Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-02-22 07:22:42
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7015

Horseman 77 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

BEE_Grim_Reaper wrote:

So.... it basically comes down to this... The Arabs weren't really asked wether they agreed to the foundation of Israel or not... and apparently, they were not. I guess the situation would have normalized more or less quickly if Israel would not have started with mass expulsion (deportation) of Palestinians out of Gaza and the Westbank. I find it quite natural that they were and are pissed. Since the Palestinians do not have an army of their own, they do, what they are able to do... they fight a Guerilla war... which our friend from Israel called terrorism...
I see your history dates back to only the first world war.  Try a little harder please.

"Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. The Romans named the area Palaestina, at about this time. The name Palaestina, which became Palestine in English."
...
"During the seventh century (A.D. 600's), Muslim  Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Jerusalem was conquered about 638 by the Caliph Umar (Omar) who gave his protection to its inhabitants. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's."

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

My math may be wrong but it looks like this places Jews there well before Arabs.
By your Un Biased acounting what percentage of Jews in Israel are desendents from (outside ) the Region?

Like Golda Mier From wisconson U.S.A. for instance ?

So by some other countries religeous histrical documents you decide you get to live there exclusivly?

And not the Italians for instance?

I think if you do " Your " Home Work, you will find Jews did not live there alone,...

Way back when Archellogist think they ( may ) have.

Isn't it interesting the level of debate and out looks you get in a Media that can not be cohersed or manipulated as easy as the Net work News. " Brave little Demorcarcy Strikes Targets in Lebbanon ! "

when I was a little kid I thought those Arabs should just put those " Targets " way out in the desert,


Why is what happend to Jews " Everyone's problem " When no one gives a Rats Ass about the Irish, Chineese, Viets, Cambodes, American Indians, Armeneians, etc.
 


Who cares what you think, believe, pray about etc. this is the Question that needs addressing.

     
Israel,  Pushing the world to the Brink of Nuclear War.... For what?
Were you drunk when you typed this?  This is so incoherent I had to read it 4 times and it still doesn't make sense.

The only thing that makes sense is "I think if you do " Your " Home Work, you will find Jews did not live there alone".   And you might be right but by your logic, the Jews should give it solely to the Palestinians.  Now here's the catch... the Jews lived there around 1000 BC and had 2 thriving kingdoms.  Why wasn't their country recognized then?  Several factors played a role. 

-721 BCE Fall of Israel (Northern Kingdom) to Assyria
-586 BCE Fall of Judea (Southern Kingdom) to Babylon and destruction of the first temple
-About 539 BCE Fall of Babylon. Jews allowed to return to Judea.
-About 519 BCE Rebuilding of the Second Temple under Persian rule.
-331 BCE Alexander the Great conquers Persia.
-313 BCE Ptolemy of Egypt rules Jerusalem and Judea.
-170 BCE Antiochus Ephiphanes rules Judea.
-166 BCE Revolt of Judah Maccabee against Syrian Hellenic dynasty
-164 BCE- Liberation of Jerusalem.
-About 61 BCE Roman conquest of Jerusalem by Pompei.
-40 BCE Reign of Herod the Great; Herod conquered Jerusalem in 37 BCE. Herod began an extensive restoration of the temple about 20 BC
-4 BCE Probable year of birth of Jesus. Jesus was crucified between 31 and 33 AD.
-66-73 AD  First Jewish revolt. Fall of the Jewish Second Temple to Romans in 70 AD.
-133-135 Second Jewish revolt under Bar Kochba  crushed. Judea renamed Palestina. Jews are banned from Jerusalem by Hadrianus Caesar. 

And so on.

Please provide me with historical evidence placing Palestinians in the area in 1000 BC.  Thanks.
2006-02-22 07:24:59
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7015

Horseman 77 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

build all the walls and fences you want to, Just build them on your own land, for instance, where your great great grandfather lived 70 years ago. That would pretty much wrap it up.
Does the "build them on your own land" apply to palestinians too?

