# Any one wish to discuss Israel vs. Palestine here?



## Amelia (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

I repsectfully disagree.

We, America, need to remove our support of Israel and let the region decide for itself who stays and who goes.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 1, 2012)

I think we need to stop thinking we are going to create peace in the middle east when God said that He will end it when He comes and it wont end before that.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> I think we need to stop thinking we are going to create peace in the middle east when God said that He will end it when He comes and it wont end before that.



I dont agree with your content but I do agree with your sentiment.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to stop thinking we are going to create peace in the middle east when God said that He will end it when He comes and it wont end before that.
> ...



I can understand that. Including God into the picture creates controversy and makes some uncomfortable or just causes others to disbelieve, but the fact is that Israel exists because of prophecy and I don't think we should ignore the influence God has in the events of man.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Im a believer but I also believe that some prophecies are self fufilling.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Im a believer but I also believe that some prophecies are self fufilling.



Israel fulfills no prophesies, neither by the hand of God nor the will of man.

I've heard Zionists say that Israel is the fig tree mentioned in Luke 21:29 is a symbol for Israel.  But, Luke 21 doesn't imply in the slightest that the fig tree means Israel.  And, if the fig tree represents Israel in Luke 21, then why does the fig tree not represent Israel when Jesus curses the fig tree and announces, "May no fruit ever come from you again!  Besides, Luke 21 doesn't simply say "fig tree".  It says "fig tree and all the trees."  And, isn't it the Olive tree that world be used to represent Israel.  Etc.

A man who blind to the misdeeds of the state of Israel is blind to the teachings of scripture.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> I repsectfully disagree.
> 
> We, America, need to remove our support of Israel and let the region decide for itself who stays and who goes.


We're in agreement there!


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 1, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


Yeah, but then at the last second, HE throws in that "free will" crap and that just screws us all up.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 1, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> I think we need to stop thinking we are going to create peace in the middle east when God said that He will end it when He comes and it wont end before that.



I am in agreement. This has been going on for thousands of years, and I don't see it changing - that's why I never got caught up in those particular discussions.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 1, 2012)

Amelia said:


> I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.



It can only end in tears...

Okay, here's where I see the problem. Israel has always been based on a lie.  "A land without a people for a people without a land."  the problem was there were people on that land. People who were displaced because the world felt really bad about what happened to Europe's Jewish population.  

I do think the many petty despots who run the middle east have stirred up resentment about this to deflect from their own gross mismanagement of their own nations, without a doubt. But that doesn't take away from the fact they have a valid greivence, these European folks have essentially displaced them from land they consider holy. 

Ideally, the Holy Land should be held in an international trust by the UN, as it is sacred to all the Abrahamic religions. (Christianity, Judeism and Islam, as well as other lesser known ones.)

The thing is, Israel is ultimately doomed.  Young Israelis to whom Hitler is just a bogeyman to scare them at night just don't see why they wouldn't be happier living in Europe or America, where no one is strapping bombs onto their kids to try to kill them. Meanwhile, the population of Palestinians, in Isreal, the occuppied terriroties and neighboring nations- continues to increase. 

The two state (or three state) solution is similar to what the Afrikaners in South Africa tried to do during Apartheid, create nominally independent entities to prevent eventual power sharing. But it only delays the inevitable.  Arabs/Palestinians will be in the vast majority at some point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 1, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Israel exists because after WWII, the world had a big guilt trip and decided to mollify the world's Jews by giving away something that wasn't theirs to give away.  

It has nothing to do with a magic sky man.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.
> ...



i agree completely. i think israel was a very bad mistake made by people with the very best intent.

someone needs to step in and dismantle the state in as humane a way as possible and find a way for the jewish israelis to return to somewhere of leave somehow...or remain if they wish, but not as a jewish ascendancy . i think, with the help of the USA and other countries, a secular palestine can become a true light unto the nations of the world and a beacon of democracy in the mideast. i think arab states have made great, albeit unsettling and unsteady, strides towards democracy in the past couple of years and for the USA to continue propping up israel flys in the face of what this country used to stand for.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

Amelia said:


> I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.




a noble idea, but there probably won't be much of a discussion.

i really haven't encountered a zionist who can present a good argument. usually, when they are asked to apply the same rules that they apply to israel to other states, or when they are asked to state their rules generally, the house of cards crumbles. i an irish kid and i understand their passion and all, but it has to be a passion for a value that can be shared rather than a property nthat can be possessed.

but yes, it would be interesting. thank you for introducing this thread.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

*Edited*

i don't think you can impose your, or a western european culture's, idea of "existence" upon peoples of other cultures, especially in this day and age. that's like saying australia didn't exist until the mid 1700s. many aboriginal cultures throughout the world had and have tribal governments that exist without political boundaries, and i respect that.

i very sincerely doubt if israel, or other tribes in the region, had well defined political borders two or three millinia ago.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.

Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody.  And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.

Prior to the establishment of Israel by the U.N. and with the blessings of England who held title to the land at the time, there was no organized country in Palestine, no government, no official authority other than Great Britain.

I personally think given the history, we have a moral imperative to defend and support Israel against those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth for no other reason than it supports Judaism and will not make Allah the supreme authority over the land.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
> 
> Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody.  And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.
> 
> ...


Israel was created when zionists migrated into the area and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs (who had been living there for generations) with the use of jewish terrorism in militia groups like Irgun.  Whenever you take land by force, there's going to be repercussions.  Since no one was ensuring arab land rights in that area, they got hostile.  And zionists got hostile right back.  Both sides are guilty of the violence.

But it should be noted that before the zionist migration of the early 20's, jews and arabs had lived side by side tolerating each other without any major incidents of violence.

The Pals have an inalienable right to self-determination.  They are being denied that with the 45 year occupation Israel has had on their land.  For peace to occur, that has to end.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> i agree completely. i think israel was a very bad mistake made by people with the very best intent.
> 
> someone needs to step in and dismantle the state in as humane a way as possible and find a way for the jewish israelis to return to somewhere of leave somehow...or remain if they wish, but not as a jewish ascendancy . i think, with the help of the USA and other countries, a secular palestine can become a true light unto the nations of the world and a beacon of democracy in the mideast. i think arab states have made great, albeit unsettling and unsteady, strides towards democracy in the past couple of years and for the USA to continue propping up israel flys in the face of what this country used to stand for.




i said that wrong. i didn't mean we, or anyone, should actively dismantle it. i meant we should be prepared for it to fail, as other states have failed and no longer exist today. it was perhaps a bad choice of words on my part.

i agree kind of with what you said, essentially that we should not prop israel up, but i think that is going to result in her failure...worse than they are failing now. kind of extreme suggestions, and i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. i don't think you can eactly "violate" a general assembly resolution..as for the marines, i'm an army guy and not to fond of marines, but i am not sure they should be utilised for what amounts to a policing action. i also think maybe borders should be decided by those people affected by them. many ot the world's problems today are the result of artificial borders inposed by former colonial powers. just look at israel.

look at it this way. those who can afford to are leaving it in droves. israel is bending its own ruless on immigration to maintain their "jewish" hegemony and are generally attracting low income hooligans who couldn't make it wherever. brooklyn gun toters and russian neo-nazis etc. that is a very broad generalisation, but with some truth to it.

by dismantle i think i meant let's see if we can get those people out of there who can't afford to get away from it themselves.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 1, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> i don't think you can impose your, or a western european culture's, idea of "existence" upon peoples of other cultures, especially in this day and age. that's like saying australia didn't exist until the mid 1700s. many aboriginal cultures throughout the world had and have tribal governments that exist without political boundaries, and i respect that.
> 
> i very sincerely doubt if israel, or other tribes in the region, had well defined political borders two or three millinia ago.



I don't have to impose a damn thing, the Israelis are doing a good job on their own.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 1, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .


Here's what I've found so far...


> _*Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law*, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank ._


That's quite a bit!

What if Iran was in violation of that many?


----------



## syrenn (Aug 1, 2012)

I agree, there never was a palestine..... but if there was in my opinion it was what we now know as jorad.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
> 
> Israel was created for the most persecuted and abused single group of people on Earth so that they once and for all would have a homeland and could be who they are without interference from anybody.  And even before the new State of Israel was created, the Arabs were determined to drive the Jews out or annihilate them and deny them a place to call home.
> 
> ...



jews are a religion for the most part, not a people. judaism has some ethnic and cultural components, sure, but so do all religions.

persecution and abuse is horrible but it is not an olympic event. i have no idea who is or is not the most persecuted or abused, nor do i think persecution and abuse equates to a right to have a "homeland."

i think, given the human rights that israel has ignored, and some would allege the acts of genocide it condones or otherwise turns her back on, that there is no reasonable expectation that they be allowed to be who they are without intererence. just the opposite is true.

the arabs were not determined to drive the jews out of israel or annihilate them. the arabs were determined, after WWI and WWII, to prevent further dominance by european culture in the region, and make no mistake about it, the jewish immigrants were europeans. jews had lived in the region peacefully before the advent of zionism. those indigenous jews were also, in large part, opposed to the usurping of palestinian land by the european zionists.

england had no title or anything to the land. they were colonialists and had no right there. even the zionists said that after they had no more use for them.

my country, the country i live in, the USA, has a moral imperitive to support democracy and oppose human rights abuses. it has no moral imperitive to prop up an apartheid state that makes a mockery of democracy by occupying a territory brutally and depriving the occupied people of their human rights.

thank you though, and i mean this with the greatest of sincerity, for attempting an answer that i have seen avoided by most people who defend the israeli state.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The moral dilemma lies in whether the right thing to do is mind our own business and allow other nations to tear themselves apart if they wish to do so - vs - defending the helpless and innocent and deserving, most especially those who have been our friends when we needed one.
> ...



This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate.  I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion.  Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.

The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense.  It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief.  No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed.   Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.

The real history is there for those who choose to read it.  For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > i don't think you can impose your, or a western european culture's, idea of "existence" upon peoples of other cultures, especially in this day and age. that's like saying australia didn't exist until the mid 1700s. many aboriginal cultures throughout the world had and have tribal governments that exist without political boundaries, and i respect that.
> ...



you're right, they are. 

NAZI germany and stalinist russia did a better job though, huh?

but i will give you that. the israelis, indeed, are doing a great job of imposing their iron will on another culture. we finally are in a point of agreement.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes it has. Google the Lavon Affair.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



perhaps you would provide us with some o your sources for this history. i myself generally rely on mainstream sources, many of them jewish, like Bt'selem, haaretz or the jerusalem post...and i supplement these with such sources as wiki and UN reports and etc. i look at things written by muslims and/or arabs with a suspicious eye, or sources that only have negative things to say about jews or israel, i discount those for the most part. if i am in doubt about something, i generally look deeper into it from a more reliable source.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



Are they?  What other culture are they imposing their will on?  There is no restriction on Arabs fully participating in their mosques in Israel and they are restricted in no way whatsoever.  You cannot find unrestricted Judaism in any Muslim country, however.  The Israelis do maintain a healthy majority of Israelis on the Knesset because that is the ONLY way they can ensure protection of the Jews in Israel, but there are Arabs on the Knesset too.  Can you name many/any Arab countries that accept Jews in their governments?

Outside of the United States, you will find few places on Earth that are less aggressive, more free, or more democratic than Israel.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

Swagger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy said:
> ...



I actually did a paper on the Lavon Affair way back when in one of my history classes though there is a lot more information available now than there was then to draw from.   But don't get me wrong.  Do I see Israelis as necessarily saints any more than anybody else?   No I don't.  Am I prepared to say that Israel has never engaged in overreach or overreaction or dubious policy?  No I am not.

But in Israel's defense, it was never 'official' policy and they never attempted to defend it as 'the right thing to do'.  Sort of like our own Iran Contra affair.  We all know our government allowed it in a quasi fashion and condoned it, but official policy it was not and heads rolled as a result of it.    You won't find any vote in the Knesset either authorizing or approving the Lavon Affair.

Israel's official stance since its inception is not to attempt to destroy or conquer its neighbors and it has restricted its official policy to a purely self defensive one.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Except Israel officially honored the surviving members of the operation in 2005, ending decades of denial. Although they're among many countries that have denied false flag operation, yours and mine respectively.

Personally speaking, I think they're both as bad as each other, for a myriad of different reasons.

On the one hand, you have the Palestinians, whose land was forfeit on behalf of all the guilt harboured by Europe and America for what the Jews endured under the Third Reich. It was almost like saying to the Jews: 'We're so sorry for what happened. Here, have Achmed's television to make you feel better.' Achmed had nothing to do with it, yet he's the one who's lost out. In that scenario we can all sympathise with poor Achmed. Coupled with the fact that the Palestinians/Arabs/Brown People (whatever you want to call them) have occupied that stretch of sand since the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Palestinians have a much stronger claim under law than the Jewish diaspora that flocked there after WWII. And the Israelis lean so heavily on Holocaust sympathy - either directly or implied - when they're in the hotseat that it's beginning to get old and tiresome. Not to mention the undeniable influence AIPAC has in the U.S. governemnt, among both parties.

Then, on the other hand, you have a people arrive that don't allow their religion to obstruct the progressive development of infrastructure, fostering foreign relations, irrigate the land, responsibly exploit natural resources, enforce the law with a modern police force, etc. Muslims do none of this. They do the complete opposite. Despite a few glass towers in the Emirates, there's no middle class; and you either go to work on a donkey or in a bullet-proof Mercedez. They sit with their balls in the dirt and, in order not to offend Allah, permit their respective countries to resemble one great big gypsy camp in the desert. Then, after letting everything go to wrack and ruin, they have the gall to demand aid money. It's kind of like justifying the presence of squatters in favour of the landlord on account of all the underpinning and remedial work the squatters - the Jews - have undertaken at their own expense. 

In the long run, the odds are aginst the Israelis. With fewer Jews settling in Israel and the younger generations departing for safer pastures in Europe and N. America, that makes for poor competition against rising muslim birth rates (though their infant mortality will draw that factor into doubt). Not to mention being encircled by aggressive neighbours who've collectively sworn nothing short of a blood oath against their mutual enemy. This is all compounded by the fact that Israel's benefactor, the United States, finds itself in dire financial straits.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



i was speaking of imposing western concepts like boundaries and governments on people who are culturally tribal peoples if you follow it back. furthermore, israel used to just ask arab states to recognise her "right to exist". all the arab states and palestine did ust that.  then israel insisted that these very same states now recognise her "right to exist as a jewish state". tell me that isn't an imposition of culture. it is estimated that in 20 years or so, the USA will be predominantly catholic. it is already at 25%. i am a catholic. if i and the other catholics were to insist that, in our dealings with other states, that they acknowledge us as a catholic country, then i would be imposing my culture on those non catholic citizens of the USA.

israel is one of the most aggressive states i have ever seen in the post WWII world. they have committed acts of war or have engaged in war with all of their neighbours. they threaten to attack all kinds of people. they have nukes and shake them at everyone.

i hate to say it, but the USA is pretty aggressive too. where exactly are iraq's WMDs. israel is free for the ewish citizens. black people were "free" after the civil war...well, except that they couldn't drink at white water fountains and a thousand etcs. as for democracy, the palestinians in the occupied territories are governed essentially by israeli law and the PA exists on the whims of the knesset and yet those palestinians in the occupied territories, or if you prefer, disputed territories, have no say in the making or execition of those laws.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 1, 2012)

Yeah the honoring of the participants in the Lavon affair was curious though it would not be unlike those involved in our own failed and semi-illegal Bay of Pigs fiasco being recognized as the patriots they intended to be now.  A subjective consideration for sure.l

And I really am not concerned whether Israel will succumb to the high Muslim birthrate sometime in the future.  The same fate has been projected for the U.K. and France and some other European countries just as the U.S. is supposed to be overwhelmed by the high Hispanic birthrate sometime in the future.

For now, I prefer to focus on more simple concerns.  The Palestinians are in the miserable state they are in because they have repeatedly attacked and terrorized and worked for the destruction of Israel.  No country should have to stick its hands in its pockets and just endure that without taking any self defense measures whatsoever.

If the Palestinian leadership had not engaged in such behavior, the Israelis and Palestinians would most likely be living in quite amicable peace now.

The Jews have not had a homeland since the Romans ousted them from Jerusalem in 70 A.D. until the U.N. gave them one more than 60 years ago.  They now occupy a teensy tiny little strip of land that is but a speck within the larger area.

