NationStates Jolt Archive

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - The Islamic militant group Hamas on Sunday called for new attacks on Israel after eight Palestinians were killed in a surge of fighting over the weekend.

ADVERTISEMENT




Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum urged Palestinians to be prepared for a new round of confrontation.

"The blood of our people is not cheap," he said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press. "Therefore we are calling on ... (Hamas' armed wing) and the Palestinian resistance groups to be united in the trench of resistance and to use all possible means of resistance and to respond to the massacres."

Eight Palestinians were killed during a 24-hour surge in violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including two militants killed early Sunday during an arrest raid in the West Bank city of Nablus. The fighting also included a Palestinian rocket attack on the southern Israeli town of Sderot that damaged one home but caused no injuries

Will there ever be peace in Israel? If Hamas has their way, the answer is no as we all know that they want to see the destruction of Israel. If both sides can sit down and negotiate in good faith, then I believe there can be but Hamas as got to learn that you cannot always respond to violence with violence and vice versa.

Will there ever be peace in Israel? If Hamas has their way, the answer is no as we all know that they want to see the destruction of Israel. If both sides can sit down and negotiate in good faith, then I believe there can be but Hamas as got to learn that you cannot always respond to violence with violence and vice versa.
Well, if their attempts to respond to violence with discussion have resulted in more of the aforementioned violence, is it any wonder that they're not so fussed in continuing it? The truce would seem to be something of a sham when one side kills members of the other (out of revenge and taking many innocent bystanders too, it's worth noting) in the middle of it.

Yes, truce needs to happen, but both sides need to be willing to acknowledge it, and the Israeli military has, at the minute, shown no respect for the agreement.

If only we had taken the advice of Laurence of Arabia! A comedian on the BBC said on friday that they should have made Northern Ireland the Jewish homeland. Keeps all the trouble in one place!

Hmmm, maybe the solution is to try rebuilding the place from ground up.

Round up the entire population, Israeli and Palestinian both, but keep them in separate holding camps. Lock down the border. Refurbish the area. Slowly release small groups of Palestinians and Israeli's back into the territories with the explicit warning that good behavior on their side means that the remaining people get treated well and bad behavior, well, that's self explanatory.

Eventually, as the population returns, they will either reconcile or kill each other. Make sure that the first seed group is composed of the more reasonable groups. Maybe encourage cooperation with aid packages?

When the hardheads start getting released back into the population, hopefully they rest will have matured enough to throw them out on their asses.

As it stands, the whole cycle is too entrenched. It needs to be reset.

Well, if their attempts to respond to violence with discussion have resulted in more of the aforementioned violence, is it any wonder that they're not so fussed in continuing it? The truce would seem to be something of a sham when one side kills members of the other (out of revenge and taking many innocent bystanders too, it's worth noting) in the middle of it.

Yes, truce needs to happen, but both sides need to be willing to acknowledge it, and the Israeli military has, at the minute, shown no respect for the agreement.

Even though that this call is in response to an arrest raid that killed 2 militants and a gunship attack in response to a Palestinian rocket attack?

Hmmm, maybe the solution is to try rebuilding the place from ground up.

Round up the entire population, Israeli and Palestinian both, but keep them in separate holding camps. Lock down the border. Refurbish the area. Slowly release small groups of Palestinians and Israeli's back into the territories with the explicit warning that good behavior on their side means that the remaining people get treated well and bad behavior, well, that's self explanatory.

Eventually, as the population returns, they will either reconcile or kill each other. Make sure that the first seed group is composed of the more reasonable groups. Maybe encourage cooperation with aid packages?

When the hardheads start getting released back into the population, hopefully they rest will have matured enough to throw them out on their asses.

As it stands, the whole cycle is too entrenched. It needs to be reset.The cycle was started when the British gave in to the ambitions of the Zionist Federation in the UK and subsequently started to let European Jews into Palestine. Just revert that error and everything will be OK.

Will there ever be peace in Israel? If Hamas has their way, the answer is no as we all know that they want to see the destruction of Israel. If both sides can sit down and negotiate in good faith, then I believe there can be but Hamas as got to learn that you cannot always respond to violence with violence and vice versa.

Source?

Source?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_hamas;_ylt=Apn1E1c2ElfOQSmBDSkGl_VvaA8F

The cycle was started when the British gave in to the ambitions of the Zionist Federation in the UK and subsequently started to let European Jews into Palestine. Just revert that error and everything will be OK.

Are you talking about going to war with israel and commiting mass genocide on the israelis just for principles sake, based on what the british did after world war two. What a horrificly retarded idea.

Even though that this call is in response to an arrest raid that killed 2 militants and a gunship attack in response to a Palestinian rocket attack?

Correction. A raid that killed two Palestinians that the IDF CLAIM were militants. No evidence of their being militants has been provided. Also a 17 year old girl was shot dead looking out of her bedroom window. Was she a militant too?

Peace can only be established if BOTH sides take it seriously. I am not claiming that the Palestinians are completely innocent, but the IDF is certainly negating any chance that there might be for peace. One has to wonder whether they actually have any interest in a peaceful resolution to the problems. After all, if there were no conflict they would lose a lot of status and, more importantly, funding. Or am I just being too cynical?

Correction. A raid that killed two Palestinians that the IDF CLAIM were militants. No evidence of their being militants has been provided. Also a 17 year old girl was shot dead looking out of her bedroom window. Was she a militant too?

No she was not and neither was the police officer that was killed. However, a top bombmaker was killed along with 4 other militants.

Peace can only be established if BOTH sides take it seriously. I am not claiming that the Palestinians are completely innocent, but the IDF is certainly negating any chance that there might be for peace. One has to wonder whether they actually have any interest in a peaceful resolution to the problems. After all, if there were no conflict they would lose a lot of status and, more importantly, funding. Or am I just being too cynical?

I think you are being too cynical but you are indeed right about the first sentence.

Are you talking about going to war with israel and commiting mass genocide on the israelis just for principles sake, based on what the british did after world war one. What a horrificly retarded idea.Who is talking about mass genocide? Just let them leave the way they came. By ship, by train, per whatever.

The cycle was started when the British gave in to the ambitions of the Zionist Federation in the UK and subsequently started to let European Jews into Palestine. Just revert that error and everything will be OK.

Come talk to me when you've built a time machine hmm?

Who is talking about mass genocide? Just let them leave the way they came. By ship, by train, per whatever.

They will not leave their homeland.

No she was not and neither was the police officer that was killed. However, a top bombmaker was killed along with 4 other militants.

I think you are being too cynical but you are indeed right about the first sentence.

So that a 'top bombmaker' and '4 other militants'- according to whom by the way - were killed justifies the murder of innocents does it? There is supposed to be a truce in place. Conditions of war do not apply. As such - even if it were just a top bombmaker and 4 other militants that were killed - it would still have been murder. Where was the trial, where is the evidence against these individuals, by what right did Israel execute them?

Do you really expect the families of those innocents (the girl and the policeman) to say to themselves -"OK, my beloved Xxxx Yyyy was killed but I am going to accept this as a necessary part of the peace process and not going to do anything to extract revenge"

Who is talking about mass genocide? Just let them leave the way they came. By ship, by train, per whatever.

What do you mean "let them leave". Thats never going to happen, they won't just willfully pack up their bags and leave. The only thing you can do is invade and kick them out. This will lead to so many deaths, it won't be much different to genocide.

Even though that this call is in response to an arrest raid that killed 2 militants and a gunship attack in response to a Palestinian rocket attack?
The arrest raid was in violation of the truce. Both parties carry blame on the rocket/airstrike exchange, but the first attack was in deliberate disregard of the terms of ceasefire by the Israeli military. Those two men were on the opposing side of the truce, and to make an action to capture or kill them is to break it.

Now, groups acting on behalf of Palestine have done the same thing in the recent past too (This being a good example (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6309029.stm)), but these have been rejected by the authorities that recognised and enforced the ceasefire. You can argue those authorities have not been doing their job properly, which I would agree with, but they have not themselves actually broken the terms of disengagement. On the other hand, in this case we have an incident that seems to have been proudly declared by the Israeli military as some sort of victory; namely, they were successful in killing Palistinian insurgents.

The truce needs to be upheld by both sides if it is to work, and Palestine doing its best to hold back those within its ranks who would break out and cause havoc would be pointless if the Israelis continued to execute them like this.

Who is talking about mass genocide? Just let them leave the way they came. By ship, by train, per whatever.
That's ridiculous. Where do you intend to put seven million people, most of whom were born there, and how do you intend to make them leave their country?

That's ridiculous. Where do you intend to put seven million people, most of whom were born there, and how do you intend to make them leave their country?Give them half of Pennsylvania. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan. And make them leave by promising them a pure nation of Jews. It made them move last time.

Give them half of Pennsylvania. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan. And make them leave by promising them a pure nation of Jews. It made them move last time.

Since when was Pennsylvania the "promise land"?

Give them half of Pennsylvania. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan. And make them leave by promising them a pure nation of Jews. It made them move last time.
You'll have to make sure you can move Jerusalem too if you want to keep them happy that way. Can you?

Give them half of Pennsylvania. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan. And make them leave by promising them a pure nation of Jews. It made them move last time.
And what benefit would anyone get from randomly packing bags and moving to Pennsylvania? The Jews migrated to Palestine because they didn't have a country, although they were offered one briefly in Kenya or Tanzania, I think. Now they've got one in Israel, there'd be simply no incentive for them to move, even if it weren't a stupid idea to begin with.

Since when was Pennsylvania the "promise land"?Since when is that a criterion?
You'll have to make sure you can move Jerusalem too if you want to keep them happy that way. Can you?Oh, they did without Jerusalem for millennia, they could do without it in the future as well.
And what benefit would anyone get from randomly packing bags and moving to Pennsylvania?The Palestinian Arabs would regain their home land. And things would finally be as they should have been after the end of Ottoman rule there.

Since when is that a criterion?

The fact this land is allegedly their rightful promised home by God is one of the things keeping the Jews there.

Give them half of Pennsylvania. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan. And make them leave by promising them a pure nation of Jews. It made them move last time.

Impractible. What about those of us who live in PA. Must we pack up and leave for them?

Since when is that a criterion?

It has been the criterion of the Zionists.

Oh, they did without Jerusalem for millennia, they could do without it in the future as well.

I guess you do not know that they have always wanted jerusalem?

The Palestinian Arabs would regain their home land. And things would finally be as they should have been after the end of Ottoman rule there.

Their homeland? It is also Israel's homeland as well. And both sides were promised a state.

The fact this land is allegedly their rightful promised home by God is one of the things keeping the Jews there.Allegedly is the key word here. Promises that a fabricated Jewish god made to Jews is of no relevance in the real world.

Impractible. What about those of us who live in PA. Must we pack up and leave for them?

Isn't that what the Palestinians said?

Allegedly is the key word here. Promises that a fabricated Jewish god made to Jews is of no relevance in the real world.

It is to the Jews though.

Impractible. What about those of us who live in PA. Must we pack up and leave for them?Well, I don't know. What were the Palestinian Arabs expected to do when the Jews got the UN to take away half of their home land? If you think that creating Israel in Palestine was right then you surely would consider creating Israel in Pennsylvania equally right, right?
It is to the Jews though.And?
It has been the criterion of the Zionists.And?

I guess you do not know that they have always wanted jerusalem?And?

Their homeland? It is also Israel's homeland as well. And both sides were promised a state.But Arabs (yes, and a Jewish minority) already lived there while Jews only then came there from outside to create a state, regardless of the already present population.

And?
If you're gonna move them against their will, do it by force or they won't go. And doing it by force is reprehensible.

The Palestinian Arabs would regain their home land. And things would finally be as they should have been after the end of Ottoman rule there.
It's just as much the home land of the Jews, too, which is why there should be a two state solution.

Isn't that what the Palestinians said?

Maybe but there are Palestinians living in Israel, serving in the Knesset and on the Israeli supreme Court.

And?

That means they won't leave willfully, meaning that you will have to use force.

If you're gonna move them against their will, do it by force or they won't go. And doing it by force is reprehensible.But the force used to force a Jewish state into Palestine is not reprehensible?
It's just as much the home land of the Jews, too, which is why there should be a two state solution.Just because Jews already managed to force themselves into Palestine and create their state? And Arabs should just accept this injustice because they cannot undo it? They should submit to this rule of foreigners over >78% of their former home land because they have no means to fight it?

But the force used to force a Jewish state into Palestine is not reprehensible?

No it's just irrelevant. You can't justify present actions with past actions.

But the force used to force a Jewish state into Palestine is not reprehensible?
Of course it is, but we're not suggesting that the next move we should make is to force a Jewish state into Palestine. We're talking about what happens next, and Historical prescedence is no justification for action.

No it's just irrelevant. You can't justify present actions with past actions.So past injustice is irrelevant? No-one must ever be punished for a past crime?

But the force used to force a Jewish state into Palestine is not reprehensible?
No mention of force in the Partition Plan - under the plan Israeli Arabs would have the same rights as Palestinian Jews. Nevertheless, even if that weren't the case, two wrongs don't make a right.

Well, I don't know. What were the Palestinian Arabs expected to do when the Jews got the UN to take away half of their home land? If you think that creating Israel in Palestine was right then you surely would consider creating Israel in Pennsylvania equally right, right?

Nice dodge of my question. Do those of us who live in PA, a state that is part of a soveriegn nation, be forced to move to make way for a "pure jewish state"?

Of course it is, but we're not suggesting that the next move we should make is to force a Jewish state into Palestine. We're talking about what happens next, and Historical prescedence is no justification for action.So forcing a Jewish state into Palestine was/is OK, but forcing it out again is not? Why? Because Jews are dearer to you than Arabs?

And?

And?

And what? There is no ifs, ands, or buts. It is what it is. Deal with the situation as it is today and not as it was nearly 100 years ago.