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
well that wouldn't work becuase by anyones accounting ( except the jews ) the whole place is theirs.

          Please for the sake of the rest of the World

Just dont mess with what you didn't occupy before recent history like say .. 1947

People are still alive from that era, so you cant fool them with the " We always lived here! " line.

( please don't lecture me on what " the Bible says " some big invisable man " said you could have "

or some pre histroy Theroy about who lived where in 724 BC etc
So history has a starting point and it's 1947.  What color is the sky in your world?
2006-02-22 08:06:15
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7079|Cologne, Germany

I see your point, wannabe, but as you have indicated, there is no sense in picking an arbitrary point in history as an argument who should have right to that country now. If that were true, all americans of non-indian descent should be forced to leave that country and give it back to those who originally inhabitated it.

Of course, no one demands that. Why ? Because we reckognize that this was the course of history. It may be sad, and it was undoubtedly wrong, but that's how it happened, and we cannot turn back the time.

As others here have indicated, history is full of ethnic minorities who didn't make it and seized to exist. No one gave a shit about them. What's so special about the jews that they deserve a nation of their own ?

The league of nations took land from those who were living there at the time and gave it to the jews, regardless of the consequences. The Motivation ? I have no idea.

I must do a bit of reading on that one.
2006-02-22 09:19:47
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6996|MA, USA
There are two ways to legitimate a claim to land: 1) History 2) Conquest.  (Every country, and ethnicity has encroached on some other country or ethnicity's territory at some time in history, so to say that conquest is not valid is to engage in a never-ending quest for the truth about who was where, when - an established conquest cannot be undone long after the fact - to suggest otherwise is futule.)  Israelis have as respectable a claim to the land of Israel on either of those grounds as anyone; and they have the added bonus of being there NOW.

Given that nobody is going to shift them in the near future, realpolitik would suggest dealing with them.  This is not easy when one is blowing up their people.  Any nation would tend not to negotiate under those conditions.  It has been said in this thread that Israelis kill more Palestinians than vice versa.  That may be true, but it is also true that the Palestinians tend to glorify hits on Israel, and continue to provoke them, being fully aware of the consequences to their own people.  In fact, they count on retaliation to stir the emotions of thier own people.  It IS a viscious circle, but the power to end it lies primarily with the Palestinians, as the Israelis are reactionary.

In the past thirty years or so, Israel has settled down into a very predictable pattern.  If someone (anyone) hits them, they hit back hard.  If I were a Palestinian, I would suggest that we should stop hitting.

EDIT: I don't want my comments about conquest to be misunderstood.  I am not advocating conquest as a means of territorial aggrandizement.  All I am saying is that, after a conquest, if that conquest cannot be reversed and becomes established over several generations, that conquest becomes effectively legitimate.  Other nations, who may dislike the conqueror, still cease hostilities and accept the reality on the ground.  Few states were created without seeing something like this in their history.

So:  If the territory of Israel was taken from the Israelis 1000 years ago and held for several generations, the Israelis are effectively dispossessed (de facto and de jure).  The flip side is that if the Israelis can take it back and hold on to it (which appears to be the case - most Palestinians do cannot remember a time without Israel) the reconquest can be recognised as equally legitimate.  This is not about justice, it is about reality.  The Israelis are there, and they are not going anywhere, so they must be dealt with.  The Palestinians are not going to get rid of Israel through force of arms.  Claims by Palestinians and Islamists that Israel cannot be recognized and should be eliminated, since they cannot be realistically effected, are counter productive and can only result in a state of constant warfare.  Better at this point to accept the existence of Israel and make peace.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-02-22 09:42:30)

2006-02-22 09:21:47
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7075

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:


I see your history dates back to only the first world war.  Try a little harder please.

"Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. The Romans named the area Palaestina, at about this time.