They should be left in peace to live peaceful lives.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> I repsectfully disagree.
> 
> We, America, need to remove our support of Israel and let the region decide for itself who stays and who goes.



I double respectfully disagree. WE need to stand firm with Israel. *Edited*


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

loinboy said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .
> ...



Boom Boom Boom'

Shock and awe

But not Israel!


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So provoked terrorism is ok?

And how exactly were the Zionists "provoked" when they were the "invading" force?


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > I repsectfully disagree.
> ...



So self governance and self determination only applies to America then?


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> This depends on what version of history you read and which version you believe to be the most accurate.  I read the history much differently than you do and therefore arrive at a very different opinion.  Yes there was some terrorism involved in more militant Zionism, but it was not unprovoked whether or not you consider it fair play.
> 
> The National of Israel has not been involved in any terrorism or aggressive acts other than in its own self defense.  It occupies a tiny piece of land smaller than a large New Mexico county and yet it remains intolerable to people who Israel never gave any grief.  No Arab who chose to remain in Israel when the Arab nations attacked was ejected, nor would those who fled so that Israel could be obliterated have been ejected had they stayed.   Israel allows full citizenship to all Arab Muslim citizens currently living in Israel which cannot be said to be the case for Jews living in Arab nations.
> 
> The real history is there for those who choose to read it.  For those who despise Israel and sympathise with the Palestinians, it probably will hold little interest however.


An "occupational force", cannot claim self-defense.

BTW, I'm getting the history of this area from UN documents.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today.  If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. 

Romney was his usual Court Jester in Israel and if elected prez, will spend most of his time saying that what he meant to say ... 

You can blame it on Obama or Romney but that won't change that what Obama said is true - They really do need to take responsibility for their own country's borders. They need to duke this out between themselves and, never mind what the R says, we can't and should not do this for them. 

Obama is right about this. Romney is dead wrong. Especially about sending them even more money. (Why is it that the R always wants to spend more money on other countries than on their own?)


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

loinboy said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > i am not sure if they are in violation of over 200 UN resolutions. .
> ...



i am always suspect of articles where the author has a vested interest in the subject. kourosh ziabari is an iranian muslim and i find what he says a bit disengenuous and dramatic. i always have. also, i think the 'centre for globalization research" has a clear bias. it impresses me as the other side of the MEMRI coin, although it has a broader scope. i see no need to exaggerate or distort israel's violation of humanitarian practices and laws. i think thye word "condemnation" was used erroneously and deceptively in his statement "the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel 's violations of international law..." 

The Futility of UN Security Council Resolutions

the security council passes numerous resolutions of concern or position that do not amount to condemnations.

i think this is a more accurate list of the now 224 resolutions passed at the security council level CONCERNING israel.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you look through the resolutions, you will see a lot of really minor things and duplicates but you will also get a better and more accurate picture of what is going  on in actuality without having the accusation of a biased source being  thrown back in your face. i think the bare facts condemn israel far greater than an opinion piece, no matter how accurate that opinion piece may be or how much i agree with it.

here is another one though regarding the USA vetoes on behalf of israel...

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/UN_Vetoes_for_Israel

i think that says a lot as well.

all i am really saying is that i think we (people who speak for justice for palestine and her people) should be very hard on ourselves and our arguments and be very wary of our sources. if i open the door for global research etc, i am allowing them to open the door for MEMRI and CAMERA. also, i want to be squeaky clean when i bring up unbiased sources like mearsheimer and walt, or be able to hammer them when "fourteen members resign from carter center advisory board in protest over _peace, not apartheid_" and blah, blah, blah when, what, twelve of theem were jewish. that is a signiicant fact. the fact that the carter center had almost twice the jewish presence on his advisory board than their presence in the general population would indicate flys in the face of jewish claims of his anti-semitism.

all i am really saying is we win by playing our game, and our game has always been truth and hard facts from reliable, unbiased sources. their game has always been propaganda, which they are good at and which we should point out constantly. they are beginning to fail at tthat game big time. also, there are quite a few honest jews who oppose zionism to speak out against the zionist propaganda.

just my opinion.


----------



## jillian (Aug 1, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today.  If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. LOL
> 
> Romney was his usual Court Jester in Israel and if elected prez, will spend most of his time saying that what he meant to say ...
> 
> ...



we have never "done" for israel. we aid our ally the way we aid allies elsewhere. the difference is that israel doesn't fund terrorists who want to attack us with the aid we give them. i'll also point out that we are obligated by treaty to give certain funds to egypt and israel. last i check, those treaties hadn't been terminted or broken in any way.

my main question is why is israel the only country that certain types of people complain about aiding... 

i don't hear the same people complaining that we gave billions to the pals and to the saudis...


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



i think you really do need to tell us specifically what sources you are getting your information from...or even generally would be a start.

i read "The Story of the Irish Race: A Popular History of Ireland" by seamus mcmanus. it was a good book and fairy accurate factually. i enjoyed reading it...but it was biased as all heck and i would never reference it in any kind of dispute or argument.  

i think you need to back up some of the things you are saying.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

jillian said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today.  If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. LOL
> ...




I think its because what it gets us in return.

Some may say that one of the biggest reasons America is a target of terrorism is our support of Israel.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 1, 2012)

The Lavon Affair? Don't forget about the Franklin espionage scandal & the fact that they asked for Pollard to be released in the not too distant past. My major bone of contention is their inordinate presence in influential positions given the aforementioned incidents & their lobby's control over the gov't:
American Israel Public Affairs Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The annual Policy Conference is second only to the State of the Union address for the number of federal officials in attendance at an organized event.[citation needed]



I have found, on the internet, that if one questions israel's preferential status they are labelled anti-semites however,


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 1, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


We always consider the source, just to be prudent.  However, the truth or falsehood of an assertion does not rest soley on the source from which it came.  GlobalResearch is a non-partisan, Canadian, alternative media outlet.  They have no stake in the outcome.  With that being said, I don't think anyone should just take the word of someone else (and that includes media outlets), but should find out for themselves using as many different sources commenting on the same subject as they can.  The more perspectives you get on a certain topic, the closer you will get to the truth.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 1, 2012)

The land should be combined and shared among the two peoples.  equally.  If propping up a favored race in America is racism then so, too, is it racism in Israel.  All we are doing is propping up the Strom Thurmans of israel by validating zionism in that land.  There will only be peace when both people are mutually equal.

fact.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 2, 2012)

loinboy said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy said:
> ...



we're on the same side here on the issue. unlike the pro-israelis however, i don't nthink we have to march in lockstep and i am sure you don't either.

GlobalResearch has an agenda and sites with agendas are propaganda sites. it makes no difference whether i agree with the propoganda or not. they may not have a stake in the outcome on the particular issue per se, but they do have a stake in presenting issues to their readership in such a way as to encourage donations.

sites such as this, the ADL, etc are very useful for providing information that can be checked out from more acceptaable, non-biased sources. i've even read srtuff in rense that was true, but i would never use it and instead look to verify what actually happened from a mainstream news source. given the facts, i can say something like what kourosh ziabari said in my own words. that way i am more sure of my argument.

i also don't think you need to look to a lot of different sources to form an opinion or gain a perspective. the pro-israelis go to a lot of sources, MEMRI, CAMERA, ADL, the jewish virtual library, etc. and all they are doing is reinforcing their perspective and taking them further from the truth. hate sites don't give me much of a perspective other than to show me soe people are really scarey (i do like the black background and the red dripping letters and the spooky music ones with the pope and his minioms burning in hell).seriously, look at  the arguments they present. why do you think so many of them slip into one line responses involving vulgarity and argumentum ad hominem.

i just prefer mainstream sources that have a reputation for objectivity if at all possible and i can mke my arguments from there. it isn't always possible, o know. i certainly don't do it myself. i am sitting on one right now that i believe has accurate facts and very little bias, if any, that is far easier to follow than the 20 or so links i have had to click to verify the facts.

the whole thing is getting ridiculous anyway. we shouldn't have to prove their assertions wrong. they should have to prove their assertions right, like we do ours.

lol..i ain't mad atcha.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 2, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> we're on the same sife here on the issue. unlike the pro-israelis however, i don't nthink we have to march in lockstep and i am sure you don't either.
> 
> GlobalResearch has an agenda and sites with agendas are propaganda sites. it makes no difference whether i agree with the propoganda or not. they may not have a stake in the outcome on the particular issue per se, but they do have a stake in presenting issues to their readership in such a way as to encourage donations.
> 
> ...


I don't know where you are on the political spectrum, but the one thing I've noticed as a difference between liberals and conservatives, is that liberals are more inclinded to disagree with each other than the cons.  It might just be me, but I rarely see con-on-con warfare.  But when it happens, I don't forget it.  In fact, it's kind of nice to see.  

I remember one time a guy in another forum told this right wing administrator that he just blindly believes everything Glenn Beck says and the righty went off!  He said,_ "Hey, don't group me in with that psycho!  He doesn't speak for me and he doesn't share my values"._  I got all warm and fuzzy hearing that and thought to myself, maybe the old, fiscal conservative, William F. Buckley republican's are still out there.  I hope so.  I definately do not want a "one party" government.  We need about 15 or 20 different party's competing for seats.

Right wingers who hate Limbaugh party
Liberals who don't have bleeding hearts party
Jews who hate Israeli's party
Christian's against neocons party
Guy's who like chick flicks party
The gay KKK party
The we only drink malt liquour party
NRA members for gun control party
Judeo-muslim pacifists party
the we hate the Celtics party​
We need to open this thing up.  Right now, we got reps and dems, which are flip-sides of the same coin.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 2, 2012)

jillian said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > It was nice to see Shimon speak so highly of President Obama today.  If you listen to the R's, he's the anti-Jew made real. LOL
> ...



no need to be coy. i think many of us know what you mean by "certain types of people." maybe you mean those of the egalitarian variety, but somehow i doubt it. this certain person compkains about a lot of things and attacks them in various ways and at vertain time. china and most favoured nation and foreign aid while they were committing labour abuses, farmers for contributing to illehal immigration to provide cheap labour (and that includes agriprocessor). haiti, pakistan, india for child labour, many countries for using children as soldiers, the WTO and IMF and on and on. recently on this message board i complained about china and the olympic uniorms and i complained about people wanting to get rid of the minimum wage.

i do not like my country's foreign aid money going to a country that flagrantly commits human rights abuses, war crimes, and in my opinion, acts of genocide. i do not want to look back some day when there is no palestinian people or bedouin tribes and say to myself "why didn't i do more?"

i have know idea where you are getting your figures. could you provide a source, particularly about the billions given to the pal E S T I N I A N S (look, i do not refer to jewish people as "heebs" or for the most part, i don't even call them "jews". i try to call them jewish people or jewish israelis. i'm not perfect, but i try. if you meant it as a term of endearment, i apologise.

here is a site that breaks down foreign aid. it is easy to follow and i think is somewhat accurate. 

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

here is another site that is the horses mouth.l i used it to check  the accuracy of the above but it is way to labour intensive, but feel free.

http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/country.html

and here is another...

United States foreign aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


i think you are mixing up apples and oranges and maybe even a fish or two. maybe you could be more speciific.

as for allies, here is something that is about to hit the fan...although there does seem to be a good job of covering it up going on...

FBI: Bibi Helped in Plot for US Nuclear Equipment - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News

FBI: Bibi Helped in Plot for U.S. Nuclear Equipment
Declassified FBI documents implicate PM Netanyahu in a 1970s plot to use U.S. technology for Israel&#8217;s nuclear program.

The sale of nuclear technology to Israel is illegal under U.S. law because Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

(thanks, my good friend, joannie, for the link)

i am just really trying to figure out what you are trying to say and if you can back things up. do you want us not to talk about the foreign aid package we give to israel?


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 2, 2012)

Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 2, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.



Not really.  

First, we can't base our troops or planes from there, because even our Arab allies would go nuts.  

Remember when in 1991, Saddam launched SCUDs against Israel, and we had to beg them not to retaliate because we were afraid the Arab states we were counting on would switch sides if the Israelis got involved?  

Second, Israel has its own agenda which isn't our agenda. 

Third, there are only two ways the Palestinian question gets resolved.  Either a two-state soution or they eventually become the numerical majority in Israel, and vote Zionism out of existence.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 2, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.
> ...



But, as many Israeli friends of mine would retort, "...there already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan."

Anyway, we already have had troops on Israeli soil during the first Gulf War. It continues to serve as an extension of our own policy and arm in the war against terror. Regardless Israel's own aims, which is to survive, it serves ours in that war.


----------



## blackhawk (Aug 2, 2012)

If you didn't have Iran and Syria helping Hamas and Hezbollah though Syria is helping less now because of it's own internal problems I think Israel and Palestine could work something out that both could live with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 2, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> But, as many Israeli friends of mine would retort, "...there already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan."
> 
> Anyway, we already have had troops on Israeli soil during the first Gulf War. It continues to serve as an extension of our own policy and arm in the war against terror. Regardless Israel's own aims, which is to survive, it serves ours in that war.



Actually, what Israel does is drag us into wars in a part of the world we shouldn't have a thing to do with.  

And sorry, Jordan is not the "Palestinian State".  Palestine is.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 2, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.
> ...




Theres a third way and one I find far more likely than any other unfortunately:

 Eventually theres war and ethnic cleansing becomes the "final solution". I do not expect the Palestinians will win that conflict. I expect that the Israelis will eventually exterminate them. 

And I think that it will be viewed by history as another Holocaust.

I just dont see those folks over there EVER finding a way to peacefully co-exist.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 2, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> [...]
> Look at it this way. *those who can afford to are leaving it in droves. israel is bending its own ruless on immigration to maintain their "jewish" hegemony and are generally attracting low income hooligans who couldn't make it wherever. brooklyn gun toters and russian neo-nazis etc. that is a very broad generalisation, but with some truth to it.*
> 
> by dismantle i think i meant let's see if we can get those people out of there who can't afford to get away from it themselves.



In the years 1990 - 2011 Israel's  population increased 67%
In the years 1990 - 2011 U.S.'s population increased 24%

That set of statistics doesn't support the bolded statement above, since Israel's population grew almost 300% (279%) faster than ours.

In spite of the hardships and risks Israel is growing robustly.

Demographics of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 2, 2012)

Vidi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...



i grew up in post war europe and the german children were like regular little kids except they were ashamed. there was a sense of sadness about them and where most kids brag about their parents, they never did...even if their parents had nothing to do with the NAZIs.

germany was big enough to recover from that national shame as her children grew up and had children.

another victim of zionism may well be the jews themselves. already, they are losing people to intermarriage and other reasons. i couldn't imagine being a jew after the palestinian holocaust.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 3, 2012)

More likely, either by sheer numerical superiority or developing a weapon or strategy, the state of Israel will be over run or obliterated by its surrounding enemies.
It is like the pogroms of the past, except this time Zionists have established their own ghetto and set themselves up as a target.
Note, this is not a scenario I want, recommend or look forward to, so don't misinterpret. This is merely an outcome I find probable.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 3, 2012)

No one has been a harsher critic in the past of Israel than I. Yet, I will never delude myself. That one would compare the actions of Israel in relation to the Palestinians with those of the Nazis is either uneducated or deliberately deceiving. Furthermore, I doubt there is any real shame if one is alive in the aftermath of a major struggle in that arena. You only feel relief. Israel will, undoubtedly be able to handle any military challenge in the area, now more than ever with the Arab world in upheaval. As a last resort, to ensure its security, it has multiple nuclear strike weapons as sophisticated as any in ours. True, there is much not to like, but in the end, she serves our needs, and we serve hers, so she will be around for a long while after others come and go.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 3, 2012)

Amelia said:


> I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.



I'll give 100 - 1 odds that the evul joos win again and again vs the pals

with or with out our help.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 3, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > But, as many Israeli friends of mine would retort, "...there already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan."
> ...



What war has Israel dragged us into?

Pals are Jordinians, the land was taken for Jordan.  the pals are such low lifes that they wouldn't let them leave Israel.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

blackhawk said:


> If you didn't have Iran and Syria helping Hamas and Hezbollah though Syria is helping less now because of it's own internal problems I think Israel and Palestine could work something out that both could live with.



They cannot work anything out as long as the official position of the Palestinian leadership, whether it be Hamas, Hezbollah, or some splinter group, is to deny Israel's existence.  Most especially when those same government continue to be engaged in acts of terrorism against Israelis.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2012)

Israeli society does not allow for a decision tree that ends with "Send suicide bomber to blow up a school bus full of kids".