But Arabs (yes, and a Jewish minority) already lived there while Jews only then came there from outside to create a state, regardless of the already present population.

They came because the Brits allowed immigration to the area.

So past injustice is irrelevant? No-one must ever be punished for a past crime?

I didn't say that. All I am saying is, if someone decides to shoot a hundred people in the shopping mall, that doesn't give me permission to do the same. That doesn't mean the gunman can't be punished.

So past injustice is irrelevant? No-one must ever be punished for a past crime?
Past injustice is irrelevant only where it does not influence present or future justice. We do not punish people for crimes out of revenge; we repair what damage has been done by their crimes and punish them in the ideal that neither they nor others should seek to repeat such crimes. We fail miserably in these, of course, but that is a failing of our methods rather than our intentions.

So forcing a Jewish state into Palestine was/is OK...
No, it wasn't. I did say that it was a blatant misdeed. But we should not repeat misdemeanour in the aim of repairing it.

So forcing a Jewish state into Palestine was/is OK, but forcing it out again is not? Why? Because Jews are dearer to you than Arabs?

The Palestinians could have had their state already if they did not toss in their lot with the Arabs that attacked the infant Jewish state unprovokedly while violating UN Resolution that would have made Jerusalem an International City.

If both sides can sit down and negotiate in good faith, then I believe there can be but both sides as got to learn that you cannot always respond to violence with violence and vice versa.


Fixed.

Nice dodge of my question. Do those of us who live in PA, a state that is part of a soveriegn nation, be forced to move to make way for a "pure jewish state"?As I said, if you think that creating Israel in Palestine was right then you surely must consider creating a new Israel in Pennsylvania right as well. So what would you object to if the same division would happen to Pennsylvania that happened to Palestine? The aim of the Zionist movement was to create a Jewish state, with Jewish laws and leaders over a Jewish population. If you support that aim to be implemented in Palestine, then why why would you reject it in PA ?

I didn't say that. All I am saying is, if someone decides to shoot a hundred people in the shopping mall, that doesn't give me permission to do the same. That doesn't mean the gunman can't be punished.Aha, but going to a foreign land to create a state there is not a punishable crime?

As I said, if you think that creating Israel in Palestine was right then you surely must consider creating a new Israel in Pennsylvania right as well. So what would you object to if the same division would happen to Pennsylvania that happened to Palestine? The aim of the Zionist movement was to create a Jewish state, with Jewish laws and leaders over a Jewish population. If you support that aim to be implemented in Palestine, then why why would you reject it in PA ?

Firstly he doesn't support it. Secondly, that would most definately not be the same thing as this time the Jews will not want to go to PA which means there will be a huge amount of bloodshed trying to get them to leave.

As I said, if you think that creating Israel in Palestine was right then you surely must consider creating a new Israel in Pennsylvania right as well. So what would you object to if the same division would happen to Pennsylvania that happened to Palestine?

Despite the fact that that would require a vote by the US Congress to approve such a thing. As such, the representatives would not do so and the people there would revolt. You would be creating more problems than solving them.

The aim of the Zionist movement was to create a Jewish state, with Jewish laws and leaders over a Jewish population.

Then why are there non-Jews in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court?

If you support that aim to be implemented in Palestine, then why why would you reject it in PA ?

Because this is not their ancestrial homeland. Where Israel is now, is.

The Palestinians could have had their state already if they did not toss in their lot with the Arabs that attacked the infant Jewish state unprovokedly while violating UN Resolution that would have made Jerusalem an International City.unprovokedly? WTF? The Jews came there by the hundred thousands to set up a state there. I consider that a very extensive provocation.
Despite the fact that that would require a vote by the US Congress to approve such a thing. As such, the representatives would not do so and the people there would revolt. You would be creating more problems than solving them.What are you talking about? If the UN made a division plan for PA, aren't you supposed to accept it just as you expect the Palestinian Arabs to have accepted the division plan for Palestine back in 1947?

Then why are there non-Jews in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court?Who cares? In what way does that change the invasion and occupation?

Because this is not their ancestrial homeland. Where Israel is now, is.Oh please, the "ancestral homeland" thing is only religious drooling. What was about the Palestinian Arabs actual home land they were really living in and of?

Because this is not their ancestrial homeland. Where Israel is now, is.

Psst, it also happens to be the ancestral homeland of some sections of the
Arab people, and they were there first.


Despite the fact that that would require a vote by the US Congress to approve such a thing. As such, the representatives would not do so and the people there would revolt. You would be creating more problems than solving them.

Compared to what has happened now, which is almost exactly what you've said here.


Then why are there non-Jews in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court?
They haven't held true to the initial aims of some of their leaders.

unprovokedly? WTF? The Jews came there by the hundred thousands to set up a state there. I consider that a very extensive provocation.

Blame the Brits. They were the ones that allowed the Jews to migrate. Now that we have that, the Jews did declare statehood. However, Palestine could have had the same if they did not throw in their lot with the following countries:

Iraq
Syria
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt

These five nations declared war on Israel and lost. If they had stayed out of the fighting, they could very well have had their state right now.

Aha, but going to a foreign land to create a state there is not a punishable crime?

I don't know that your going on about. The situation as I see it is this: you are trying to justufy a horrible amount of bloodshed, based on what happened a long time ago. Correct?

Blame the Brits. They were the ones that allowed the Jews to migrate. Now that we have that, the Jews did declare statehood. However, Palestine could have had the same if they did not throw in their lot with the following countries:

Iraq
Syria
Jordan
Lebanon
Egypt

These five nations declared war on Israel and lost. If they had stayed out of the fighting, they could very well have had their state right now.

We did sort of promise the same land to both sides, so yes "our bad" but the problems do predate this.

Also not all Palestinians threw in their lot with those countries, a fair few of them got told "there's going to be a war more or less on your front garden" and understandably left. Since Israel can't distinguish for those who left because they supported the idea of invasion and those who left because they supported the idea of not getting caught in the crossfire they deny right of return to just about everybody.

But as always in the world might=right in the end.

I don't know that your going on about. The situation as I see it is this: you are trying to justufy a horrible amount of bloodshed, based on what happened a long time ago. Correct?What bloodshed? Just let them leave in peace.

What bloodshed? Just let them leave in peace.

Why can't you understand? That situation is impossible.

What bloodshed? Just let them leave in peace.

Do you not realize that they will not leave in peace? You are going to need a force of arms to throw them out and that, my friend, will be considered ethnic cleansing.

Do you not realize that they will not leave in peace? You are going to need a force of arms to throw them out and that, my friend, will be considered ethnic cleansing.So now what? They allowed the Jews in and allowed them to use whatever force they wanted and want against the Arabs, but now the Jews must not be touched?
And what about today's expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and the land grab by means of the Wall/Fence and the strange autonomy thing? Is that not ethnic cleansing?

Do you not realize that they will not leave in peace? You are going to need a force of arms to throw them out and that, my friend, will be considered ethnic cleansing.

Out of interest in a purely hypothetical situation where force of arms was not required would you say it was a good idea.

I always feel most Israel/Palestine threads end up across purposes, one side talking about what is right, and one what is practical (and people in between obviously) and that's why they tend to get bogged down so much. One side is arguing ideals, the other solutions, which are really two different arguments.

Why can't you understand? That situation is impossible.Why was it possible then for them to come this way? They made the journey once but they can't make the journey twice?

So now what? They allowed the Jews in and allowed them to use whatever force they wanted and want against the Arabs, but now the Jews must not be touched?

There civilians are off limits. By going after civilians, they show themselves to not be fighting for freedom of the palestinians at all.

And what about today's expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and the land grab by means of the Wall/Fence and the strange autonomy thing? Is that not ethnic cleansing?

Since they are not actually forcing people from their homes, no. However, I wish they stop with the settlement buildings.

Why was it possible then for them to come this way? They made the journey once but they can't make the journey twice?

Because as I have already said! They have always wanted to live there, to them it is their sacred homeland promised to them by God. In this situation they do not want to leave their homeland. Please tell me you can't be so naive as to assume that the two situations are the same.

Why was it possible then for them to come this way? They made the journey once but they can't make the journey twice?

As I have stated before, and which you probably have ignored, the Brits allowed the Jews to migrate to the region. We call this immigration. Now that they have a state of their own, they will not leave it without a fight.

Out of interest in a purely hypothetical situation where force of arms was not required would you say it was a good idea.

Why would I consider it a good idea for the jews to leave their ancestrial homeland?

I always feel most Israel/Palestine threads end up across purposes, one side talking about what is right, and one what is practical (and people in between obviously) and that's why they tend to get bogged down so much. One side is arguing ideals, the other solutions, which are really two different arguments.

But what may look like a solution is not the best thing at all but will make things worse. In order for it to be a solution, it must be practicle. The two state solution is really the solution to this problem. For that to happen though, Israel must fall back to the Green Line. Until they do, I doubt there will be peace.

Why was it possible then for them to come this way? They made the journey once but they can't make the journey twice?
For the same reasons the Palestinians didn't leave the area...

United Beleriand, would you consider the Crusades to be justified?

Sure, they were brutal and a lot of innocents were butchered, but their declared aim was to retake Christian lands which had been invaded by Arabs a century or two earlier, right?

Out of interest in a purely hypothetical situation where force of arms was not required would you say it was a good idea.
I would. It'd imply they were willing to leave on their own as long as we could preserve a Jewish state (and presumably provide some sort of compensation for the need to move their housing behind), which would thus be next reasonable step.

Why would I consider it a good idea for the jews to leave their ancestrial homeland?

The reasons both you and Hydesland gave for the Jews not leaving were that it would not be possible without large amounts of bloodshed. I just wondered whether your reasons for them not leaving were purely practical or had any ideological basis.

As for ancestral homelands, ethiopia is about as cloe to any "ancestral homeland" any of us have. Group of people A emigrated to a place, were invaded by group of people B so long ago they now claim it as their homeland. The Jews weren't the first people to live in what is now modern day Israel no more than the Celts were the first to live in what is now modern day Britain, but both would claim it as their ancestral homelands. Ancient History means very little in the modern world, or at least it should mean very little.


But what may look like a solution is not the best thing at all but will make things worse. In order for it to be a solution, it must be practicle. The two state solution is really the solution to this problem. For that to happen though, Israel must fall back to the Green Line. Until they do, I doubt there will be peace.

I agree generally. But what most of the threads (including this one to some extent) degenerate into is someone (often UB) saying "The Jews shouldn't be there" and arguing ideals, and others saying "they're there now how do we deal with it" arguing practically, and the two are not the same argument.

Because as I have already said! They have always wanted to live there, to them it is their sacred homeland promised to them by God. In this situation they do not want to leave their homeland. Please tell me you can't be so naive as to assume that the two situations are the same.So what Jews wanted is more important than the livelihood of those who already actually lived there?
And any fabricated divine promises are irrelevant. We are talking about reality, not mythology.

Since they are not actually forcing people from their homes, no. However, I wish they stop with the settlement buildings.

By hook and by crook, it would seem that they are
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4470118.stm



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6470375.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3891531.stm

So what Jews wanted is more important than the livelihood of those who already actually lived there?

What are you the artful dodger? When did I ever say that? Once? I didn't say anything about importance at all. You asked me why the two situations are different, I explained that to you. If the Jews want to go somehwere, there will be no bloodshed. If they don't want to, there will be bloodshed. It is so simple yet you somehow cannot grasp that fact.


And any fabricated divine promises are irrelevant. We are talking about reality, not mythology.

Wtf? This could not be more relevant. It is one of the main reasons the Jews want to stay in Israel. I actually challenge you to find something more relevant then what the Jews believe. Thats like saying "because human rights is just a concept, i'm going to shoot my freind in the face".

Why would I consider it a good idea for the jews to leave their ancestrial homeland?Stop the religious and racist drooling.

But what may look like a solution is not the best thing at all but will make things worse. In order for it to be a solution, it must be practicle. The two state solution is really the solution to this problem. For that to happen though, Israel must fall back to the Green Line. Until they do, I doubt there will be peace.Israel will never go back to the Green Line.

So what Jews wanted is more important than the livelihood of those who already actually lived there?
And any fabricated divine promises are irrelevant. We are talking about reality, not mythology.
No, you are talking about history, which is far more like mythology than reality. Reality is the here and now. Israel, Palestine and everyone else involved in this sorry tale needs to learn how to use the past to fix the present, not to be stuck dwelling in and enhancing the failings of what should have been dealt with long ago.

Stop the religious and racist drooling.

Israel will never go back to the Green Line.

http://jcnot4me.com/images/pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp

So Israel will never go back to the Green Line. However, why won't those horrible Israelis pack up and leave the country immediately?

a thread which contains UB:

UB:All the jews should just leave, just the way they came.

everyone:That's stupid.


...ad infinetum.


yeah, I've noticed that these threads where UB's ridiculous solution, and refutations thereof dominate the conversation sooooo incredibly repetitive. We end up talking about an extremist's time-warp, not anything based in today's politics.

Maybe but there are Palestinians living in Israel, serving in the Knesset and on the Israeli supreme Court.

Alright, so we'll allow some of the displaced Pennsylvaniers onto the state legislature. That'll settle the issue, right?

No, you are talking about history, which is far more like mythology than reality. Reality is the here and now. Israel, Palestine and everyone else involved in this sorry tale needs to learn how to use the past to fix the present, not to be stuck dwelling in and enhancing the failings of what should have been dealt with long ago.What do you mean with "long ago"? There are still Arabs alive who had to leave Palestine because of the Jews' immigration and subsequent creation of the Jewish state. And their families are still alive as well. Wouldn't you want to return to the soil that your parents tilled? I know how it feels if one can't go back to the home of one's childhood. And why had the Palestinian Arabs have to leave? For Jewish ideological crap. And now the creation of the Jewish state cannot be unmade because Jews are living out their mythology and ideology? What about those Arab families who still wait to return to the soil and homes they had prior to the existence of Israel? What about compensating every Arab who suffered because of Israel? What about returning formerly Arab homes in Israel to their former owners or their children? What about dismantling the Wall/Fence and let Palestinians travel and settle within and beyond what was once Palestine?
The best thing really would be if Israel would finally annex the rest of Palestine and make all Palestinian Arabs full Israeli citizens,.