   You are quick to insult ,so here we go..
" The  Romans are from the Area Now know as Italy you fuckin total moron

"During the seventh century (A.D. 600's), Muslim  Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Jerusalem was conquered about 638 by the Caliph Umar (Omar) who gave his protection to its inhabitants. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's."

http://www.JewPropaganda.org/whatWeWant.htm

My math may be wrong but it looks like this places Jews there well before Arabs.

jew is a religion Arab is a Race
By your Un Biased accounting what percentage of Jews in Israel are descendants from (outside ) the Region?

Like Golda Mier From Wisconsin USA for instance?

ANSWER QEUSTION

So by some other countries religious historical documents you can decide you get to live there exclusively?

And not the Italians for instance?

THIS CONFUSES YOU ? HOW ?

I think if you do " Your " Homework, you will find Jews did not live there alone,...

Way back when Archeologist think they ( may ) have.

Isn't it interesting the level of debate and out looks you get in a Media that can not be cohorsed or manipulated as easy as the Net work News. 

" Brave little Demorcarcy Strikes Targets in Lebbanon ! "

when I was a little kid I thought those Arabs should just put those " Targets " way out in the desert,


Why is what happend to jews is " Everyone's problem " When no one gives a Rats Ass about the Irish, Chinese, Viets, Cambodia, American Indians, Armenians, etc. who all had been the victoms of genocide some Alot worse I may add.
 


Who cares what you think, believe, pray about, etc., this is the Question that needs addressing.

     
Why is Israel, Pushing the world to the Brink of Nuclear War.... For what?
Were you drunk when you typed this?  This is so incoherent I had to read it 4 times and it still doesn't make sense.

     " Maybe your a fuckin total moron ( wannabeWhore) "

The only thing that makes sense is "I think if you do " Your "Homework, you will find Jews did not live there alone."  And you might be right but by your logic, the Jews should give it solely to the Palestinians.  Now here's the catch ... the Jews lived there around 1000 BC and had 2 thriving kingdoms.  Why wasn't their country recognized then?  Several factors played a role. 

-721 BCE Fall of Israel (Northern Kingdom) to Assyria
-586 BCE Fall of Judea (Southern Kingdom) to Babylon and destruction of the first temple
-About 539 BCE Fall of Babylon. Jews allowed to return to Judea.
-About 519 BCE Rebuilding of the Second Temple under Persian rule.
-331 BCE Alexander the Great conquers Persia.
-313 BCE Ptolemy of Egypt rules Jerusalem and Judea.
-170 BCE Antiochus Ephiphanes rules Judea.

      someone deduced this History / Theroy / speculation / geuss, by carbon dating a piece of chipped pottery and you want to start WWIII over it.? you total fuckin moron. Ten years from now some archeologist will uncover a new site that  puts all this in doubt and what happens then?  you fuckin total moron"
-166 BCE Revolt of Judah Maccabee against Syrian Hellenic dynasty
-164 BCE- Liberation of Jerusalem.
-About 61 BCE Roman conquest of Jerusalem by Pompei.
-40 BCE Reign of Herod the Great; Herod conquered Jerusalem in 37 BCE. Herod began an extensive restoration of the temple about 20 BC
-4 BCE Probable year of birth of Jesus. Jesus was crucified between 31 and 33 AD.
-66-73 AD  First Jewish revolt. Fall of the Jewish Second Temple to Romans in 70 AD.
-133-135 Second Jewish revolt under Bar Kochba  crushed. Judea renamed Palestina. Jews are banned from Jerusalem by Hadrianus Caesar. 


It says all this on a piece of animal hide someone found in a cave somewhere
so it must be 100 % balls on acurate.  lets throw the entire world into turmoil over it
in the name of a select few a " chosen race " if you will. lol                 


    Please provide me with historical evidence placing Palestinians in the area in 1000 BC.  Thanks.

"  How about Arabs living there in 2000 BC Dick head "
The point is, No one Really knows who lived there in 1000 BC and what does it matter. What matters is what happens now to people alive now.