Palestinian society does.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

For me the issue is simple: Stay out of the religious debate. If that means not picking sides between the Palestinians and the Israelis, that's what you do. Both sides have a laundry list of things the other group has done to them. Both sides have legit beefs with the other side. In my world view, that means you call No Joy and move on. I do think prosperity is good for the global community, and so therefore I think if there can ever be a peaceful split of the region, we shouldn't shy away from providing help to the Palestinians to help them get on their feet, but it should be tightly controlled and very specific. 

Then again, even that would anger the Israelis, so maybe I just should stick with my first response: Stay the Hell out and away from that region and its politics completely.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

I can find no basis for the dispute between Palestine and Israel involving religion in any regard.  The Muslim religion may be a factor in the motives of the Palestinian leadership, but it is their behavor to which I think right thinking people object, and not their religion.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I can find no basis for the dispute between Palestine and Israel involving religion in any regard.  The Muslim religion may be a factor in the motives of the Palestinian leadership, but it is their behavor to which I think right thinking people object, and not their religion.



I don't want to be accused of flaming in this forum, so I'm going to ask you to provide some real, hard evidence that this conflict isn't religiously based. Why else would the two sides still be at such odds after all these years, if religion isn't the core of their disagreement?

And do you not call ANY of the actions taken by the Israelis as being over the line?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I can find no basis for the dispute between Palestine and Israel involving religion in any regard.  The Muslim religion may be a factor in the motives of the Palestinian leadership, but it is their behavor to which I think right thinking people object, and not their religion.
> ...



I've never said Israel has never overreacted or overreached or that there have not been individual Israelis who have behaved badly.  In any substantial group of people there are going to be some people who get it wrong, act imprudently, or commit indefensible behavior.  There are few humans on Earth, in fact, of whom that cannot be said.

But there is nothing in Israel's policy and never has been referring to any religion as being unacceptable or illegal or disallowed.  Muslim mosques exist in perfect peace within Israel and Arab Muslims serve on the Israeli Knesset.  There is no record of Israel ever taking the position that another soveriegn nation had no right to exist and should be obliterated from the face of the Earth.

Nor is the fact that the Palestinian leadership Muslim any factor whatsoever in Israel's response to the Palestinians.

It is the behavior, stated intent, and unacceptable terrorism committed by the Palestinian leadership that creates the conflict.  Not anybody's religion.  I already said, the Muslim religion may be a factor in Arab hatred of Israel.  But it is not hatred of Jews that is the issue but the behavior of the Palestinians that causes the conflict.

Read over some of the commentary posted at this site and then see if you can find anything remotely similar stated by Israeli leaders:
Hamas in Their Own Words


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You're missing my point. Whether or not the stated intentions of either group name religion as a point of attack, that is most certainly where the blame for the heart of the fighting lies; to deny that is to deny reality. Of course not every Israeli has done terrible things, just like not every Palestinian has. Taking sides will not make this issue go away, nor will it EVER make the region more safe and secure.

You're citing a terrorist group's words. That's not the same as an average Muslim. I would consider Israel to be anything but blameless in this conflict. Neither side has ever made a real, lasting effort at peace. If you believe they have, then I think you're probably only seeing half the story. 

Again, neither side is blameless, which is exactly why the U.S. should be treading lightly, if at all, in the region. I'm not about taking sides in this conflict.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



I didn't speak of the average Muslim or the average Jew.  I did speak of the offical policies of the Palestian and Israeli leadership and what is causing the conflict.  It is much, much, MUCH more than a squabble  over religion.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



No, it really isn't. Not at its core. If the two didn't have CENTURIES of hate built up on each from the religious stuff, this probably would have been squelched a long time ago. You can deny that if you wish, but I prefer to keep a big picture view of this particular shit-show.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

The dispute is not over religion.  The dispute is over Israel's right to exist in peace and getting the Palestinians to agree to that so that they will have far less misery.  That is the conflict in a nutshell.  You can take religion entirely out of the equation and that conflict remains unchanged.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 3, 2012)

The dispute isn't so much Israel's right to exist. Along with religious prejudice on both sides, the dispute's firmly rooted in who has a greater claim to the land.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

Swagger said:


> The dispute isn't so much Israel's right to exist. Along with religious prejudice on both sides, the dispute's firmly rooted in who has a greater claim to the land.



Exactly. To deny that it's not religiously based is to ignore literally thousands of years of history.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 3, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> Realistically, however, Israel is a powerful, static aircraft carrier for the United States. Our defence, capital, and intelligence industries are almost completely intertwined. Whether we agree or disagree on the politics of the Palestinian question, withdrawing support from Israel in the region is almost a rhetorical question alone. It could not be done easily and swiftly.



sadly this is true. Its tantamount to military industrial complex welfare.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 3, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> No one has been a harsher critic in the past of Israel than I. Yet, I will never delude myself. That one would compare the actions of Israel in relation to the Palestinians with those of the Nazis is either uneducated or deliberately deceiving. Furthermore, I doubt there is any real shame if one is alive in the aftermath of a major struggle in that arena. You only feel relief. Israel will, undoubtedly be able to handle any military challenge in the area, now more than ever with the Arab world in upheaval. As a last resort, to ensure its security, it has multiple nuclear strike weapons as sophisticated as any in ours. True, there is much not to like, but in the end, she serves our needs, and we serve hers, so she will be around for a long while after others come and go.



It is probably unfair to compare the Zionists to the Nazis, but it is totally fair to compare them to South African Apartheid.   

And in the long run, the military superiority of the Botha Regime meant nothing in the face of international and internal oppossition.  

In another generation, you are going to see Jews massively fleeing Israel, because they figure it just isn't worth it anymore.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> > The dispute isn't so much Israel's right to exist. Along with religious prejudice on both sides, the dispute's firmly rooted in who has a greater claim to the land.
> ...


Islam has'lt been around for thousands of years.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 3, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > No one has been a harsher critic in the past of Israel than I. Yet, I will never delude myself. That one would compare the actions of Israel in relation to the Palestinians with those of the Nazis is either uneducated or deliberately deceiving. Furthermore, I doubt there is any real shame if one is alive in the aftermath of a major struggle in that arena. You only feel relief. Israel will, undoubtedly be able to handle any military challenge in the area, now more than ever with the Arab world in upheaval. As a last resort, to ensure its security, it has multiple nuclear strike weapons as sophisticated as any in ours. True, there is much not to like, but in the end, she serves our needs, and we serve hers, so she will be around for a long while after others come and go.
> ...



Joe, I just don't think we are there yet. As you are aware, there is a much more powerful presence in our nation supporting Israel, than there was for apartheid South Africa.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Swagger said:
> ...



When do you assert Islam began?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 3, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...



Only because the Afrikaners didn't have Hollywood reminding us every five minutes that Hitler did a nasty to them.   

But even that excuse is running a bit thin.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 3, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It is a lot more deeper and invasive than just hollywood, Joe.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...


Islam as a recognizable religion began in the early 600s.
So, you're looking at about 1400 years.
Hundreds, not thousands.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 3, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



610 AD to be exact, when Mohammed first received his revelations from God as he believed it to be. 622 AD was the beginning of the movement, as Mohammed marched his force of followers from Medina onto Mecca.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



So a thousand + a few hundred years then? The point is for a long  time.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 3, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Israeli society does not allow for a decision tree that ends with "Send suicide bomber to blow up a school bus full of kids".
> 
> Palestinian society does.


If that was true, then why was it Israel who broke the ceasefire?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Israeli society does not allow for a decision tree that ends with "Send suicide bomber to blow up a school bus full of kids".
> ...


I don't know what ceasefire you refer to, but if you care to specify I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that I can show it was in response to a paeltinian act of violence.

In any event, your response indicates you miss the point -- when a society sees wanton acts of terroism with innocent civilians as legitimate target, that society has little to blame but itself for its woes.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I kinda chucke at your "is to ignore literally thousands of years of history" comment.


----------



## Amelia (Aug 3, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...





I gave him the benefit of the doubt.   Don't the tensions go back to Abraham, by whatever name the groups are known?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

Amelia said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ConservaDerrps said:
> ...



Right. That's obviously what I meant, M14 is choosing to hyper-fixate on a verbal blunder rather than the larger point. And considering that they do have history together going back to the Biblical days, I don't think my assessment is really that far off. But whatever, some choose to wallow in the splitting of hairs.

Whatever the length of time, it's obvious that no one outside of those two groups has any business there. It's a viper's nest and could easily wind up causing a really horrible war if we're not careful.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 3, 2012)

They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since.  I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.  

IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 3, 2012)

Maybe would could confine the discussion to the most recent incarnation of Israel which began in 1948 when one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish state by force or arms on the majority of Palestinians?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

American Horse said:


> They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since.  I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.
> 
> IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.



*Edited*

It still doesn't mean that the hostilities have existed a long time and the only people with the power to resolve it permanently haven't shown any willingness to do so.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Maybe would could confine the discussion to the most recent incarnation of Israel which began in 1948 when one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish state by force or arms on the majority of Palestinians?



Israel occupies 8000 square miles with a population of just over 6 miliion people--approximately the same number the Nazis murdered--and 20% of that population is Arab.  Israel would fit into the State of Florida eight times.

Surely there is enough charity in the world to allow the Israelis such a tiny tract of land for the only homeland the Jews have ever had or will likely ever have?


----------



## American Horse (Aug 3, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since.  I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.
> ...



I't just a pet peeve of mine, and other's who prefer accuracy and a modicum of precision.  And that particular phrase, not that you intended, suggests a hopelessness, and  the  problems of the region can best be explained by much more current events.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 3, 2012)

American Horse said:


> They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since.  I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.
> 
> IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.


Try 100 years ago.  Until the zionist migration into Palestine, there were no recorded incidents of major violence between the two groups.


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 3, 2012)

American Horse said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Honestly? If you say they were peaceful up to about 1400 years ago, that's not that far away from literally being "thousands" of years ago. Of course, I'd love to see some kind of peace happen before that six hundred years passes. Jesus Christ almighty let's hope so.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 3, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> I don't know what ceasefire you refer to, but if you care to specify I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that I can show it was in response to a paeltinian act of violence.


It was just a couple of years ago that was broken after 4 months by an Israeli commando raid into Gaza in December.




M14 Shooter said:


> In any event, your response indicates you miss the point -- when a society sees wanton acts of terroism with innocent civilians as legitimate target, that society has little to blame but itself for its woes.


And if that society happens to be an Israeli society...


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I can find no basis for the dispute between Palestine and Israel involving religion in any regard.  The Muslim religion may be a factor in the motives of the Palestinian leadership, but it is their behavor to which I think right thinking people object, and not their religion.



israel insisted as a condition for talks that the palestinians recognise israel's "right to exist". the arab peace initiative did just that and included all twenty two states in the arab league and the PA. israel rejected it in 2002. it rejected it in 2007. whoevern waants to can look up the reasons why. i am to disgusted with the while thing to explain it.

since then, israel refuses to negotiaate until the PA, or whomever the israelis refuse to negotiate with, recognizes istael's "right to exist as a jewish state." that just isn;t going to happen and shouldn't happen.

so religion is involved, and very heavily. why do you think israel refuses to negotiate. because they have their greedy eye on the west bank, an area the jews call judea and samaria.

but hey, it is a done deal. the jewish state wins and jews around the world can celebrate their victory. ll that is left is some political mop up operations. congratulations on your genocide...and they did it the clean way. it was a humane genocide with no terrorism,  accomplished only with fountain pens and fighter planes.

i am sure your children, and their children, will be just beaming when they read about it in the history books years from now...with the inevitable comparison of the jewish state with that of the NAZI state.

there is a small chance that this genocide can be prevented, but non-jewosh people are pretty powerless at this point. jews, those who the israeli state listens to and receives support from, have to stand up together and insist upon a peaceful settlement that includes a viable palestine and a fair solution to the refugee problem, and that settlement has to include east al quds/jerusalem and a withdrawl to the green line. that will end the terrorism that you are so worried about...but it isn't going to happen because the Shas party is a kingmaker in the knesset and dictates a balance of power between kadima and likud...and then throw in yisrael beiteinu which is pretty much controlled by the yesha council...well, it was as few as five years ago that i was being told "we don't want the west bank. we only want secure borders and an end to terrorism" now it's "judea and samaria is ours and a rightful part of idrael."

yeah, i am disgusted!!!

Remarks from Benjamin Netanyahu
In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[15][16] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. *"Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords,"* Netanyahu affirmed.[17]

Oslo Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe would could confine the discussion to the most recent incarnation of Israel which began in 1948 when one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish state by force or arms on the majority of Palestinians?
> ...


I suspect there would be more charity if the world knew precisely how much land Israel requires.
Your numbers seem more than reasonable to me; however, there are (conservative) factions within Israeli politics who have designs on a much Greater Israel.

"Herut (Hebrew: &#1495;&#1512;&#1493;&#1514;*, Freedom) was the major right-wing political party in Israel from the 1940s until its formal merger into Likud in 1988, and an adherent of Revisionist Zionism."

Herut's champions have never stopped talking about adding the state of Jordan to their own.
Their hardcore patriots publicly promote a Greater Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 4, 2012)

ConservaDerrps said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> > The dispute isn't so much Israel's right to exist. Along with religious prejudice on both sides, the dispute's firmly rooted in who has a greater claim to the land.
> ...



i don't think that's entirely true. thousand year old c;aims are pretty rificulous and seems to be a way of avoiding dealing with the issue. discussinh them is pretty much an exercise in futility.

i am not discounting history at all as it pertains to the situation today, but we may want to be a little more modern than when people were off smotin' peeps right and left and when orb pluckin' and molar yankin' were popular pastimes. we wouldn't be in this mess maybe if that notorious third tablet hadn't been smashed in a pique. i think it said "i'll buy a vowel, pat", which would have provided an healthy alternative to turning into a pillar of salt.

maybe a good starting point that includes  history would be the mid 1800s, when the brits were running amok in the region, or the 1890s when hertzl came up with a brilliant plan..."hey, this anti-semitism sucks. look at what these dan frogs did to dreyfuss. we need to get outta here and plop oursekves smack dab in the middle of a billion arabe where  we will be safe and welcomed."  who knows...whatever...george said 1948. all i figure the past has been good for in this dispute is finger pointing.

as for religion's role in disputes of this type, i don't think so. i think it plays a minor part really. you put a bunch of muslims, jews and christians in an auditorium with a big buffet and an open bar and people will probably get along. the fights will break out along the lines of who likes the yankeed and who like the red sox and not whose god is wearing the white uniform and which one is in the road grays.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 4, 2012)

"The Arab Peace Initiative (Arabic Language: &#1605;&#1576;&#1575;&#1583;&#1585;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577 is a comprehensive peace initiative first proposed in 2002 at the Beirut Summit of the Arab League by then-Crown Prince, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and re-endorsed at the Riyadh Summit in 2007."

One of Israel's most severe critics alleges the Arab Initiative was first put forth 36 years earlier at the UNSC:

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). 

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the *U.N. Security Council in January 1976* by the major Arab states. 

"Israel refused to attend the session. 

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 4, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Swagger said:
> ...



Allow me to clarify: The religious aspects of this tension are what everything is rooted in. That's to say that the point of genesis for this conflict does in fact come from the differing religious beliefs and their inherent claim over that land. And I still think there are religious fundamentalists on both sides stoking this fire. Otherwise, why would Mosques and Synagogues in the area still try to actively keep Jews and Muslims out of each other's religious buildings?

Now, that doesn't mean that this is a religious conflict per se. There are definitely very secular underpinnings to this. Land control, resource control, etc. Again, this isn't strictly about religion, but when the jumping-off point of your fight with another group is over who believes in the one true God, that kind of shit is hard to completely ignore even hundreds, over a thousand, years ago.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 4, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what ceasefire you refer to, but if you care to specify I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that I can show it was in response to a paeltinian act of violence.
> ...


You'll have to be more specific, or provide a link to the event.   Either way, my prediction stands.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > In any event, your response indicates you miss the point -- when a society sees wanton acts of terroism with innocent civilians as legitimate target, that society has little to blame but itself for its woes.
> ...


Really.   Cite such an instance or one substatially simiilar.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 4, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> You'll have to be more specific, or provide a link to the event.   Either way, my prediction stands.


Here you go...



