So you concede that it was in their [the Brits] trust?CameronPoe wrote:
I would not recognise that as giving them the 'right' to dilly-dally with a territory put into their trust.
Of course it was in their 'trust'. It was British-mandate Palestine. I don't see the relevance. I know that strictly speaking it was under their jurisdiction I just don't think they had the moral right to start giving away said land.Jainus wrote:
So you concede that it was in their [the Brits] trust?CameronPoe wrote:
I would not recognise that as giving them the 'right' to dilly-dally with a territory put into their trust.
You are not incorrect, well they were consulted - but they didn't like the ideaCameronPoe wrote:
That is just a complete lie. Provide me with evidence of said 'agreement' and I will concede that I am incorrect.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Yes they were and their leaders agreed upon itCameronPoe wrote:
State sponsored legal migration? Were the Palestinians consulted?
"Following World War II, the British announced their intention to withdraw from the British mandate of Palestine. The United Nations General Assembly proposed the partition of Palestine into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem to be under United Nations administration. Most Jews in Palestine accepted the proposal, while most of the Arabs in Palestine rejected it. The Arabs totally rejected the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine"
Happened a couple of years back - there was a Horizon special on it and I do trust the BBC when it comes to objective journalism. (Could be the same case the mainstream news broadcasts didn't go into too much detail on the incident and I can't recall another)Jainus wrote:
Not the case - ok my bad. Which case was this then? Do you have a link to the story?Bertster7 wrote:
Not the case - he was not acting as a human shield and was quietly walking down the street (as can be seen on the video footage). Also how do you justify the Israeli governments refusal to issue an apology to his family?
I'm sorry to say it but i'm getting pissed off repeating myself; i'm not trying to justify or defend Israel, i'm trying to balance the agreement out but pointing stuff out that people are skipping over. For the most part, that means 'chatting' with Poe (hey mate ) but i'm still not justifing Israel. I can understand their position but thats as far as it goes, if your looking for someone to justify it, your speaking to the wrong person.
You cannot justify killing civilians, end of story. If you go back through the pages, i've kept to this throughout.
Just seen your edit, don't remember this case at all, when did it happen?
I appreciate that you have been taking an admirably objective stance on the whole thing. You are right too, both parties are very much in the wrong. But ultimately I believe that Israel are the ones with the power to put an end to this by making a number of concessions and giving back a lot of land (which I know won't happen, but they do have the power to do it and it may well save a lot of bloodshed).
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-07-16 16:02:44)
Obviously a fictional plot, but essentially the mass discrimination could easily be construed as a behaviour likely to cause extermination of that particular group of immigrants within the population. Basically what happened there was the integration and acceptance of immigrants into the population, not an expansion of the slums by force and the creation of an 'Irish State' within America. So when you said: "In the late 1800's early 1900's there were large legal migrations of Irish that were oppposed by many Americans but they never sought out to execute them", my reply was making reference to economic strangulation, discrimination and segregation of immigrant Irish population, which is once of the major undertones in the film I referenced, and has pretty much the same result when all the farm land is already owned by someone else.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
It was a fictional movie about gangs not a systematic killing of people in order to expel them. You obviously arent aware that America has long conceded wrongdoing to Native Americans. We give them reservations, live tax free, special grants and loans, they govern themselves, and they have have thier own laws.. plus we pay reparations to them.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
What was that 'Gangs of New York' film about again?
Do you know what your post made me think of? Cowboys and Indians. Suddenly America's unwavering support makes sense to me... that's how the west was won. If America admits that it is not an acceptable way to run world affairs, then it could easily be construed as an admission of the debt it owes to the original native population. Were the native Americans 'instigators and aggressors'? Popular American culture seems to say so, but the evidence is very much to the contrary. The phrase 'skeletons in the closet' springs to mind.
With regards to the Native Americans: So you don't blame them for 'starting it' and bomb the shit out of their reservations then? Maybe that's why there aren't many Native American suicide bombers.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-07-16 16:02:41)
Good point. Maybe if the Israelis were as forgiving as the Americans.....UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
With regards to the Native Americans: So you don't blame them for 'starting it' and bomb the shit out of their reservations then? Maybe that's why there aren't many Native American suicide bombers.