Yea the jews had a tough time under Stalin and Hitler but you couldn't find anyone who had less to do with it then The Arabs. " Eskimos ? "

They have found a Norse skeleton out in The American west that appears to predate any other, Does that means Swedes should take over North America?

Maybe  (  you  )  who look down and abuse everyone else, are really just an asshole?
Lets face it.  You never Directly answer any question.
Your the one who starts name calling if someones view or observations do not mesh with your own.
2006-02-22 09:39:24
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7015

B.Schuss wrote:

I see your point, wannabe, but as you have indicated, there is no sense in picking an arbitrary point in history as an argument who should have right to that country now. If that were true, all americans of non-indian descent should be forced to leave that country and give it back to those who originally inhabitated it.

Of course, no one demands that. Why ? Because we reckognize that this was the course of history. It may be sad, and it was undoubtedly wrong, but that's how it happened, and we cannot turn back the time.
That is exactly my point.  The Arabs at no time recognized Israel... even when it was 2 kingdoms.  They never did and never will.  Look at Iran's dictator's comments on Israel. 

Take germany for instance.  What people group founded Germany?  What empire took advantage of them but failed to hold a rule over them?  Hint for a starting point: Franks.  At one time that empire made the germanic tribes fight for them but eventually that empire fell and left the tribes to later form germany. 

Now with Israel, they were kicked out and prohibited from returning by several Arab conquests.  The League gave them back the land that the Brits thought was theirs.  It's all history and we can't do a thing about it.

Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-02-22 11:23:49)

2006-02-22 11:16:40
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7015

Horseman 77 wrote:

You are quick to insult ,so here we go..
" The  Romans are from the Area Now know as Italy you fuckin total moron
Yes, I'm glad you do know some history.  They conquered the Jews.  But thanks for playing.

Horseman 77 wrote:

jew is a religion Arab is a Race
Wow!  I see you failed social studies.  Jews are descendents of Hebrews, thus a people group.  Judaism is a religion.  Thanks again.

Horseman 77 wrote:

By your Un Biased accounting what percentage of Jews in Israel are descendants from (outside ) the Region?

Like Golda Mier From Wisconsin USA for instance?

ANSWER QEUSTION
This is just dumb.  Everybody is a descendant from outside their region.  Arabs migrated from Arabia, so all of them are descendents from outside their regions north of Arabia.

Horseman 77 wrote:

So by some other countries religious historical documents you can decide you get to live there exclusively?

And not the Italians for instance?

THIS CONFUSES YOU ? HOW ?
Maybe your lack of grammar? 

Horseman 77 wrote:

I think if you do " Your " Homework, you will find Jews did not live there alone,...

Way back when Archeologist think they ( may ) have.

Isn't it interesting the level of debate and out looks you get in a Media that can not be cohorsed or manipulated as easy as the Net work News. 

" Brave little Demorcarcy Strikes Targets in Lebbanon ! "

when I was a little kid I thought those Arabs should just put those " Targets " way out in the desert,

Why is what happend to jews is " Everyone's problem " When no one gives a Rats Ass about the Irish, Chinese, Viets, Cambodia, American Indians, Armenians, etc. who all had been the victoms of genocide some Alot worse I may add.
 
Who cares what you think, believe, pray about, etc., this is the Question that needs addressing.
     
Why is Israel, Pushing the world to the Brink of Nuclear War.... For what?

Horseman 77 wrote:

" Maybe your a fuckin total moron ( wannabeWhore) "
Again, grammar please.

The only thing that makes sense is "I think if you do " Your "Homework, you will find Jews did not live there alone."  And you might be right but by your logic, the Jews should give it solely to the Palestinians.  Now here's the catch ... the Jews lived there around 1000 BC and had 2 thriving kingdoms.  Why wasn't their country recognized then?  Several factors played a role. 