> _Within weeks of entering into the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire agreement, Hamas rocket fire had come to a halt.* According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ceasefire was so successful that it brought "normal life and "calm" back to Israeli towns near Gaza. *In an article posted on July 27, 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs even lauds Hamas, stating:
> 
> Publicly, Hamas leaders have stated time and again that the lull is a Palestinian national interest. *On several occasions, Hamas members have arrested Fatah operatives who were involved in firing at Israel and confiscated their arms.*
> 
> *Calm prevailed for four months until Israeli forces broke the ceasefire agreement on November 4, 2008. *While the world's gaze turned to one of the U.S.'s most historic elections that day, Israel launched an armed incursion into Gaza, accompanied by aerial bombing, killing six Hamas members and catapulting the region into a renewed wave of violent hostilities._


It looks like Israel is the one who doesn't want peace.




M14 Shooter said:


> Really.   Cite such an instance or one substatially simiilar.


I can site several.


> _Israeli Terrorist Incidents against Palestinians
> 
> -- Tira, December 11, 1947 - five Palestinians were killed and six injured;
> 
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

Loinboy's list might prompt somebody to check out the incidents IF he had a source that wasn't  100% pro Palestinian and 100% anti Israeli.  But since he doesn't, just consider the source and move on I think.

I always shake my head in amazement at the anti-Israel mantra that it was Israel who broke the 2008 cease fire.  Those saying that never ever mention the rockets that Hamas continued to fire into Israeli neighborhoods, and that Israel agreed to the cease fire only if Hamas stopped such terrorist activities.  And Israel was also on record that it would not allow such attacks to go unpunished.

So who is the villain there?  Ya'll can make the call.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Loinboy's list might prompt somebody to check out the incidents IF he had a source that wasn't  100% pro Palestinian and 100% amti Israeli.  But since he doesn't, just consider the source and move on I think.
> 
> I always shake my head in amazement at the anti-Israel mantra that it was Israel who broke the 2008 cease fire.  Those saying that never ever mention the rockets that Hamas continued to fire into Israeli neighborhoods, and that Israel agreed to the cease fire only if Hamas stopped such terrorist activities.  And Israel was also on record that it would not allow such attacks to go unpunished.
> 
> So who is the villain there?  Ya'll can make the call.



Yeah, you can. Israel for being on someone else's land to start with....


----------



## American Horse (Aug 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Loinboy's list might prompt somebody to check out the incidents IF he had a source that wasn't  100% pro Palestinian and 100% amti Israeli.  But since he doesn't, just consider the source and move on I think.
> ...



Once there is war you can forget the status-quo-ante and to the victor go the spoils.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Loinboy's list might prompt somebody to check out the incidents IF he had a source that wasn't  100% pro Palestinian and 100% amti Israeli.  But since he doesn't, just consider the source and move on I think.
> ...



Really?  Whose land was it?  Who held the deed?   From pictures I have seen in the mid 40's, it was pretty bleak, barren, and undeveloped at that time.  And from what I read in the history books, it belonged to Great Britain who mostly willingly deeded it over to Israel for a homeland with the consent and blessings of the U.N.

There were Jews living in the area at the time and they were perfectly willing for any Arabs also peacefully living there to remain there once the State of Israel was chartered.  Many did.  It was only those who voluntarily left ahead of approaching Arab armies, and in full support of those Arab armies, who lost any ground.

So how do you figure that the tiny TINY State of Israel, a teensy speck amidst the huge area occupied by Arab peoples, is on land that belongs to somebody else?


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Loinboy's list might prompt somebody to check out the incidents IF he had a source that wasn't  100% pro Palestinian and 100% amti Israeli.  But since he doesn't, just consider the source and move on I think.
> 
> I always shake my head in amazement at the anti-Israel mantra that it was Israel who broke the 2008 cease fire.  Those saying that never ever mention the rockets that Hamas continued to fire into Israeli neighborhoods, and that Israel agreed to the cease fire only if Hamas stopped such terrorist activities.  And Israel was also on record that it would not allow such attacks to go unpunished.
> 
> So who is the villain there?  Ya'll can make the call.


The rocket attacks went down to virtually zero.  The Israeli government admitted life became normal for that time.  It all ended with Israel's commando raid.

BTW, GlobalResearch is not a "pro-Palestinian" website.  They are non-aligned and non-partisan.  Why would a Canadian media outlet be pro-anything in the Middle East?  I always love it when you people have no argument or facts to refute what was said, so you try to discredit the source.  Didn't anyone tell you, ad hominem's are not valid rebuttals and if you object to what was stated in my link, then the burden of proof is on you to show evidence to the contrary in order to prove your objection is not frivolous.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 4, 2012)

American Horse said:


> Once there is war you can forget the status-quo-ante and to the victor go the spoils.


I'm sorry, but that has been illegal since WWII ended.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



i had asked you for your sources earlier and you neglected to name them. now you give us ADL.  

didn't you criticize loinboy for his use of bias sites.

also, i would really like you to define "terrorism" in generaal terms so we know what you are talking about. i don't like the word. perhaps a terrorist is one who lacks the funds or support to build artillery and tanks and bombers.

as or me, as i have said, i do not use the word, but i have seen it used referencing israeli settlers, which comprise what? ten percent of israeli citizens? ifteen percent of jewish israeli citizens. imagine that percentage of arab or muslim "terrorists." 

i am just having a hard time figuring out any point you are making, other than you have a blind allegiance to israel. really, help me out by telling me where you get some of your info.

i have no problem at all telling you where i get mine...usually a mainstream jewish newspaper or publication for whatever fact there is (i would use al jazeera but jewish people object to it, even though it is a fine source of info). and then i begin to check things out from objective sources like wiki to link to the pertinent info from other sources. people will criticise wiki, but it really is pretty good. CIA factbook is pretty good too. documents and treaties. i really don't need anyone to tell me what my opinion should be, but i do read opinion pieces also, from both sides o the issue.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 4, 2012)

foxfyre said:


> joeb131 said:
> 
> 
> > foxfyre said:
> ...



*sources!!!*


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Loinboy's list might prompt somebody to check out the incidents IF he had a source that wasn't  100% pro Palestinian and 100% amti Israeli.  But since he doesn't, just consider the source and move on I think.
> ...



I'll need a reliable source for the Israeli government EVER saying life is normal re Hamas let alone in the 2008 period.  And if you can find me a single anti-Palestinian or pro-Israel article anywhere on the GlobalResearch site, I'll reconsider my opinion about that.  I tried and couldn't.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 4, 2012)

Actually, it was the lack of international support, then the lack of American support, that finally did the apartheid regime in. I suspect that, though there is a lack of international support for Israel, the one missing element, is the same of American. Until that happens, I suspect there to be little if any change under the current circumstances.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe would could confine the discussion to the most recent incarnation of Israel which began in 1948 when one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish state by force or arms on the majority of Palestinians?
> ...



*Edited.*

are you suggesting that organizations have a right to a homeland?

maybe you could just make a general statement about what you belive is right for the jewish people that you could apply to all peoples. i can work with that. it seems though that a lot of people are being tarred with the "anti-semitic" brush because they want to treat jewish people equally and not exceptionally.

really, why exactly did and why exactly do the jewish people have a right to a homeland anywhere, let alone the mideast.
*Edited.*


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Okay, let's go with the United Nations giving it to them as a payoff for the entire free world looking the other way as Hitler murdered six million Jews.  And that would include most of the Arab nations who cooperated with Himmler and other Nazi leaders in what history records as the North Africa Holocaust in which the Jews were targeted for expulsion from or murder in those countries.

Where would the Jews go after the war?  Back to Germany that had murdered so many; where their property had been confiscated or destroyed?  To Russia where some of the most viscious pograms had been carried out against them?  Or to some other place where they may or may not be denied their rights and/or persecuted in other ways because they were Jews?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 4, 2012)

*"Hamas in Their Own Words*

"We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood&#8230;We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs."

Hamas in Their Own Words

At the end of WWII the US took over assorted strategic assets of the bankrupt British Empire.
After the six-day war in 1967, Israel became the prime US strategic asset in the Middle East.
The Arabs never had any doubt about Lord Balfour's declartion in 1917 which happily coincided with the British navy's switch from coal to oil to power its fleets:

"Following the absorption of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the British set about shoring up their rule by the tried and true strategy of pitting ethnic group against ethnic group, tribe against tribe, *and religion against religion*. 

"When British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued his famous 1917 Declaration guaranteeing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people in Palestine, he was less concerned with righting a two thousand year old wrong than *creating divisions that would serve growing British interests* in the Middle East.

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,&#8221; he said, '*a little loyal Jewish Ulster* in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'&#8221;

It's worth remembering there would be no Hamas today if one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine had not inflicted a Jewish state upon their neighbors in 1948.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 4, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> It's worth remembering there would be no Hamas today if one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine had not inflicted a Jewish state upon their neighbors in 1948.


It's worth remembering there would be no Hamas if Israel's Mossad hadn't of funded (and supported) them for a period of time in the beginning.



> _*Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. *According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)"._


That's quite a hoot!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

In my opinion, I have posted no data that that is is not common knowledge to most people with an Eighth grade education.

But if it is a big deal to you, even though you have not required links or verification for those opposed to Israel, I will declare everything I have posted in this thread to be my opinion and not statements of fact.

That should allow me to have a conversation with people without this becoming a mishmash of cut and paste with nobody happy with the sources used.  I will try to provide a source for anything somebody really has a question about or chooses to challenge with their own sources.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 4, 2012)

loinboy said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > It's worth remembering there would be no Hamas today if one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine had not inflicted a Jewish state upon their neighbors in 1948.
> ...


Chomsky has also claimed that Arab Nationalists like Nasser were seen as the primary threat to US control of Middle Eastern oil during the years that followed WWII. Islamic fundamentalists were seen by the West as a weapon to use against secular/leftist Arabs who wanted control of their natural resources and the independent modernization that would bring.

Hamas was a useful tool in this agenda in Gaza:

"The Islamists set up orphanages and health clinics, as well as a network of schools, workshops which created employment for women as well as system of financial aid to the poor. And in 1978, they created an 'Islamic University' in Gaza. '*The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza*.' At the end of 1992, there were six hundred mosques in Gaza. 

"Thanks to Israel&#8217;s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel&#8217;s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks) , the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression."

Hamas is a Creation of Mossad


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You won't find any ihformation at the Globalresearch site that supports Israel's position about anything or that criticizes the Palestinian position about anything which makes it suspect for any fair treatment of this subject,  But for some really good rebuttals, if you would accept an equally prejudicial site, I would refer you to the Jewish Virtual Library.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> You won't find any ihformation at the Globalresearch site that supports Israel's position about anything or that criticizes the Palestinian position about anything which makes it suspect for any fair treatment of this subject,  But for some really good rebuttals, if you would accept an equally prejudicial site, I would refer you to the Jewish Virtual Library.


Israel has enough people publishing their kind of propaganda, GR gets out what they don't tell you.  And they don't criticize Israel for "anything", they publish articles that criticize Israel for things it should be criticized for.  Show me something they said that isn't true.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy said:
> ...


Sites like GlobalResearch feature writers with perspectives you aren't likely to find in corporate controlled media. GR articles often present historical evidence that isn't readily accessible elsewhere and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions about who deserves their support or criticism.

For example, in loinboy's link, fragments of Ahmed Yassin's history is presented:

"Ahmed Yassin was in prison when, the Oslo accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government) were signed in September 1993. The Hamas had rejected Oslo outright. But at that time, 70% of Palestinians had condemned the attacks on Israeli civilians. 

"Yassin did everything in his power to undermine the Oslo accords. Even prior to Prime Minister Rabin&#8217;s death, he had the support of the Israeli government. The latter was very reluctant to implement the peace agreement.

"The Hamas then launched a carefully timed campaign of attacks against civilians, one day before the meeting between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, regarding the formal recognition of Israel by the National Palestinian Council. 

"These events were largely instrumental in the formation of a Right wing Israeli government following the May 1996 elections.

"Quite unexpectedly, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered Sheik Ahmed Yassin to be released from prison ('on humanitarian grounds') where he was serving a life sentence. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, together with President Bill Clinton, was putting pressure on Arafat to control the Hamas. 

"In fact, Netanyahu knew that he could rely, once more, on the Islamists to sabotage the Oslo accords. Worse still: after having expelled Yassin to Jordan, Prime Minister Netanyahu allowed him to return to Gaza, where he was welcomed triumphantly as a hero in October 1997."

Hamas is a Creation of Mossad

Any organization that reveals the deception and inhumanity of Hamas, Netanyahu, and Clinton doesn't seem particularly biased, imho.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > You'll have to be more specific, or provide a link to the event.   Either way, my prediction stands.
> ...


You act as if Israel's actions were unprovoked
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1
See?  Told you.



M14 Shooter said:


> > Really.   Cite such an instance or one substatially simiilar.
> 
> 
> I can site several.
> Israeli Terrorist Incidents against Palestinians


Sigh.... 
Show that these were -terrorist- incidents.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

American Horse said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Israel is, apparently,  the fisrt country in the history of the world that does not have the right to keep the land it won in war.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > So when the Palestinians finally push the Zionists off their land, we can ignore their whining?
> ...


Israel won the West Bank from Jordan in a war that Israel did not start.   Since then, Jordan has given up claim in that land - and thus, it rightly belongs to Israel.  You cannot "occupy" your own territory.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> You act as if Israel's actions were unprovoked
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1
> See?  Told you.


They were unprovoked.  Your own link admits this.



> _From your link:
> *An Israeli security force had entered Gaza *to destroy a tunnel _


"An Israeli force had entered Gaza...", like I said, the ceasefire ended with an Israeli commando raid.



M14 Shooter said:


> Sigh....
> Show that these were -terrorist- incidents.


 According to US law...


> _*Definition of terrorism:*
> &#8220;terrorism&#8221; means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;_


I believe the victims in most of the incidents I listed are classified as non-combatants and I'm pretty sure many of those acts of violence were a result of jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Israel won the West Bank from Jordan in a war that Israel did not start.   Since then, Jordan has given up claim in that land - and thus, it rightly belongs to Israel.  You cannot "occupy" your own territory.


I'm sorry, but aquiring land by force, has been outlawed since the end of WWII.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Israel is, apparently,  the fisrt country in the history of the world that does not have the right to keep the land in won in war.


No, all country's since the end of WWII, cannot aquire land by the use of force.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Israel won the West Bank from Jordan in a war that Israel did not start.   Since then, Jordan has given up claim in that land - and thus, it rightly belongs to Israel.  You cannot "occupy" your own territory.
> ...


False.  Keeping land you won in wartime is precedented by at least 5000 years of international law.

This is -especially- the case when the state that lost the land gives up its claim on it, as Jordan did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > You act as if Israel's actions were unprovoked
> ...


The link I posted notes that Israel acted in response to a Palestininan action.
That's the opposite of 'unprovoked'.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh....
> ...


Yep.   Show that to tbe the case for each of the incidents you cited.
remember that we're looking for something akin to sending a suicide bomber specifically to blow up a bus full of schoolkids.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

Edited.



> Conquest
> Main article: Right of conquest
> Conquest, the acquisition of territory by way of force, was historically recognised as a lawful method for acquiring sovereignty, but has been illegal in international law at least since the entry into force of the United Nations Charter.


The UN is not the sole source or arbiter of International law, and that someting go against the tenets of the UN does not in any way necessarily make it 'illegal' under international law.

And, as I said:   Jordan gave up cliam to the land and its rights to the West Bank and thus, under International law, it belongs to Israel.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Loinboy's list might prompt somebody to check out the incidents IF he had a source that wasn't  100% pro Palestinian and 100% amti Israeli.  But since he doesn't, just consider the source and move on I think.
> ...



Israel did break the ceasefire...they admitted to it too when they bombed a tunnel and killed 6 mostly militants I think. They never send a commando force to gaza it was their airforce, but Mark Regev admitted it you can look it up


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well I've looked at every credible site I can find, and I can find nothing to suggest that Israel admitted breaking the cease fire or acted in any manner other than retaliation for repeated rocket attacks from Hamas.

I can find any number of outrageous and unsupportable accusations and charges on the many dozens of anti-Israel sites out there.

So do you have a reliable quotation of any Israeli official admitting that Israel broke the cease fire?


----------



## ConservaDerrps (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy said:
> ...



What credible sites did you visit, out of curiosity?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

Oh Snopes, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, LA Times.  Sources like that; most of which tilt pro-Palestinian.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy said:
> ...