All right, this is getting damned annoying. Let's clarify it once and for all.

UB, are you trying to say in a semi-sarcastic way that the Israelis should all leave the country, or can you seriously not comprehend why they would refuse?

What about those Arab families who still wait to return to the soil and homes they had prior to the existence of Israel?
They will never go back. simple as that. whether they "should" or whatever is irrelevant. Trying to make history "just" is impossible. When one side wins and the other loses, nothing is "fair". Probably the most self-destructive feature of palestinian culture is the pride in being from such-and-such a place, and burning desire to go back to that place though you weren't born there and have never seen it.

Yet opportunities to improve the current situation exist. For example, if all those families that will never go back, (as well as all those families that lived in the west bank and gaza to begin with) had full citizenship in an independent country of their own, with free acess to their holy sites in Jerusalem, would that not be an improvement?

Israel will never go back to the Green Line.
Okay, out of pure interest/clarification, would you rather Israel move to the Green Line, or another border agreed with the Palestinians, or the abolition of the State of Israel?

They will never go back. simple as that. whether they "should" or whatever is irrelevant. Trying to make history "just" is impossible. When one side wins and the other loses, nothing is "fair". Yet opportunities to improve the current situation exist. For example, if all those families that will never go back, (as well as all those families that lived in the west bank and gaza to begin with) had full citizenship in an independent country of their own, with free acess to their holy sites in Jerusalem, would that not be an improvement?So all you say to the Arabs is: deal with it. (But you don't want it either if they do.)
And where exactly would that independent country of their own be? Eastern Alabama?
...yeah, I've noticed that these threads where UB's ridiculous solution, and refutations thereof dominate the conversation sooooo incredibly repetitive. We end up talking about an extremist's time-warp, not anything based in today's politics.Jews wanted to posses Palestine. And they haven't changed their politics concerning Palestine since the 1890s. So why should anyone ever accept the Jewish state as a legitimate entity? Just because it does exist? And that it exists entirely at the expense of Palestinian Arabs does not trouble your mind at all?

Okay, out of pure interest/clarification, would you rather Israel move to the Green Line, or another border agreed with the Palestinians, or the abolition of the State of Israel?I'd rather have transfered Israel to somewhere else.
But if Palestine were to become a state in secure borders (that are not imposed by Israel), unbothered by Israel or Jewish settlers and with sufficient infrastructure and water that could support all Palestinians (including those that still live in refugee camps outside former Palestine), I'd say that'd be ok as well.

So now what? They allowed the Jews in and allowed them to use whatever force they wanted and want against the Arabs, but now the Jews must not be touched?
It's all a matter of military force. The Palestinians never were capable of getting rid of the jews. They lost, so the state of Israel was born. Now the state of Israel is firmly entrenched. They have an extremely capable military and nuclear weapons that are capable of hitting any country in the world via their submarines. So even if you wanted to stomp into Israel to throw them out, good luck with that. Should see some interesting mutations throughout the world....
What do you mean with "long ago"? There are still Arabs alive who had to leave Palestine because of the Jews' immigration and subsequent creation of the Jewish state. And their families are still alive as well. Wouldn't you want to return to the soil that your parents tilled?
Out of curiosity, is there a limit to this? Say, in a few decades time where all the original Palestinian inhabitants of what is currently Israel have died, would you feel any differently then? Or would it take a bit longer? Or never?

The reasons both you and Hydesland gave for the Jews not leaving were that it would not be possible without large amounts of bloodshed. I just wondered whether your reasons for them not leaving were purely practical or had any ideological basis.
I'll answer that. For me, it's almost all practical. I do have a personal atachment to Israel, and I love the land, and my family that lives there, so there is certainly bias there. Moreover, I find it hard to see the zionist development of the country (economic, cultural, agricultural) as a bad thing. But that said, practicality is actually the only argument that's to the point here. I may value the zionist enterprise, others may despise it - we're not going to agree. But we might agree about human rights of every person, and come to a solution which benefits the most people.

I agree generally. But what most of the threads (including this one to some extent) degenerate into is someone (often UB) saying "The Jews shouldn't be there" and arguing ideals, and others saying "they're there now how do we deal with it" arguing practically, and the two are not the same argument.You are correct. Some posters are purely interested in righting historical wrongs, or restoring some mythic garden of eden (that never actually existed). Others prefer to look at things reasonably. You can guess which side I'm on.

I'll answer that. For me, it's almost all practical. I do have a personal atachment to Israel, and I love the land, and my family that lives there, so there is certainly bias there. Moreover, I find it hard to see the zionist development of the country (economic, cultural, agricultural) as a bad thing. But that said, practicality is actually the only argument that's to the point here. I may value the zionist enterprise, others may despise it - we're not going to agree. But we might agree about human rights of every person, and come to a solution which benefits the most people.The Zionist development of the country is irrelevant. And it is a bad thing because it is entirely based on the forced absence of the country's former inhabitants. And the human rights of Palestinians, such as to remain unbothered on the soil their families have lived on for centuries, doesn't seem to bother Israelis all that much.

The price for Israeli/Jewish statehood has always been Palestinian suffering. I really wonder how that price is acceptable in anyone's understanding.

You are correct. Some posters are purely interested in righting historical wrongs, or restoring some mythic garden of eden (that never actually existed). Others prefer to look at things reasonably. You can guess which side I'm on.So what is your reasonable position? Fuck the Palestinians? Let them rot in the refugee camps?
And 'historical' wrongs are irrelevant as long as one has the power to continue them? You seem to imply that the urge for and subsequent creation of Israel is an error of long ago, but in fact it is one remaining today and one that continues to cause the same suffering it did 60 and more years ago, and even worse.

The Zionist development of the country is irrelevant... Had you read my post, you would realize that that was part of the statement of my personal bias, not the part where I say what 's really relevant. And that is: removing 6-7 million people from their homes is impossible. There is a practical connection to the economic development of course: if Israel was not entrenched and powerful, it would be less impossible.
So what is your reasonable position? Fuck the Palestinians? Let them rot in the refugee camps?
And 'historical' wrongs are irrelevant as long as one has the power to continue them? I've aleady suggested a method of improvement that's far from "fucking" the palestinians. Much of the suffering of Palestinians has to do with freedom of movement, violence and so on. A palestinian state would mostly solve those. If it's not the suffering of palestinians you care about, but rather satisfying some aesthetic longing for the past you've imagined into a sort of paradise, I can't help you there. To answer your question, historical wrongs aren't irrelevant: they inform the actions we take today. For example, a compensation package for people that were forced out of their homes in 1948 directly acknowledges a historical wrong. But that's different than saying that the only way to not ignore historical wrongs is to go back in time.

What do you mean with "long ago"?
The problems have been going on a long time. There is no reason for them to do so other than our own deification of "Historical Truth" - that, somehow, the past is important beyond treating it as a potent mythological tale - and the resulting segregation of communities and the unwillingness to deal with the present day problems this has caused.

There are still Arabs alive who had to leave Palestine because of the Jews' immigration and subsequent creation of the Jewish state. And their families are still alive as well. Wouldn't you want to return to the soil that your parents tilled? I know how it feels if one can't go back to the home of one's childhood.

And why had the Palestinian Arabs have to leave? For Jewish ideological crap. And now the creation of the Jewish state cannot be unmade because Jews are living out their mythology and ideology? What about those Arab families who still wait to return to the soil and homes they had prior to the existence of Israel? What about compensating every Arab who suffered because of Israel? What about returning formerly Arab homes in Israel to their former owners or their children?
My history has no inherent value. If I happen to come into ownership of my father's house I will gladly accept it, but I do not desire it, nor anything that has its purpose primarily in the past, whether "originally" mine or otherwise. I Move On; that is what I, as a temporary member of this world, am obliged to do.

The Jewish people, too, need to move on and overcome their historical pride as is clear to us both, but the Palestinians will need to meet like with like if they want it to succeed. It would be hypocracy on the part of the people of Palestine to base their campaign on the basis of "Screw your history; give us back what was ours!" because both sides are looking to the past to determine whose it actually is. They will need to acknowledge that both have an equal (what I believe to be no) historical basis on which to say that the land is theirs.

You are right, of course, to note that there are current day disputes on whose land it is right now to be dealt with, but these disputes need to be approached by everyone with the present and future in mind. Return that which can be returned and replace that which can be replaced, but you should not look for vengeance or some sort of grudge-motivated fiscal reward. Mistakes should be put right, but we should not make more mistakes just because mistakes were made originally.

What about dismantling the Wall/Fence and let Palestinians travel and settle within and beyond what was once Palestine?
The best thing really would be if Israel would finally annex the rest of Palestine and make all Palestinian Arabs full Israeli citizens.
I don't doubt you've proposed a solution that would work, but that, too, requires a dissolution of the historical boundaries between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis. I do, of course, encourage that completely.

What do you mean "let them leave". Thats never going to happen, they won't just willfully pack up their bags and leave. The only thing you can do is invade and kick them out. that is not the only thing that we can do.

If you can only see the the kill-them option.. If you can only see violence as the way to solve problems.. you need to get your head examined

that is not the only thing that we can do.

If you can only see the the kill-them option.. If you can only see violence as the way to solve problems.. you need to get your head examined
He said that in response to the question "How would you get the Israelis to leave the middle east and form the Jewish nation elsewhere". It wasn't a statement of general policy on the middle east, mmkay? :)

that is not the only thing that we can do.

If you can only see the the kill-them option.. If you can only see violence as the way to solve problems.. you need to get your head examined
*coughcontextcough*

yu in the Middle;12569674]He said ..He said "the only thing we can do is Invade... genocide.. etc"..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12569667&postcount=89

*coughcontextcough*the context is all there.

this is the context so far:
HE says "I wishs the Zionists would give Palestine back to the Palestineans."

YOU say.. "but it cannot be done without killing many Zionists.. invasion.. genocide.. etc"

ocean, you've always been slow, but this is insane.

ocean, you've always been slow, but this is insane.me bad.
the girls usually like it slow..

He said "the only thing we can do is Invade... genocide.. etc"..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12569667&postcount=89
*coughcontextcough*
To acquiesce:
The cycle was started when the British gave in to the ambitions of the Zionist Federation in the UK and subsequently started to let European Jews into Palestine. Just revert that error and everything will be OK.
Are you talking about going to war with israel and commiting mass genocide on the israelis just for principles sake, based on what the british did after world war two. What a horrificly retarded idea.
Who is talking about mass genocide? Just let them leave the way they came. By ship, by train, per whatever.
What do you mean "let them leave". Thats never going to happen, they won't just willfully pack up their bags and leave. The only thing you can do is invade and kick them out. This will lead to so many deaths, it won't be much different to genocide.

To acquiesce:you are not bringing anything new to the table..

I just posted this.. read it again.

UB says "I wishs the Zionists would give Palestine back to the Palestineans."

Hydesland says.. "but it cannot be done without killing many Zionists.. invasion.. genocide.. etc"

The problems have been going on a long time. There is no reason for them to do so other than our own deification of "Historical Truth" - that, somehow, the past is important beyond treating it as a potent mythological tale - and the resulting segregation of communities and the unwillingness to deal with the present day problems this has caused.So the fate of a Palestinian family dwelling in a refugee camp while a Jewish family now sits on the soil that used to feed the Palestinian family is just a deification of "Historical Truth" ?

My history has no inherent value. If I happen to come into ownership of my father's house I will gladly accept it, but I do not desire it, nor anything that has its purpose primarily in the past, whether "originally" mine or otherwise. I Move On; that is what I, as a temporary member of this world, am obliged to do.It's not that easy if all you could have has had to be left behind when someone else took your father's house.

The Jewish people, too, need to move on and overcome their historical pride as is clear to us both, but the Palestinians will need to meet like with like if they want it to succeed. It would be hypocracy on the part of the people of Palestine to base their campaign on the basis of "Screw your history; give us back what was ours!" because both sides are looking to the past to determine whose it actually is. They will need to acknowledge that both have an equal (what I believe to be no) historical basis on which to say that the land is theirs.But there is a considerable difference between Jewish claims, which is vague, religiously and racially motivated, and applies only to Jews as one entity, and Arab claims, which are based on persons' and families' immediate history and livelihood, which have nothing to do with religion or strange ideas of nationhood but with very individual needs and fates.

You are right, of course, to note that there are current day disputes on whose land it is right now to be dealt with, but these disputes need to be approached by everyone with the present and future in mind. Return that which can be returned and replace that which can be replaced, but you should not look for vengeance or some sort of grudge-motivated fiscal reward. Mistakes should be put right, but we should not make more mistakes just because mistakes were made originally.What about the destroyed lives and livelihoods? What about the things that cannot be returned or replaced? And why don't you want justice served by undoing the mistakes that were made?

I don't doubt you've proposed a solution that would work, but that, too, requires a dissolution of the historical boundaries between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis. I do, of course, encourage that completely.There are only those boundaries imposed by the military but which the Palestinians have by now accepted more or less. That is the Green Line. But we all know that Israel and its policy of Jewish settlement has reached far into the West Bank by now and grabbed more and more territory by setting up a Wall/Fence to create facts. The point is that Arabs have no reason whatsoever to trust any proposal made by Israel as we have seen all have ended up in a deterioration of the Palestinian status.