-721 BCE Fall of Israel (Northern Kingdom) to Assyria
-586 BCE Fall of Judea (Southern Kingdom) to Babylon and destruction of the first temple
-About 539 BCE Fall of Babylon. Jews allowed to return to Judea.
-About 519 BCE Rebuilding of the Second Temple under Persian rule.
-331 BCE Alexander the Great conquers Persia.
-313 BCE Ptolemy of Egypt rules Jerusalem and Judea.
-170 BCE Antiochus Ephiphanes rules Judea.

Horseman 77 wrote:

someone deduced this History / Theroy / speculation / geuss, by carbon dating a piece of chipped pottery and you want to start WWIII over it.? you total fuckin moron. Ten years from now some archeologist will uncover a new site that  puts all this in doubt and what happens then?  you fuckin total moron"
WWIII hasn't started yet and these lands have been disputed for thousands of years.  And if your logic deduces history as carbon dating then you need to call your old high school back and request a refund because they failed to educate you.

Horseman 77 wrote:

It says all this on a piece of animal hide someone found in a cave somewhere
so it must be 100 % balls on acurate.  lets throw the entire world into turmoil over it
in the name of a select few a " chosen race " if you will. lol
Again, call your school.

    Please provide me with historical evidence placing Palestinians in the area in 1000 BC.  Thanks.

Horseman 77 wrote:

"  How about Arabs living there in 2000 BC Dick head "

The point is, No one Really knows who lived there in 1000 BC and what does it matter. What matters is what happens now to people alive now.

Yea the jews had a tough time under Stalin and Hitler but you couldn't find anyone who had less to do with it then The Arabs. " Eskimos ? "

They have found a Norse skeleton out in The American west that appears to predate any other, Does that means Swedes should take over North America?

Maybe  (  you  )  who look down and abuse everyone else, are really just an asshole?
Lets face it.  You never Directly answer any question.
Your the one who starts name calling if someones view or observations do not mesh with your own.
History set this into motion so history does matter.  And if you're too ignorant to realize that then stop posting in "debate and serious talk".  Ask your question.  "total fuckin moron"
2006-02-22 11:21:00
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7015

whittsend wrote:

There are two ways to legitimate a claim to land: 1) History 2) Conquest.  (Every country, and ethnicity has encroached on some other country or ethnicity's territory at some time in history, so to say that conquest is not valid is to engage in a never-ending quest for the truth about who was where, when - an established conquest cannot be undone long after the fact - to suggest otherwise is futule.)  Israelis have as respectable a claim to the land of Israel on either of those grounds as anyone; and they have the added bonus of being there NOW.

Given that nobody is going to shift them in the near future, realpolitik would suggest dealing with them.  This is not easy when one is blowing up their people.  Any nation would tend not to negotiate under those conditions.  It has been said in this thread that Israelis kill more Palestinians than vice versa.  That may be true, but it is also true that the Palestinians tend to glorify hits on Israel, and continue to provoke them, being fully aware of the consequences to their own people.  In fact, they count on retaliation to stir the emotions of thier own people.  It IS a viscious circle, but the power to end it lies primarily with the Palestinians, as the Israelis are reactionary.

In the past thirty years or so, Israel has settled down into a very predictable pattern.  If someone (anyone) hits them, they hit back hard.  If I were a Palestinian, I would suggest that we should stop hitting.

EDIT: I don't want my comments about conquest to be misunderstood.  I am not advocating conquest as a means of territorial aggrandizement.  All I am saying is that, after a conquest, if that conquest cannot be reversed and becomes established over several generations, that conquest becomes effectively legitimate.  Other nations, who may dislike the conqueror, still cease hostilities and accept the reality on the ground.  Few states were created without seeing something like this in their history.