The official himself speaks on video, google mark regev admits Israel broke the ceasefire, he goes on to say for security reasons obviously either way they broke it, it's very easy to find


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



If it is easy to find, then surely you can post a reliable link to him saying it?   Does he also admit that Hamas was firing rockets into southern Israel almost immediately after the cease fire?


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well I need 15 posts to post a URL so let me catch up lol


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



It isn'tall that important.  I have seen the youtube video and have also noted that it is posted on almost every anti-Israel site with the exact same commentary accompanying it.  I just haven't been able to find any more objective source supporting it or confirming it.  And we all know that youtube can be edited to make a person appear to say something other than what was actually said.  That was underscored in a major way with that altered youtube video of Obama's now infamous 'you didn't build that' speech.  And shame on the anti-Obama people who resorted to that.

Again I am not a committed apologist for Israel.  Just trying to keep it honest here though.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen | World news | guardian.co.uk, this is the attack the ended the ceasefire


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



And here is the New York Times version that leaves room for a difference opinion as to whether taking out a secret tunnel created by the Palestinians into Gaza constitutes breaking the cease fire.  Which is the less defensible hostile act?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/africa/14iht-15gaza.17839437.html

The Jewish Virtual Library accounts report that the the rockets never fully stopped during the cease fire, but I have not been able to verify that from any other source either.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



That's still breaking the ceasefire, and this tunnel was in Deir al balah which raises another question, that would not make it an act of defense


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

That's in november 14th, Israel broke the 4 month ceasefire on November 4th


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



Not sure I'm following your reasoning there.  Certainly a tunnel created by the Palestinians in Deir al balah would be seen as a definite threat by the Israelis:


> Deir el-Balah or Dayr al-Balah is located in the central Gaza Strip and is the capital or muhfaza (seat) of the Deir el-Balah Governorate. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the city had a population of 49,751 in mid-year 2006. Well-known for its beaches and date palms, recent archeological excavations uncovered a cemetery dating back to the late Bronze Age filled with pottery, tombs, bronze pots and a mosaic floor. Deir al-Balah also contains a monastery built by St. Helena in 372 AD. The city has been a frequent target of Israeli incursions, particularly since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2001, with the stated aim of stopping Qassam rocket fire into Israel. Ahmad Kurd, a Hamas member, was elected mayor in late January 2005 and of the city's council seats, 13 of 15 were won by Hamas candidates in February 2005.
> Deir al-Balah - News - The Jerusalem Post


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



That tunnel is in the Gaza strip, Deir al balah will not reach Israeli borders, I've been to Deir al balah many times personally they are talking about rafah maybe or beit Layha


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> False.  Keeping land you won in wartime is precedented by at least 5000 years of international law.
> 
> This is -especially- the case when the state that lost the land gives up its claim on it, as Jordan did.


And that has all changed since the end of WWII. 


> _The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. *It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the Second World War when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles *and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314.
> 
> The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world, the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination* led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law*. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously,* the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process*._


It is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.  You can thank the German's for that one.  The world was so sick of Germany's wars of aggression and it's annexing of neighboring country's, the we wrote the Nuremberg Principles thus codifying this law.

That's why Israel will never own this land.  If the world community allowed this to happen, then it's like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.  That was wrong and this is wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



Well, I have not been there and I wasn't there at the time--I'm pretty sure you weren't either--so we both may be limited to what information is provided by an overwhelmingly mostly pro-Palestinian mainstream media tempered by opinions and observations reported by more pro-Israel sources.

Also, I find myself more often defending Israel because of the prevailing accusations that any defensive measures they take prior to actual attack is almost always related as oppressive or brutal Israeli aggression.  Which, given the long history of terrorist attacks against Israelis, I see as absolutely absurd.  So I have cause to take seriously reports from reliable sources of a tunnel approaching or leading into Israeli territory.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> The link I posted notes that Israel acted in response to a Palestininan action.
> That's the opposite of 'unprovoked'.


No it did not say that at all.  If you think it did, then show me.



M14 Shooter said:


> Yep.   Show that to tbe the case for each of the incidents you cited.
> remember that we're looking for something akin to sending a suicide bomber specifically to blow up a bus full of schoolkids.


It doesn't matter if its a suicide bomber or an Israeli air strike on a civilian target, in both cases, non-combantants are killed. And dead is dead.  There's no difference in death.  When Israel deliberately bombs a hospital in Gaza, that is an act of terrorism.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> The UN is not the sole source or arbiter of International law, and that someting go against the tenets of the UN does not in any way necessarily make it 'illegal' under international law.
> 
> And, as I said:   Jordan gave up cliam to the land and its rights to the West Bank and thus, under International law, it belongs to Israel.


It does if you are a member nation of the UN, then you're duty bound to honor its Charter.

BTW, if the UNSC say's you did something illegal, then you did something illegal.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The US media is not pro Palestinian....they are more pro Israel, I don't need sources I just know haha, but really it doesn't matter if I wasn't there at the time I went right after the war, a tunnel isn't that long to reach Israeli borders and you realize it was a raid as well. Also the tunnels aren't used to attack Israeli civilians


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 5, 2012)

Amelia said:


> I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.



Just one comment....

I recall the Palestinians dancing in the streets because of 9-11. They didnt want peace and they should not be given it.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> Just one comment....
> 
> I recall the Palestinians dancing in the streets because of 9-11. They didnt want peace and they should not be given it.


If it was the one broadcasted by CBS, they've already admitted that the footage was from an earlier event prior to 9/11.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 5, 2012)

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen | World news | guardian.co.uk, here's the source again..


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 5, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.
> ...


One reason, among many, why SOME Arabs (and other Semites) danced in the streets after 911:

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more than *46,900 children* died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931&#8211;6.)"

MMS: Error


----------



## Jos (Aug 5, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.
> ...



Some people celebrate without dance
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W6LdB24-wU]"Sept 11 was good for Israel." -- Netanyahu - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 5, 2012)

*What Role Did the US-Israeli Relationship Play in 911?*

"On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: *'It&#8217;s very good&#8230;.Well, it&#8217;s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)*.'

"Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of 'the mark' to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable&#8212;within an acceptable range of probabilities.

"When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded that 'the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel' has turned '*Israel into the leading authority in this field*.'&#8221;

What Role Did the U.S.-Israeli Relationship Play in 9-11? | Criminal State


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...





> Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away


Clearly, the Israelis acted w/o provocation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > False.  Keeping land you won in wartime is precedented by at least 5000 years of international law.
> ...




Tell me:  In regards to the West Bank, under international law, who is the injured party?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > The link I posted notes that Israel acted in response to a Palestininan action.
> ...





> An Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity under army rules, said that the tunnel lay about 270 yards inside Gaza and was apparently intended for use in the abduction of a soldier or soldiers. The tunnel was ready for an imminent operation, the official said.


Provocation.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.   Show that to tbe the case for each of the incidents you cited.
> ...


It very much does, given the context of the conversation.
Please provide the information I asked for, keepong in mind that context and the definition you provided.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > The UN is not the sole source or arbiter of International law, and that someting go against the tenets of the UN does not in any way necessarily make it 'illegal' under international law.
> ...


"Duty bound" and "international law" are different issues.
International law exists outside the UN; as such, an action disapporoved of By the UN in no wa necessarily breaks international law.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Duty bound" and "international law" are different issues.
> International law exists outside the UN; as such, an action disapporoved of By the UN in no wa necessarily breaks international law.


International law includes the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague and Rome statutes and the Nuremberg Principles.  The UN is based on international law.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Provocation.


That doesn't change the fact that it was Israel's decision to enter Gaza.



M14 Shooter said:


> It very much does, given the context of the conversation.
> Please provide the information I asked for, keepong in mind that context and the definition you provided.


We're just going to have to agree, to disagree on this one, my friend, because it looks like our definitions of terrorism are quite different and I have no intention of splitting hairs on this subject.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> yawn.
> 
> Tell me:  In regards to the West Bank, under international law, who is the injured party?


The Palestinian's who have been living there for generatons.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > "Duty bound" and "international law" are different issues.
> ...


This negates nothing that I said.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Provocation.
> ...


It means that their entry into Gaza was in response to an action that violated the cease-fire.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > It very much does, given the context of the conversation.
> ...


... you cannot show that the actions you listed were terrorist in nature, according to the definition that YOU supplied.
I accept your concession of the point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > yawn.
> ...


Wrong.  

Under International law - that is, the law governing states interacting with other states -  Jordan is the injured party.

Jordan gave up cliam to the land thus its claim to injury under international law.  
So...it belongs to Israel.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> It means that their entry into Gaza was in response to an action that violated the cease-fire.


No, a violation of the cease-fire, would be the firing of a weapon, not the digging of a tunnel.  You cannot fire a tunnel at someone and you cannot use what someone might do, as justification for what you do do.



M14 Shooter said:


> you cannot show that the actions you listed were terrorist in nature, according to the definition that YOU supplied.
> I accept your concession of the point.


I'm not conceding anything.  I've already shown they were terrorist in nature by the link I provided.  No other proof is necessary.  If you notice, most of those acts of violence were committed by Hanagah and Irgun, which are jewish terrorist groups.  Ergo, if a terrorist organization commits an act of violence towards a political outcome, it's usually considered an act of terrorism.  Therefore, I've proven my point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > It means that their entry into Gaza was in response to an action that violated the cease-fire.
> ...


Except that it is not.   A prepeatory act with the intent to break a cease-fire that creates a imminent threat - as described by your source - violates a cease-fire.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > you cannot show that the actions you listed were terrorist in nature, according to the definition that YOU supplied.
> ...


Your link -claims- they were terrorist acts, it does not show that they were terrorist acts.
Provide poof that those acts each fall under the definition of terrorism, or concede the point.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Not according to UN resolutions 242 and 338.



> _ *The Security Council in resolution 242 formulated the principles of a just and lasting peace, including an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict, a just settlement of the refugee problem, and the termination of all claims or states of belligerency. *The 1973 hostilities were followed by Security Council resolution 338, which inter alia called for peace negotiations between the parties concerned. *In 1974 the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty, and to return. *The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in international conferences held under UN auspices.  _


The injured party are the people who have been living there for generations.  You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.  That is just absurd, if you think they do.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



i have been debating with myself not only as to how i should answer this but even whether i should. i certainly could haul out immigration charts and links and say "an enemy of my enemy" and mention the stern gang and irgun (who i have never referred to as "terrorists" ever, by the way) and engage you is some esoteric pissing contest.

but why? the past is the past and what is is.

you seem like a nice person, a caring person and i am assuming you are jewish. i totally understand your position. i used to live in ireland and knew true believers. they would do a lot of stupid things and get killed. i always figured you aren't going to be able to do much fighting if you are six feet under.

i am a gentile. my voice is not as strong as yours. israel listens to the voice of american jews. so let's skip over the past and move right into the solution phase of the competition.

a genocide is occurring to the palestinian people. i don't use that word without a lot of caution. i have been supporting the palestinian cause for some 40 years now, and just started using it. history will record it and, because of what happened to the jews in WWII, you will be eternally linked to the NAZIs. your legacy will be as their's. furthermore, a genocide of the palestinian people is going to be the death of judaism. germany was big, and they are still recovering from what they have done to the jews. they still suffer from a national shame. these things do not go away. israel, and judaism, is much smaller.

so let's cut to the quick. i hear jewish people, israel supporters, talk a lot and excuse israel for all kinds of things, but i want your answer. i want you to tell me what you think the solution is. i want you to tell me what it will take for jews and israelis to help create a strong and viable palestinian state? what should the borders be? what kind of cooperation should they expect on east jerusalem? how can israel help palestine be a good neighbour and a prosperous country? what is a soloution to the refugee issue?

all i really hear from israel is why something cannot be done, and i never even hear a why, and all i see right now is israel making worse enemies in the region.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Except that it is not.   A prepeatory act with the intent to break a cease-fire that creates a imminent threat - as described by your source - violates a cease-fire..


A tunnel, is not an imminent threat.  It's just a tunnel.  You can take someone to the hospital in a tunnel.  How's that a threat?




M14 Shooter said:


> Your link -claims- they were terrorist acts, it does not show that they were terrorist acts.
> Provide poof that those acts each fall under the definition of terrorism, or concede the point .


I already have.  I've provided the US law definition of terrorism and I've shown that the acts of violence were committed by jewish terrorist groups.  Prosecution rests and has proven its point.


----------



## Amelia (Aug 5, 2012)

Hope I don't jinx anything by saying this but I want you guys to know how much I appreciate the points people are making in this thread.  A lot to think about.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy said:
> ...


I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that the land no longer belongs to Jordan now that Jordan gave the land up, but the fact of the matter is that what you cite above is not -international- law as it has nothing do with relations between two states.

After Jordan gives up its claim, the UN can no more declare that the West Bank does not belong to Israel as it can that Texas does not belong to the US.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

A brief Q&A with  average jews living in Israel and their opinion of the Palestinian's.



> _*Q: What exactly is "the occupation"?*
> 
> *A:* In 1967, Israel defeated the neighboring Arab countries in a war that lasted only six days. At the end of that war, Israel had captured the West Bank (which includes the Eastern half of Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.
> 
> ...


And just how does Israel treat their own citizens who side with (or are sympathetic to) the Palestinian's?  Why, they treat them like criminals!


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 5, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Hope I don't jinx anything by saying this but I want you guys to know how much I appreciate the points people are making in this thread.  A lot to think about.


Too late!

*Israeli Violations of International Law:*

"In 1947 the United Nations hoped to settle the conflict between the Palestinian people and the Zionists by dividing the land between them. Unfortunately, they chose a plan which the Palestinians did not agree with, and implemented it anyways. 

"The plan, described in UN Resolution, divided the land of Palestine into two sections awarding the Zionists more than 1/2 of the land (55%) even though their current holdings totalled only about 6%, and their population was only about 16% of all the people in Palestine. *Plus the plan gave the most fertile farmlands to the Zionists*. The plan was clearly unfair, and the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors rebelled against the plan, and war broke out.

"The Zionists won the fighting, and during the course of the fighting took additional lands bringing their total holdings to about 75% of the lands of Palestine, which they kept.

"Even though this additional land was thus illegally gained in violation of both the Hague Regulations (1907) and UN Charter (1945) which both included the *basic legal principle that it is illegal to acquire territory by force*, these new boundaries soon became the accepted boundaries of the new State of Israel in the various peace agreements Israel signed with its neighbors.

ISRAELI VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

"Major Legal Principle Violated -
1. Acquisition of Territory by Military Conquest is Illegal
2. Occupation (either Legal or Illegal) is Generally Temporary and Must Never Lead To Sovereignty over Occupied or Conquered Lands of the Enemy People or Nation.
As Per International Law -
UN Charter, article 2, para. 4 (1945) (full text) (specific article - see below)
Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970), Principle 1 (full text) (specific article - see below)
Hague Regulations IV (1907), articles 43 & 55 (full text) (specific articles - see below)
Geneva Conventions IV (1949), article 47 & 54 (full text) (specific articles - see below)
International Response -
United Nations -
International Miscellaneous response -
Academic Analysis -"

Illegal Acquisition of Land by Force


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Except that it is not.   A prepeatory act with the intent to break a cease-fire that creates a imminent threat - as described by your source - violates a cease-fire..
> ...


The claims of an imminent threat came from your source.   Is your source valid or not?



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Your link -claims- they were terrorist acts, it does not show that they were terrorist acts.
> ...


Fail.   You have offered no support whatsoever for the claim that the acts you cited were terrorist in nature, according to the definition you supplied.   All you have is a list that says they were terrorist acts, which, absent suspport to that end, means nothing.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that the land no longer belongs to Jordan now that Jordan gave the land up, but the fact of the matter is that what you cite above is not -international- law as it has nothing do with relations between two states.
> 
> After Jordan gives up its claim, the UN can no more declare that the West Bank does not belong to Israel as it can that Texas does not belong to the US.


It never was Jordan's.  The Mandate did not give any area to Jordan west of the Jordan River.  And the West Bank and Gaza, are west of that river.  And you don't seem to want to deal with the fact that there was over 700,000 arabs living in this area before the zionist migration.  Arabs owned 80% of the land in this area until they were driven out by jewish terrorism.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 5, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> The claims of an imminent threat came from your source.   Is your source valid or not?


I do not recall my source claiming the "tunnel" was an imminent threat, unless of course, it was from a comment by the Israeli's.