What do you mean "let them leave". Thats never going to happen, they won't just willfully pack up their bags and leave. The only thing you can do is invade and kick them out. This will lead to so many deaths, it won't be much different to genocide.I guess you should know. It's exactly what the Jewish immigrants did when these stubborn Palestinians just refused to willfully pack up their bags and leave their homes to make room for all those nice and friendly newcomers...

whether they "should" or whatever is irrelevant. Trying to make history "just" is impossible. it is very hard to make history "just"..

we can only try..

Some posters are purely interested in righting historical wrongs, or restoring some mythic garden of eden (that never actually existed). Others prefer to look at things reasonably. You can guess which side I'm on.You are usually on the side of reason.. and your judgment is very valuable for me.

For me, it's almost all practical. I do have a personal atachment to Israel, and I love the land, and my family that lives there, so there is certainly bias there.You are one of the few people with minimum bias regarding the Palestinian struggle.

I respect you for that.

it is very hard to make history "just"..

we can only try..And you could start by acknowledging past injustices such as the creation of Israel at the expense of Arabs.

that is not the only thing that we can do.


Please enlighten me to how it is possible to force people out, without using force?

Please enlighten me to how it is possible to force people out, without using force?Why don't you just count on their sense of justice?



OK. That wasn't a real question... :rolleyes:

Disclaimer: I DID NOT READ THE WHOLE THREAD! I only read page 7

The Jews need to leave Israel to right former wrongs, however the Arabs continuing terrorism and killing Jews is perfectly logical and justified.

Good to see NSG is reacting as anti-semitically as usual.

dp

Please enlighten me to how it is possible to force people out, without using force?I am part of the solution..
for decades.. my taxes have helped:

#1 keep Israel artificiality (economy) afloat.
#2 helped kill Palestinians, Lebanese, etc.


I want this bloody war to end.. it has been going on forever.. and It can go on for decades and decades..
no matter how many billions we give to that Israel.. the peace is not possible.

If the US really want this to end.. they need to keep giving the same level of money for 20 more years..

To a new Israel created in North America or Europe.

Will there ever be peace in Israel? If Hamas has their way, the answer is no as we all know that they want to see the destruction of Israel. If both sides can sit down and negotiate in good faith, then I believe there can be but Hamas as got to learn that you cannot always respond to violence with violence and vice versa.

Why is it on the Palestinians to not respond to violence 1st? You want negotiations? Israel should 1st withdraw from the W. Bank and stop military operations in Gaza and the W. Bank. Once Israel shows they really want peace, then talks can happen. Not before.

To a new Israel created in North America or Europe.


Originally Britain tried to give the Jews Uganda in about 1898-1899 or so but the Jews rejected it saying they would only have a homeland in Palestine so it's not moving.

I do like the idea though.

I am part of the solution..
for decades.. my taxes have helped:

#1 keep Israel artificiality (economy) afloat.
#2 helped kill Palestinians, Lebanese, etc.


Are you proposing that the Palestinians and Lebanese should force them out, instead of you? That is still forcing them out with shit loads of bloodshed, you are just not directly involved.


If the US really want this to end.. they need to keep giving the same level of money for 20 more years..

To a new Israel created in North America or Europe.


Again, I have already explained how this is just completely impracticle. You have to force them to this newly created area, so you still havn't found away to solve the problem without forcing them out.

What are you the artful dodger? When did I ever say that? Once? I didn't say anything about importance at all. You asked me why the two situations are different, I explained that to you. If the Jews want to go somehwere, there will be no bloodshed. If they don't want to, there will be bloodshed. It is so simple yet you somehow cannot grasp that fact.

1) I guess he is the artful dodger
2) never
3) You are indeed correct.

Wtf? This could not be more relevant. It is one of the main reasons the Jews want to stay in Israel. I actually challenge you to find something more relevant then what the Jews believe. Thats like saying "because human rights is just a concept, i'm going to shoot my freind in the face".

I do not think he understands the role of religion in this debate.

Good to see NSG is reacting as anti-semitically as usual.

One idiot does not deserve another.....

Stop the religious and racist drooling.

I am a racist? Pray tell! Where did you get that idea from?

Israel will never go back to the Green Line.

Maybe but then again, maybe not. You do not know that something is definite

Are you proposing that the Palestinians and Lebanese should force them out, instead of you? That is still forcing them out with shit loads of bloodshed, you are just not directly involved.

Again, I have already explained how this is just completely impracticle. You have to force them to this newly created area, so you still havn't found away to solve the problem without forcing them out.They'll go for money.

But maybe they don't have to go. Just make the West Bank and Gaza parts of Israel and give the Palestinian Arabs Israeli citizenship. All will turn out fine.

One idiot does not deserve another.....

Oh it's fun to feel persecuted. Us Jews don't know anything else, considering it's been happening to us since 70 CE so unless we don't feel like somebody is out there to destroy us we don't know what to do with ourselves.

Clearly NSG is out to destroy Israel and thus are anti-semitic and out to destroy all Judaism.

You may now disregard everthing after the word Israel as untrue.

Are you proposing that the Palestinians and Lebanese should force them out, instead of you? No.
I am proposing giving the Jews more-or-less the billions we are giving them today..

But to give it to the ones who choose peace.
To the Jews who want to move to this new Israel.

The Jews who choose to stay.. the Jews who choose war.. they will get 0 dollars.. nada.. nothing.

My bet is that they will all leave for the NEW fully financed Israel.

down the Long road, the US will save some money.. as the new military needs of the New Israel will not be as monstrous.

and more important.. lives will be saved.

My bet is that they will all leave for the NEW fully financed Israel.


I doubt that.

I doubt that.you are entitled to your opinion.

They'll go for money.

But maybe they don't have to go. Just make the West Bank and Gaza parts of Israel and give the Palestinian Arabs Israeli citizenship. All will turn out fine.

There are two problems with that

1. The Palestinians don't want it. Hamas could easily come to the negotiating table but instead have chosen terrorism. And Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists in the same way that the US doesn't negotiate with Osama bin-Laden.

2. Israel was founded as a Jewish nation with a Jewish majority, giving all the Palestinian would threaten that majority so it would never happen.

Although that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Oh it's fun to feel persecuted. Us Jews don't know anything else, considering it's been happening to us since 70 CE so unless we don't feel like somebody is out there to destroy us we don't know what to do with ourselves.

Clearly NSG is out to destroy Israel and thus are anti-semitic and out to destroy all Judaism.

You may now disregard everthing after the word Israel as untrue.

Actually if you count the Babylonians, its a bit longer again. And calling anti-semitism in a thread where virtually all those posting have told UB that he is, in effect, full of shite, is rather inane.

I do not think he understands the role of religion in this debate.Religion is only the driving force behind the Jewish side. The only reason for the creation of Israel is Judaism. Insubstantial stuff altogether, basically just the usual ideology of chosenness, blah, blah...
For the Palestinian Arabs this is about soil, livelihood, home, jobs, freedom. They deserved self-determination after the end of Turkish rule, but all they got was British and Jewish imperialism, and Jewish occupation and rule is what they still have today.

I'd rather have transfered Israel to somewhere else.

Which will not happen.

But if Palestine were to become a state in secure borders (that are not imposed by Israel),

What about the Green Line? We all know what the borders would be like if they withdrew to the green line as specified by the UN Resolutions.

unbothered by Israel or Jewish settlers and with sufficient infrastructure and water that could support all Palestinians (including those that still live in refugee camps outside former Palestine), I'd say that'd be ok as well.

At least that's a start for you.

Which will not happen.YOu never know. Israel (or rather the Jews setting it up) was moved from Europe to Palestine once. Why not move it again? For the benefit of all involved parties?

What about the Green Line? We all know what the borders would be like if they withdrew to the green line as specified by the UN Resolutions.What would the borders be like? So far Israel has not been content with the Green Line. What about the Jewish settlements inside the Green Line on West Bank territory?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/fence10.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/map/
http://www.zajel.org/gallery/pictures/Projection-of-the-West-Bank.jpg

Religion is only the driving force behind the Jewish side. The only reason for the creation of Israel is Judaism. Insubstantial stuff altogether, basically just the usual ideology of chosenness, blah, blah...

Quite wrong. The first Zionists that came to settle Israel were secular communists. Zionism is about nationhood, having a homeland, and being self-sufficient and self-defensable. It was a reaction to pogroms and anti-sematism in europe. So there are certainly religious antecedents, and definite ideology, but that ideology isn't so different from the values you cite for the Palestinians' struggle: soil, livelihood, nationshood, etc.

Read the whole thread. It might just enlighten you on how impossible it is.

Oh I realize don't worry sir. I went to a Jewish Day School for 9 years, I've been to Israel 5 times, My cousins live there including one who is currently serving in the army and one who has already finished army service, not to mention the fact that my cousins are all on the Israeli National Hockey Team.


OFF TOPIC:
My 900th post on this. I don't know whether to feel proud or dumb.

The Jews need to leave Israel to right former wrongs, however the Arabs continuing terrorism and killing Jews is perfectly logical and justified.

Read the whole thread. It might just enlighten you on how impossible it is.

Why is it on the Palestinians to not respond to violence 1st? You want negotiations? Israel should 1st withdraw from the W. Bank and stop military operations in Gaza and the W. Bank. Once Israel shows they really want peace, then talks can happen. Not before.

They have stopped their operations but when rockets are continuelly lobbed into Israel, one must ask oneself when Israel is going to respond.

Both sides need to stop the violence.

They have stopped their operations ...Oh, Israel has given up the occupation of the West Bank? Was that in the news?

Religion is only the driving force behind the Jewish side. The only reason for the creation of Israel is Judaism. Insubstantial stuff altogether, basically just the usual ideology of chosenness, blah, blah...

And it is religion of the Palestinians that have sent many people to committ suicide bombings in Israel.

For the Palestinian Arabs this is about soil, livelihood, home, jobs, freedom.

HAHA! Now that is very very funny.

YOu never know. Israel (or rather the Jews setting it up) was moved from Europe to Palestine once. Why not move it again? For the benefit of all involved parties?

I see you have not been listening at all to the statements being made on why it will not occur at all.

What would the borders be like? So far Israel has not been content with the Green Line. What about the Jewish settlements inside the Green Line on West Bank territory?

You are dodging again. Go back and re-read my question and answer it.

I see you have not been listening at all to the statements being made on why it will not occur at all.Yes I have, but I don't accept Israeli convenience as a real cause.

You are dodging again. Go back and re-read my question and answer it.You asked what about the Green Line. I returned the question to you. What about it? Israel is in constant violation of it. So what about it?

Apropos of Ocean Drive's brand-new-Israel-by-bribery solution, I can tell you right now that Israelis would laugh in your face if you suggested it. Israel has a functioning economy, without US contributions, which comprise a small % of gdp. This plan seems practical to you because you're mistaken about the extent of Israel's dependance on aid - in fact, Israel's economy is resilient. People are not willing to move from their homes unless they are in dire economic straits, or they are forced. I don't see either situation in the books. Even entertaining the idea that some people would choose to leave, the migration would never be complete, and more violence would result.

These ideas that all hinge on moving large amounts of people are all balony. Israel will not be willingly un-made, no matter how much money someone offers. (Who would supply all this money, BTW? the current level of aid from the US is nothing compared to what would be needed to relocate 7 million people). They ignore the deep religious/cultural attachment to the land that the two peoples have. They ignore the ties of family and place that every person has to their home. The only realistic solutions are ones that allow people to live peacefully, without violence where they are now.

operations =/= occupation. They are two separate things.Maintaining the West Bank occupation is an ongoing military operation. They are not separate at all.

Oh, Israel has given up the occupation of the West Bank? Was that in the news?

operations =/= occupation. They are two separate things.

Maintaining the West Bank occupation is an ongoing military operation. They are not separate at all.

I see I am arguing with a break wall.

Yes they are two separate things. One can occupy an area and not conduct operations. Look at Japan and Germany. They were occupied and no operations were there.

My bet is that they will all leave for the NEW fully financed Israel.

Because obviously Jews are solely motivated by money... :rolleyes:

Seriously, can everybody please stop claiming that Israel only exists because of US aid? The US didn't start sending money to Israel until after the Six Day War; they managed perfectly well before that.

Maintaining the West Bank occupation is an ongoing military operation. They are not separate at all.

There is no West Bank occupation. Unless occupation means taking something in a legal war.

Israel won the West Bank in 1967 after 4 or 5 Arab nations attacked them and started the Six Day War.

Israel has as much right to the West Bank as the US has to California, Germany has to Schleswig and Holstein and any other country has to other territories they captured in war.

Apropos of Ocean Drive's brand-new-Israel-by-bribery solution, I can tell you right now that Israelis would laugh in your face if you suggested it. Israel has a functioning economy, without US contributions, which comprise a small % of gdp. This plan seems practical to you because you're mistaken about the extent of Israel's dependance on aid - in fact, Israel's economy is resilient. People are not willing to move from their homes unless they are in dire economic straits, or they are forced. I don't see either situation in the books. Even entertaining the idea that some people would choose to leave, the migration would never be complete, and more violence would result.

These ideas that all hinge on moving large amounts of people are all balony. Israel will not be willingly un-made, no matter how much money someone offers. (Who would supply all this money, BTW? the current level of aid from the US is nothing compared to what would be needed to relocate 7 million people). They ignore the deep religious/cultural attachment to the land that the two peoples have. They ignore the ties of family and place that every person has to their home. The only realistic solutions are ones that allow people to live peacefully, without violence where they are now.Tell me. Would you give up your home if the UN one day decided that you must make room for someone else? No? But then you are forced to leave. And 60 years later you and your children still have the hope that somehow justice will prevail and you could return to your home. But maybe you don't even know what home, and attachment to the place of your childhood means...

I see I am arguing with a break wall.