So:  If the territory of Israel was taken from the Israelis 1000 years ago and held for several generations, the Israelis are effectively dispossessed (de facto and de jure).  The flip side is that if the Israelis can take it back and hold on to it (which appears to be the case - most Palestinians do cannot remember a time without Israel) the reconquest can be recognised as equally legitimate.  This is not about justice, it is about reality.  The Israelis are there, and they are not going anywhere, so they must be dealt with.  The Palestinians are not going to get rid of Israel through force of arms.  Claims by Palestinians and Islamists that Israel cannot be recognized and should be eliminated, since they cannot be realistically effected, are counter productive and can only result in a state of constant warfare.  Better at this point to accept the existence of Israel and make peace.
horseman77, read this and you might understand a little more.  Well put, whittsend.
2006-02-22 11:36:01
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7079|Cologne, Germany

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I see your point, wannabe, but as you have indicated, there is no sense in picking an arbitrary point in history as an argument who should have right to that country now. If that were true, all americans of non-indian descent should be forced to leave that country and give it back to those who originally inhabitated it.

Of course, no one demands that. Why ? Because we reckognize that this was the course of history. It may be sad, and it was undoubtedly wrong, but that's how it happened, and we cannot turn back the time.
That is exactly my point.  The Arabs at no time recognized Israel... even when it was 2 kingdoms.  They never did and never will.  Look at Iran's dictators comments on Israel. 

Take germany for instance.  What people group founded Germany?  What empire took advantage of them but failed to hold a rule over them?  Hint for a starting point: Franks.  At one time that empire made the germanic tribes fight for them but eventually that empire fell and left the tribes to later form germany. 

Now with Israel, they were kicked out and prohibited from returning by several Arab conquests.  The League gave them back the land that the Brits thought was theirs from the get go.  It's all history and we can't do a thing about it.
interesting comparison. Still, there is a major difference between germany and israel in that regard. germans really were never removed from their core homeland, and a german nation existed well before Europe's borders were redrawn after the two world wars.
Israel, on the other hand, never existed as a nation before 1947/48 when the british and the league decided that the jews should have that land. their claims for that land weren't any better than those of the other tribes that had lived in that same area for the same time.
If the league of nations and the british hadn't supported the jews, there would be no israel as we know it today. that is my point. as you pointed out yourself, the jews had effectively lost the fight for the land already hundreds of years ago. why would you allow them to come back ?
That was just bound to spark ethnic unrest. The arabs in that area never reckognized israel, and really, why should they ? the jews had been thrown out of that land and dispersed around the globe hundreds of years ago. the arabs had no reason at all to reckognize an independent state of israel.

whittsend argues that realpolitik suggests that israel is not going away and therefore must be dealt with. I agree. Nevertheless, Israel doesn't exist because the jews came back to that land after WWII and took it back ( re-conquered it, if you will ) from the arab tribes in that area. Israel exists because the zionists ( namely a prominent british one, Lord Edmond James Rothschild ) pressured the british government heavily to support the zionists claims for a "jewish national home in palestine". How fitting, since the british had been given the mandate over the area of the former ottoman empire after WWI. It ended in the Balfour-Declaration from 1917. That was some lobbying...
For those who care to read, here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_De … on%2C_1917

With all that said, I certainly do not question Israel's right to exist today. As whittsend has said, they are here to stay and won't go away.

We are discussing this because our good friend morbesso couldn't believe why a sensible person would show any form of compassion with the palestinians in their struggle for survival. Well, considering the way in which israel was created, palestinians have reason to be mad. don't you think ?
2006-02-22 12:20:24
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6934|NJ
Which by the way morbesso hasn't come back to this post, I would like to hear more from his side of the topic. And his Age and how long he's been living there?
2006-02-22 13:13:56
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6996|MA, USA