M14 Shooter said:


> Fail.   You have offered no support whatsoever for the claim that the acts you cited were terrorist in nature, according to the definition you supplied.   All you have is a list that says they were terrorist acts, which, absent suspport to that end, means nothing.


The list is my support.  And on that list, are jewish terrorist groups.  It states very clearly these jewish terrorist groups were responsible for these deaths of innocent civilians.  When a terrorist group kills an innocent civilian, what do you call it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that the land no longer belongs to Jordan now that Jordan gave the land up, but the fact of the matter is that what you cite above is not -international- law as it has nothing do with relations between two states.
> ...


Incorrect.  Jordan annexed the the West bank in 1950 and gave up the claim of the West Bank in 1988.
Thus, my statement stands.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 6, 2012)

Undoubtedly some will criticize the source, I wonder who will *contest the facts*?

"The record of Israeli terrorism, however, is substantial, far too extensive even to attempt to sample here. A small glimpse into the reality was given by Prime Minister Menahem Begin in a letter published in the Israeli press in August 1981, written in response to what he regarded as hypocritical criticism of the Israeli bombing of Beirut, which killed hundreds of civilians. 

"Begin offered a 'partial list' of military attacks on Arab civilians under the Labor governments, which included over 30 separate episodes that left many civilians dead. He concluded that 'under the Alignment government, there were regular retaliatory actions against civilian Arab populations; the air force operated against them; the damage was directed against such structures as the canal, bridges and transport.' 

"'The picture that emerges,' former UN Ambassador and Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in response, 'is of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name.' 

"Eban is harshly critical of Begin's letter because of the support it gives to Arab propaganda; *he does not contest the facts*."

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/terrorism.html


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



The solution is quite simple.  The Palestinians should:
1.  Stop sending suicide bombers into Israel to kill, injure, and maim as many men, women, and children as possible.
2.  Stop booby trapping Israeli installations for the same purpose.
3.  Stop firing rockets randomly into Israeli residential neighborhoods with the hope of hitting and killing or maiming somebody.
4.  Stop kidnapping, torturing, and murdering Israeli citizens.
5.  Demand that their leaders denounce ALL terrorism against Israelis, deal harshly with any who commit it, and remove all inflammatory language against Israel from their mandates, charters, and statements of purpose.
6.  Pledge to be good neighbors of Israel and follow through by being good neighbors of Israel.

If they do this, make it stick, and Israel does not then become a good and honorable neighbor to the Palestinians, then Israel will be harshly criticized by me and I will not feel all that charitable about supporting Israel.

Until, then, I will not fault the Israelis for doing anything and everythng that they feel they must to protect and defend their people.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 6, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




that really doesn't sound like a solution to me. for one thing, they have pretty much done a lot of these things. israel is the one who has constantly broken agreements anyway.

i am asking you, then, suppose all these things were true (and again, many of them are) what do you think israel should do to help thye palestinian people be prosperous and in a viable homeland...i.e. be a good neoghbour to israel?

it is not a threatening question or even a position based question. it is an interest based question. ti is interest based to not go through each of the six point you mentioned and refute them.

i will say this. i do think it is natve, to say the least, to just say that the israelis will do right by the palestinians.

let me throw this out for you. we have UNGA resolution 181 which whatever body representing palestine neither accepted or rejected. ok. then we have some sort of war, some call it a civil war, some call it an arab israeli war...and the israelis win...in 1948. i am still with you. BUT, in 1949 after a cessation of hostilities the UN does a UNGA resolution 273 where israel, in order to become a UN member state, agrees with the UN to abide by UNGA 181. that is an agreement with the UN and has nothing to do with anything else. israel has a right to defend her borders certainly but also has an obligation not to expand her borders.

so i will hand you 181 and i will hand you the present situation and i will ask you to give me some concrete proposals as to a solution based on making a viable palestinian state with the knowledge that if, indeed, the palestinians are genocided, you are aware that thestate of israel will no longer exist in the future.

so what works for both. you have the offered, the twice offered, arab peace initiative.

try to think 50 years into the future, and try to put yourself not only of the palestinians, but also the israelis who have to live there.

also, my compliments. usually people duck and run when approached with that question.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 7, 2012)

MHunterB said:


> Seal, what is it about Foxy's posts that makes you assume she's Jewish?



i probably shouldn't. she doesn't seem to be a christian zionist, nor does she seem like a rabid hater. somewhere along the line, you have to rely on experience. most of the people who present arguments like hers are jewish.

it was actually more of a question.

if i am mistaken...
i apologise foxfore.
and if i am not mistaken, 
i apologise, foxfyre.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



1. Ended long ago, the first ever suicide bombing Hamas did was after Baruch goldstein killed 29 Palestinians while they were praying

2. ????

3. None of those are random, very few are random and involve smaller groups

4. When does this happen? Are you talking about Shalit? He was captured and wasn't tortured go ask him personally if you live in Israel

5. If Israel leaves Palestinians drowning in blood, then no parties in Israel 

6. Yeah because Israel is a good neighbor


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> It was your source.   I have not seen a source from you that counters the claim.


I went back and read my source again and I don't see that claim anywhere in the report.  If you think it's there, then you're gonna have to show it.  Because right now, it ain't there!




M14 Shooter said:


> Then you have -nothing- to show that Israel comitted acts of terrorism, as defined by you and as decribed in this conversation.


The articles titled, _"The history of Israeli terror killings"_ and I've proven my point.  All you've done, is talk about stuff.  You haven't even proven your objection has merit.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > It was your source.   I have not seen a source from you that counters the claim.
> ...


Your source contained a link within its text that described the actual attack itself.
I quoted it.




> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Then you have -nothing- to show that Israel comitted acts of terrorism, as defined by you and as decribed in this conversation.
> ...


...and offers no proof that the events listed were -actually- terrorist atatcks.
Your list, without that proof, proves nothing.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



The population of Israel is just over 7 million with about 80% being Jews and most of the rest being Palestinian Arabs.  That is less than the population of New York City and it occupies a tiny tract of land 1/8th the size of Florida.

The Palestinian population is between 2 and 3 million--it was considerably less in 1948--and they would already have a homeland if they had accepted any number of U.N. plans of apportionment, all of which were agreed to by Israel.  But the Palestinians wanted it all--they wanted Israel out--and therefore they rejected every plan.

I don't see Israel as having any responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians.  The Palestinians sure don't accept any responsibility for the welfare of Israel.   The Arab population in the Middle East and  Africa is approximately 200 million and covers a huge tract of land  and controls a very large amount of the world's wealth.  They could have long ago furnished a solution for the Palestinians but chose not to do so because they could use the Palestinians to get at Israel.

Should the Palestinians denounce and cease their terrorist activities toward Israel and demonstrate they are willing to live in peace with Israel, then I would expect Israel to cease and desist all militant actions toward Palestine and accept the Palestinians as visitors and customers as they would accept any other people who are friendly toward Israel.  That is what being a good neighbor is.

Until then, I support Israel's right to protect its people however it is necessary to do that.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 7, 2012)

Is israel still building in East Jeruselum (Palestinian land)?
U.S.: Israel plan to build in East Jerusalem harms peace process - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper


> Israel to build 700 new homes in East Jerusalem; state also may seize private Palestinian land in West Bank.



Gentrifying the Palestinians out of their land.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your source contained a link within its text that described the actual attack itself.
> I quoted it.


Then provide it!  That "link", becomes your source, since it is the citation of your claim.




M14 Shooter said:


> ...and offers no proof that the events listed were -actually- terrorist atatcks.
> Your list, without that proof, proves nothing.


Wrong.  That list IS THE PROOF!  

What have you provided, to refute that list?  Nothing!  You've provided nothing but conjecture.  Well, I guess you can say that's something; but it still proves nothing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Wrong.  That list IS THE PROOF!


If that list qualifies as "proof" to you, then there's no need for me to waste any more time here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> Is israel still building in East Jeruselum (Palestinian land)?


Are Americans building houses in Texas?


After Jordan gave up its claim on the WB, it becamse Israeli land.
As such, there's no argument against Israelis building there.


----------



## Al_Fundie (Aug 7, 2012)

Someone needs to have the guts to tell the Israelis and the "Palestinians" to grow up.

Israel should be forced to remove all the stupid barricades and such , but at the same time the "Palestinians" need to understand that Israel has an absolute right to defend herself and if they don't like the results of that mayhaps they should start policing themselves in regards to harboring terrorists.

Oh and while they are at it , perhaps the "Palestinians" should ask their "brothers" in the region why no one is offering to assist them in bettering their reality. Oh that's right, the other Muslims in the region are too busy using them to actually help them.

Due to political pandering , I doubt we EVER see a US politician get up and honestly say both sides are in the wrong and need to change their behaviors.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> Oh and while they are at it , perhaps the "Palestinians" should ask their "brothers" in the region why no one is offering to assist them in bettering their reality. Oh that's right, the other Muslims in the region are too busy using them to actually help them.


The Palestinians should ask Jordan why she doesn't want them back.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> Israel should be forced to remove all the stupid barricades and such , *but at the same time the "Palestinians" need to understand that Israel has an absolute right to defend herself* and if they don't like the results of that mayhaps they should start policing themselves in regards to harboring terrorists.


An *"occupational force"* cannot claim self-defense!


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> If that list qualifies as "proof" to you, then there's no need for me to waste any more time here.


If you're going to continue to act like your personal feelings towards my source is a valid rebuttal, 
then I agree it's a waste of time.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > If that list qualifies as "proof" to you, then there's no need for me to waste any more time here.
> ...


Your list claims the events are terrorist attacks.
Neither your nor your list does anything to show those claims to be true.
You do not recognize the significance of this, and so to continue to argue the point is a waste of time.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> > Israel should be forced to remove all the stupid barricades and such , *but at the same time the "Palestinians" need to understand that Israel has an absolute right to defend herself* and if they don't like the results of that mayhaps they should start policing themselves in regards to harboring terrorists.
> ...


Israel cannot "occupy" Israeli territory.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 7, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> > Israel should be forced to remove all the stupid barricades and such , *but at the same time the "Palestinians" need to understand that Israel has an absolute right to defend herself* and if they don't like the results of that mayhaps they should start policing themselves in regards to harboring terrorists.
> ...



agreed. They're referred to as "the occupied territories" for a reason. Its analogous to myself going to iraq or afghanistan and building a house simply because there are boots on the ground.


----------



## MHunterB (Aug 7, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> Is israel still building in East Jeruselum (Palestinian land)?
> U.S.: Israel plan to build in East Jerusalem harms peace process - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
> 
> 
> ...



This is the same 'East Jerusalem' which Jordan took control of from Israel in '48 - ejecting all the Jewish residents - and maintained control and occupation over until '67 when Jordan was forced out again by Israel.

So where's the basis for even suggesting that EJ is "Palestinian" land?  

And the basis for concern over ejection of Palestinians is rather eroded by the ignoring of the Jordanian ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem .  East Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Is israel still building in East Jeruselum (Palestinian land)?
> ...


*The West Bank never legally belonged to Jordan:*

"Jordans annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others, including Israel.[citation needed] The move formed part of Jordans 'Greater Syria Plan' expansionist policy,[15] and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordans expulsion from the Arab League..."

King Hussein had no legal right to the West Bank, and neither did the Zionists.
In 1947 Jews held 6% of the land yet were given 55% of Palestine by the UN.
Arabs found that unfair and war broke out.
Jews won and enlarged their total holdings to about 75% of Palestine, displacing over 700,000 Palestinians in the process. 

Both the Hague Regulations (1907) and the UN Charter (1945) attest to the illegality of acquiring territory by force.

btw, Texas was stolen in much the same way.

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Al_Fundie (Aug 7, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Taking land by force is only illegal if someone can stop you.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your list claims the events are terrorist attacks.
> Neither your nor your list does anything to show those claims to be true.
> You do not recognize the significance of this, and so to continue to argue the point is a waste of time.


The list shows arab civilians killed by jewish terrorist groups.  You don't consider a terrorist group killing an innocent civilian an act of terrorism?  What would you call it?

This is all just a moot point.  Since you provide no refutable evidence, you haven't even proven you have a valid argument.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Israel cannot "occupy" Israeli territory.


Yeah, well, we're not talking about Israeli territory.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> Taking land by force is only illegal if someone can stop you.


Taking land by force has been outlawed since WWII.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 7, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Prior to 1949 that was true in theory and practice; under international law the right of conquest was recognized.

Since '49 it's been "illegal" to acquire land by force, but, of course, the US and Israel are exempt from such trivialities.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


I note you lleft out this part:


> In March 1948, the British Cabinet had agreed that the civil and military authorities in Palestine should make no effort to oppose the setting up of a Jewish State or a move into Palestine from Transjordan.[13]
> 
> The United States, together with the United Kingdom favored the annexation by Transjordan. The UK preferred to permit King Abdullah to annex the territory at the earliest date, while the United States preferred to wait until after the conclusion of the Palestine Conciliation Commission brokered negotiations.[14]
> 
> ...


SO...Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950.  The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens.  Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law.  Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.



> btw, Texas was stolen in much the same way.


I believe I made this comparson.  Take it to the UN.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Israel cannot "occupy" Israeli territory.
> ...


We're discussing the West Bank, part of Jordan in 1967, and then claim ceded by Jordan in 1988.
Thus, Israeli territory, under international law.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> We're discussing the West Bank, part of Jordan in 1967, and then claim ceded by Jordan in 1988.
> Thus, Israeli territory, under international law.


Then quote it!  What international law are you referring to?  Before I shoot this down, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove your point, albeit short-lived, as it may.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




what would it take to create a viable palestinian state? what should israel do to facilitate that, knowing that it would be in their best interest.

if you want to pick at scabs, i am quite capable of doing that. 

in 1940 the jewish population of israel/palestine was slightly less than 500,000.
in 1940 the arab population of palestine/israel was slightly more than 1,100,000.
in 1950the population was evenly divided, both peoples each having about 1,200,000.

today, there are about 6,000,000 jews in the region.
there are about 10,000,000 arabs in the region. i will try to break it down.
3,500,000 in west bank.gaza.
1,300,000 in israel.
2,700.000 in jordan refugee camps.
another 2,500,000 in neighbouring states refugee caamps.

all the above are close to accurate, although rounded.

and i could pick at more scabs but what would be the point.

what i hear you saying id that if the palestinians would just roll over and die, the israelis won't have to kill them.

so i am back to UNGA resolution 273, where israel agreed that, were israel accepted as a state, they would accept UNGA resolution 181...and that has nothing to do with whether the arabs agreed or not. it was an agreement with the representative of the nations of the world, the united nations.

that is where i am, and i want to know what you think is a good proposal to  do all the above. you are giving me nothing. you are telling me what ipalestinians must do, and not saying anything about what israel should do.

please, try again. address borders. the status of al quds/jeruasalem. the reugee situation.

and please, take some time, because what i am going to do is try to turn your solutions into general rules that can apply to all peoples. that is what is fair.

lets start with something easy...borders and east al quds/jerusalem


----------



## Intense (Aug 7, 2012)

That part is easy. It's adhering that is the problem. 

1) Put God first in all things.

2) Be fruitful, multiply, replenish the Earth, 

3) Bear witness, and testify, tell the truth about what you see.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 7, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



man...that is like saying serial killing is only illegal if someone catches you.

ya know, if i pick your pocket and disappear, you will be squealin' like a poked pig that you was robbed...and i'll be down the street and ordering uisge neat, water back, on your coin, and telling the bar keep..."ya know, i once heard someone say 'Taking land by force is only illegal if someone can stop you.'"

i don't think you believe in might makes right.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 7, 2012)

Intense said:


> That part is easy. It's adhering that is the problem.
> 
> 1) Put God first in all things.
> 
> ...



i've always said this...that i would support israel if they arrived at a solution that would provide the palestinians with a viable palestinian state and aided the palestinians get back on their feet, and helped provide a suitable solution to the refugee problem.

i will not support a genocide though, in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 7, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


*You seem to have forgotten the Six Day War:*

"Soon after occupying Palestinian territories following the 1967 war, the Israeli government began expropriating land from *Palestinian land-owners and building Israeli civilian settlements on those lands*.

"They then offered financial incentives such as tax breaks to Israeli citizens and Jewish immigrants to Israel to move to those settlements to live. In addition, many Israeli businesses moved to those settlements as well.

'The Israeli government then passed all sorts of laws legally linking those settlements to the State of Israel thus *creating a de facto annexation of those Palestinian lands to the State of Israel which itself is illegal.*

"The Israeli government claimed that the settlements were temporary and only built for security purposes, but from the quality of their planning and construction it is obvious these settlements are meant to be permanent. They also appear to serve many other clearly illegal purposes in Israel's plans for the Palestinian occupied territories:..."

Illegal Israeli Settlements on Palestinian Lands

The racists who stole Texas would be at least as indifferent to the UN as the racists who are currently stealing Area C.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > We're discussing the West Bank, part of Jordan in 1967, and then claim ceded by Jordan in 1988.
> ...


Simple:
Two countries have a territory in dispute.
One side gives up the argument - the other side wins.
No state othe than Jordan and Israel has any claim at all to the WB; when Jordan concedes, it goes to Israel.

Disagree?
What state other thwn Jordan and Israel had claim over the West Bank?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Nope.   Not in the slightest.



> Soon after occupying Palestinian territories following the 1967 war, the Israeli government began expropriating land from *Palestinian land-owners and building Israeli civilian settlements on those lands*


*Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same




			"They then offered financial incentives such as tax breaks to Israeli citizens and Jewish immigrants to Israel to move to those settlements to live. In addition, many Israeli businesses moved to those settlements as well.
		
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same




			'The Israeli government then passed all sorts of laws legally linking those settlements to the State of Israel thus creating a de facto annexation of those Palestinian lands to the State of Israel which itself is illegal.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same




			"The Israeli government claimed that the settlements were temporary and only built for security purposes, but from the quality of their planning and construction it is obvious these settlements are meant to be permanent. They also appear to serve many other clearly illegal purposes in Israel's plans for the Palestinian occupied territories:..."
		
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

Nothing you posted here in any way negates the soundness of what I said:

Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950. The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens. Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law. Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.

  Feel free to try again.*


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 8, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> > Israel should be forced to remove all the stupid barricades and such , *but at the same time the "Palestinians" need to understand that Israel has an absolute right to defend herself* and if they don't like the results of that mayhaps they should start policing themselves in regards to harboring terrorists.
> ...



Duly noted. Excellent point.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Feel freer to learn the difference between "state" and "territory."
Then find the word "state" in Section III, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the *territory* it occupies."

Have you noticed any attempts by Israel to transfer its civilian population into Area C since it conquered the West Bank in 1967?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Al_Fundie (Aug 8, 2012)

and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east. 

Hardly anyone is willing to admit that BOTH sides are at fault in multiple ways, nope more fun to blame one side or the other.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

Let me know which Israel we are discussing.
Start with what you believe the Jewish state's eastern border to be?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

For me it is simple.  Somebody is mad at you for whatever reason and is determined to firebomb your house and kill or maim your family.  Do you allow them to do that because you can see why they are mad?  Can even sympathise with their anger?

Do you let them out of jail just because you understand why they are mad?   Do you trust them just because they agree not to firebomb your house or try to kill your family for six months?

Or does the welfare and safety of your family take precedence over their hurt feelings?


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 8, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east.
> 
> Hardly anyone is willing to admit that BOTH sides are at fault in multiple ways, nope more fun to blame one side or the other.




sounds sorta pretty close to right to me. i asked about solutions on a post and that pretty well died...and i conceded for the most part the past history while trying to acknowledge the facts. that wasn't easy. 

people really need to be brave enough to get past all the wrongs and step forward and say "forget this. what can we do for each other that is mutually beneficial."


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 8, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east.
> 
> Hardly anyone is willing to admit that BOTH sides are at fault in multiple ways, nope more fun to blame one side or the other.


But it's not equal guilt.

On one side, you have a nation-state with a modern military occupying land against all international laws and support from the most powerful country the world has ever seen.

On the other, you have an entire population of people living under an occupation of tyranny for the last 45 years; having their movement restricted by over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks; an illegal and immoral blockade of their borders that is collectively punishing over a million people; weekly air strikes that have bombed their hospitals and they are not even allowed to have anything close to a military or civil defense force.

_Now what about that fault on both sides..._


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> > and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east.
> ...



What would be mutually beneficial is for the Palestinian leadership call off all their terrorists and officially and finally agree that Israel has the right to exist in peace, prosperity, and without fear of its neighbors.  Give Israel peace and you eliminate every roadblock to achieving mutual benefit.  Israel's neighbors have no reason to fear an unthreatened and unattacked Israel.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

Al_Fundie said:


> and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east.
> 
> Hardly anyone is willing to admit that BOTH sides are at fault in multiple ways, nope more fun to blame one side or the other.


Al... I hope you won't be advocating rationality regularly, life's too short.
Not only is it more fun to blame the other side, there is also more money to be made in arm sales by fanning the flames of hatred than by working for conciliation.

Apparently, at one time, reasonable Semites in the Middle East had an alternative vision to the one we see today:

"SOME MONTHS before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, I (Uri Avnery) met a high-ranking member of the Egyptian regime. The meeting took place in Paris through the auspices of a mutual friend.

"Throughout the years, I have met many leaders of the different Arab states, exchanging opinions and trading ideas for a settlement. But this meeting was different.

"At the outset, I said to my new-found friend: 'Let's make a list of all possible solutions to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Let's analyze every solution in turn and see where we get.'

"Taking a pen, we wrote the following list on the paper cloth on our table in the Paris restaurant:

"(A) Annihilation by war
(B) The destruction of Israel by political and economic isolation
(C) Status quo
*(D) A Semitic federation."*

Pax Semitica by Uri Avnery


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> For me it is simple.  Somebody is mad at you for whatever reason and is determined to firebomb your house and kill or maim your family.  Do you allow them to do that because you can see why they are mad?  Can even sympathise with their anger?
> 
> Do you let them out of jail just because you understand why they are mad?   Do you trust them just because they agree not to firebomb your house or try to kill your family for six months?
> 
> Or does the welfare and safety of your family take precedence over their hurt feelings?



maybe the solution is to create conditions and an environment where the warder's daughters and sons and the prisoner's daughters and sons won't kill each other.

i think you are approaching this the entirely wrong way. you have to put yourself totally and emotionally in the palestinian's shoes. i know this will happen...if israeli jews wipe out the palestinians, israel will be wiped out. the world will not forgive that.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> For me it is simple.  Somebody is mad at you for whatever reason and is determined to firebomb your house and kill or maim your family.  Do you allow them to do that because you can see why they are mad?  Can even sympathise with their anger?
> 
> Do you let them out of jail just because you understand why they are mad?   Do you trust them just because they agree not to firebomb your house or try to kill your family for six months?
> 
> Or does the welfare and safety of your family take precedence over their hurt feelings?


"The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1603;&#1576;&#1577;*, an-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947&#8211;1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War."

If ~700,000 Jews had fled from their homes in 1948, would their "hurt feelings" count for more or less in your moral calculus?

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > For me it is simple.  Somebody is mad at you for whatever reason and is determined to firebomb your house and kill or maim your family.  Do you allow them to do that because you can see why they are mad?  Can even sympathise with their anger?
> ...



No I don't.   I can empathise with the anger of that would be killer previously mentioned without in any way approving his method of dealing with his anger.

Israel has given absolutely zero reason to let anybody believe they want to wipe out anybody.  They want to be left alone in peace, and I believe they would be 100% peaceful with anybody who understands and allows that.

There have been brief truces now and then, but all short lived and all without any acknowledgement of intent to allow the Israel to exist in peace.  The Palestinians have never--I repeat NEVER--given any indication that they understand Israel's right to live in peace or that it should ever have any right to do so.

Until their leadership can do that and becomes proactive to ensure that it happens, they are the party who is most wrong and the least deserving of help.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Israel has given absolutely zero reason to let anybody believe they want to wipe out anybody.  They want to be left alone in peace, and I believe they would be 100% peaceful with anybody who understands and allows that.


In each of the wars she fought, Israel gave land back; if the Israelis wanted to wipe out the palestinains, they would have done so already.




> There have been brief truces now and then, but all short lived and all without any acknowledgement of intent to allow the Israel to exist in peace.


The Palestinians/Hamas define a 'liberated Palestine' as one where ALL of Palestine is 'liberated', including the land upion which sits Israel.  Given that, there's no reason to think that Israel will ever live in peace.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

Think Jordan and Egypt, both of whom DID agree that Israel should be allowed to exist and live in peace and who signed that conviction into law.  Both had absolutely no fear of Israel and have enjoyed the free trade between their countries.  (That will probably change between Egypt and Israel now that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over the Egyptian government.)   But the Palestinians could have been enjoying the same peaceful coexistance with Israel had they adopted the same peaceful attitude.  And Israel would not be occupying any lands the U.N. originally intended that the Palestinians would have.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Think Jordan and Egypt, both of whom DID agree that Israel should be allowed to exist and live in peace and who signed that conviction into law.  Both had absolutely no fear of Israel and have enjoyed the free trade between their countries.


One must note that this happened not because of any sort of diplomacy or act of 'international law' by the UN, but  because they were tired of Israel smashing in their heads every time they tried to destroy her.



> But the Palestinians could have been enjoying the same peaceful coexistance with Israel had they adopted the same peaceful attitude.


No question.   Too bad the Jordanians left them out to dry, rather than take responsibility for their own people.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Think Jordan and Egypt, both of whom DID agree that Israel should be allowed to exist and live in peace and who signed that conviction into law.  Both had absolutely no fear of Israel and have enjoyed the free trade between their countries.  (That will probably change between Egypt and Israel now that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over the Egyptian government.)   But the Palestinians could have been enjoying the same peaceful coexistance with Israel had they adopted the same peaceful attitude.  And Israel would not be occupying any lands the U.N. originally intended that the Palestinians would have.


Originally, the UN mandated 55% of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River for a Jewish state in spite of the facts that Jews owned 6% of the land and comprised one-third of the population of Mandate Palestine.

Obviously some Jews have consistently sought more land than the UN originally intended, and, apparently, you blame the Arab victims of Greater Israel for resisting?

BTW, it was rich Arab leaders in Jordan and Egypt who accepted bribes paid for with US tax dollars to "support" Israel. The vast majority of Arabs are smart enough to realize the Jewish state is little more than a strategic asset for US control of Arab oil.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Think Jordan and Egypt, both of whom DID agree that Israel should be allowed to exist and live in peace and who signed that conviction into law.  Both had absolutely no fear of Israel and have enjoyed the free trade between their countries.
> ...



Yes, the Arab world's choice to allow the Palestinians suffer and even exacerbate their suffering rather than help them out is quite shameful.  But rescueing the Palestinians, who have been committed to destroying Israel and Israelis as much as possible, is not and has never been Israel's responsibility.

Again, should the Arab world, most especailly the Palestinians, choose to give Israel the right to live in peace and without harrassment on its tiny little strip of land, and the Israelis do not reciprocate by being peaceful and non belligerant neighbors, then my quarrel will be with israel and not the Arabs.

Until then, Israel is not the ones who are in the most wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Perhaps Jordan should ask for the return of the WB, thereby taking resonsbility for the security of her former borders and actions of her former people.  This would go a long way to rest Israel's security fears as Jordan want no part of a hostile Israel.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

I think Jordan might have done that had it not been for the unyielding and belligerant stance of the Palestinian leadership be it Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO or whatever.  Why would Jordan want to subject themselves to Israeli hostility caused by people intent on killing or maiming Israelis?  Jordan has a very good thing going being Israel's peaceful trading neighbor.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I think Jordan might have done that had it not been for the unyeilding and belligerant stance of the Palestinian leadership be it Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO or whatever.  Why would Jordan want to subject themselves to Israeli hostility caused by people intent on killing or maiming Israelis?


More clearly this does the -real- problem show.


----------



## jillian (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I think Jordan might have done that had it not been for the unyielding and belligerant stance of the Palestinian leadership be it Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO or whatever.  Why would Jordan want to subject themselves to Israeli hostility caused by people intent on killing or maiming Israelis?  Jordan has a very good thing going being Israel's peaceful trading neighbor.



israel would have been ok with jordan taking in it's own people. the details of that effort might have taken some working out. but jordan never wanted the so-called refugees.


----------



## jillian (Aug 8, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



i'm usually right. 

thanks.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

jillian said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I think Jordan might have done that had it not been for the unyielding and belligerant stance of the Palestinian leadership be it Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO or whatever.  Why would Jordan want to subject themselves to Israeli hostility caused by people intent on killing or maiming Israelis?  Jordan has a very good thing going being Israel's peaceful trading neighbor.
> ...



I agree.  Israel has shown no interest in interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.  All Israel has ever wanted is to simply be left alone in peace.  We can argue until the cows come home the legalities, proprieties, and moral consequences of Israel's choices to defend itself and deal with those determined to destroy Israel, but the bottom line is that Israel has a history of leaving those alone who allow Israel its peace.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



ok...i get it...and if i had to make a choice then as to who gets pushed into the sea, then i am all for the jews being pushed into the sea...given no other alternative between one or the other.

i swear, can't you get out of the finger pointing mode for even a brief moment. i am pretty good at adversarial bargaining...and i think you reflect the israeli governments stance quite well.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


That would come as a big surprise to Jonathan Pollard and Larry Franklin:

*"In August 2004*, the media discovered an FBI investigation, begun in 1999, involving Pentagon intelligence analyst Larry Franklin. 

"He had openly met Israeli Embassy intelligence officer Naor Gilon as well as two AIPAC officials, director Steve Rosen and chief analyst Keith Weissman. He pleaded guilty in October 2005 to revealing classified information and is now serving a 12-year prison sentence. 

"Rosen and Weissman are currently on trial. 

"If the prosecution is correct, Franklin passed classified information relating to Iran to both AIPAC employees, who in turn provided the information to the Israeli Embassy."

The Spy Who Loves Us | The American Conservative

The CIA currently regards Israel as the biggest threat to US state secrets in the Middle East which seems a funny way of leaving peace-loving people alone.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I agree.  Israel has shown no interest in interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.  All Israel has ever wanted is to simply be left alone in peace.  We can argue until the cows come home the legalities, proprieties, and moral consequences of Israel's choices to defend itself and deal with those determined to destroy Israel, but the bottom line is that Israel has a history of leaving those alone who allow Israel its peace.


How many times do you have to be told, an "occupational force" cannot claim self-defense?


----------



## jillian (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



i'd also point out that israel has made peace with any country that was a willing partner.

neither the PA nor Hamas were willing partners. Arafat even said he "couldn't" make peace or he'd "end up drinking tea with rabin".


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



I am not finger pointing whatsoever.  I am perfectly willing for the Arab people to live in peace, to prosper, and to be in charge of their own destiny whatever the consequences of that might be.   Israel also is perfectly willing for the Arab people to live in peace, to prosper, and to be in charge of their own destiny whatever the consequences of that might be.

I am perfectly willing for the Israeli people to live in peace, to prosper, and to be be in charge of their own destiny whatever the consequences of that might be.   The Palestinians have not been willing for the Israeli people to live in peace, to prosper, and to be in charge of their own destiny whatever the consequences of that might be.

You seem to think the Palestinians have the moral edge in that scenario.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Al_Fundie said:
> ...



Irrelevant Israel already exists and what Palestinians say doesn't change whether Israel exists or not


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



What Palestinians say and how they act has a great deal to do with a happy solution being impossible to obtain, however.   Israel has not refused the Palestiniians a right to exist.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



How do you have two states when Israel wants a demographically Jewish nation? And remember when netanyhu came to new York and said no 67 borders, no ending is settlement contruction, no end to the blockade or occupation? So tell us then


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I agree.  Israel has shown no interest in interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.  All Israel has ever wanted is to simply be left alone in peace.  We can argue until the cows come home the legalities, proprieties, and moral consequences of Israel's choices to defend itself and deal with those determined to destroy Israel, but the bottom line is that Israel has a history of leaving those alone who allow Israel its peace.
> ...


There may be some (honest?) confusion over the meaning of "state' and "territory" in play here.
The Fourth Geneva Convention refers exclusively to "territory"

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Israel is the Occupying Power and it has been transferring its civilians (who come from all corners of the globe) into the Occupied Territories since 1967. Only the diplomatic and military backing of the US government prevents the Jewish state from suffering the same fate as White South Africa.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


"State" isn't the operative word here; "territory" and "powers" are:

"Section III. Occupied territories

Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, *or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory *(Art.49)."

Israel has been illegally importing, deporting and transferring parts of its civilians population into the Occupied Territories for over forty years, or do you claim otherwise?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> What would be mutually beneficial is for the Palestinian leadership call off all their terrorists and officially and finally agree that Israel has the right to exist in peace, prosperity, and without fear of its neighbors.


Attacks against the IDF in the OPT is not terrorism, it's self-defense.



Foxfyre said:


> Give Israel peace and you eliminate every roadblock to achieving mutual benefit..


That's not true.  The following video shows a typical Israeli checkpoint in the OPT.  As one can see in the video, even after it has been determined Palestinian's are not carrying any weapons, they are _*still denied passage *_through the checkpoint.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMRiTGk0L3E]Israeli Checkpoint Cruelty And Opression , Israel a Democracy or Apartheid State ? - YouTube[/ame]



Foxfyre said:


> Israel's neighbors have no reason to fear an unthreatened and unattacked Israel.


Except for the fact that it was Israel who started the last 6 wars they've been in.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



ok...this is getting nowhere. you're only solution to the situation is that the palestinians are all wrong and the israelis are all right, and that isn't a solution.

meanwhile, i am honestly trying to avoid finger pointing.

ok...so you are saying that israel should abide by their agreement with the nations of the world in UNGA resolution 273, which includes the agreement to abide by UNGA resolution181?

a genocide is going on, and you want to make it the fault of the victims of that genocide. does that sound at all familiar? think mid 20th century.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Aug 8, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



When zionists ask you about a peace process and two state solution all you have to do is talk about what Netanyahu said at the speech in new York:no end of settlments, no 67 borders, no Palestinian control over their borders, no end to blockade of gaza.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



As long as you continue to so blatantly  mischaracterize what I have been saying, you're right.  This is getting nowhere.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



well, it gets very frustrating, and "continue" is not what i am doing, nor is "mischaracterise."

i really am trying to be nice and ask you what you think a solution would be where both sides can flourish and basically, the gist of what i am hearing you say is that the palestinians have to change and that israel needs to trust israel to do right by them.

ok, i will try this. what do you meaan by israel will do the right thing, because i think the right thing is UNGA 181 (via UNGA 273), which israel agreed to honour in exchange for the world's nations to "recognise israel's existence as a state" by granting her member nation status in the UN.

you keep pointing the finger at the palestinians and i am trying very hard to not point a finger at israel, or at least not point a judgemental finger at them.

you keep saying the palestinianss should trust israel and were i to point fingers, i could accumulate a very long list of broken agreements and violations of international law to include war crimes and acts of genocide done by israel.

and if i did that i would be being a self indulgent jerk, at least within the parameters of this particular discussion...here is the text for 181 and a wiki explanation followed by a wiki explanation of 273 that includes the text. one could almost make the argument thaat israel fails to recognise their own "right to exist."

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i'm a pragmatist though. i do not think they can go back to the '48 plan...so how about this...

israel withdraws to the green line and helps create the infrastructure that will allow unfettered palestinian travel and access from the west bank to gaza and her ports.

israel relinguishes east jerusalem/al quds to become the capital of palestine with the provision that the UN and its member states recognise west al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel. the holy places can be hammered out later.

that the world nations aid in accepting the refugees into their countries and provide the necessary incentives to do so, and israel will pay the lion's share of those incentives... maybe divert a large portion of the funds we give to israel in foreign aid towards that end,

that's a start. israel would have to give up the de facto land it occupies within the green line, but would not be forced to withdraw to the de juris borders it agreed to in UNGA resolution 273. i am throwing it out without getting into the silly bickering that is constantly going on between proponents of either side.

then, once you and i agree on something, we can go to our respective corners and put pressure on whomever and organise to achieve thaat goal.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 8, 2012)

"This week (July 11, 2012), a judicial committee empanelled by the Netanyahu government reached a (literally) ground-breaking decision: *There is no such thing as the occupation *. 

"The eponymous Levy Commission, dubbed for the former Israeli Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy, who headed the three-member committee, not only leveled the playing field by dismissing international legal opinion on the status of the occupied territories, but established a new governmental regime, based in this original judicial precedent, that would retroactively approve existing settlement outposts and promote Jewish-Israeli expansion in the West Bank."

For two generations Israel has defied International Law by building permanent settlements and transporting its citizens into territories it occupied in June of 1967. The Levy Commission now gives a Prime Minister with a 50% approval rating an opportunity to "dismantle four decades of occupation by legal fiat." 

*What could go wrong?*

"It is said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. But they who would obliterate it entirely and unilaterally may suffer a worse fate: the destruction of both the dream and reality of the State of Israel."

From Levy to Area C: An opportunity to miss an opportunity | Sara Hirschhorn | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 15, 2012)

Amelia said:


> I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.



and how do you think it went? i felt kind of frustrated at times, as if i were standing alone, but i also think it was productive to some extent. thank you for starting this thread.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 15, 2012)

The CDZ is the best improvement to USMB I've seen since coming here three years ago.
If we can debate Zionism cleanly, any thing is possible.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 15, 2012)

For me the bottom line is that the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem during or around 70 A.D. and the Jews have endured intermittant persecution, for being Jews, in almost every place they lived for the next 2000 years.  In the Roman Empire they were denied property rights which helps account for the large number of Jews being into banking and shipping and other pursuits that do not require land.  They have been driven out of place after place, maligned, accused, suffered genocide, discrimination, and viscious pograms all over the world.  And yet there is no other people on Earth who proportionately have accomplished as much historical greatness as have the Jews.  They are a remarkable people.   And for the most part all they have ever asked is to be allowed to be who they are in peace.

Hitler's Germany brought it all to a head with the slaughter of 6 million Jews with little or no objection from anybody.  Jews also suffered mightily in Russia and other countries who were adopting Leninist communism.  And finally the world took compassion upon them and, with the full force and authority of the U.N,., gave the Jews a teensy little strip of land that included that portion of ancient Judah that the Jews believed to be granted to them by G-d.    The Jews were perfectly willing to share that land with the Arabs who were already there.

Those Arabs who stayed when the Arab armies were approaching to destroy Israel became full citizens of Israel and have enjoyed the benefits of freedom, tolerance, prosperity, and a much better life than they probably could have had in any other country.   About 20% of the Israeli population is Arab today.  Those who fled so that the Arabs could freely destroy the Jews were not welcomed back.

But over the years, persecuted Jews have mirgrated from their European and African homelands, from South America  and Asia, to the teensy land of Israel where for the first time they had guaranteed civil rights.   And yet despite the teensy land of Israel being no larger than a large New Mexico county--the land would fit into the State of Florida eight times--some cannot stand that the Jews were awarded that land and think they should give it up and just go away.

And frankly, I just don't understand that thinking.


----------



## Amelia (Aug 15, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious to see how the discussions will go in a temperate zone.
> ...





It went great for my purposes.  

I got to see some points of view I hadn't seen before.  I don't know that much about it.  I come from a Zionist background and have never questioned that very much.  I've occasionally wanted to learn more but the, er, let me say, _passion_, expressed in other forums has made me say "maybe some other time".  

So, I've enjoyed this thread and the chance to hear some other perspectives expressed in a manner which didn't make me want to duck and cover.


----------



## TomasG (Aug 20, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> For me the bottom line is that the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem during or around 70 A.D. and the Jews have endured intermittant persecution, for being Jews, in almost every place they lived for the next 2000 years.



Perhaps for some the bottom line is that the Jews drove the Canaanites out of the land once called the Land of Canaan, present day Israel.

You can start your timeline in a few places but should point out to the fact that this territory has been home to a few people who feel it is theirs to call home.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 20, 2012)

1948 seems like a good choice, to me.

650,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs and others lived in Mandate Palestine, yet the UN saw fit to offer a partition plan that gave the Jews 55% of all the land. Arabs and others lost the ensuing war, and the Zionists claimed an additional 15% of Palestine, evicting over 700,000 Arabs and others from their homes, businesses, and bank accounts.


----------



## Intense (Aug 20, 2012)

TomasG said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > For me the bottom line is that the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem during or around 70 A.D. and the Jews have endured intermittant persecution, for being Jews, in almost every place they lived for the next 2000 years.
> ...



You know that the Canaanites are Descendants of Abram, right?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 20, 2012)

TomasG said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > For me the bottom line is that the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem during or around 70 A.D. and the Jews have endured intermittant persecution, for being Jews, in almost every place they lived for the next 2000 years.
> ...



Except that Old and New Testament accounts indicate that there were numerous non-Jewish people in the area long after Abraham first went to Canaan and during and long after the glory days of King David's reign.   And tribal land wars were common among all peoples of those times.  At the time of Jesus' birth, there were more Jewis in Alexandria and numerous other places than there were in Jerusalem.

But until the establishment of Israel in 1948, from 70 A.D. on, the Jewish people had no homeland to call their own anywhere.

Rebuttal to George Phillip's post:



> Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000  Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times. Analysis of population by sub-districts shows that Arab population tended to increase the most between 1931 and 1948 in the same areas where there were large proportions of Jews. Therefore, Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs. For a detailed discussion that focuses on this myth, please refer to Zionism and its Impact here:  Zionism and its Impact
> 
> MidEast Web - Population of Palestine


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 20, 2012)

The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 21, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.



They should still settle it by ballot box. Only, a sizeable chunk of the population in Israel/Palestine can't vote in any way shape or form. It is a homeland scenario for many, compressed into areas without the freedom of movement, reminiscent of apartheid South Africa or the American south before Civil Rights.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 21, 2012)

Free elections open to all adults living under Israeli civil or military laws would provide a clear choice between a Jewish or a Democratic State.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.
> ...



All Israeli citizens whether of Jewish or Arab or any other heritage have full rights of citizenship and full rights to vote.  There are Arabs serving on the Israeli Knesset.  There are no restrictions of any kind on Arab businesses homes, or mosques.  The only restraints on total integration is that Israeli does require there to be a majority of Jews on the Knesset for to allow an Arab majority would invite the dissolution of Israel.  Because the Arabs live so much better in Israel than they would likely be able to do anywhere else in the Middle East, Israeli Arabs quietly support that policy because they LIKE the affluence and freedom they enjoy in Israel that they would not enjoy anywhere else in the Middle East.

The other concession that Israel makes to the Arabs, unless that has changed in recent years, is that Arabs are not required to do mandatory military service.  They can join the Israeli military but are not required to do so.  The concept is that the Israelis will not force the Arabs to take up arms against their friends and relatives in neighboring countries if that should be necessary.  Roughtly 20.4% of the Israeli population is Arab.

Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights seized by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 were offered Israeli citizenship.  But because they were unwilling to recognize Israel's sovereignty, they refused Israeli citizenship.  They are allowed to remain in their homes and can vote in local civic affairs, but they are not afforded a right to vote in Israeli elections any more than non citizens are allowed to vote in ours.

Accusations of Apartheid related to Israel is absurd.


----------



## TomasG (Aug 21, 2012)

Intense said:


> TomasG said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other? 

To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.

The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2012)

TomasG said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > TomasG said:
> ...



The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth.  It is the size of one average New Mexico county.  It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size.  For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.

It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 21, 2012)

"Israel's area is approximately *20,700 km2* (7,992 sq mi), which includes 445 km2 (172 sq mi) of inland water."

Geography of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TomasG (Aug 21, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> TomasG said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



The resent is based on Israel using its resources to push out Arabs.

This small tiny part of the Middle East however small has always been occupied by Arabs along with Jews - neither has right to push the other out, neither should have more right to the land.  That is my point.  If both sides can come to that agreement - of course borders being the huge issue, then the issue is resolved.  Both distant brothers occupying the same land - perhaps destiny.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 21, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


*"The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs and they are subject to various forms of discrimination.* 

"It is not clear that whatever discrepancies exist in the treatment of various communities in Israeli society are based on religion per se. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jewish Israelis are, in fact, free to practice their religions.

"The Government *does not provide* Israeli Arabs, who constitute 20 percent of the population, with the same quality of education, housing, employment opportunities, and social services as Jews. In addition, government spending and financial support are proportionally far lower in predominantly non-Jewish areas than in Jewish areas. 

"According to the press, an Interior Ministry report released during 1998 notes that non-Jewish communities receive significantly less government financial support than their Jewish counterparts. 

"Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged the Government's 'Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel,' which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab villages and towns, on the grounds that it discriminates against Arab citizens.

Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999: Israel

*Why do you think it's called the Jewish State?*


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2012)

TomasG said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > TomasG said:
> ...



Israel has pushed out no Arabs.  All who have had homes in Israeli territory have been invited to stay and have been offered citizenship.  The 20% of Israeli population that is Arab enjoy full rights of citizenship, unrestricted rights to conduct business and worship as they please, and occupy seats on the Knesset.   Only those who intended the destruction of Israel have been displaced.  The land of Israel is slightly larger than the land area occupied by Dallas TX.  It is the only place on Earth that the Jews can call a homeland.

Why do you some so resent the Jews having this relatively tiny tract of land?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 21, 2012)

"The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1603;&#1576;&#1577;*, an-Nakbah, lit. 'disaster', 'catastrophe', or 'cataclysm'),[1] occurred when approximately *711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes,* during the 19471948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War."

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 21, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> TomasG said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



No one resents an Israeli/Palestinian state, so long as all people, including those in areas under control as occupied territories, are allowed to either be free to determine their own future, or participate in the one that holds fast to them. The idea that loyalty oaths are needed othewise is incredulous, and are not even required in the United States. All people, including those in the occupied territories should be able to vote in Palestine/Israel. We used a lot of the same logic and tricks in the southern US to justify Jim Crow laws keeping blacks from voting.

There should be no "Jewish" state, but democratic one, and the United States should give no support to any nation that recognizes itself as a religious state, instead of one where all peoples are included.

A look through the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank very much are reminiscent of the apartheid burrows of South Africa. It is laughable that anyone can use religion, or any mention of "God" to justify what is going on in that region of the world.


----------



## TomasG (Aug 21, 2012)

What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.

I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.

It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.

To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.

To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.

I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.

Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 21, 2012)

TomasG said:


> What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.
> 
> I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.
> 
> ...


The British call for a Jewish homeland in Palestine coincided with the Royal Navy's switch from coal to oil to fuel its fleets. This coincidence was not lost on the first British Military Governor of Jerusalem in 1922:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'&#8221;

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

At the end of WWII the US took over much of the British Empire.
After the Six Day War, Israel became the US's chief strategic asset in the Middle East.
It's been downhill ever since, imho.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2012)

TomasG said:


> What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.
> 
> I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.
> 
> ...



Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas?   There is no way.

The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established.  All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews.  It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything.  They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back.  The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.

The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody.  Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well.    The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.

The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them.   It is a tiny tiny piece of land.  They should be allowed to have it.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 21, 2012)

*Tell us again how many square kilometers Israel occupies?*

Then tell us how many of the inhabitants of Deir Yassin "were invited to stay and coexist peacefully with the Jew."

:The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun Zevai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people."


----------



## TomasG (Aug 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> TomasG said:
> 
> 
> > What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.
> ...



UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 gave Israel land, somehow Israel decided it wasn't enough land...

True at the time the Palestinians rejected it.  Today however I'm sure the sentiment is entirely different for both sides.

Plan Dalet - depending on interpretation was a plan of conquest and expulsion if necessary.
Again subject to interpretation.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 22, 2012)

TomasG said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > TomasG said:
> ...



Whatever Israel thought about how much land they were given, they acccepted Resolution 181.  The Palestinians did not and have not to this day.

While history is conflicted on whether Plan Dalet was purely defensive or contained offensive components, most reliable historians go with the defensive theory.  Both sides, however, agree that Israeli Arabs could stay on their property so long as they did not interfere or resist Israel's defensive measures in the face of certain attack by assembling Arab armies.  Those who resisted Israeli defense measures or presumed to aid and abet the imminent Arab attack would be expelled.

I have a hard time finding any rational reason to criticize such a policy.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> TomasG said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



in may, 1949, the israeli government, as a condition to their being accepted as a member state to the United Nations, agreed to UNGA resolution 273, which contained language that compelled israel to abide by UNGA resolution 181.

this was an agreement made, not with the palestinians nor with the arab states, but with the nations of the world.

i would certainly argue that israel had every right to defend herself within the provisions outlined in 181, but i would also argue that any pretext israel used to expand her territory beyond the designated UNGA 181 borders was/is a breech of the agreement that she made with the nations of the world.

or. i.e. if i make an agreement with you, i am obliged to keep it, no matter what someone else other thasan you does to me.

i think also your mistake is lumping all arab states and the palestinians together. that would not be unsimilar to blaming jews in L.A. for the actions of the settlers in the west bank. i don't think you want to head in that direction.


----------