Yes they are two separate things. One can occupy an area and not conduct operations. Look at Japan and Germany. They were occupied and no operations were there.The West Bank is under constant strict military control by the IDF. What are you trying to tell me? That Israel has in fact withdrawn from the West Bank? You know pretty well that that's rubbish.

Tell me. Would you give up your home if the UN one day decided that you must make room for someone else? No? But then you are forced to leave. And 60 years later you and your children still have the hope that somehow justice will prevail and you could return to your home. But maybe you don't even know what home, and attachment to the place of your childhood means...

UB you need to take a history class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before you start arguing.

The Jews BOUGHT land from Arabs in the 1880s-1890s. More Jews immigrated to these Jewish settlements and the settlements expanded on more BOUGHT land until 1947 when the Partition Plan was implemented by the UN which gave the Jews less land than the Palestinians and a ridicoulous 1 mile middle between two big patches of land.

The Palestinians rejected this offer then lost the Israeli War of Independence while fleeing from their homes in fear of Jewish barbery (which only happened once) to give Israel more land than they originally needed.

There has never been anything illegal in terms of how Israel got to the size it is today.

Tell me. Would you give up your home if the UN one day decided that you must make room for someone else? No? But then you are forced to leave. And 60 years later you and your children still have the hope that somehow justice will prevail and you could return to your home. But maybe you don't even know what home, and attachment to the place of your childhood means...The irony of advocating the return of people (and their descendants) to their old homes through the displacement of an even larger number of people from their current homes is staggering.

The West Bank is under constant strict military control by the IDF. What are you trying to tell me? That Israel has in fact withdrawn from the West Bank? You know pretty well that that's rubbish.

And Japan was under strict military control by the US. Germany was under strict military control of the Brits, US, and French in the west and the USSR in the east.

And Japan was under strict military control by the US. Germany was under strict military control of the Brits, US, and French in the west and the USSR in the east.And you don't call those operations? I do.

UB you need to take a history class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before you start arguing.

The Jews BOUGHT land from Arabs in the 1880s-1890s. More Jews immigrated to these Jewish settlements and the settlements expanded on more BOUGHT land until 1947 when the Partition Plan was implemented by the UN which gave the Jews less land than the Palestinians and a ridicoulous 1 mile middle between two big patches of land.
Actually, only about 8% of the land in the partition plan had been purchased by the JNF by 1947. That 8% comprised alot of the most valuable agricultural land, but still, most of the area didn't legally belong to Jews. Much of it didn't legally belong to anyone (deserts, mountains). Some of it belonged to arabs who would ten be residents of Israel. But the idea that most of Israel was bought ahead of time is not true. I'll find a link in a sec, but I did do the calculation myself a few months back.

a history lesson would be good for most of us here, I suspect.

And you don't call those operations? I do.

No I do not call them operations. Why? Because it is what happens when one loses a war. Samething here. The West Bank is under military occupation. The only operations being conducted are those to ensure the safety of the citizens. It is not like they are waging war throughout the territories. They only seem to respond to attacks and threats to their people.

This plan seems practical to you because you're mistaken about the extent of Israel's dependance on aid.This seem practical to me.. because its cost nothing to try.
and if it works it can save lots of lives.
My bet is that at least 50% will move in the first year.. If they are normal people they must be fed up with all the violence too.
These will get double the money they get now from the US.. as the same pie will get shared by half the people..

the size of US aid? yes its massive.. its quite measurable.

This seem practical to me.. because its cost nothing to try.
and if it works it can save lots of lives.
My bet is that at least 50% will move in the first year.. If they are normal people they must be fed up with all the violence too.
These will get double the money they get now from the US.. as the same pie will get shared by half the people..

the size of US aid? yes its massive.. its quite measurable.

You really do not have a clue as to the psychie of the Israeli people do you? Are they fed up? Yes they are. Do they want to leave? No they do not. I am willing to place bets on this for if they were fed up, we would already be seeing this migration from Israel.

The irony of advocating the return of people (and their descendants) to their old homes through the displacement of an even larger number of people from their current homes is staggering.Because those with the new homes are so dear to you and the others can just go to hell?
The Jews came to Palestine with the fixed aim to create a state although they knew that Palestine was already inhabited. So where were they planning to live? They knew exactly that they would have to remove some of the inhabitants to make space for themselves. Their goal was ethnic cleansing from the very beginning, that is the logical outcome of their desire for statehood in a non-empty land. And while you are ready to forget this injustice that was helped along by the old imperial powers, I am not, because the injustice remains and has even been extended since then. Israel exists entirely at the expense of Palestinian Arabs. But you just don't care.

UB you need to take a history class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before you start arguing.

The Jews BOUGHT land from Arabs in the 1880s-1890s. More Jews immigrated to these Jewish settlements and the settlements expanded on more BOUGHT land until 1947 when the Partition Plan was implemented by the UN which gave the Jews less land than the Palestinians and a ridicoulous 1 mile middle between two big patches of land.

The Palestinians rejected this offer then lost the Israeli War of Independence while fleeing from their homes in fear of Jewish barbery (which only happened once) to give Israel more land than they originally needed.

There has never been anything illegal in terms of how Israel got to the size it is today.That's just plain rubbish. Only around 8% of Palestine was owned by Jews when the UN drew up the partition plan. And the plan was drawn up because groups of Jewish newcomers became violent and formed militias rampaging through Palestine.

Because those with the new homes are so dear to you and the others can just go to hell?
The Jews came to Palestine with the fixed aim to create a state although they knew that Palestine was already inhabited. So where were they planning to live? They knew exactly that they would have to remove some of the inhabitants to make space for themselves. Their goal was ethnic cleansing from the very beginning, that is the logical outcome of their desire for statehood in a non-empty land. And while you are ready to forget this injustice that was helped along by the old imperial powers, I am not, because the injustice remains and has even been extended since then. Israel exists entirely at the expense of Palestinian Arabs. But you just don't care.

You are like all the debaters I hate and win rounds off of because they suck. Namely you make a lot of fancy rhetoric with few actual arguments.

The Jews bought the swamps, the deserts, the uninhatitable lands that the Arabs didn't want. When the Jewish presence got too big the Arabs started to get worried and tried to kick the Jews out but couldn't.

Even if you want to ignore the history arguments you're advocating terrorism, namely suicide bombings and the killing of innocent civilians.

You sir are advocating 9/11. Have fun defending 9/11.

No I do not call them operations. Why? Because it is what happens when one loses a war. Samething here. The West Bank is under military occupation. The only operations being conducted are those to ensure the safety of the citizens. It is not like they are waging war throughout the territories. They only seem to respond to attacks and threats to their people.

You'll find that thats rather unfortunately not the case. There are settlements. While those are there no claim can be made thats its "the same as...". There are roads and areas entirely off-limits to Palestinians designated "settler only". There is a two tier system of justice. Its a grim and semi-apartheid state of affairs. "Their people" are colonists. The Palestinians are the 'restive natives' to be kept down at any cost.

You are like all the debaters I hate and win rounds off of because they suck. Namely you make a lot of fancy rhetoric with few actual arguments.

The Jews bought the swamps, the deserts, the uninhatitable lands that the Arabs didn't want. When the Jewish presence got too big the Arabs started to get worried and tried to kick the Jews out but couldn't.

Even if you want to ignore the history arguments you're advocating terrorism, namely suicide bombings and the killing of innocent civilians.

You sir are advocating 9/11. Have fun defending 9/11.

He maybe ignorant but I do not believe he is advocating a 9/11. I believe he is advocating a Bosnia instead.

You are like all the debaters I hate and win rounds off of because they suck. Namely you make a lot of fancy rhetoric with few actual arguments.

The Jews bought the swamps, the deserts, the uninhatitable lands that the Arabs didn't want. When the Jewish presence got too big the Arabs started to get worried and tried to kick the Jews out but couldn't.

Even if you want to ignore the history arguments you're advocating terrorism, namely suicide bombings and the killing of innocent civilians.

You sir are advocating 9/11. Have fun defending 9/11.

Well, hes not the only one (nor the first one) to present (correctly) the figure of 8% for land purchased. It seems to me that this is whats prompted your 9/11 hissy fit.

After reading through endless debates in Israel/Palestine over the years, it seems little wonder it's in the mess it's in...

So the fate of a Palestinian family dwelling in a refugee camp while a Jewish family now sits on the soil that used to feed the Palestinian family is just a deification of "Historical Truth" ?
The reason they are where they are is because "Historical Truth" has been deified by the people who made the original return. The reason this has not yet been resolved is because we continue to cling to it in separating the instances in which it was Palestine's land and then it became Israel's land. We, on the outside, should know quite rightly this distinction should not have happened, but as long as either the Israelis or the Palestinians claim separate ownership of the same block of land, the distinction will remain, the root of history in encouraging the divide will remain and the wars, the bombs and the death will remain.

At the minute, the only way it's going to work is either by giving one party or the other a replacement or by nurturing harmony between the two in the separations they have formed to enable them to come together and take joint ownership of it.

It's not that easy if all you could have has had to be left behind when someone else took your father's house.
In my circumstance it's easy enough. Either my father demonstrably owns the house, in which case petitions can be made for its return on the basis of proof of ownership, or he does not, in which case I must move on until such circumstances change.

I do not live in a state of conquest, but even if I did, my claims would need to wait until such a time as it was possible to show demonstrable ownership. As a result, we look to the issue of the Israeli authorities, and the necessary integration between Palestian and Israeli lawmakers that will need to take place in order to restore the proof of property that will then be resolved. If it turns out that Israeli settlers have been gifted something by the state that actually currently belongs to another then the gift can be given again in the form of new housing and land.

It remains an issue of present day ownership rather than of ancestral heritage.

But there is a considerable difference between Jewish claims, which is vague, religiously and racially motivated, and applies only to Jews as one entity, and Arab claims, which are based on persons' and families' immediate history and livelihood, which have nothing to do with religion or strange ideas of nationhood but with very individual needs and fates.
The difference is one of magnitude, not of kind.

Jews: This is our land; it was just taken over by force 1000 years ago. We're taking it back.
Palestinians: This is our land; it was just taken over by force 60 years ago (okay, longer, but the Israelis are the current occupiers so the focus will be on them). We're taking it back.

Both are claims rooted in historical heritage, and as a result of this heritage their claims are irreconcilible. Either one side needs to drop their claim or both sides need to drop their claims together. If one side drops and the other retains, then the division will remain and someone will need to be resettled, but the conflict will stop. If, on the other hand, both sides drop the exclusivity of their claims by renouncing their distinct historical heritage then they can both be reconciled by their unification.

What about the destroyed lives and livelihoods? What about the things that cannot be returned or replaced? And why don't you want justice served by undoing the mistakes that were made?
Destroyed lives and livelihoods can be replaced with new lives and new livelihoods, as there would inevitably be in an eventual unified state, as can any loss of income caused by death in war. But things that cannot be returned or replaced are exactly that, and I see little reason to hope that they can be made up for through vengeance.

Mistakes cannot be undone. Time flows in one direction only, and all trying to reverse the flow will do is make more mistakes to cover the old ones up. This, I feel, is what is fundamentally wrong with the conventional notion of Justice. "An Eye for an Eye" is Justice. Locking someone away long after they've repented for a stupid mistake they made as a kid is Justice. But neither are what is right. They are just there to satisfy our callous lust for revenge. If Justice is just giving people what's coming to them then I want no part of it. What I want is to learn from our mistakes to build a better future, and if the fulfilment of that goal means forgiving unconditionally my opponent's transgressions when he deserves to be punished for them then so I shall do. I do not expect others to feel the same way, but the spectre of the memories of the past will need to be put to rest if we want to get any further in the process of reconsiliation.

There are only those boundaries imposed by the military but which the Palestinians have by now accepted more or less. That is the Green Line. But we all know that Israel and its policy of Jewish settlement has reached far into the West Bank by now and grabbed more and more territory by setting up a Wall/Fence to create facts. The point is that Arabs have no reason whatsoever to trust any proposal made by Israel as we have seen all have ended up in a deterioration of the Palestinian status.
I agree, and as indeed my first posts on the front page should point out, I reckon this time hostilities are indeed pretty much entirely Israel's fault. But if, as we've suggested, we are trying for a reconsiliatory approach with a single unified Israel/Palestine state, the dissolution of boundaries territorial, historical and cultural needs to be dealt with from both sides. It is because it is the Palestinians who have most recently been wronged that they are best placed to drive the reconsiliation process, just as Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress were best placed to pull down Apartheid.

You'll find that thats rather unfortunately not the case. There are settlements. While those are there no claim can be made thats its "the same as...". There are roads and areas entirely off-limits to Palestinians designated "settler only". There is a two tier system of justice. Its a grim and semi-apartheid state of affairs. "Their people" are colonists. The Palestinians are the 'restive natives' to be kept down at any cost.

I was actually talking about military occupation and not settlements. I will agree with you on what you said though.

That's just plain rubbish. Only around 8% of Palestine was owned by Jews when the UN drew up the partition plan. And the plan was drawn up because groups of Jewish newcomers became violent and formed militias rampaging through Palestine.

Facts you only got from Kreitzmoorland. Anyway in that same he post he says that most of what the Jews got was desert anyway.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/unscop-maj-prop-1947.gif

As you can clearly see, most of what the Jews got was the Sinai Desert. Clearly the place to build a state.

God I definitely seeing the map differently. With a lot less Jewish land. A LOT less Jewish land. I remember the Jewish land being just the coast from Haifa down to Yafo.

Although the way it ended up the Jews definitely got it better than the Arabs.

Well, hes not the only one (nor the first one) to present (correctly) the figure of 8% for land purchased. It seems to me that this is whats prompted your 9/11 hissy fit.

Actually no, I never read his rubbish post until after I finished posting that. So the 9/11 thing was a "stroke of genius"

This seem practical to me.. because its cost nothing to try.