.....Hang on a minute, that doesn't sound right.
Good point though, nevertheless.
As a matter of interest how many UN resolutions were made against Iraq? How many have been made against Iran or North Korea? Isn't it about time the US, UK and their allies did something about the situation? I say go in, exercise regime change like we did against Saddam. Maybe then we can have some peace.HM1{N} wrote:
You really need to get your facts straight. In the '50's Ariel Sharon massacred people without provocation. Qibya comes to mind:jonnykill wrote:
LOL you act as if the Syrian Government is doing anything and everything to stop Hezbolah and stop open support from Iran for terror strikes . Please . Isreal has been under constant attack and in the iron sights of weapons every day since the 50's . One thing about Arabs is they never accaept loss . One thing about Isrealis is they stick together to the end . Just deal with it and STFU . You don't live there .CameronPoe wrote:
Situation:
In Lebanon there has been heavy fighting with Hexbollah in which Israel have suffered their worst losses on the border with Lebanon for several years. Eight Israeli troops died and two were injured in the clashes, during which Hezbollah fighters captured the two soldiers. Hezbollah guerrillas also fired volleys of rockets at the northern Israeli coastal town of Nahariya, killing one Israeli woman.
Israeli Response: [Please bear in mind that Hezbollah do not represent the people of Lebanon or the government of Lebanon]
1) Wide-ranging Israeli air raids on southern Lebanon leave 27 dead, including 10 children.
2) Israeli ships have entered Lebanese water to block ports.
3) Lebanon's only international airport is closed after Israeli air strikes on the runways.
4) Bridges and roads have also been targeted, circa 40 targets in total.
Israel have a history of responding like this. For me this is disgraceful. If a group of my fellow countrymen decided they were going to go and shoot a few Israeli soldiers I would be more than a little irate if Dublin airport and the M50 were destroyed and scores of Irish civilians lay injured. Where do the Israelis get off doing shit like this? Sanction Israel NOW. US citizens - wake up smell the coffee - $80bn of military and financial aid every year: why? What is the benefit to the US taxpayer?
I am sick and tired of the No. 1 problem in the middle east: state terrorists, Israel.
As commander of the notorious Unit 101, Sharon led attacks on Palestinian villages in which women and children were killed.
The massacre in the West Bank village of Qibya, on October 14, 1953, was perhaps the most notorious. His troops blew up 45 houses and 69 Palestinian civilians -- about half of them women and children -- were killed.
There was also Dar Yassin where Ariel Sharon and his troops murdered over 350 people, mostly women and children.
Since the 1950's Israel has been the single largest aggressor, stealing, murdering and displacing people to gain land. Ariel Sharon was at the forefront of this movement and today is known as a criminal for Crimes Against Humanity.
I have no more sympathy for Israel, the holocaust was bad and wrong, but Israel has elevated itself to the same position as Nazi Germany IMO. When I say Israel is the country with most sanctions/resolutions against it by UN, I am not exaggerating:
UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from council criticism:
1. ....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..."
2. ....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
3. ...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
4. ....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
5. ....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..."
6. ....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
7. ....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
8. ....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
9. ....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
10. ....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..."
11. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..."
12. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
14. ....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
15. ....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..."
16. ....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..."
17. ....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
18. ....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..."
19. ....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
20. ....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
21. ....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
22. ....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
23. ....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
24. ....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..."
25. ....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
26. ....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
27. ....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
28. ....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..."
29. ....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
30. ...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."-
However, we all know that will never happen. The US likes to protect terrorists.
Ah, regime change in Israel - if only...
If only the UN did it's job right. But it's not like thats ever going to happen.
BTW These resolutions against Iraq :
(Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, Resolution 1284 and Resolution 1441)
Not so many is it.
If only the UN did it's job right. But it's not like thats ever going to happen.
BTW These resolutions against Iraq :
(Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, Resolution 1284 and Resolution 1441)
Not so many is it.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-07-16 16:24:43)
"Ah, regime change in Israel - if only..."
Well the only way THAT will ever happen is if Syria , Lebanon , Iran and Egypt all attacked Isreal at once and killed off all the jews and installed a Muslim fundamentalist state . Be careful what you wish for .
Well the only way THAT will ever happen is if Syria , Lebanon , Iran and Egypt all attacked Isreal at once and killed off all the jews and installed a Muslim fundamentalist state . Be careful what you wish for .
egypt wont attack
jordan or saud wont either
syria is likely to be involved and Iran is doubtful, but, war makes strange bed fellows
ground troops in southern lebanon within 72 hours
jordan or saud wont either
syria is likely to be involved and Iran is doubtful, but, war makes strange bed fellows
ground troops in southern lebanon within 72 hours
How do we protect terrorists? Can't wait to hear this one.aardfrith wrote:
As a matter of interest how many UN resolutions were made against Iraq? How many have been made against Iran or North Korea? Isn't it about time the US, UK and their allies did something about the situation? I say go in, exercise regime change like we did against Saddam. Maybe then we can have some peace.
However, we all know that will never happen. The US likes to protect terrorists.
I'd call you a scrawny chicken necked slack jawed faggot for calling me a liar but that'd just be rude..CameronPoe wrote:
That is just a complete lie. Provide me with evidence of said 'agreement' and I will concede that I am incorrect.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Yes they were and their leaders agreed upon itCameronPoe wrote:
State sponsored legal migration? Were the Palestinians consulted?
Needless to say i don't like being called a liar.. thank goodness for the safety of the internets for you to lash out at me.. so sad *solitary tear*
You should really look shit up before throwing around insults but i did the leg work for you. y/w
The Balfour declaration was a direct result of conferencing between The Sharif of Mecca and Henry Mcmahon. It was built on the promise of the Jewish "Home" amongst an Arab state. These were promised for their role in the the Arab Uprising. Also included in the talks were Faisal and Auda Abu TAyi
You being an idealist probably think that a world power such as Great Britain should have went house to house in the west bank and ask them what they should do. It is naive to think they would ask strictly peoples of a defeated nation what direction it should take.
This evil bastard was as were thousands of other Palestinians fighting with the Ottomans. You portray it as if Palestine was a coherent separate entity when in fact it had been incorporated in the Ottoman empire for 400 years.CameronPoe wrote:
PS The Palestinians were no fans of the Ottoman Empire.
So now what? do they stone her ?Pubic wrote:
I'm at uni right now in one of the computer rooms, this Muslim chick just got up and walked out of the room...DAMN fine arse she had on her.
It was Hizbollah's deadliest rocket strike in at least 10 years and the highest death toll in Israel since 11 people were killed in a suicide bomb blast in Tel Aviv in April.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsartic … amp;rpc=22
So Palestinians blow up a bunch of people , civilians , in April and then kidnap some soldiers , Hizbolah pretty much dose the same and people are wondering why Israel , after putting up with this shit for like 50 years , is finally taking off the gloves . Not to mention Iran's president calling for the destruction of Israel , denying the holocaust and blowing off the UN by not halting it's nuclear program . How can some people see Israel as the aggressor here ? I'm sorry but I see Israel going punch for punch . They get hit , they hit back . Sometimes a little harder , sometimes equally . But since this latest confrontation they are getting hit on 2 fronts . And THAT is the reason why Israel is taking off the gloves and saying " you want a war , we will give you war " . I have a pretty bad feeling about these latest events .
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsartic … amp;rpc=22
So Palestinians blow up a bunch of people , civilians , in April and then kidnap some soldiers , Hizbolah pretty much dose the same and people are wondering why Israel , after putting up with this shit for like 50 years , is finally taking off the gloves . Not to mention Iran's president calling for the destruction of Israel , denying the holocaust and blowing off the UN by not halting it's nuclear program . How can some people see Israel as the aggressor here ? I'm sorry but I see Israel going punch for punch . They get hit , they hit back . Sometimes a little harder , sometimes equally . But since this latest confrontation they are getting hit on 2 fronts . And THAT is the reason why Israel is taking off the gloves and saying " you want a war , we will give you war " . I have a pretty bad feeling about these latest events .
wait wait are we on the same side now?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
And Afghanistan could have lived with the Communists running the show, what was America thinking of helping them?herrr_smity wrote:
the allies could also have lived together withe Nazi Germany but they fought instead, the fools.rawls wrote:
The palestinians could have lived together with the israelis. They chose to fight instead. Still cant feel sorry for them.
Oh, and what the fuck was the U.N. doing intervening in Kuwait? The Kuwaitis could have lived with Iraq annexing them, right? What the hell were they thinking fighting back with the assistance of the U.N.?
Is it? They call us the infidel because of our religion not because of where we live. Israel is such as small country and its cost so many lives. This is the only country for jews to call home yet muslims will do anything to prevent them from living in peace.CameronPoe wrote:
Bananahands get a clue. The Palestine conflict is over territory not fucking religion. Get over your FOX news towelhead misconceptions.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Ohh so its ok that muslims cant tolerate people who are not of the same faith? Thats like americans rioting and killing thousands of hispanics because they are flooding into our country. Its unresasonable and shows the mindset of the arab world.
The American Constitution is the most important document ever created in the history of civilizations...but we all knew that.
Hey,
LOL this talk of disproportionate response is a joke. COMON it's a freaking war. If the terrorists didn't start crap they wouldn't be getting bombed. I say about time and keep up the good work Israel. You terrorists sympathizers disgust but don't surprise me. I have only two words to say to refute all your rhetoric....
CAMP DAVID
LOL this talk of disproportionate response is a joke. COMON it's a freaking war. If the terrorists didn't start crap they wouldn't be getting bombed. I say about time and keep up the good work Israel. You terrorists sympathizers disgust but don't surprise me. I have only two words to say to refute all your rhetoric....
CAMP DAVID
yeah war is war. but the majority of people dying right now arent combatants or terrorists. Im torn with this shit because of the amount of civilians getting killed vs. the lebanese govt supposed innocence of terrorist activities. In the end it boils down to Israel rightfully defending itself by the means it feels neccessary.negolien wrote:
Hey,
LOL this talk of disproportionate response is a joke. COMON it's a freaking war. If the terrorists didn't start crap they wouldn't be getting bombed. I say about time and keep up the good work Israel. You terrorists sympathizers disgust but don't surprise me. I have only two words to say to refute all your rhetoric....
CAMP DAVID
my grandfather was lebanese.
Screw the terrorists rock on Jews :<).
PS
ya Gun I think all normal people feel bad for civilian casualties. As a nation one can only do it's best to minimize such tragedies. When these guys hide and stuff amongst em it's tough but ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
PS
ya Gun I think all normal people feel bad for civilian casualties. As a nation one can only do it's best to minimize such tragedies. When these guys hide and stuff amongst em it's tough but ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Last edited by negolien (2006-07-16 23:12:59)
No need to over-react man.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
I'd call you a scrawny chicken necked slack jawed faggot for calling me a liar but that'd just be rude..CameronPoe wrote:
That is just a complete lie. Provide me with evidence of said 'agreement' and I will concede that I am incorrect.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Yes they were and their leaders agreed upon it
Needless to say i don't like being called a liar.. thank goodness for the safety of the internets for you to lash out at me.. so sad *solitary tear*
You should really look shit up before throwing around insults but i did the leg work for you. y/w
The Balfour declaration was a direct result of conferencing between The Sharif of Mecca and Henry Mcmahon. It was built on the promise of the Jewish "Home" amongst an Arab state. These were promised for their role in the the Arab Uprising. Also included in the talks were Faisal and Auda Abu TAyi
You being an idealist probably think that a world power such as Great Britain should have went house to house in the west bank and ask them what they should do. It is naive to think they would ask strictly peoples of a defeated nation what direction it should take.This evil bastard was as were thousands of other Palestinians fighting with the Ottomans. You portray it as if Palestine was a coherent separate entity when in fact it had been incorporated in the Ottoman empire for 400 years.CameronPoe wrote:
PS The Palestinians were no fans of the Ottoman Empire.
Close but no cigar:
"The ambiguity that rose from the letter concerned Palestine, which was not explicitly mentioned in the correspondence. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-Mc … espondence
Looks like arabs didn't agree on a jewish homeland in Palestine, not to mention the fact that why would this Hussein guy be qualified to speak for ALL people in the former ottoman empire!! LOL. What would have been so wrong with having a referendum? Oh yeah - the west doesn't like it when arabs democratically choose options we're opposed to.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-17 00:00:43)
i hope u ppl realise is what israeli goverment r doing is that the same as if a rapist is rapign its victim then patting it on the head moments later. israeli goverment is attaking lebanon, then when lebanon strikes back with the same force, israeli government is crying saying how horrible it is. Cameronpoe is right at the start, israel has done more damage than lebanon has done to them, israel bombed the lebanese airport and now tourists cant get out. Its not a 'STFU' statement, people are there that cant get out, my nan was there for a few months and wanted to get out a few days ago but now her flight was cancelled and she cant come home to NZ.
You don't see the relevance in the land being promised to them (Israeli's) by the country (the Brits) entrusted with that region? So when you talk of the Israeli's stealing the land i presume that your talking of the land they've taken since then? As we can see, the government with the mandate promised that land... so how exactly did the Israeli's steal it? If your looking to kick out against injustice thats another situation you might like to add to your list.CameronPoe wrote:
Of course it was in their 'trust'. It was British-mandate Palestine. I don't see the relevance. I know that strictly speaking it was under their jurisdiction I just don't think they had the moral right to start giving away said land.
Last edited by Jainus (2006-07-17 00:23:31)
Its occurred to me that both sides of this debate actually seem to be arguing different points;
pro-Israel people are saying "Israel has a right to defend itself", which it does, even if this means striking parts of another country.
anti-Israel people are saying "Israel should be killing innocents", which it shouldn't, even though it has done.
I believe there are very few people here who would have a problem with Israel striking only military targets and proven terrorist bases (I for one, wouldn't). However, thats not happening and thats where the line is being blurred.
pro-Israel people are saying "Israel has a right to defend itself", which it does, even if this means striking parts of another country.
anti-Israel people are saying "Israel should be killing innocents", which it shouldn't, even though it has done.
I believe there are very few people here who would have a problem with Israel striking only military targets and proven terrorist bases (I for one, wouldn't). However, thats not happening and thats where the line is being blurred.
Its the rapists who get locked up in these parts, mateHorseman 77 wrote:
So now what? do they stone her ?
Last edited by Pubic (2006-07-17 00:28:06)
I don't believe that they had the right to do it. I'm not talking about the 'right' in the political or legal sense. They never promised the immigrant jews a state either. They distanced themselves from that exact word and used homeland instead. As I stated as well from the Balfour declaration:Jainus wrote:
You don't see the relevance in the land being promised to them (Israeli's) by the country (the Brits) entrusted with that region? So when you talk of the Israeli's stealing the land i presume that your talking of the land they've taken since then? As we can see, the government with the mandate promised that land... so how exactly did the Israeli's steal it? If your looking to kick out against injustice thats another situation you might like to add to your list.CameronPoe wrote:
Of course it was in their 'trust'. It was British-mandate Palestine. I don't see the relevance. I know that strictly speaking it was under their jurisdiction I just don't think they had the moral right to start giving away said land.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
Not to mention the fact the british abstained on the UN resolution which proposed the partitioning of the mandated territory. Abstaining is what nations in the UN do when they want to say no but it's too politically difficult to do so. Abstaining kind of absolved them from having their name associated with the mess that was about to be created.
As it happens the UN resolution was never enforced - the British just pulled out and let the two sides have a go at each other.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-17 01:48:21)