B.Schuss wrote:

whittsend argues that realpolitik suggests that israel is not going away and therefore must be dealt with. I agree. Nevertheless, Israel doesn't exist because the jews came back to that land after WWII and took it back ( re-conquered it, if you will ) from the arab tribes in that area. Israel exists because the zionists ( namely a prominent british one, Lord Edmond James Rothschild ) pressured the british government heavily to support the zionists claims for a "jewish national home in palestine". How fitting, since the british had been given the mandate over the area of the former ottoman empire after WWI. It ended in the Balfour-Declaration from 1917. That was some lobbying...
For those who care to read, here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_De … on%2C_1917
I don't mean to split hairs, but your explanation of the creation of Israel implies that the Jews were served up the land on a silver platter.  There was Active Zionism dating back to the 19th Century, and Jews were returning to Israel many years before the Balfour Declaration.  After the Balfour Declaration the situation was very messy and there was plenty of fighting between the various factions - including British efforts to prevent Jews from returning after the war.  The fact that it was so messy caused the UK to abandon it's efforts and wash its hands of the whole thing in 1947.  The UN then partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states.  Everyone KNEW this was not the end of it (there was too  much hostility between the Jews and Arabs) but in effect, the world abandoned the two states to conflict...many probably assumed Israel would be overwhelmed and destroyed; but as we know, when they were attacked by ALL their arab neighbors in 1948 they prevailed.

The Israeli state does not exist because of the consent of the UK or the UN.  It exists because it was able to prevail through force of arms against its neighbors.  Though not conquest in the traditional sense, I would say this ultimately qualifies as conquest, because the state of Israel would not exist if it was not able to maintain itself by force.  This has been shown repeatedly as its neighbors attacked it again and again after its creation.

B.Schuss wrote:

With all that said, I certainly do not question Israel's right to exist today. As whittsend has said, they are here to stay and won't go away.

We are discussing this because our good friend morbesso couldn't believe why a sensible person would show any form of compassion with the palestinians in their struggle for survival. Well, considering the way in which israel was created, palestinians have reason to be mad. don't you think ?
Saying the Palestinians have reason to be mad, implies that their being uprooted and forced out is somehow more unjust than when the Jews were uprooted and forced out nearly 1000 years before.  It isn't more unjust, it is only more recent.  Nevertheless, neither case has any actual bearing on the current situation.  As we both have acknowledged - the Israelis are there NOW, and are unlikely to be removed through force of arms.  This is the reality of the situation; so accepting it (at least for the present   ) is in everyone's best interest.
2006-02-22 15:44:13
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7075
The first violence ( that I know of ) between the European settlers and the American Indians took place In 1620 in the Area that later became the State of Connecticut U.S.A. The word Pequot in their native langauge means "destroyer" and The Peqout were Aggressive even against nearby Indian tribes.
Now my point is, If the year was Now 1680, just 60 years later, would you want to do History over Right.
If it was in your power and still within your reach, If many of the older Indian inhabitants of the area were still alive and remembered when it all started,  Wouldn't you want to treat them better? 

If for no other reason than It is the right thing to do?

Would you want to exterminate them? Even if some of them Were " War like " ?

Would you Argue that " We found fossilized Remains of a Viking here from 300 BC So get the Fuck out. "


This stupid blather about " tribes in the middle east " from 3000 years ago BC

is just so fuckin dumb it defies logic.

Who wants to add that to a problem that started between people's grandfathers and fathers less than 60 years ago? Or maybe they need to add it? If thats the best argument you have?

I mean if you cant make a judgment that what happend 60 years ago has more impact on world affairs, outlook and politics

" than what some scholars think Might have occurred 3000 years ago..

you are one dumb,    self centered,   narrow minded,    stupid fuck.   bad grammar and all.
2006-02-22 16:05:35
GeneralDodo
Member
+5|6933
Anyone in this forum that doesn't practice Islam is considered to be an infidel by the extremists and must be killed by law of the Koran. How do you feel now? Hope it makes you feel better defending Palestine, I hope it comes back to you and stings you in the ass.
2006-02-22 16:11:47
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7009|Atlanta, GA USA

GeneralDodo wrote:

Anyone in this forum that doesn't practice Islam is considered to be an infidel by the extremists and must be killed by law of the Koran. How do you feel now? Hope it makes you feel better defending Palestine, I hope it comes back to you and stings you in the ass.
That is really irrelevent to this discussion.
2006-02-22 16:15:06
GeneralDodo
Member
+5|6933
Sadly, terrorism will always be around, there will be some asshat that thinks something is wrong and that he or she can change it by creating a military force and taking violent action against whatever they consider to be 'the enemy'. Anyways, too many libby's defending Palestine in this thread, it makes me feel all icky inside.
2006-02-22 16:18:36
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7009|Atlanta, GA USA

whittsend wrote:

I don't mean to split hairs, but your explanation of the creation of Israel implies that the Jews were served up the land on a silver platter.  There was Active Zionism dating back to the 19th Century, and Jews were returning to Israel many years before the Balfour Declaration.  After the Balfour Declaration the situation was very messy and there was plenty of fighting between the various factions - including British efforts to prevent Jews from returning after the war.  The fact that it was so messy caused the UK to abandon it's efforts and wash its hands of the whole thing in 1947.  The UN then partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states.  Everyone KNEW this was not the end of it (there was too  much hostility between the Jews and Arabs) but in effect, the world abandoned the two states to conflict...many probably assumed Israel would be overwhelmed and destroyed; but as we know, when they were attacked by ALL their arab neighbors in 1948 they prevailed.

The Israeli state does not exist because of the consent of the UK or the UN.  It exists because it was able to prevail through force of arms against its neighbors.  Though not conquest in the traditional sense, I would say this ultimately qualifies as conquest, because the state of Israel would not exist if it was not able to maintain itself by force.  This has been shown repeatedly as its neighbors attacked it again and again after its creation.
They basically were. THere was a mandate by the League to create a homeland for the Jews in Palistine, even though, at the time, the % of the population by jews was very small.  While there were periods where Britain tried to curtail immigration by Jews, for the most part their intention was to help the Jews create a state.  THe muslim position in the matter was ignored by the League of Nations and Britain, even though they were the vast majority.
2006-02-22 16:20:07
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7009|Atlanta, GA USA

GeneralDodo wrote:

Sadly, terrorism will always be around, there will be some asshat that thinks something is wrong and that he or she can change it by creating a military force and taking violent action against whatever they consider to be 'the enemy'. Anyways, too many libby's defending Palestine in this thread, it makes me feel all icky inside.
I think that is the first time I have been accused of being a liberal. LOL
2006-02-22 16:21:56
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7075
You will notice a real inability to address facts or issues that run counter to a pre set goal.

I belvieve the USA was already " stung in the Ass " over its support for israel.

what has the USA gotten for our dedication to israel ?

This will paint me as anti semetic no doubt, which is funny becuase I am not even Anti Jew or Anti israel,

my point, outlook etc. is there to read.

Relevance has been absent in most of his posts.
2006-02-23 07:46:04
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6996|MA, USA

atlvolunteer wrote:

They basically were. THere was a mandate by the League to create a homeland for the Jews in Palistine, even though, at the time, the % of the population by jews was very small.  While there were periods where Britain tried to curtail immigration by Jews, for the most part their intention was to help the Jews create a state.  THe muslim position in the matter was ignored by the League of Nations and Britain, even though they were the vast majority.
Britains original intention was to do that, but in the end they failed and the Jews had, more or less, to do it on thier own.  As I stated before, the UN resolved that there would be two states, and then everyone left Palestine to its fate.  The fate of the state of Israel was to be attacked immediately after its founding by all its neighbors, and survive.  The rest is history.

What happened on paper does not give an adequate view of what happened on the ground.  In truth, the Jews had to fight every step of the way to establish Israel.
2006-02-23 08:02:07
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6903|NT, like Mick Dundee

Don't care who or how the dispute was started anymore... I want to know which side will stop fighting first?

Oh, and footage of a gunship firing rockets into a suburb is pretty hard to fake...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard