America should change sides and support Palestine.

[Charles_Main]

What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.

and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.

do you actually think that a people have a right to go back some arbitrary length of time thousands of years ago and inhabit the land where they once lived with little or no regard for the current residents who have live there for generations and kick them out.

Do you really think that is what is happening? The Jews Returned to their Home Land only a few Generations after losing it, and have had a continuous Presence there ever since.

How can you argue out one side of your mouth about how Palestinians have been there for 1000 years, while at the same time saying it does not matter that Jews were there 4000 years ago, and have had some presence there the entire time, save for their Biblical Exile.

 

[georgephillip]

What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.

and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.

do you actually think that a people have a right to go back some arbitrary length of time thousands of years ago and inhabit the land where they once lived with little or no regard for the current residents who have live there for generations and kick them out.

Do you really think that is what is happening? The Jews Returned to their Home Land only a few Generations after losing it, and have had a continuous Presence there ever since.

How can you argue out one side of your mouth about how Palestinians have been there for 1000 years, while at the same time saying it does not matter that Jews were there 4000 years ago, and have had some presence there the entire time, save for their Biblical Exile.

In 1948 CE 650,000 Jews inflicted a Jewish state on 1.2 million Arabs and others
700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled, and an equal number of Jews from around the world moved into displaced Arab homes and businesses. In 1967 Israel expanded its territory by a factor of three, placing another one million Arabs firmly under the IDF boot.

Currently, five million Jews and six million Arabs live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River with the same Jewish boot planted firmly on Arab necks.

What's your solution?

 

[jtpr312]

The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.

BFD! In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.



I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there. And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.

reallly? Tell that to the American Indians slick. As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land. That's all the legal justification" they need.

 

[sealadaigh]

What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.

and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.

do you actually think that a people have a right to go back some arbitrary length of time thousands of years ago and inhabit the land where they once lived with little or no regard for the current residents who have live there for generations and kick them out.

Do you really think that is what is happening? The Jews Returned to their Home Land only a few Generations after losing it, and have had a continuous Presence there ever since.

How can you argue out one side of your mouth about how Palestinians have been there for 1000 years, while at the same time saying it does not matter that Jews were there 4000 years ago, and have had some presence there the entire time, save for their Biblical Exile.

most of the jews in israel are from europe or russia or places other than the mideast or are descended from those people. they have very little connection with this so called "homeland" other than in their own deluded minds.

even culturaally and religiously these europeans had/have little, if anything, in common with the imdigenous jews of the region and were rejected by them.

at a time when wester culture was realising the folly of colonisation and withdrawing, in part because after WWII, small emerging nationss began to rise up against their oppressoers and take their place in the world, jewish europeans decided to interject themselves into a foreign land and inflict their culture on an indigenous people.

european jews have no more right to a homeland in the mideast than some obscure tribe in the dark heart of the amazon jungle.

israel is a colossally failed experiment that has done nothing but create strife and turmoil in their insistance that the millions o people in the region bend to their will.

the jews should go home.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.

BFD! In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.



I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there. And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.

reallly? Tell that to the American Indians slick. As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land. That's all the legal justification" they need.

Of course that is not true.

 

[sealadaigh]

The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.

BFD! In 1948, arabs were the majority landowners in the area.



I don't know if this is your position, but generally speaking, people migrating into an area, do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there. And what happened 2000 years ago, has no legal justification today, nor did have in 1948.

reallly? Tell that to the American Indians slick. As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land. That's all the legal justification" they need.

in light of the holocaust, i don't really think you want to go with the "might makes right" argument.

as for native americans, that dispossession began 400 years ago and is a little bit hard to undo. we treated them wrong, and i think the reparations they are due falls far to short but they have nothing to do with the failed state of israel.

but let me get this right. you think native americans have a right to rise up and kick the people of european ancestry out of the americas. i mean, that's OK with me. i did something good for a local tribal group and was made a member. i don't have any federal rights or anything but i do have tribal rights. it was a great honour...so i'm good.

when will you be moving to israel and what is the weather like in maryland this time of year? just PM me when i can move in. thanks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What I want to know is where was the International outcry for a Palestinian State when the WB and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt? Answer, there was NONE.

and if you are going to go back 1000 years and say Muslims have lived there that long, then why not go back even further and realize Jews were there first, and were KICKED out and Sold into Slavery by Conquering Arab Armies.

There were Palestinians fighting against the occupation of their country all through the 1950s.

In 1948, 80 or so Palestinian leaders declared independence for their state only to have the UN divide their country into three occupations less than a year later.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That may be because their own countries won't allow them to go back to the lands they belong in, you know, like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc, and would rather keep them as pawns in their battle against the Jews.

They are in their own country.

They've been living there for over a 1000 years.

The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.

So, there was nobody living there but Jews until 641AD?

 

[JoeB131]

I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.

America should change sides and support Palestine.

Imagine the advantages:

Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
Only one enemy in the middle east
No worries about oil supply.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?

We shouldn't support either side. We have no dog in that fight.

What we should do is invest the money we are currently wasting on maintaining the ability to strike on the other side of the planet into producing alternative energy sources. A "Manhatten Project" on energy, if you will.

 

[Swagger]

I've popped this in 'clean debate' in an attempt to seriously chat about US middle eastern policy.

America should change sides and support Palestine.

Imagine the advantages:

Way cheaper than supporting Israel.
Only one enemy in the middle east
No worries about oil supply.

Can anyone suggest why the US supporting Palestine has a downside?

We shouldn't support either side. We have no dog in that fight.

What we should do is invest the money we are currently wasting on maintaining the ability to strike on the other side of the planet into producing alternative energy sources. A "Manhatten Project" on energy, if you will.

I couldn't agree more. furthermore, the sooner the West discovers or develops an alternative source of fuel for the combustion engine, the sooner we extract ourselves and our dependence on the oil producing regions.

 

[MHunterB]

The greatest failure of Carter's Presidency, I feel, was the failure to promote the development of 'local' energy sources. The 1973 (yes, before Carter) oil embargo from OPEC *should* have awakened us to the problem.

Whoever comes up with the alternative to current combustion tchnology to produce *electricity* is going to rule the century after this one: the transportation is only TEN Percent of the usage. The least efficient thing one can do with crude oil is burn it for fuel : ((

 

[nodoginnafight]

I would no more expect Israel to sit at the table with Hamas than I would expect the US, even under Obama, to sit at the table with Al-Queda.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if there was an Al-Queda weenie sucking tour by Obama...

Not in line with the ideals of the Clean Debate Zone.

 

[JoeB131]

The greatest failure of Carter's Presidency, I feel, was the failure to promote the development of 'local' energy sources. The 1973 (yes, before Carter) oil embargo from OPEC *should* have awakened us to the problem.

Whoever comes up with the alternative to current combustion tchnology to produce *electricity* is going to rule the century after this one: the transportation is only TEN Percent of the usage. The least efficient thing one can do with crude oil is burn it for fuel : ((

You should probably learn the history of that era. Carter did exactly that. He promoted alternative energy, established Millage Standards, started the Department of Energy and established the Strategic Oil Reserve.

And the Oil Companies hated him, and did everything they could to get him out of office.

The minute Reagan was in, he tore the solar panels off the White House and let the oil companies do whatever they wanted.

 

[Billo_Really]

The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.

I never said they didn't.

Both lived in that area with no major incidents of violence with each other, until the zionists showed up with jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

 

[Billo_Really]

reallly? Tell that to the American Indians slick.

What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.

As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land. That's all the legal justification" they need.

Both sides were guilty of violence. But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.

 

[jtpr312]

The Jews have had a conitunous presense there since at least 1200BC, the muslims didn't get there until 641AD.

I never said they didn't.

Both lived in that area with no major incidents of violence with each other, until the zionists showed up with jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

You know being stupid is ok, but not being embarresed about it and letting everyone know how stupid you are like you do here every day is just plain painful to watch. What exactly do you think happened when the muslims laid seige to Jerusalem and conquered that land? You think they showed up and the Jews just said, hey, welcome, take what's our and make yourselves at home. Man you're a true dumbass.

 

[jtpr312]

reallly? Tell that to the American Indians slick.

What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.

As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land. That's all the legal justification" they need.

Both sides were guilty of violence. But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.

Wrong dumbass, on both counts. It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is. The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program. As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob. The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder. This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".

 

[P F Tinmore]

reallly? Tell that to the American Indians slick.

What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.

As for "legal justification", the arabs attacked Israel, Israel, while defending against that attack, took that land. That's all the legal justification" they need.

Both sides were guilty of violence. But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.

Wrong dumbass, on both counts. It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is. The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program. As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob. The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder. This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".

The Indians where a war like and savage peope ...

Colonialists always say that about the natives. That is a justification to throw them off their land.

 

[jtpr312]

What we did to native American's, is a black mark on this country from which we will never be able make amends for. That's a cross we will have to bear for eternity.


Both sides were guilty of violence. But the major violence started when zionists migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.

Wrong dumbass, on both counts. It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is. The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program. As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob. The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder. This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".

The Indians where a war like and savage peope ...

Colonialists always say that about the natives. That is a justification to throw them off their land.

It's a fact of American Indian history slick, not colonial history. They, the Indians, where a warrior breed. Their long history of internecine warfare is part of THEIR oral histories, much like the internecine warfare among many of the European tribes. The fact is that the white man was just a far more advanced and superior peoples and the Indians couldn't beat them. If they could have, the results would have been much different than they are today. We, the white European, at least placed them on reservations and fed, clothed and housed them, all the way up until today. The Indians had a history of treating our settlers quite barbarically, so it's doubtful they would have been as merciful in victory as we were. We are the conquerers, we need no justification for throwing them off their land. ALL lands and ALL people's where at one time or another conquered by others, it's just a fact of life.

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong dumbass, on both counts. It's no black mark on this nation, it is what it is. The Indians where a war like and savage peope and we had no choice but to subjugate them in order to build this nation, tough shit for them that they didn't get with the program.

So you think might makes right? You think you can just impose your will on others and the only option they have is to take it? You think you can go over to someone's home, or place where they've been living for generations and start telling them what to do? Or are one of those who believe in that American exceptionalism garbage and everything is okay if we do it?

As for the violence starting with the zionists, wrong against you stupid sob. The violence started when the muslims made war on the Jews and Christians by invading the Holy Lands, laying siege to Jerusalem and then conquering the land adn forcfully converting or enslaving those they didn't murder. This was thousands of years before there ever even was a such thing as a "Zionist".

What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today. Prior to the late 1800's, there were no major incidents of violence in that area, until zionists started pouring in and stripping the people already living there of their land rights. You can't move to an area and just walk up and take someone's home.

Here's a thought, why don't you, right now, walk across the street, go into the first house you come to, without knocking, just walk in and whomever you meet there, start barking orders at them to get out, because this was your great gradma's house and your here to claim your ancestrial home. Then come back here and tell us how it went.

BTW, you're in a "clean debate forum", you'll need to call me "dumbass" somewhere else, but not here. Or are you going to go with your current MO and tell the mods that you've made new rules for this forum and if they don't like your program, then they can just shove it?