket after rocket.The Jews still occupy the West Bank and expand their settlements there. They also continue creating the world's largest concentration camp ever by building a wall around Samaria. So what terms are you really talking about?

Politeia utopia

18-03-2007, 13:19

Wrong. The British held the Mandate under League of Nations rules; while there were some limits to their actions, dividing it up and giving it to ethnic groups was CERTAINLY within their purview.

Prior to that, the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire; before that the Caliphate; before that, Rome.

And before that, it was Judea. The Palestinians have never owned the land they live on.

All that said, I support your position that they deserve a state of their own. I just understand that it's not likely ever to happen as long as Israel sees such a state as a threat to it's existence. And Hamas is not helping the situation in any way.

States do not own land? people do. People that have lived on the land from birth have a legitimate claim on the land. Currently both Jews and Palestinians have a legitimate claim on the land

Politeia utopia

18-03-2007, 13:31

Don't you people ever tire of these threads? :p
The Middle East will always hold a special place in my heart. Years studying the politics, history, language religion and customs of people living the area, will do that to any soul. :)

Palestinians and Israelis seldom understand that the other generally desires the same thing as themselves. They think the other only wants violence and war, while they simply want to live their lives. Though hawks are present on both sides, they are just a minority and the success of their message is dependent on the deep mistrust rooted in the hearts of the common people of the other party.

Only direct interference from the US can force these people to have the rest they so desperately need. This can only happen if the population in the US began to care.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 13:40

Bollocks. Palestinian Arabs are the descendants of exactly those people who lived there since the great immigration waves into Canaan in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE.

Now care to actually prove it?

With the Islamic conquest these people only changed their religion and partially their language, but not their descent. And the people coming form the Hejaz in that time were the same as those living in Palestine already anyways.

And this as well?

And Israelites don't exist anymore.

And this?

And if you even can't distinguish Israelites from Israelis it is pretty clear that you do in fact have nothing to argue with. You are just as dumb as IDF in his arab-hating rant.

Nice flame. I'm not baiting to it today.

New Burmesia

18-03-2007, 13:54

After Israel was attacked did they invade. and ya know what? The West Bank went to Jordan in 1947 and the Gaza Strip went to Egypt in 1947.
What's your point?

New Burmesia

18-03-2007, 13:55

Non Aligned States

18-03-2007, 13:56

For the most part yes. Depends if the land is owned or not :D

Well it was owned yes, with things like deeds and whatnot. The problem was that there was this big gang war see, so the residents decided to take a vacation until things cooled down. And when they come back, the winning gang has taken over the neighborhood, and they've turned the residents homes into gangland turf.

Still squatters.

Corneliu

18-03-2007, 14:04

What's your point?

Point is Israel did not take it until the 1967 war. :D

They responded to the invasion but they did not start the war themselves. Though some can say they did and they can have evidence to back it up but the facts remain that 5 arab armies attacked Israel first.

New Burmesia

18-03-2007, 14:21

Politeia utopia

18-03-2007, 14:38

You can't. That is why they are not dealing with the Palestinian Government:

Israel: Shun new Palestinian government (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/18/mideast/index.html)

Is it not so that the Palestinians are forced to deal with those that do not want their state to exist. Ergo that they are forced to deal with those that have executed their destruction.

Both parties do not whish the other party to have a viable state in the area. Yet, they can nontheless agree to a part of the area in return for peace

Politeia utopia

18-03-2007, 14:51

Point is Israel did not take it until the 1967 war. :D

They responded to the invasion but they did not start the war themselves. Though some can say they did and they can have evidence to back it up but the facts remain that 5 arab armies attacked Israel first.

Israel had plans to carve up Jordean between Iraq and Itsalf long before Nasser closed the Gulf of acaba. And the Arab Nations invaded the West Bank and Gaza in 1947.

Wrong or right has little to do with this episode. All parties did terrible things.

The only point that remains is that palestinian civilians have had nothing to do with it and they are currently bearing most of the hardship.

The problem remains that people living as refugees in the occupied territories have few rights and are not represented by their own souvereign government. If these problems are addressed the past can be the past again. :)

Politeia utopia

18-03-2007, 14:53

And if the arabs stop killing innocent men, women, and children and renounce violence, you are right that peace will reign. Until both sides are willing to throw down their weapons, there will be no peace.

Understand that concept?

The willingness is there and if it is not we should force them

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 15:19

The Jews still occupy the West Bank and expand their settlements there. They also continue creating the world's largest concentration camp ever by building a wall around Samaria. So what terms are you really talking about?

The Palestians did agree a cease fire with the Israelies. If you make that agreement, what that means is that you say "Whatever grievences either party has against each other we will put those aside for now and stop attacking each other". Both sides have grievences against the other, but in a cease fire agreement both put these aside and stop firing. The Palestians however did not honour these agreements.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 15:25

There can be peace its very simple. Similar to Kashmir, if the jews stop try to take Muslim land there will not be this conflict and violence. There will be peace under Islamic rule, its just a matter of time.

Islamic rule is what generally leads to vilonence

Lets look at it shall we

- The first Kaliphate and the rise of Islam saw the Arab conquests
- When Mohammad died we saw the civil war with the Sunni/Shia divide
- We saw the Muslims attacking Constantinople for decades eventually brining about the Crusades
- In modern terms we see the Iran-Iraq war
- We see the Saudi's doing horrible things to people all the time
- We see the Muslims causing angry problems with Kashimir between India and Pakistan

Islamic rule is not nessecarly a recipie for peace.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 15:26

Doesn't Israel want the destruction of Hamas?

So what point are you making?

No, Israel wants peace with Hammas and all the Palestians. Unfortunetly when the Palestinans attack they have to defend themselves.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 15:27

While Israel never keeps up curfews, random road blocks and assassinations at all.

Ah I'm forgetting, when Israeli's attack palestinian's that is never a breach of
ceasefire whereas if a palestinian child throws a tin can over a wall that is always a breach of ceasefire.

My bad.

I keep forgetting to use variable standards, silly me.

Erm, if you give me a specific example of the Israelies breaching a cease fire first, I will listen to you. Do not however use rhetoric as it is not argument

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 15:29

Seems to be rather pointless with Israelis remaining in the West Bank and continuing to kill Palestinians. Of course if extremists break down the cease fire and than Isrealis respond by killing a bunch of kids in a wild attempt to get a terrorist than Israel is hardly helping now is it?

A cease fire is an agreement between two parties. You seem to forget that the Arabs are not the ones with universaly monopoly on grievences against the other party. What a cease fire says is that, while both sides have greivences against the other, we both accept that fighting will not solve them therefore, we stop fighting for a while. But if you dont stop fighting whats the point?

Nodinia

18-03-2007, 17:22

According to no one. Palestine is not a recognized countryat the moment. Not to mention, they have never been a country to begin with. They never had a country of their own. So tell me, when did they have a country of their own? NEVER!!!

Could say that for most of Africa and latin America. And North America. So shush.

You never at all answered my questions about the quadrupling of Arab populations (which of course occurred because Arabs from other nations also moved to the area). !!!

Thats the immigration myth from the now discredited "From time immemorial" by Susan Peters. Terrible stuff.

Its not illegal, it fits UN resolution 242 fine.

No its illegal, as is the building of civillian settlements there. I suggest you re-read the resolution.

The root of the problem is the Arab link to the Nazis..

As trouble predates the Nazis, no, it isn't.

Newer Kiwiland

18-03-2007, 17:33

No, Israel wants peace with Hammas and all the Palestians. Unfortunetly when the Palestinans attack they have to defend themselves.

That's a real lousy excuse considering Israel occupied/occupies Palestine for decades until Hamas finally got itself into power. If they wanted peace they shouldn't be settling ILLEGALLY in Palestinian lands, or rejecting the mor emoderate PLO until it loses control of fringe extremist groups, or invade other countries with disproprtional force.

I mean, did anyoe ever paid attention to how many Palestinians/Arabs die? The news certainly don't feel like reporting them as much as Israeli deaths. I remeber 1 dead Israeli soldier warranted the same sort of attention as an entired demolished Lebanese block with god knows how many csualties on TIME.

More importantly, just because a few Palestinians wants revenge (rightly or wrongly) does not give Israel the right to abuse an entire people.

Newer Kiwiland

18-03-2007, 17:35

Erm, if you give me a specific example of the Israelies breaching a cease fire first, I will listen to you. Do not however use rhetoric as it is not argument

Israel technically is in a state of war with Lebano since 1947 right? Well, I don't think the Lebanese Army invaded Israel in 1978, 1982, or 2006.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 17:58

That's a real lousy excuse considering Israel occupied/occupies Palestine for decades until Hamas finally got itself into power. If they wanted peace they shouldn't be settling ILLEGALLY in Palestinian lands, or rejecting the mor emoderate PLO until it loses control of fringe extremist groups, or invade other countries with disproprtional force.

Erm they have withdrawn from Gaza, but look what happened. More rocket attacks, more Isralie deaths. If the Palestians want a state they should build on achivements they have, not attack when they are given the oppotunity. And also, Israel were not always occupying those areas, but the wars have been going on for much longer than the occupation. Israel did offer to give them up in 2000 but it was rejected.

More importantly, just because a few Palestinians wants revenge (rightly or wrongly) does not give Israel the right to abuse an entire people.

So how exactly should Israel respond to the attacks. Seems to me they did rather well in the December cease fire of not doing anything for days on end when the Quammass rockets came flying. Seriously.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 18:02

No its illegal, as is the building of civillian settlements there. I suggest you re-read the resolution.

The resoultion demands that Israel withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, not all the territiories, just some, which it did. It withdrew from the Saini as it said it would. Right now the Palestians are not giving them much grounds to continue withdrawing, since the withdrawl from Gaza was only met with more rocket fire. More to the point, 242 gives Israel the right to maintain the territories untill peace is restored

New Burmesia

18-03-2007, 18:04

Something I just found at the bottom of a Beeb article.

On Saturday, PM Ismail Haniya said his goal was the creation of a Palestinian state that included lands occupied by Israel in 1967.

Our correspondent says that some see this as an implicit recognition of Israel's existence, in contrast with Hamas' past calls to eliminate the Jewish state.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6463925.stm

I hope this means that Hamas may now do the right thing.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 18:05

Israel technically is in a state of war with Lebano since 1947 right? Well, I don't think the Lebanese Army invaded Israel in 1978, 1982, or 2006.

That isnt an example of a cease fire breach. Be more specific.

Congo--Kinshasa

18-03-2007, 19:24

Fascism opposed Socialism, Communism, Democrats, Social Democrats, liberals, homosexuals, trade unionists, virtually any group/ideology associated with leftism.

Fascism is anti-socialist and anti-capitalist. It's basically a syncretic ideology, incorporating traits of both leftism and rightism - all the worst of both, but none of the good.

Congo--Kinshasa

18-03-2007, 19:26

I posted facts. I gave real numbers about the land, not propaganda.

Don't bother. No matter what you post, you'll receive the same "ZOMG Zionist propaganda" reply from him.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 19:31

I am sure it was the west that killed Imam Hussein too.

You are grossly wrong about Pakistan at least.

Google on Sipah e Sahaba and Lashkar e Jhangvi and the Shia response Sipah e Muhammed.

I am not grossly wrong about Pakistan. In Pakistan Sunnis and Shias often intermarry, and while Sunnis are the majority, everyone has Shia cousins. Don't act like you know when you don't.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 19:37

Islamic rule is what generally leads to vilonence

Lets look at it shall we

- The first Kaliphate and the rise of Islam saw the Arab conquests
- When Mohammad died we saw the civil war with the Sunni/Shia divide
- We saw the Muslims attacking Constantinople for decades eventually brining about the Crusades
- In modern terms we see the Iran-Iraq war
- We see the Saudi's doing horrible things to people all the time
- We see the Muslims causing angry problems with Kashimir between India and Pakistan

Islamic rule is not nessecarly a recipie for peace.

LOL ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Kashmiris are Muslims, and India has no right to the land if they don't want to be a part of it, and most of them don't.
What makes the Arab conquests any different than any other empire's conquests?
People don't have civil wars? Muslims are the only ones? Hmm.
OH AND THE BEST ONE. MUSLIMS CAUSED THE CRUSADES. WOW. You're retarded.

Congo--Kinshasa

18-03-2007, 19:38

They do have leftist traits, such as the welfare state and the anti-capitalism you mentioned, but I think overall they lean to the right. However, fascism's primary leaning is to authoritarianism.

True.

Pyotr

18-03-2007, 19:39

Fascism is anti-socialist and anti-capitalist. It's basically a syncretic ideology, incorporating traits of both leftism and rightism - all the worst of both, but none of the good.

They do have leftist traits, such as the welfare state and the anti-capitalism you mentioned, but I think overall they lean to the right. However, fascism's primary leaning is to authoritarianism.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 19:40

Ancestrial homeland my ass. They were not even there till the 7th century as IDF pointed out.

In truth, the Israelites have a much longer claim on the land than the Palestinians do.

How many times does it have to be said? Language doesn't equal ancestry. Palestinians, both Christians (natives) and the Muslims (so-called Arab invaders) are genetically the same, and are different than those from the Arabian Peninsula. That is fact. Their ancestors have been there since ancient times.

Congo--Kinshasa

18-03-2007, 19:41

You'd think a land ownership contract would be void by the time the paper it was written on had rotted into dust.

lol, true :p

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 19:42

LOL ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Kashmiris are Muslims, and India has no right to the land if they don't want to be a part of it, and most of them don't.

So that would be why they are sharing it?

What makes the Arab conquests any different than any other empire's conquests?

That wasnt the point I was making. Sovietstan suggested Islamic rule = peace. I was proving him wrong. It doesnt, quite clearly, since the first Islamic empire was one of conquest

People don't have civil wars? Muslims are the only ones? Hmm.

Again, you misunderstood. My point was that Sovietstan said that Muslims would, when they rule, bring peace to the people there. But Muslims have had wars before. Islam isnt some sort of peace magic force.

OH AND THE BEST ONE. MUSLIMS CAUSED THE CRUSADES. WOW. You're retarded.

No, I'm accurate. The eastern chruch was under attack from the Muslims almost constantly, they called on the western church. The western church thought this would unite the two churchs again and so attacked the Muslims in defence of the eastern chruch.

Pyotr

18-03-2007, 19:44

You'd think a land ownership contract would be void by the time the paper it was written on had rotted into dust.

Pyotr

18-03-2007, 19:51

No, I'm accurate. The eastern chruch was under attack from the Muslims almost constantly, they called on the western church. The western church thought this would unite the two churchs again and so attacked the Muslims in defence of the eastern chruch.

That was the excuse he made, the Pope started the crusades for money and land, he didn't give two shits about the Byzantines. The crusader armies sacked, burned, and conquered Byzantine cities, and outright disobeyed the commands of the Byzantine emperor. The crusaders did more damage the Byzantines than the Turks did.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 19:53

So that would be why they are sharing it?

That wasnt the point I was making. Sovietstan suggested Islamic rule = peace. I was proving him wrong. It doesnt, quite clearly, since the first Islamic empire was one of conquest

Again, you misunderstood. My point was that Sovietstan said that Muslims would, when they rule, bring peace to the people there. But Muslims have had wars before. Islam isnt some sort of peace magic force.

No, I'm accurate. The eastern chruch was under attack from the Muslims almost constantly, they called on the western church. The western church thought this would unite the two churchs again and so attacked the Muslims in defence of the eastern chruch.

Well, actually, there was a peace under the Islamic Empire. It was called the "Pax Islamica" just so you know.

Kashmir is "shared" because India refuses to give it up, not because Kashmiris want to be part of it. That's like saying because the Basque Country is ruled by Spain that they want to remain part of it, or because Kurdistan is part of Iraq and Turkey that they want to remain part of those respective countries. Let me let you in on something, they don't.

No, you're definitely not accurate. The Westerners were upset that Jerusalem was no longer in Christian hands, so they decided to attack it when they got bored having constant wars with each other. That's history. It helped bring them out of the Dark Ages. Constantinople was not being constantly attacked at all. The Turks came later. And to blame the fact that the Crusaders SLAUGHTERED tons of innocent civilians, including Muslims, Jews, and native Christians (cuz that makes sense?) is stupid and wrong. The Crusaders did what they wanted, and by the way, didn't they later sack Constantinople and take it over? Yeah they did. That just speaks to their treachery and the fact that they'd take anything they could.

United Beleriand

18-03-2007, 20:03

Don't bother. No matter what you post, you'll receive the same "ZOMG Zionist propaganda" reply from him.
Because that's what he does. Turn and twist the facts until it looks as if Jews really had any claim to Palestine. But they just don't. They don't even have the history they claim to have. Jews are those who left Palestine because they upset the Romans and were subsequently punished, Palestinian Arabs are those who remained and later became Muslims. The Jews were punished exactly because they were religious retards (cf. Zealots) and started assaulting the Romans. And while Jews later settled down in Europe and elsewhere and had their lives there and ultimately became European through intermarriage, the Arabs, who are dubbed Palestinians now, remained in their homeland until they were driven out by those fanatic Jews who then renamed themselves Israel.

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”

Aryavartha

18-03-2007, 20:04

I am not grossly wrong about Pakistan. In Pakistan Sunnis and Shias often intermarry, and while Sunnis are the majority, everyone has Shia cousins.

lol.

I see that you have totally dodged the terrorising of shias by LeJ and SSP, the targeted killings of shia professionals and shia clerics, the rhetoric of shias = infidels by wahabi and deobandi clerics, the inevitable yearly riots during Muharram, the crackdown on the gilgit riots of Shia etc etc etc etc...

Here's a sample.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=subcontinent&xfile=data/subcontinent/2007/March/subcontinent_March349.xml
Shia businessman shot dead in Pakistan

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C10%5C23%5Cstory_23-10-2006_pg1_5
Shia leader killed

BAHAWALPUR: A Shia cleric was shot dead in Bahwalpur on Sunday, police said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3724082.stm
There have been a number of deadly sectarian attacks this year.

In October, 40 people at a Sunni meeting in Multan were killed by a car bomb.

Six days earlier, 30 people and a suicide bomber were killed athttp://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12442145
jolt.co.uk public forums - Reply to Topic a Shia mosque in Sialkot.

Since 1980, more than 4,000 people have been killed in Shia-Sunni violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4695776.stm
At least 27 people have been killed in a suspected suicide bomb attack and in subsequent violence at a religious procession in north-west Pakistan.

The explosion tore through a crowd of Shia Muslims marking the Ashura festival in the town of Hangu, sparking rioting among pilgrims.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060715/ai_n16543153
A suicide attacker detonated a bomb near the home of a prominent Pakistani Shia Muslim cleric in Karachi yesterday, killing the cleric and two other people, police said.

The death of Allama Hassan Turabi is likely to raise tensions in Karachi, which is oftenthe scene of violence between Shias and Sunnis.

About LeJ

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/terroristoutfits/Lej.htm
Formation

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), a Sunni-Deobandi terrorist outfit was formed in 1996 by a break away group of radical sectarian extremists of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), a Sunni extremist outfit, which accused the parent organisation of deviating from the ideals of its slain co- founder, Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi. It is from Maulana Jhangvi that the LeJ derives its name. It was formed under the leadership of Akram Lahori and Riaz Basra. The LeJ is one of the two sectarian terrorist outfits proscribed on August 14, 2001, by President Pervez Musharraf.

Ideology and Objectives

The LeJ aims to transform Pakistan into a Sunni state, primarily through violent means. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi is part of the broader Deoband movement

There is a looooooooooooooooooooooong list of attacks done by them at the page.

The SSP
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/terroristoutfits/ssp.htm
Earlier termed Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba, the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) is a Sunni sectarian outfit that has been alleged to be involved in terrorist violence, primarily targeted against the minority Shia community in Pakistan. The outfit has also operated as a political party having contested elections and an SSP leader was a minister in the Coalition Government in Punjab in 1993. The SSP is one of the five outfits that have been proscribed by President Pervez Musharraf on January 12, 2002. The outfit is reported to have been renamed as Millat-e-Islamia Pakistan after the proscription.

Formation

Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, Maulana Zia-ur-Rehman Farooqi, Maulana Eesar-ul-Haq Qasmi and Maulana Azam Tariq established the SSP, initially known as the Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba in September 1985 in an environment of increasing sectarian hostility in Pakistani Punjab. The origin of this outfit lie in the feudal set-up of Pakistani Punjab and politico-religious developments in the Nineteen Seventies and Eighties. Political and economic power in Pakistani Punjab was a privilege of large landowners, mostly Shias, a minority as compared to the Sunni sect. Urban Punjab in contrast, was a non-feudalised middle-class society and largely from the Sunni sect. The SSP is also alleged to have been set up at the behest of the then Zia-ul-Haq regime as part of the efforts to build an Islamist counter to pro-democracy forces ranged against the military regime of the Eighties.

incidents involving the SSP

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/terroristoutfits/SSP_tl.htm

I can go on and on and on.

There are areas where shias don't have problems and there are areas where there is total polarisation. Each community have their own militias and carry out reprisal killings and such.

Don't act like you know when you don't.

I think it is clear who is pretending and who is not.

And your next post makes it clear why you are pretending and whitewashing...

Kashmiris are Muslims, and India has no right to the land if they don't want to be a part of it, and most of them don't.

:rolleyes:

And you know that Kashmiris don't want to be a part of India how?

Oh, so a bunch of jihadis have guns, shoot and make noise and they ought to be believed to speak for the vast majority who are content with the union.

Explain me why is it that the APHC never contests elections to prove their popularity that they claim to have?

Oh, I forget, you only pretend to know. :D You probably don't even know what APHC is.

Congo--Kinshasa

18-03-2007, 20:22

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”

What an asshole.

United Beleriand

18-03-2007, 20:25

The Jews stole the Arab's land, and they knew and know it and some obviously even took and take pride in it.
If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us (*), but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs (**). There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?
(*) which of course is a big fat stupid lie
(**) which is also uneducated rubbish of course

United Beleriand

18-03-2007, 20:29

What an asshole.The creator of modern Israel who gave it its aims.

Congo--Kinshasa

18-03-2007, 20:35

The creator of modern Israel who gave it its aims.

And an asshole.

United Beleriand

18-03-2007, 20:41

And an asshole.
And the assholiness is continued until today by the state he left behind.

Congo--Kinshasa

18-03-2007, 20:51

And the assholiness is continued until today by the state he left behind.

That's the sucky thing about the Palestine-Israel conflict. No good guys to root for. :(

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 20:52

Well, actually, there was a peace under the Islamic Empire. It was called the "Pax Islamica" just so you know.

Peace within an individual country =/= peace. And my point stands, Islamic rule does not nessecarly equal peace, as I have shown

Kashmir is "shared" because India refuses to give it up, not because Kashmiris want to be part of it. That's like saying because the Basque Country is ruled by Spain that they want to remain part of it, or because Kurdistan is part of Iraq and Turkey that they want to remain part of those respective countries. Let me let you in on something, they don't.

The Kurds are not a distinct ethinic group. There are more than 4 diffrent Kurdish languages to begin with.

No, you're definitely not accurate. The Westerners were upset that Jerusalem was no longer in Christian hands, so they decided to attack it when they got bored having constant wars with each other. That's history. It helped bring them out of the Dark Ages. Constantinople was not being constantly attacked at all. The Turks came later. And to blame the fact that the Crusaders SLAUGHTERED tons of innocent civilians, including Muslims, Jews, and native Christians (cuz that makes sense?) is stupid and wrong. The Crusaders did what they wanted, and by the way, didn't they later sack Constantinople and take it over? Yeah they did. That just speaks to their treachery and the fact that they'd take anything they could.

I did not say that the Crusaders were lovely people, but that the Muslims are not blameless, as many Muslims portray them to be. It was a simple land grab exercise. Both parties thought it was their land, they wanted it back. They fought. No one was wrong or right espiecally, but what I am saying is that the Muslims did attack the eastern chruch and the western church was brought in to help, which is when they began. I did not say constantinople, I said the eastern church. Byzantine extended beyond constantinople.

United Beleriand

18-03-2007, 20:54

That's the sucky thing about the Palestine-Israel conflict. No good guys to root for.Well, the conflict was created by the Jews by coming there unasked, so they must end it. Best by leaving.

Nodinia

18-03-2007, 20:55

The resoultion demands that Israel withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, not all the territiories, just some, which it did.

A minority view, based on a narrow interpretation of the wording.

Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend it's frontiers as a result of warBold text. This means that Israel must withdraw." (- UN SC Session 22, Nov 20, 1967.)

As I advised earlier, you should read the full text. It rejects force as a means of annexing territory at the very beginning.

More to the point, 242 gives Israel the right to maintain the territories untill peace is restored

Again, no. It says withdrawal followed by negotiation. And nowhere does it in any way justify temporary or permament settlements within the territories. As the occupation and its various brutalities are the cause of much of the violence and general hate, how is 'peace' going to be restored while the IDF is still in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem?

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 21:03

And you know that Kashmiris don't want to be a part of India how?

Oh, so a bunch of jihadis have guns, shoot and make noise and they ought to be believed to speak for the vast majority who are content with the union.

Explain me why is it that the APHC never contests elections to prove their popularity that they claim to have?

Oh, I forget, you only pretend to know. :D You probably don't even know what APHC is.

It's a known fact that the majority of Kashmiris favor independence of both Pakistan and India. I am not a fan of Pakistan's government, however if Pakistan let go of Kashmir, India would just move in and take the rest of it over, and the Kashmiris don't want that. Typical Indian nationalist propaganda.

IDF

18-03-2007, 21:05

Bollocks. Palestinian Arabs are the descendants of exactly those people who lived there since the great immigration waves into Canaan in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE. With the Islamic conquest these people only changed their religion and partially their language, but not their descent. And the people coming form the Hejaz in that time were the same as those living in Palestine already anyways.
And Israelites don't exist anymore. And if you even can't distinguish Israelites from Israelis it is pretty clear that you do in fact have nothing to argue with. You are just as dumb as IDF in his arab-hating rant.

What Arab hating rant are you speaking of? Seriously. I don't see one with my name on it in this thread.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 21:06

A minority view, based on a narrow interpretation of the wording.

On the contary, the majortity view and the wording was made deliberatley that way

As I advised earlier, you should read the full text. It rejects force as a means of annexing territory at the very beginning.

Show me resoultions condeming the Arab attack on Israel and I will listen properly

Again, no. It says withdrawal followed by negotiation. And nowhere does it in any way justify temporary or permament settlements within the territories. As the occupation and its various brutalities are the cause of much of the violence and general hate, how is 'peace' going to be restored while the IDF is still in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

Simple, by building trust. The IDF withdraw from Gaza, the Arabs behave resonably. They dont start launching rocket after rocket into Israel. The Israelies arnt going to just withdraw from everywhere at once. The Arabs have destroyed too much trust for that to happen. Can you imagine what it would be like if the Gaza situation were repeated all across the occupied territories. All the west bank and Gaza launching rockets into Israel. If that were to happen then would you agree that these people do not want peace, but in fact want Israel's destruction

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 21:06

If you're so sure of your argument, then why the hell won't you try to refute it? The fact is you're a coward who has no facts on his side.

I already refuted it. You just refuse to address the facts by posting new and usually irrelevant things. You can't just deny facts, dumbass.

IDF

18-03-2007, 21:06

I've already established that pretty much everything else you said was garbage, and it's pretty much agreed upon in this thread, so...

If you're so sure of your argument, then why the hell won't you try to refute it? The fact is you're a coward who has no facts on his side.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 21:08

Peace within an individual country =/= peace. And my point stands, Islamic rule does not nessecarly equal peace, as I have shown

The Kurds are not a distinct ethinic group. There are more than 4 diffrent Kurdish languages to begin with.

I did not say that the Crusaders were lovely people, but that the Muslims are not blameless, as many Muslims portray them to be. It was a simple land grab exercise. Both parties thought it was their land, they wanted it back. They fought. No one was wrong or right espiecally, but what I am saying is that the Muslims did attack the eastern chruch and the western church was brought in to help, which is when they began. I did not say constantinople, I said the eastern church. Byzantine extended beyond constantinople.

You nitpick the Kurd thing all you want, but the point is, when people want something and they don't get it doesn't mean they don't want it, which is what you tried to assert.

The Crusaders were just evil. They were treacherous, betrayed both Byzantine and Middle Eastern Christians, and slaughtered tons of innocent civilians (and bragged that they made the streets of Jerusalem flow with blood up to the knees of their horses). The Muslims didn't do that, and they didn't target civilians.

Andaras Prime

18-03-2007, 21:13

The creator of modern Israel who gave it its aims.
Yeah, I have quoted him many times before. Here's a test, ever having an Israel debate with IDF, quote him and see how quickly IDF changes the subject...

IDF

18-03-2007, 21:14

Thats the immigration myth from the now discredited "From time immemorial" by Susan Peters. Terrible stuff.

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

It's not a myth. That graph shows the population doubled in just 20 years. If you go back further you will see the Arab population quadrupled. That is NOT from natural growth.

Aryavartha

18-03-2007, 21:19

It's a known fact that the majority of Kashmiris favor independence of both Pakistan and India.

Prove that.

I have Sheikh Abdullah, ratification of the accession to India by the first elected assembly of J&K, the continued turnout to elections by the people despite violent intimidation by jihadis showing the faith they have in the union, the backing they gave during Op.Gibraltar, the non-participation of the separatist APHC in elections despite them claiming they are the most popular party etc etc.

What do you have?

The words of jihadis? lol.

I am not a fan of Pakistan's government, however if Pakistan let go of Kashmir, India would just move in and take the rest of it over, and the Kashmiris don't want that.

Soviestan is that you?:confused:

Then why is it that India declared unilateral ceasefire during the 1947 war and took the case to the UN in the hopes of a negotiated settlement?

Why is it that despite having a bigger military, India has never violated the LoC despite grave provocation by Pakistan, even during the Kargil episode?

Typical Indian nationalist propaganda.

Says an islamist. lol.

Here's a rat's ass for that opinion.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 21:20

The Crusaders were just evil. They were treacherous, betrayed both Byzantine and Middle Eastern Christians, and slaughtered tons of innocent civilians (and bragged that they made the streets of Jerusalem flow with blood up to the knees of their horses). The Muslims didn't do that, and they didn't target civilians.

I didnt suggest otherwise, you have missed the entire point. My point was

A) The Muslims are not innocent in this either
B) The Muslims did begin the conflict with the continued attacks on the Byzantine

If you want, here is a timeline from 634, demonstrating to you that the Muslims were not blameless. I do not think the Crusaders were blameless but you seem to think the Muslims were, therfore you need correcting

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

And you really want to suggest that the Crusdaers were the agressive ones first?

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 21:24

I didnt suggest otherwise, you have missed the entire point. My point was

A) The Muslims are not innocent in this either
B) The Muslims did begin the conflict with the continued attacks on the Byzantine

If you want, here is a timeline from 634, demonstrating to you that the Muslims were not blameless. I do not think the Crusaders were blameless but you seem to think the Muslims were, therfore you need correcting

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

And you really want to suggest that the Crusdaers were the agressive ones first?

Taking land went on during those days. That was life. However, slaughtering innocents was not. So yes, they were innocent. And don't call them Crusaders, because they didn't do what the Crusaders did.

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 21:25

Prove that.

I have Sheikh Abdullah, ratification of the accession to India by the first elected assembly of J&K, the continued turnout to elections by the people despite violent intimidation by jihadis showing the faith they have in the union, the backing they gave during Op.Gibraltar, the non-participation of the separatist APHC in elections despite them claiming they are the most popular party etc etc.

What do you have?

The words of jihadis? lol.

Soviestan is that you?:confused:

Then why is it that India declared unilateral ceasefire during the 1947 war and took the case to the UN in the hopes of a negotiated settlement?

Why is it that despite having a bigger military, India has never violated the LoC despite grave provocation by Pakistan, even during the Kargil episode?

Says an islamist. lol.

Here's a rat's ass for that opinion.

How about, the word of ACTUAL, LIVING Kashmiris? Which you don't have...go tear down another Mosque why don't you. Or go assault some Sikhs, it's what you do best.

IDF

18-03-2007, 21:27

Because that's what he does. Turn and twist the facts until it looks as if Jews really had any claim to Palestine. But they just don't. They don't even have the history they claim to have. Jews are those who left Palestine because they upset the Romans and were subsequently punished, Palestinian Arabs are those who remained and later became Muslims. The Jews were punished exactly because they were religious retards (cf. Zealots) and started assaulting the Romans. And while Jews later settled down in Europe and elsewhere and had their lives there and ultimately became European through intermarriage, the Arabs, who are dubbed Palestinians now, remained in their homeland until they were driven out by those fanatic Jews who then renamed themselves Israel.

The Jews do have a claim to the land. I have already addressed that in previous posts where I put facts. (you didn't)

You ignored the fact the Jews have had a constant presence in the land for 2,700 years. It was only during the short Babylonian Exile that that there was an interrupted presence of the Jews in the region for over 3,500 years.

The Jews weren't kicked out because of the Zealots. You're just an uneducated fool on these matters. The Jews were attacked because they refused assimilation. The Zealots didn't even become a force until after the war had started.

What does it matter about how the Jews began to appear European through intermarriage? The fact remains that the Jews are descendents of those who were evicted by teh Romans.

Your Ben Gurion quote is also bullshit.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775
Media Monitors (http://www.mediamonitors.net)

An article archived on the Media Monitors Web site is filled with questionable assertions and bogus quotes (some of which were debunked in Part I.) The following quote (which also appears on the MIFTAH Web site) was attributed to Israeli Northern District Commissioner Israel Koenig, supposedly from his controversial report on Israeli Arabs in Galilee:

We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.

Source given: Cited in Lustick, Ian, Arabs in the Jewish State, University of Texas Press, Texas, 1980.

Investigation: Neither the source given (Ian Lustick's Arabs in the Jewish State) nor the actual report itself contains any mention of "terror, assassination, intimidation or land confiscation".

The Koenig Report or “memorandum” as it is sometimes referred to, was a private document of recommendations written in 1975 by civil servant Israel Koenig, the Interior Ministry’s official in charge of the Galilee, to alter the demographic balance of the region in favor of the Jews. The recommendations were rejected by then Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, denounced by senior Cabinet ministers and rued by then foreign minister Yigal Alon who expressed great regret that the recommendations were ever written. It provoked controversy within Israel after being leaked to Al Hamishmar, the publication of Israel’s Marxist party, Mapam. Koenig’s recommendations included expanding and strengthening Israel’s Jewish presence in the Galilee, applying legal consequences to Arabs expressing hostility toward the state and Zionism, enforcing tax collection from the Arab sector, cutting family subsidies to Arabs with large families, eliminating preferential acceptance of Arabs into Israeli universities, channeling Arab students into studying the physical and natural sciences rather than humanities, and encouraging young Arabs to study abroad and emigrate. As controversial as Koenig’s proposals were at the time, however, there was absolutely no suggestion of using "terror," "assassination," "intimidation" or "land confiscations."

Summary: Fabricated quote, false source

Roma Islamica

18-03-2007, 21:28

I didnt suggest otherwise, you have missed the entire point. My point was

A) The Muslims are not innocent in this either
B) The Muslims did begin the conflict with the continued attacks on the Byzantine

If you want, here is a timeline from 634, demonstrating to you that the Muslims were not blameless. I do not think the Crusaders were blameless but you seem to think the Muslims were, therfore you need correcting

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

And you really want to suggest that the Crusdaers were the agressive ones first?

HAHAHA it's funny that you talk about a Muslim who supposedly converted to Christianity being executed. Meanwhile, the Christians in Europe killed other Christians because they didn't believe as they did. And God forbid they decide to convert to Islam...idiotic double standard.

IDF

18-03-2007, 21:30

What an asshole.

That quote has been proven to be false.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775
Media Monitors (http://www.mediamonitors.net)

An article archived on the Media Monitors Web site is filled with questionable assertions and bogus quotes (some of which were debunked in Part I.) The following quote (which also appears on the MIFTAH Web site) was attributed to Israeli Northern District Commissioner Israel Koenig, supposedly from his controversial report on Israeli Arabs in Galilee:

We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.

Source given: Cited in Lustick, Ian, Arabs in the Jewish State, University of Texas Press, Texas, 1980.

Investigation: Neither the source given (Ian Lustick's Arabs in the Jewish State) nor the actual report itself contains any mention of "terror, assassination, intimidation or land confiscation".

The Koenig Report or “memorandum” as it is sometimes referred to, was a private document of recommendations written in 1975 by civil servant Israel Koenig, the Interior Ministry’s official in charge of the Galilee, to alter the demographic balance of the region in favor of the Jews. The recommendations were rejected by then Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, denounced by senior Cabinet ministers and rued by then foreign minister Yigal Alon who expressed great regret that the recommendations were ever written. It provoked controversy within Israel after being leaked to Al Hamishmar, the publication of Israel’s Marxist party, Mapam. Koenig’s recommendations included expanding and strengthening Israel’s Jewish presence in the Galilee, applying legal consequences to Arabs expressing hostility toward the state and Zionism, enforcing tax collection from the Arab sector, cutting family subsidies to Arabs with large families, eliminating preferential acceptance of Arabs into Israeli universities, channeling Arab students into studying the physical and natural sciences rather than humanities, and encouraging young Arabs to study abroad and emigrate. As controversial as Koenig’s proposals were at the time, however, there was absolutely no suggestion of using "terror," "assassination," "intimidation" or "land confiscations."

Summary: Fabricated quote, false source

IDF

18-03-2007, 21:31

The creator of modern Israel who gave it its aims.

The creator of Israel and the man who gave it its aims would be Theodor Herzl, not David Ben Gurion. If he truly gave Israel it's aims, then Israel would be a socialist nation today.

Aryavartha

18-03-2007, 21:32

How about, the word of ACTUAL, LIVING Kashmiris? Which you don't have...go tear down another Mosque why don't you. Or go assault some Sikhs, it's what you do best.

Stop ranting and stick to topic.

the word of ACTUAL, LIVING Kashmiris?

I assume by your persistent claims that it is a "known fact" that majority Kashmiris in Indian part don't want to be with India and that you know the "the word of ACTUAL, LIVING Kashmiris?" that you actually have something to substantiate that claims.

I am also assuming you would be able to explain stuff like

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1830107.stm
Nine members of the Hizbul Mujahideen and Jamiatul Mujahideen groups laid down arms before the Inspector-General of police, K Rajindran, in the border district of Kupwara.

Mr Rajindran said the militants who surrendered were persuaded to do so by their parents and other relatives who had been approached by the police for help.

He said that none of the militants had been involved in any serious act of violence and under the government's rehabilitation scheme they will receive a monthly payment of about $40 (Rs1,500) a month for a year.

They will also receive vocational training.

Correspondents say thousands of Kashmiri militants have laid down their arms before the Indian security forces over the past 12 years.

A large number of them have since been actively helping the security forces in their fight against the separatists.

Also, I am assuming you would tell me why there are Village Defence Committees and Ikhwanis ?

IDF

18-03-2007, 21:33

Yeah, I have quoted him many times before. Here's a test, ever having an Israel debate with IDF, quote him and see how quickly IDF changes the subject...

Or see how quickly I prove to anti-semites like yourself the quote is false.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775

Then you go and change the subject by posting this:

The Zionists probably want to replace it with a military base, or a Synagogue that couples as a Bank too.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12338929&postcount=2

you sicken me

F1 Insanity

18-03-2007, 21:41

Have you taken the political compass quiz? I'd be interested in the results.

which political compass quiz?

F1 Insanity

18-03-2007, 21:43

Fascists even identified themselves as right wing, and called their enemies left wing. I don't think of fascism as mainstream right(like you think of it as mainstream left) I identify them as far, extremist right.

Fascism identified itself as a 'third way'. Centrist. That's why it had such broad appeal where it was tried, before it degenerated into mass slaughter.

Anyway, whichever way you cut it, leftism is worse because communism killed 100+ million in the 20th century. And what makes it even worse is that there are plenty who still to this day deny that.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 21:44

HAHAHA it's funny that you talk about a Muslim who supposedly converted to Christianity being executed. Meanwhile, the Christians in Europe killed other Christians because they didn't believe as they did. And God forbid they decide to convert to Islam...idiotic double standard.

You are not listening. I havent praised the European Christians, and I have agreed with you, things in Europe were far far from great either. They were in fact very bad. What you have not done is accepted that the Muslims were the agressors in the Crusades, which I have demonstrated them to be, and that they are not innocent at all.

F1 Insanity

18-03-2007, 21:46

btw, your arguments suck.

the ad hominem attack

well, at least we don't follow the words of a perverted serial rapist/murderer/warmonger and his imaginary friend 'Allah'.

Neo Sanderstead

18-03-2007, 21:47

Taking land went on during those days. That was life. However, slaughtering innocents was not. So yes, they were innocent. And don't call them Crusaders, because they didn't do what the Crusaders did.

Erm, they burnt down churchs, they attacked Christians in Palestine, they are not innocent. They besiged constanitnople without cause.

Dododecapod

18-03-2007, 22:13

Erm, they burnt down churchs, they attacked Christians in Palestine, they are not innocent. They besiged constanitnople without cause.

Actually, they had reasonably good cause. The Byzantine Emperor was supporting the Shiite government of Islamic Persia (now Iran) with funds and weapons. The Persians were not only considered heretics, they were also political enemies, whom they had fought several times.

By hitting Constantinople, they cut off support for another, much closer, opponent. It was a smart move.

Andaras Prime

18-03-2007, 22:14

The historical evidence for your claim that the Jews have a constant link to the land is doubtful IDF, I hope your not using the Bible either. Either way, that isn't even a relevant argument for the existence of the state of Israel, race-based states are a thing of the past, no matter how much the Zionists try to enforce the idea of a superior Jewish race, like all that Talmud stuff about 'the fingernails of 10 gentiles are not worth 1 of a Jew'.

I think alot of the argument is why Israel feels the need to colonize the West Bank against the numerous legal agreements it has made to the contrary. It is just asking to be attacking by Palestinian militants if they build massive fancy buildings right in the faces of the impoverished Palestinians, and then demolish their houses and kill their people on the slightest pretext, not to mention being attacked routinely by settlers.

The fact is, Israel cannot control it's ultra-nationalist settler body, most of whom are racist Jews who believe in the 'Greater Israel' and volunteer to live in the colonies despite the risk. They are therefore violating international law by living in these colonies, and are legitimate targets.

Plus, I don't believe your links supposedly 'debunking' the Ben Gurion quote, it is obviously an anti-Muslim Fox like site.

Pyotr

18-03-2007, 23:11

Anyway, whichever way you cut it, leftism is worse because communism killed 100+ million in the 20th century. And what makes it even worse is that there are plenty who still to this day deny that.

I know full well the atrocities of Mao and Stalin. However, I think it is fallacious lump all of the leftist ideologies into one group as well as for the right-wing ones.

Nodinia

18-03-2007, 23:19

On the contary, the majortity view and the wording was made deliberatley that way

If it wasn't the majority view, you wouldnt have to have the US using its veto to protect Israel.

Show me resoultions condeming the Arab attack on Israel and I will listen properly

You should be listening regardless of other resolutions are we are discussing 242. Heres the full text - I've bolded the relevant section

Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 1382nd meeting, on 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from (the (disputed)) territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

Simple, by building trust. The IDF withdraw from Gaza, the Arabs behave resonably. .

You start on the false premise that Israel is 'behaving reasonably'. Its activities in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank indicate otherwise. Why can't they withdraw, and defend their borders, rather than try to subdue a hostile population in an area which they have no right to or consent to be in?

The Israelies arnt going to just withdraw from everywhere at once. The Arabs have destroyed too much trust for that to happen..

The Arabs again. What treacherous creatures they must be. Though it is strange that the greatest increase in settlement building occurs when a 'ceasefire' is in effect.....

It's not a myth. That graph shows the population doubled in just 20 years. If you go back further you will see the Arab population quadrupled. That is NOT from natural growth...

So why is the majority of landownership recorded by the UN/British survey (conducted with the purpose of compiling data towards what would be the rejected partition plan) marked as being in Arab hands?

Your Ben Gurion quote is also bullshit....

Maybe he would have been better using some of these

"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning."

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place."

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 00:49

Israel had plans to carve up Jordean between Iraq and Itsalf long before Nasser closed the Gulf of acaba. And the Arab Nations invaded the West Bank and Gaza in 1947.

Wrong or right has little to do with this episode. All parties did terrible things.

The only point that remains is that palestinian civilians have had nothing to do with it and they are currently bearing most of the hardship.

The problem remains that people living as refugees in the occupied territories have few rights and are not represented by their own souvereign government. If these problems are addressed the past can be the past again. :)

One can only hope.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 00:50

The willingness is there and if it is not we should force them

Unfortunately, that'll create more problems than solve them.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 00:53

Something I just found at the bottom of a Beeb article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6463925.stm

I hope this means that Hamas may now do the right thing.

One can only hope and pray.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 00:56

Israel technically is in a state of war with Lebano since 1947 right? Well, I don't think the Lebanese Army invaded Israel in 1978, 1982, or 2006.

PLO was launching attacks against Israel from Lebanon and the Lebanonese did nothing.

Samething in 1982 only this time the PLO left Lebanon thanks to the French and Americans (Then hezbollah blows up over 100 americans plus some french)

In 2006 Hezbollah launches rockets and cross border raid killin 8 IDF soldiers and kidnapping 2 thus the Israeli invasion of Lebanon again.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 00:58

LOL ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Kashmiris are Muslims, and India has no right to the land if they don't want to be a part of it, and most of them don't.

Not all of Kashmire is Muslim Roma.

OH AND THE BEST ONE. MUSLIMS CAUSED THE CRUSADES. WOW. You're retarded.

Well it was the Muslim attacks on Jeruselum that the 1st crusade was called for.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 00:59

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 01:02

The Jews stole the Arab's land, and they knew and know it and some obviously even took and take pride in it.

And if the Arabs have not attacked the Jews in 1947, the Palestinians would have a state already.

Who stole the land from whom is really up to history to decide.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 01:04

The Kurds are not a distinct ethinic group. There are more than 4 diffrent Kurdish languages to begin with.

Actually, they are an ethnic group. Just because they have 4 different languages does not make it so.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 01:05

Well, the conflict was created by the Jews by coming there unasked, so they must end it. Best by leaving.

:rolleyes: They won't leave because they do not have to. Frankly, I wish they dismantle their settlements but calling for the destruction of the Jewish state is ethnic cleansing since you want them all to leave.

Zarakon

19-03-2007, 01:08

the ad hominem attack

well, at least we don't follow the words of a perverted serial rapist/murderer/warmonger and his imaginary friend 'Allah'.

Are...

Wow...

Are...

Were...

Seriously. Where do you get your information? The Qu'ran: Translated by Rush Limbaugh?

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 01:09

How about, the word of ACTUAL, LIVING Kashmiris? Which you don't have...go tear down another Mosque why don't you. Or go assault some Sikhs, it's what you do best.

And who are they? What part of Kashmire are they from? The side controled by Pakistan or the side controled by India? My guess is Pakistan which explains your post.

Politeia utopia

19-03-2007, 10:23

How many times does it have to be said? Language doesn't equal ancestry. Palestinians, both Christians (natives) and the Muslims (so-called Arab invaders) are genetically the same, and are different than those from the Arabian Peninsula. That is fact. Their ancestors have been there since ancient times.

It should be point out to the people living there that they are all related and should stop bickering over who was first and divide the land already!

Would not do any good though

Politeia utopia

19-03-2007, 11:09

The Jews do have a claim to the land. I have already addressed that in previous posts where I put facts. (you didn't)

You ignored the fact the Jews have had a constant presence in the land for 2,700 years. It was only during the short Babylonian Exile that that there was an interrupted presence of the Jews in the region for over 3,500 years.

The Jews weren't kicked out because of the Zealots. You're just an uneducated fool on these matters. The Jews were attacked because they refused assimilation. The Zealots didn't even become a force until after the war had started.

What does it matter about how the Jews began to appear European through intermarriage? The fact remains that the Jews are descendents of those who were evicted by teh Romans.

As you state Jews have a claim on the land, not the claim on the land. Both parties have a historical claim. How one values these claims is largely correlated with religious beliefs. It is hard to find a common ground for these claims.

However, both parties also have a contemporary claim; both parties are born in the area and have lived there all there lives.

All people have the right to a normal life, with civil liberties and a sovereign government that represents them. Seeing that neither party can have that life under the rule of the other; a two-state option is the only humane way to go. This would mean that Israel needs to relinquish the West-Bank to the Arabs that have always lived there the Palestinians. Even though it might be painful to Israelis to relinquish Judea and Samaria, peace would be very beneficial to the liberal nature if the Israeli democracy. The current situation of constant war and occupation is turning normal people into jail keepers (for the consequences see the Stanford experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/)), damages the national psyche and slowly erodes Israeli liberties.

Politeia utopia

19-03-2007, 11:35

Unfortunately, that [force (ed.)] 'll create more problems than solve them.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is not good to give a person always what it wants; in our western society, children raised in this fashion by parents that feel guilty when punishing their kids, do not learn boundaries and cause many problems in society. A good parent withholds things detrimental to the child or its environment.

Naturally Israel is not a child, but it does want things the US or the international community can not allow it to have, even though we may feel committed towards Israel’s wellbeing. As I have argued before we have been using the stick for the Palestinians and the carrot for Israel, even when Israel took few steps towards peace.

Currently Israel is the major power in the region, without any real threats to its existence in the foreseeable future. Though this may well change in the future, it is currently possible to sanction Israel without causing harm to its security situation.

Let us pick up the stick and use economic sanctions not only on Hamas but on Israel as well in order to force Israel to relinquish the occupied territories. In the case of an agreement the sanctions should be lifted and both Israel and Palestine should get economic aid and security guarantees. Following any agreement extremists on both sides would try to break the agreement, we should do as much as possible to cushion this blow and return life to normal for the majority of people; this is the only way to go.

Nodinia

19-03-2007, 12:02

Not all of Kashmire is Muslim Roma.
.

No, just about 70-75% the rest being Buddhists and Hindus.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 13:28

No, just about 70-75% the rest being Buddhists and Hindus.

Thanks for proving that not all of them are Muslim.

Anthil

19-03-2007, 14:30

They besiged constanitnople without cause.

A bit of history is called for here, I'd guess.
Constantinople was sacked by Christians during the 4th crusade for economic reasons :
1° to gather loot in order to pay Venice for the fleet it had built;
2° to eradicate Venice's main rival port.

Dododecapod

19-03-2007, 15:21

A bit of history is called for here, I'd guess.
Constantinople was sacked by Christians during the 4th crusade for economic reasons :
1° to gather loot in order to pay Venice for the fleet it had built;
2° to eradicate Venice's main rival port.

Yes, but I believe Neo Sanderstead was referring to the failed siege of Constantinople by one of the early Ottomans (or was it the Caliphate? I do not recall...)

Newer Kiwiland

19-03-2007, 16:31

That isnt an example of a cease fire breach. Be more specific.

As a matter of fact it is. A ceasefire was signed in 1949; Israeli armies invaded, thus breaking the ceasefire. Which reminds me; invading the Sinai in 1956 would be breaking the ceasefire too.

Newer Kiwiland

19-03-2007, 16:42

Erm they have withdrawn from Gaza, but look what happened. More rocket attacks, more Isralie deaths. If the Palestians want a state they should build on achivements they have, not attack when they are given the oppotunity. And also, Israel were not always occupying those areas, but the wars have been going on for much longer than the occupation. Israel did offer to give them up in 2000 but it was rejected.

So how exactly should Israel respond to the attacks. Seems to me they did rather well in the December cease fire of not doing anything for days on end when the Quammass rockets came flying. Seriously.

Shouldn't it be clear by now that responding to attacks with state terrorism, invasion and occupation simply doesn't work? The only way to create permanent peace is through holding dialogues and building common grounds. Invasion does not solve anything beyond stopping attacks for perhaps a brief period, and quite evidently produces long lasting NEGATIVE effects. Such as Hizbollah in Lebanon after Israel invaded 2 decades ago.

And setting preconditions for starting talks is just excuses for not holding them. Like how Bush won't talk to Iran or N.Korea; funny how that turned out. Not talking only benefits extremists on both sides, hence the act, but doesn't do anyone else any good in the long run.

Newer Kiwiland

19-03-2007, 16:44

Nodinia

19-03-2007, 16:52

Thanks for proving that not all of them are Muslim.

Smug little man, aren't you.

IDF

19-03-2007, 16:58

As a matter of fact it is. A ceasefire was signed in 1949; Israeli armies invaded, thus breaking the ceasefire. Which reminds me; invading the Sinai in 1956 would be breaking the ceasefire too.

Israel's actions in both 1956 and 1967 were justified. They didn't break the cease-fire for it had already been broken many times by the Arabs.

Egypt trained and organized Mujahideen who regularly in groups would move into Israel and attack Israeli citizens in Moshavim and Kibbutzim. That in effect made the cease fire null and void.

Israel took part in the 56 War to put a stop to these raids. The 67 war was launched because Egypt blockaded Israeli ports and then mobilized their army for an imminent invasion of Israel.

Newer Kiwiland

19-03-2007, 17:06

Israel's actions in both 1956 and 1967 were justified. They didn't break the cease-fire for it had already been broken many times by the Arabs.

Egypt trained and organized Mujahideen who regularly in groups would move into Israel and attack Israeli citizens in Moshavim and Kibbutzim. That in effect made the cease fire null and void.

Israel took part in the 56 War to put a stop to these raids. The 67 war was launched because Egypt blockaded Israeli ports and then mobilized their army for an imminent invasion of Israel.

They might be able to make a case out of 1967 (although personally I think its quite apparent that Egypt was bluffing.... and that knowledge of this caused Israel to opt out of another pre-emptive strike later, in 1973, when it is fully justified and actually needed).

However, you'll have to say quite a lot more than 'were justified' to justify 1956. And I am pretty sure the Arab states did not invade Israel, after the ceasefire, until 1973. Border wars were not limited to Egyptians.

Newer Kiwiland

19-03-2007, 17:16

The 67 war was launched because Egypt blockaded Israeli ports and then mobilized their army for an imminent invasion of Israel.

I believe they did no such thing. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, who hardly ever goes there anyway. It might be provocative, but if the USSR would go to war over such grounds (1962) only a fraction of humanity would be alive now. Definitely not a casus beli.

And if I remember correctly the 'mobilisation' you speak of was two divisions.

Dododecapod

19-03-2007, 17:24

I believe they did no such thing. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, who hardly ever goes there anyway. It might be provocative, but if the USSR would go to war over such grounds (1962) only a fraction of humanity would be alive now. Definitely not a casus beli.

And if I remember correctly the 'mobilisation' you speak of was two divisions.

A: The USSR had every right to go to war in 1962 - a blockade is DEFINITELY a Casus Belli. We can be thankful that they CHOSE not to do so. But the fact that they made that choice does not vitiate that casus.

B: Two divisions is a FRACKLOAD of men and materials. More than enough to invade another country.

Politeia utopia

19-03-2007, 17:37

Israel's actions in both 1956 and 1967 were justified. They didn't break the cease-fire for it had already been broken many times by the Arabs.

Egypt trained and organized Mujahideen who regularly in groups would move into Israel and attack Israeli citizens in Moshavim and Kibbutzim. That in effect made the cease fire null and void.

Israel took part in the 56 War to put a stop to these raids. The 67 war was launched because Egypt blockaded Israeli ports and then mobilized their army for an imminent invasion of Israel.

Let us not play the “they started it”-game.

There were minor clashes between both parties. An especially brutal raid by Israel on 28 February 1955 was condemned by the Security Council in Security Council Resolution of 29 March 1955 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1955/scres55.htm)(proceed to res. 106). This was in a relatively tranquil period. Some argue that the new leader Nasser was not willing to expend Egyptian resources on armament and wanted peace so he could spend the money on economic and social projects. Only after this raid did Egypt start its dreaded Fedayeen raids you refer to.

Both parties had a role in the conflicts and Israel was far from innocent during this period.

Newer Kiwiland

19-03-2007, 17:37

A: The USSR had every right to go to war in 1962 - a blockade is DEFINITELY a Casus Belli. We can be thankful that they CHOSE not to do so. But the fact that they made that choice does not vitiate that casus.

B: Two divisions is a FRACKLOAD of men and materials. More than enough to invade another country.

Cuba was not part of the USSR. The Soviets does not have a valid casus beli based solely on having ships carrying weaopnry prevented from reaching their destination.

As for B... Heck, Iraq sent twice as many to invade Kuwait, which was not exactly a military power. With two divisions, maybe if the Egyptians wanted to cross the rivers and have a picnic, they can scare off the local police. But definitely not a certified invasion force. :p

I could be wrong about the number of divisions, though.

Politeia utopia

19-03-2007, 17:58

A: The USSR had every right to go to war in 1962 - a blockade is DEFINITELY a Casus Belli. We can be thankful that they CHOSE not to do so. But the fact that they made that choice does not vitiate that casus.[...]

What to do in the case of an Egyptian blockade of the Strait of Tiran, while the US is in full diplomatic gear to stop the blockade?

When in doubt attack Jordan and occupy the West Bank. :p

Seriously, one can not legitimize the current situation by a simple reference to the Arab-Israeli clashes. Both Israel and the Arab governments have done little to alleviate the situation (understatement) of the common people (Muslim, Christian or Jew) living in the land.

IDF

19-03-2007, 18:05

What to do in the case of an Egyptian blockade of the Strait of Tiran, while the US is in full diplomatic gear to stop the blockade?

When in doubt attack Jordan and occupy the West Bank. :p

Seriously, one can not legitimize the current situation by a simple reference to the Arab-Israeli clashes. Both Israel and the Arab governments have done little to alleviate the situation (understatement) of the common people (Muslim, Christian or Jew) living in the land.Israel's original war plan was to only deal with Egypt and Syria. (the 2 nations who were going to attack Israel and were preparing for war). Jordan got involved when they ignored Israel's request to stay out of it. Jordan fired the first shots at Israel and then Israel responded by capturing the Jordanian West Bank.

Newer Kiwiland

19-03-2007, 18:07

Israel's original war plan was to only deal with Egypt and Syria. (the 2 nations who were going to attack Israel and were preparing for war). Jordan got involved when they ignored Israel's request to stay out of it. Jordan fired the first shots at Israel and then Israel responded by capturing the Jordanian West Bank.

Like I said, Egypt was in no position to actually do anything. Unless my figure of divisions was wrong/.

IDF

19-03-2007, 18:09

Like I said, Egypt was in no position to actually do anything. Unless my figure of divisions was wrong/.Egypt had more divisions on the border than 2. I recommend you read the book Six Days of War. It does a good job of offering a neutral perspective on the war.

It was clear to Israel that a war was going to occur in June of 1967. Their choices were to either wait for Egypt to attack first. If that happened, there would be another Holocaust. Israel couldn't allow it to occur so Israel made a preemptive strike. The strike was 100% legal because of Egypt's decision to blockade the Straights of Tiran, which closed the port of Eilat.

Corneliu

19-03-2007, 18:11

Kryozerkia

19-03-2007, 18:14

Let us not play the “they started it”-game.

There were minor clashes between both parties. An especially brutal raid by Israel on 28 February 1955 was condemned by the Security Council in Security Council Resolution of 29 March 1955 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1955/scres55.htm)(proceed to res. 106). This was in a relatively tranquil period. Some argue that the new leader Nasser was not willing to expend Egyptian resources on armament and wanted peace so he could spend the money on economic and social projects. Only after this raid did Egypt start its dreaded Fedayeen raids you refer to.

Both parties had a role in the conflicts and Israel was far from innocent during this period.

For people who do not wish to bother clicking the link, here's the main part of the resolution:

Having heard the report of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine and statements by the representatives of Egypt and Israel,
Noting that the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission on 6 March 1955 determined that a 'pre-arranged and a planned attack ordered by Israel authorities' was 'committed by Israel regular army forces against the Egyptian regular army force' in the Gaza Strip on 28 February 1955.

Condemns this attack as a violation of the cease-fire provisions of Security Council resolution 54 (1948) and as inconsistent with the obligations of the parties under the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel and under the United Nations Charter:
Calls again upon Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent such actions:
Expresses its conviction that the maintenance of the General Armistice Agreement is threatened by any deliberate violation of that Agreement by one of the parties to it, and that no progress towards the return of permanent peace in Palestine can be made unless the parties comply strictly with their obligations under the General Armistice Agreement and the cease-fire provisions of its resolution 54 (1948).

This resolution designates Israel as responsible.

But it still requires both parties to maintain the fragile peace...

NationStates Jolt Archive

Israel definitely has a peace partner in Hamas :rolleyes