Simplistic thinking. It would cost the US the only ally that they have left in the Middle East.

and if it works it can save lots of lives.

More simplistic thinking. It's more likely that terrorist groups will interpret it as hostility towards Israel on the international scene and will launch more attacks as a consequence. Your bullshit plan would probably increase the number of innocent lives lost (both Israeli and Palestinian).

My bet is that at least 50% will move in the first year..

My bet is that you've given absolutely no thought to this crackpot scheme whatsoever...

If they are normal people they must be fed up with all the violence too.

This is known as the fallacy of excluding the middle. Just because they are sick of the violence doesn't mean that they're going to leave their homes the moment you wave money at them.

These will get double the money they get now from the US.. as the same pie will get shared by half the people..

This is another reason why your plan is ridiculous: the more people who leave Israel, the less incentive there is for those left behind to leave. If only a few leave then they'll quickly become billionaires, but once a significant number of people have left, the financial gain to be had from the redirected aid will be more than offset by the cost of building an infra-structure and economy up from scratch.

Suppose that US aid is equal to $1,000,000,000. Suppose also, that the costs entailed by leaving Israel and setting up home in a new country are $100,000 per person per year (it'll almost certainly be more than that as there'd be a shortage to sell their property in Israel to). Suppose also that the cost of setting up a functioning infrastructure and economy is $150,000 per person per year (for the forseeable future) to pay for roads, water-pipes, public transport, hospitals, economy etc.

Assuming these (completely arbitrary figures) to be correct, once 4000 people had left Israel nobody else could do so without suffering a financial loss.

Oh, and as the Israelis who chose to remain would probably be the more right-wing ones, meaning that Israel's foreign policy would become much more agressive and there'd be less negotiation and less chance for a peaceful settlement. You really haven't thought this through have you?

the size of US aid? yes its massive..

Hyperbole. It gives Israel a few billion dollars to play with, that's only 1-2% of their GNP IIRC. Significant, but more symbolic that anything else.

This seem practical to me.. because its cost nothing to try.
and if it works it can save lots of lives.
My bet is that at least 50% will move in the first year.. If they are normal people they must be fed up with all the violence too.
These will get double the money they get now from the US.. as the same pie will get shared by half the people..

the size of US aid? yes its massive.. its quite measurable.They are fed up with the violence, but they will not run away from it. You don't understand Israelis at all. AT ALL.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/is.html
Here's a chart of US loans & grants to Israel, and the world factbook containing Israel's gdp for 2006. if you divide the two, you will get the extent of US aid: about 1.6%. Is moving 1.6& of gdp away enough? I think not.

Who is talking about mass genocide? Just let them leave the way they came. By ship, by train, per whatever.

And if they tell Britain to go **** themselves? What you going to do then?

You still refuse to answer the question.

If they refuse to leave, how are you going to make them leave?


I don't want to know why they would agree to leave.
I don't want to know how "fair' it is for them to leave.

I want that answer ONLY.

The reason they are where they are is because "Historical Truth" has been deified by the people who made the original return. The reason this has not yet been resolved is because we continue to cling to it in separating the instances in which it was Palestine's land and then it became Israel's land. We, on the outside, should know quite rightly this distinction should not have happened, but as long as either the Israelis or the Palestinians claim separate ownership of the same block of land, the distinction will remain, the root of history in encouraging the divide will remain and the wars, the bombs and the death will remain.

At the minute, the only way it's going to work is either by giving one party or the other a replacement or by nurturing harmony between the two in the separations they have formed to enable them to come together and take joint ownership of it.You sound as if you were regarding Israelis and Palestinians as equals. But they have not been equals from the very beginning. The Palestinian Arabs were those actually living in and of the land. Then the Jews came en masse from outside driven indeed by their weird religiously and ethnically motivated urge to gain statehood at any cost. I really cannot see how you would see the claims to the land as equal. The inhabitants and the intruders. Can someone possibly have a claim to the soil I own if he and his family have not lived here in over 1900 years and probably never have at all? 1900 years ago my family possibly lived somewhere in England. Does that give me the right to go 'back' to England and arbitrarily pick one family to take their land and drive them off?
What harmony do you expect? And why do you mention a replacement? What need was there really to let the Jews into Palestine in the first place?

I do not live in a state of conquest, but even if I did, my claims would need to wait until such a time as it was possible to show demonstrable ownership. As a result, we look to the issue of the Israeli authorities, and the necessary integration between Palestian and Israeli lawmakers that will need to take place in order to restore the proof of property that will then be resolved. If it turns out that Israeli settlers have been gifted something by the state that actually currently belongs to another then the gift can be given again in the form of new housing and land.Palestinians have no sovereignty and no real lawmakers, only a meaningless Palestinian National Authority. And Israel does not give a shit about Palestinians claiming land they owned prior to 1948.

It remains an issue of present day ownership rather than of ancestral heritage.

The difference is one of magnitude, not of kind.

Jews: This is our land; it was just taken over by force 1000 years ago. We're taking it back.
Palestinians: This is our land; it was just taken over by force 60 years ago (okay, longer, but the Israelis are the current occupiers so the focus will be on them). We're taking it back.

Both are claims rooted in historical heritage, and as a result of this heritage their claims are irreconcilible. Either one side needs to drop their claim or both sides need to drop their claims together. If one side drops and the other retains, then the division will remain and someone will need to be resettled, but the conflict will stop. If, on the other hand, both sides drop the exclusivity of their claims by renouncing their distinct historical heritage then they can both be reconciled by their unification.Present day ownership is not representing justice. Israelis now own the land because they took it from Arabs by force. And Jewish ancestral heritage is in no way similar to Arab heritage of the land. Jewish ancestral heritage is an issue of mythology and legends of ages long past, while some of the Palestinian Arabs driven out by the Jews are still alive.

Destroyed lives and livelihoods can be replaced with new lives and new livelihoods, as there would inevitably be in an eventual unified state, as can any loss of income caused by death in war. But things that cannot be returned or replaced are exactly that, and I see little reason to hope that they can be made up for through vengeance.So all you want is the Palestinians admit defeat and just disappear and start new lives elsewhere. And do you really think the feeling of home can be replaced?

Mistakes cannot be undone. Time flows in one direction only, and all trying to reverse the flow will do is make more mistakes to cover the old ones up. This, I feel, is what is fundamentally wrong with the conventional notion of Justice. "An Eye for an Eye" is Justice. Locking someone away long after they've repented for a stupid mistake they made as a kid is Justice. But neither are what is right. They are just there to satisfy our callous lust for revenge. If Justice is just giving people what's coming to them then I want no part of it. What I want is to learn from our mistakes to build a better future, and if the fulfilment of that goal means forgiving unconditionally my opponent's transgressions when he deserves to be punished for them then so I shall do. I do not expect others to feel the same way, but the spectre of the memories of the past will need to be put to rest if we want to get any further in the process of reconsiliation.Mistakes can be undone. It was the mighty British Empire and later the mighty UN that decided over the heads of the population in the area at issue and determined that the Palestinian Arabs had to give away their land for nothing and just go away. I don't see why no decision could be made so that this time the Jews would have to give back the land and just go away. This is not Eye-for-an-Eye, since the Jews are not losing anything they righteously owned. They would be returning something they gained under dubious circumstances.
I mean, really, what can be learned from the mistake of letting foreigners into a tiny already populated area? What can be learned from this act of imperialism besides that it is wrong in every respect? The French, the British, and every other former imperial power has withdrawn from most of their colonies. Now it is time for the Jews to give up their colony as well.

I agree, and as indeed my first posts on the front page should point out, I reckon this time hostilities are indeed pretty much entirely Israel's fault. But if, as we've suggested, we are trying for a reconsiliatory approach with a single unified Israel/Palestine state, the dissolution of boundaries territorial, historical and cultural needs to be dealt with from both sides. It is because it is the Palestinians who have most recently been wronged that they are best placed to drive the reconsiliation process, just as Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress were best placed to pull down Apartheid.The Palestinians have no means to do anything of the kind. They are still under military control and have no sovereignty, security or freedom. And as we know Israel has no interest in a single unified Israel/Palestine state. After all Israel is not about democracy or human equality, but about Jewish dominance. Israel is afraid of demographic development as it would soon make Jews a minority in a unified state.

If they refuse to leave, how are you going to make them leave?By force. I'd say with the amount of force that Israel is currently using to maintain the Jewish settlements in the West Bank (and sometimes to protect Palestinian villagers from the settlers' holy rage).

This is known as the fallacy of excluding the middle. Just because they are sick of the violence doesn't mean that they're going to leave their homes the moment you wave money at them.
(Aside) Is that actually what it is? I can see where it looks like he's assuming offhand that people sick of the violence would be likely to move given the financial gain, but I'm not sure that that's actually a logical fallacy rather than simply being an unverified assertion about the correlation between being fed up and moving.

By force. I'd say with the amount of force that Israel is currently using to maintain the Jewish settlements in the West Bank (and sometimes to protect Palestinian villagers from the settlers' holy rage).
Well enjoy Israel using "The Bomb" on the nations that they feel are backstabbing them.

Because they'll answer to being moved the same way the NRA answers to gun control.

Well enjoy Israel using "The Bomb" on the nations that they feel are backstabbing them.

Because they'll answer to being moved the same way the NRA answers to gun control.So the ability to use violence makes their remaining in Palestine right?

By force. I'd say with the amount of force that Israel is currently using to maintain the Jewish settlements in the West Bank (and sometimes to protect Palestinian villagers from the settlers' holy rage).

HAHA! By force. That is a good one. Since you have been condemning the use of force by Israel in this debate, to advocate the use of force against Israel is hypocritable.

HAHA! By force. That is a good one. Since you have been condemning the use of force by Israel in this debate, to advocate the use of force against Israel is hypocritable.No it's not. The force a robber uses is not the same as that of the police trying to stop him.

So the ability to use violence makes their remaining in Palestine right?
Of course not, It just means there is nothing we can do about it. It's also why it's completely idiotic that Hamas keeps trying to destroy Israel.

In every situation that leaves to the end of Jewish Israel... They will use the "Samson Option". So talking about moving them= Death

Destroying Israel= Death
Getting rid of all the Jews in Israel= Death
Making them give back the pre 1967 borders is the only way.

So the ability to use violence makes their remaining in Palestine right?

By Palestine, you mean the West Bank and Gaza right? The answer is no there but they can carry out what they want because they do have the force.

No it's not. The force a robber uses is not the same as that of the police trying to stop him.

Bad analogy in this case. In this case, by advocating the use of force to remove Israel is by the same definition you are using, the same as Israel using force to remove the Palestinian population. (what you are implying at least)

Making them give back the pre 1967 borders is the only way.You mean reverting to the Green Line? How would you make them? Because they'll never do it voluntarily.

There is no West Bank occupation. Unless occupation means taking something in a legal war.

Israel won the West Bank in 1967 after 4 or 5 Arab nations attacked them and started the Six Day War.

Israel has as much right to the West Bank as the US has to California, Germany has to Schleswig and Holstein and any other country has to other territories they captured in war.

Yes, but we have been trying to move past that idea. Might = Right often wins out, but many people who like to think of themselves as part of a civilised society don't agree with that idea.

The 1960s are not the 19th century after all. Or at least we like to think they're not.

Yes, but we have been trying to move past that idea. Might = Right often wins out, but many people who like to think of themselves as part of a civilised society don't agree with that idea.

The 1960s are not the 19th century after all. Or at least we like to think they're not.As if there was such a thing as a legal war... except maybe when an international body such as the UN decided to use force somewhere. But a single state attacking others is never a legal war, let alone legitimate.
And the 6DW was started by Israel in attacking Egypt.

Simplistic thinking. It would cost the US the only ally that they have left in the Middle East.we had more allies before we helped create Israel in the Arablands..

Simplistic thinking. It would cost the US the only ally that they have left in the Middle East.we had more allies before we began helping the zionists

we had more allies before we helped create Israel in the Arablands..who "we"? the british?

It's more likely that terrorist groups will interpret it as hostility towards Israel on the international scene and will launch more attacks as a consequence.I am proposing to offer billions to a religeous group to give them a second chance to recreate their Country in a more peaceful place.
it is not hostility.. I am proposing to make an outrageous favor to the Jews with my taxes.

who "we"? the british?are you a Brit?
I am not.

I am from the land of the SuperBowl.. home of the Colbert.
AKA the sole Super Power.

My bet is that you've given absolutely no thought to this crackpot scheme whatsoever...You lose.

Just because they are sick of the violence doesn't mean that they're going to leave their homes the moment you wave money at them.I am offering more than Billions of dollars.. I am offering them an opportunity to become a normal Nation.
Away from endless war.. away from hate.

This is another reason why your plan is ridiculous: the more people who leave Israel, the less incentive there is for those left behind to leave.You dont have a clue.. do you?
It is the other way around.
once 25% have moved to their new home.. the move is going to accelerate.
Obviously the first ones moving are going to have a considerable advantage.

I am offering more than Billions of dollars.. I am offering them an opportunity to become a normal Nation.
Away from endless war.. away from hate.Unless they bring it with them.... (as they did last time)

I am offering more than Billions of dollars.. I am offering them an opportunity to become a normal Nation.
Away from endless war.. away from hate.
did you read my reply? it's unrealistic.
moreover, do you really think the US or any country's electorate would endorse spendinghtat much money on a project that's actually against their national interest?
Also, don't play the jesus figure..."away from endless war?" Since when do you give crap about Jew's wellbeing? Nobody has forgotten your more hateful outbursts on this forum from nations gone by. Don't cite Jewwatch.org as a source and then claim to want to save them from themselves. Of all paternalistic models, this is probalby the most paternalistic and the most outrageous.

I still think the solution the Ireali/Palestinian conflict is for the Isreali's to declare all Palestinian occupied areas 'reservations'.

And for the palestinians to then promptly start building casinos...



All they have to do is get past that pesky 'gambling is against the koran' thing...

I still think the solution the Ireali/Palestinian conflict is for the Isreali's to declare all Palestinian occupied areas 'reservations'.

And for the palestinians to then promptly start building casinos...



All they have to do is get past that pesky 'gambling is against the koran' thing...Or all the Palestinians should at once convert to Judaism. Wouldn't that make them Israeli citizens?

Will there ever be peace in Israel? If Hamas has their way, the answer is no as we all know that they want to see the destruction of Israel. If both sides can sit down and negotiate in good faith, then I believe there can be but Hamas as got to learn that you cannot always respond to violence with violence and vice versa.

(At Hamas)

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

As if there was such a thing as a legal war... except maybe when an international body such as the UN decided to use force somewhere. But a single state attacking others is never a legal war, let alone legitimate.

So I guess that WWII was an illegal war? I guess the protection of innocences in Bosnia was Illegal? I guess World War I was illegal?

And the 6DW was started by Israel in attacking Egypt.

And Egypt was lining up their forces to jump Israel and Israel pre-empted that by attacking Egypt. So in reality, Israel was defending itself before they got jumped by Egypt.

we had more allies before we helped create Israel in the Arablands..

We did? Care to provide proof of that please?

You lose.

Based on what?

Or all the Palestinians should at once convert to Judaism. Wouldn't that make them Israeli citizens?I think sucking billions a year off gambling jews would appeal to them more than converting to the religion of the infadels.

So I guess that WWII was an illegal war? I guess the protection of innocences in Bosnia was Illegal? I guess World War I was illegal?What lex does apply to war? That made by the victors afterwards?

And Egypt was lining up their forces to jump Israel and Israel pre-empted that by attacking Egypt. So in reality, Israel was defending itself before they got jumped by Egypt.Which means that Israel started the war.

did you read my reply? You know I always read emerying you post.

it's unrealistic. everything else we have tried has failed.. we have tried giving Israel bombs.. tanks.. and cluster bombs.. we have tried the violent solution for decades.
You want to know what is unrealistic.. Its unrealistic to think killing some more is the solution.

do you really think the US or any country's electorate would endorse spendinghtat much money on a project that's actually against their national interest?on the other hand If you actually did read the thread.. you would know what the others know.. this plan will not cost a cent.

do you really think the US or any country's electorate would endorse spendinghtat much money on a project that's actually against their national interest?Our national interest is

#1 to be on alternative fuels.. by 2025..
#2 until then.. our National interest is to keep wars away from the Middle east.
#3 our national interest is not to Invade Iraq or Iran.. or any other country on preemtive grounds.
#4 our National interest to avoid being hated by the Rest of the World.

Protecting Israel interests is probably #87 on the US National interest list.. unless you believe Pat Robertson.. who would like to put Israel on the top 5

What lex does apply to war? That made by the victors afterwards?

I am sorry but I am not understanding this.

Which means that Israel started the war.

Actually not according to the rules of pre-emptive strikes. If Israel had waited, then Israel was screwed. They saw that both the Syrians and the Egyptians were mobilizing forces to wage an offensive war against it. This was provocation to Israel and thus attacked.

So who started the Six Day War is really on how one wants to look at the historical record. On looking at it, Israel was well within its rights to defend itself by attacking Syria and Egypt. There was no reason for Syria and Egypt to launch a war against Israel but yet, they were stupid enough to mobilize their forces for renewed action.

We did? Care to provide proof of that please?sure,
in 1947 Lebanon and UAE were our allies.
I can list more.. but I only need to post 2

sure,
in 1947 Lebanon and UAE were our allies.
I can list more.. but I only need to post 2

And the last time I checked, the UAE is still our ally and that we were helping lebanon up till the time Hezbollah blew up our marines who was doing nothing but trying to help those in need. You know, humanitarian operations.

I am sorry but I am not understanding this.What don't you understand? What makes a war legal? The declaration of legality made by those who have won it?

Actually not according to the rules of pre-emptive strikes. If Israel had waited, then Israel was screwed. They saw that both the Syrians and the Egyptians were mobilizing forces to wage an offensive war against it. This was provocation to Israel and thus attacked.

So who started the Six Day War is really on how one wants to look at the historical record. On looking at it, Israel was well within its rights to defend itself by attacking Syria and Egypt. There was no reason for Syria and Egypt to launch a war against Israel but yet, they were stupid enough to mobilize their forces for renewed action.There are rules for pre-emptive strikes? Can I read them somewhere?
Making the first attack means starting the war, and an attack is no defense.

And the last time I checked, the UAE is still our ally.and what about Kuwait, Jordan, Quatar, Oman, SaudiArabia, Bahrain?

are they still our allies?

What don't you understand? What makes a war legal? The declaration of legality made by those who have won?

The fact that the allies all declared war on German and Italy made the war legal. The fact that Germany and Italy declared war on the US made it legal. The fact that we declared war on Japan made it legal.

There are rules for pre-emptive strikes? Making the first attack means starting the war, and an attack is no defense.

Actually yes it is if you know that by waiting you are going to get jumped first. That was the case with the 6 Day War. I guess you do want to ignore history.

and what about Kuwait, Jordan, Quatar, Oman, SaudiArabia, Bahrain?

are they still our allies?

Yes. I can honestly say that my father has visited 5 out of 6 nations on that list while he was serving in the military.

Based on what?Based on the incontestable fact that I did give some though to it.
unless any of you claim to have mind reading powers. :D

and what about Kuwait, Jordan, Quatar, Oman, SaudiArabia, Bahrain?
are they still our allies?Only superficially.
And the creation of Israel has not changed that.

Yes. I can honestly say that my father has visited 5 out of 6 nations on that list while he was serving in the military.all 6 nations are our allies..
Trust me.. or if you dont trust me.. ask your dad.

And the creation of Israel has not changed that.of course they are still US allies.

the US gov has many allies in the region.

all 6 nations are our allies..
Trust me.. or if you dont trust me.. ask your dad.

I believe i did say yes they were allies.

The fact that the allies all declared war on German and Italy made the war legal. The fact that Germany and Italy declared war on the US made it legal. The fact that we declared war on Japan made it legal.A declaration of war makes a war legal? According to what law?

Actually yes it is if you know that by waiting you are going to get jumped first. That was the case with the 6 Day War. I guess you do want to ignore history.So you are making your own definitions now as they suit you best? War has been around since very ancient times. Making the first attack means starting the war, and an attack is no defense. That will never change, no matter how elaborately you try to disguise your attack as some kind of "necessary step". That's all just silly attempts of justification after the war has been won.

A declaration of war makes a war legal? According to what law?

Back then, standard custom. Why do you think we were so outraged when Japan attacked us without a declaration of war?

So you are making your own definitions now as they suit you best?

Umm no I am not. When someone is lining up planes and troops along your border, it tends to mean that you are going to be attacked. This was going to happen to Israel. The fact that Syrian and Egyptian troops were lining up on the border ready to attack Israel constituted an imminent threat to Israel. Because it was imminent, Israel did the proper thing and attacked first. The fact that the other two nations were ready to attack, without a declaration of war I might add, caused Israel to strike first.

War has been around since very ancient times.

Really? Wow. I never would have known that :rolleyes:

Making the first attack means starting the war, and an attack is no defense.

haha! Shows how little you truly know on this subject.

That will never change, no matter how elaborately you try to disguise your attack as some kind of "necessary step". That's all just silly attempts of justification after the war has been won.

:rolleyes:

Making the first attack means starting the war, and an attack is no defense. That will never change
According to what? Have you never heard the phrase 'offense is the best defense'?

Hey, guys, has there been anything resembling an answer to this?

All right, this is getting damned annoying. Let's clarify it once and for all.

UB, are you trying to say in a semi-sarcastic way that the Israelis should all leave the country, or can you seriously not comprehend why they would refuse?

Yes, but we have been trying to move past that idea. Might = Right often wins out, but many people who like to think of themselves as part of a civilised society don't agree with that idea.

The 1960s are not the 19th century after all. Or at least we like to think they're not.

They aren't but the logical end to the argument is that all lands taken in war should be returned. Which is impossible so why should it be done in only one instance?

UB you need to take a history class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before you start arguing.

The Jews BOUGHT land from Arabs in the 1880s-1890s. More Jews immigrated to these Jewish settlements and the settlements expanded on more BOUGHT land until 1947 when the Partition Plan was implemented by the UN which gave the Jews less land than the Palestinians and a ridicoulous 1 mile middle between two big patches of land.

The Palestinians rejected this offer then lost the Israeli War of Independence while fleeing from their homes in fear of Jewish barbery (which only happened once) to give Israel more land than they originally needed.

There has never been anything illegal in terms of how Israel got to the size it is today.

So Britain shouldn't have declared war on Germany for their invasion of Poland, since it was a spoil of war? And maybe the Holocaust survivors and victims' families should let up on the Swiss Bank and other entities and people about returning the possessions of victims, since again, they won them fair and square in war? The Jews lost their possessions to the Nazis since the Nazis were stronger. So there's no reason for them to be upset.

Disclaimer: I (hopefully obviously) do not support the above. But I find the reasoning that Palestinians should not be upset or angry over the forcible theft of their land by Israel and the murder of their families by the IDF abhorrent and disgusting.

According to what?Every war in history.
Have you never heard the phrase 'offense is the best defense'?Yes, uttered by very stupid people. Offense is no defense. That's why they are two separate words with differing, and in fact opposing, meanings.
Hey, guys, has there been anything resembling an answer to this?They answer has been given already: if the Israelis had any sense of justice, they would just leave. But after all that happened to Jews in Europe they just cannot grasp that they are causing a comparable amount of suffering to someone else, and on no grounds except their own convenience. They came to Palestine because they wanted to, not because they needed to.

UB, I might suggest you look up the Hague Conventions. These cover all of the areas you seem to be confused about - declarations of war, legality therof, etc.

Also, you might want to try to get your head around the fact that a very large percentage of modern Israelis were born there. Israel is their homeland by right of birth. That trumps all history.

Israel seems to have been behaving itself more or less since last summer.

If they do another rape of Lebanon, they should be treated just like Germany was in ww2.

Also, you might want to try to get your head around the fact that a very large percentage of modern Israelis were born there. Israel is their homeland by right of birth. That trumps all history."ties to your homelands" is not an international Law.. its more like a custom.

interestingly.. Homeland customs can be different on each side of the pond.

#1 For US: You are mainly tied to the place you are born.

#2 ..but in the conversations I had with my European friends... their Ties with their parents are more important.
So if I couple of Germans gives birth in Italy... the newborn is considered German.

"ties to your homelands" is not an international Law.. its more like a custom.

interestingly.. Homeland customs can be different on each side of the pond.

Very true. I was mainly trying to point out that the Israeli-born have neither a place to return to, nor any tie to any other nation.

Also, you might want to try to get your head around the fact that a very large percentage of modern Israelis were born there. Israel is their homeland by right of birth. That trumps all history.No it doesn't. These folks were only born there because their parents and grandparents drove the Palestinians from their homes and took the land for themselves.
And if you really want to use this "homeland by right of birth"-argument, then what about the "right of birth" of those who were born there before the Jews came from outside? Does a Jewish "right of birth" trump over a Palestinian "right of birth" ?
Very true. I was mainly trying to point out that the Israeli-born have neither a place to return to, nor any tie to any other nation.And that blacks out any Palestinian's right to return to the land of his family?

No it doesn't. These folks were only born there because their parents and grandparents drove the Palestinians from their homes and took the land for themselves.

A nonsensical argument. Guilt is not inheritable; responsibility is not transferable. My ancestors undobtedly aided in the removal of American Indians from their land; I am under no obligation to return it.

In the end, we are all invaders of someone. But we can be held responsible for none of that, and only for our own actions.


And if you really want to use this "homeland by right of birth"-argument, then what about the "right of birth" of those who were born there before the Jews came from outside? Does a Jewish "right of birth" trump over a Palestinian "right of birth" ?

No. They both have that right, and for both it is their homeland.

And that blacks out any Palestinian's right to return to the land of his family?

If he was born in a place, that is his homeland, unless he voluntarily rescinds it. If he was not, then the laws of that land decide whether or not he is a citizen.

My family once owned land in Norway. They were cheated out of it. I have no claim on Norway.

I support any attacks on the Zionist aggressors.

I support any attacks on the Zionist aggressors.

I suppose you also supported the 9/11 hijackers.

I support any attacks on the Zionist aggressors.

Of course you're an anti-semitic prick.

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

If it happened, where exactly did it happen?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12493449&postcount=82



Historical persecution is not an excuse for an ultranationalist group to annex territory and oppress a population using the 'Holocaust' and other perceived injustices as pretext.



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12493428&postcount=78

IMO can Zionist supporter is a legitimate target for helping such an ethnic-ultranationalist demagogy in it's terrible deeds.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12297251&postcount=116

So I'm a legitimate target because I support the idea of Israel's right to exist, that is the only criteria for being a Zionist. You truly are a miserable human being. After all, you are calling for the death of 90% of Jews.

Well when most Israel/Palestine stories have a pro-Israel slant on them, an 'exaggerated' source is the only way to get anywhere close to the reality of the story. The Pro-Israel lobby in the west after all does have alot of money.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12222529&postcount=63

So the murder of millions of WWII civilians is questionable, but the murder of 7 million Jews is not? I think all historical information should always be challenged and debated, it's a shame such a taboo has been put over a minority number of those murdered in WWII.

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12347986&postcount=140

Lol IDF, your the best reaction poster ever.

Second quote was a joke, and if you bothered to read the thread you quoted it from, I said as much later on. The rest of those statements I stand by 100%.

90% of Jews.90% of jews are Zionists?

90% of jews are Zionists?

In IDF world apparently they are.

90% of jews are Zionists?

By definition, a Zionist is a person who supports the idea of Israel's existence. I can safely say 90% of Jews support that idea. Even the peace demonstrators who support a two state solution are technically Zionists.

Of course both you and AP are too dumb to read as I've pointed that out many times but the point still doesn't get through your thick skulls.

Lol IDF, your the best reaction poster ever.

Second quote was a joke, and if you bothered to read the thread you quoted it from, I said as much later on. The rest of those statements I stand by 100%.

So you admit to being a miserable anti-semite? You are pathetic

By definition, a Zionist is a person who supports the idea of Israel's existence. I can safely say 90% of Jews support that idea. Even the peace demonstrators who support a two state solution are technically Zionists.

Of course both you and AP are too dumb to read as I've pointed that out many times but the point still doesn't get through your thick skulls.
I always understood that Zionism was specifically being in favour of the establishment of a single Jewish state on the holyland. Am I wrong on that?

I always understood that Zionism was specifically being in favour of the establishment of a single Jewish state on the holyland. Am I wrong on that?

Unfortunately, the term "Zionism" has become all things to all people. IDF has about the most balanced definition, but depending upon who you ask, it could mean simply "Jew", or it could mean "The international conspiracy to enslave the world."

I try to avoid the term, myself. Once a word has reached this level of confusion, I consider it to truly mean nothing.

I always understood that Zionism was specifically being in favour of the establishment of a single Jewish state on the holyland. Am I wrong on that?
I think it depends on who you ask. For example, it seems to be an ad hominem for Islamists and anti-semites when taken out of context. I avoid the term, myself.

Every war in history.

Oh brother. Not to sound hypocritical but the suprise attack on Pearl Harbor (in the eyes of the Japanese) was necessary for they knew that if they wanted to expand further, they would have to contend with the American Navy. Naturally we condemned it as dishonorable because there was no declaration of war before they launched their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Yes, uttered by very stupid people. Offense is no defense. That's why they are two separate words with differing, and in fact opposing, meanings.

So people who are 10x smarter than most us are stupid huh? Nice to know you know nothing about history or of military history in general. Sometimes a nation has no choice but to take matters onto one's self before they themselves got attacked. A pre-emptive strike is indeed legal provided there is an imminent threat which was what Israel faced.

They answer has been given already: if the Israelis had any sense of justice, they would just leave. But after all that happened to Jews in Europe they just cannot grasp that they are causing a comparable amount of suffering to someone else, and on no grounds except their own convenience. They came to Palestine because they wanted to, not because they needed to.

Not needed too according to whom? According to the Jews, they not only wanted to go to the Middle East but they also needed to go there. I could pull out references showing why they needed to go there but you would just say I am trolling so it is no use.

As to causing trouble, people cause trouble for everyone. The Jews cause trouble for the Palestinians and and the muslim extremists cause trouble for the Jews. I could go on but in reality,I have a feeling you would ignore it.

Israel seems to have been behaving itself more or less since last summer.

If they do another rape of Lebanon, they should be treated just like Germany was in ww2.

Even if they were provoked into action?

No it doesn't. These folks were only born there because their parents and grandparents drove the Palestinians from their homes and took the land for themselves.

Sorry but that cannot be used as a argument for removal for that means we all have to be forcibly removed from our homes.

And if you really want to use this "homeland by right of birth"-argument, then what about the "right of birth" of those who were born there before the Jews came from outside? Does a Jewish "right of birth" trump over a Palestinian "right of birth" ?

Actually yes it does!

I support any attacks on the Zionist aggressors.

Zionist aggressors? Do you know what a Zionist is?

Actually yes it does!

Why? Why does their right to the land trump the Palestinians who owned the land before they got there, and were left uncompensated for their suffering?

Zionist aggressors? Do you know what a Zionist is?

I doubt he does. If he does know what a Zionist is, then his posts are even more disturbing as some of Israel's harshist critics are by definition Zionists since they support the idea that Israel has a right to exist. I guess AP wants to kill them because they disagree with him. What a miserable person.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source Zi·on·ism (zī'ə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

WordNet - Cite This Source zionism

noun
1. a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
Zionism


The belief that Jews should have their own nation;
dictionary.com

IDF's definition is right IMO.

Hamas does this every day... So do a lot of other Arab nations and movements.

Why? Why does their right to the land trump the Palestinians who owned the land before they got there, and were left uncompensated for their suffering?

Because they are living there now and people were born there. If we use the right of birth, that means that where Israel is located, is Israeli land regardless of who was there previously.

IDF has about the most balanced definition..and.. do you agree with him on the 90% number?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12572238&postcount=220

Because they are living there now and people were born there. If we use the right of birth, that means that where Israel is located, is Israeli land regardless of who was there previously.So that means if someone came and pushed you out of your home to live there and has children there, then the children would have every justification to just remain there?

Sorry but that cannot be used as a argument for removal for that means we all have to be forcibly removed from our homes.Why? Because the present consequences of past crimes have no relevance in your world view? You only look at the status quo and pretend things were never different?

Actually yes it does!Because you say so?

(Aside) Is that actually what it is? I can see where it looks like he's assuming offhand that people sick of the violence would be likely to move given the financial gain, but I'm not sure that that's actually a logical fallacy rather than simply being an unverified assertion about the correlation between being fed up and moving.

I think so, because he's focusing purely on the two opposite ends of the spectrum (people who aren't sick of the violence and people who are so sick of the violence that they want to leave) and ignoring all the people who are sick of the killing but aren't going to give up their homes.

I could be wrong though.

IDF's definition is right IMO.
I'm of two minds about that. It looks to me like those definitions are saying that the position is one of favouring the establishment of a Jewish State, which is not necessarily the same as favouring the continued existence of Israel. I would certainly say that Israel as a nation has every right to exist, but I would not say they have the right to boot out anyone who isn't Jewish, and the distinction between those two views in terms of which Zionism describes would seem to be the key issue here.

I could be wrong though.
On looking at it again, it would seem as though you're right in it being a formal fallacy, in that the statement that normal people leave doesn't give space for normal people that don't leave. I always knew that one as the "False Dilemma", and your terminology had me confused for a second with the fallacy of the Undistributed Middle which doesn't seem to apply in this scenario (since "It is normal to leave" and "Israelis are normal" therefore "Israelis will leave" actually is a valid application of modus ponens given the assertions that it really is normal to leave and that Israelis are normal).

So that means if someone came and pushed you out of your home to live there and has children there, then the children would have every justification to just remain there?

I am going to use the following as an example.

My parents actually rent the home that we live in now. The Land owner is not present but for us to do any alterations on the house, we have to have her permission to do so. On the flip side of that however, she can sell the house to whomever she wants to and we can not do anything about it. courtesy dictates that she tells us that she is going to sell the home so that we can make arrangements to move elsewhere if need be. This is what happend at another place we rented at. The problem there was that the owner did not tell us that they were selling the house.

Why is this story being told? Because the only things I owned is what my parents bought for me and what I bought for myself. The home I live in is a rental and not owned by us. So asking me that question in light of this story should tell you what my answer is.

Why? Because the present consequences of past crimes have no relevance in your world view? You only look at the status quo and pretend things were never different?

I do look at history! That is why I am saying that there should be a two state solution. The Jews should not be forced to leave because it is impracticle for them to leave. The Palestinians should have a state of their own, something that I am sure that you can agree with, as well. Both states can live side by side in peace if the extremists on both sides just stop their fighting. Look at Northern Ireland. They are trying their best to have peace.

Because you say so?

No because of what history has dictated.

I do look at history! That is why I am saying that there should be a two state solution. The Jews should not be forced to leave because it is impracticle for them to leave. The Palestinians should have a state of their own, something that I am sure that you can agree with, as well. Both states can live side by side in peace if the extremists on both sides just stop their fighting. Look at Northern Ireland. They are trying their best to have peace.

No because of what history has dictated.
History dictates nothing. As a Northern Irishman myself, I can tell you that it is only because people are becoming willing to ignore past transgressions that we are able to get anywhere on this, and even then it is tough going sometimes. There's always someone talking about "repercussions" and "punishment", when they're always just out to portray themselves as the victors of a battle that should never have happened. That very point is precisely what I think Israel is demonstrating it still needs to learn when it storms across the Palestinian lines and kills on behalf of the retention of the past's lost honour.

Solutions come from looking around and looking forward with an eye to solving the present day problems, not from looking back and trying to undo that which cannot be undone.

History dictates nothing. As a Northern Irishman myself, I can tell you that it is only because people are becoming willing to ignore past transgressions that we are able to get anywhere on this, and even then it is tough going sometimes. There's always someone talking about "repercussions" and "punishment", when they're always just out to portray themselves as the victors of a battle that should never have happened. That very point is precisely what I think Israel is demonstrating it still needs to learn when it storms across the Palestinian lines and kills on behalf of the retention of the past's lost honour.

Solutions come from looking around and looking forward with an eye to solving the present day problems, not from looking back and trying to undo that which cannot be undone.

I think you are not understanding the part about what I was responding to.

This from UB:

And if you really want to use this "homeland by right of birth"-argument, then what about the "right of birth" of those who were born there before the Jews came from outside? Does a Jewish "right of birth" trump over a Palestinian "right of birth" ?

To which I responded: Actually, yes it does.

He proceeded to say afterthat: Because you say so?

Hence my response about history.

To which I responded: Actually, yes it does.

He proceeded to say afterthat: Because you say so?

Hence my response about history.
My point remains. If Israel's claim to land ownership lies in the past then it is an invalid one, and the same is true of the Palestinians. Historical claims are only as valid as mythological ones.

Both the Jews and the Arabs have a right to live there by right of present day ownership, and the appeal to history is precisely what's stopping them from resolving their differences in the simple solution of getting along and returning property that has been either unlawfully taken from the Arabs and giving the Jewish residents their own property in replacement of that which will need to be given back.

My point remains. If Israel's claim to land ownership lies in the past then it is an invalid one, and the same is true of the Palestinians. Historical claims are only as valid as mythological ones.

Both the Jews and the Arabs have a right to live there by right of present day ownership, and the appeal to history is precisely what's stopping them from resolving their differences in the simple solution of getting along and returning property that has been either unlawfully taken from the Arabs and giving the Jewish residents their own property in replacement of that which will need to be given back.

Indeed! I agree with you 100%! UB however does not recognize that fact. He wants the jews gone from the area.

Here's a really bright idea....

The leaders of Hamas finally get it through their dense skulls and realize that continuing to wage a fruitless war will accomplish nothing but drive their people further into a hole, and ask that the "martyrs" start working for the betterment of a future Palestinian state.

Seriously, haven't they noticed that every time they attack Israel, their "state" essentially gets blown up?

Oh, wait, yeah. I forgot that most of the leaders in the Middle East are irrational douche bags.

Indeed! I agree with you 100%! UB however does not recognize that fact. He wants the jews gone from the area.Yes, I do. Because they are the perpetrators. I want those Jews that exceed the percentage of Jews living in the area at the time of the end of the Ottoman Empire to go back were they or their parents/grandparents came from. And you want the Palestinians to just disappear and give way to the Jewish/Israeli newcomers. Just as if the Palestinian Arabs had never existed.
If someone has beaten you up yesterday, he is no bad person today? Because the beating is in the past? Does injustice suddenly become justice because of the passage of time? And the injustice of the creation of Israel is not in the past at all, it is continuing.
And Palestinians have to live under the occupation of a people that is blowing away its own prime minister for tiny attempts of peace.

Yes, I do. Because they are the perpetrators. And you want the Palestinians to just disappear and give way to the Jewish/Israeli newcomers. Just as if the Palestinian Arabs had never existed.

Would you like to point to a post where I said that I want the Palestinians to just disappear please? Nowhere did I say that nor did I imply it. So please please tell me where I said I wanted the Palestinians to just disappear.

If someone has beaten you up yesterday, he is no bad person today?

For starters, I would forgive that person for his transgression against me.

Because the beating is in the past? Does injustice suddenly become justice because of the passage of time? And the injustice of the creation of Israel is not in the past at all, it is continuing.

With a simple solution that both sides stop fighting, throwing down their arms, and negotiate in good faith. Only by faithful negotiations can there be peace in the Middle East.

And Palestinians have to live under the occupation of a people that is blowing away its own prime minister for tiny attempts of peace.

When you are finished ranting like a mad man, maybe we can have an intellegent debate without the rhetoric that is being spouted from you. I have kept a civil tongue till now but now my patient level is really beginning to run low.

Would you like to point to a post where I said that I want the Palestinians to just disappear please? Nowhere did I say that nor did I imply it. So please please tell me where I said I wanted the Palestinians to just disappear.You said that only the Jewish claim to Palestine is valid. That is equal to wanting the Palestinians to go away and give up the home land they used to inhabit. Unfortunately there is no parallel universe available that would allow them to live in the same place and time as the Israelis.

For starters, I would forgive that person for his transgression against me.How noble of you. And because you're on the winner's side you can afford such nobility.

With a simple solution that both sides stop fighting, throwing down their arms, and negotiate in good faith. Only by faithful negotiations can there be peace in the Middle East.Negotiate what? Palestinians have nothing to offer and Israelis only want to extend their settlements. Negotiate what? Letting all Palestinians return and regain what they have lost because of the Jewish immigration and its consequences?

When you are finished ranting like a mad man, maybe we can have an intellegent debate without the rhetoric that is being spouted from you. I have kept a civil tongue till now but now my patient level is really beginning to run low.You can't accept that Palestinians are real people and not just statistics. You can't accept that 60 year old wounds do still hurt. You can't accept that the humiliation that Palestinian Arabs have to continuously suffer because of Israel and its attitudes and policies cannot be forgotten nor forgiven. Your arrogance lets you ignore the pain that is not yours.