Political Crossfire Forums

[Saracen]

Venom wrote: Yes they deserve to be shot by bullets. One was a GROWN MAN the other two teenagers that knew what they were doing. I guess the IDF should bring a firetruck every place they go to hose these people? Or perhaps they should all use a stun gun and be forced to move in close (allowing the much greater potential for ambushes, as well as further risk to such attacks as a suicide vest).

Their age doesn't matter because they're still human.

Quote: No they shouldn't if anything it appears they need to reoccupy terrority. They leave and Palestinians dig holes for warfare... they go to peace talks the Palestians launch of barrage of terrorism..

No, they don't. What really happens is that Israel not only undermines these negotiations but also carries out strikes against the Palestinians, and worsen their occupational hazards by bringing in more settlers and increasing checkpoint "security".

Quote: The widespread Palestinian belief of defending themselves includes the killing of the Jews until they are gone from the ME apparently since they consider the state of Israel to be occupation of their country alone... not even counting troops outside Israel's border.
Running around in a suicide vest is not a defensive action. Again if Palestine wanted "liberation" so badly they could have stuck out the peace talks but couldn't stop from blowing themselves up long enough to get any where.

The Palestinians lived there and it's there land. I'm not justifying terrorism, but Israel is in no way a moral superior. Palestinians don't simply want to kill Jews; Jews were living with Palestinians prior to

Quote: London is a place of common terrorist attacks, a place full of tunnels hidden with anti tank rockets, etc and full of armed military patrols? No it's not...

Tel Aviv and Haifa fall in the same category.

Quote: Both are assault with a deadly weapon and deadly intent.

Yet the bullet has a bigger chance of killing.

Quote: No but apparently they are willing to die trying... maybe their cousin with the RPG behind the wall think's he poses a better chance?

Perhaps... if the Israelis believe they can just rattle up a town with their tanks and bombs, they'd better expect a warm welcome. The Palestinians have had enough of the daily shellings and attacks.

Quote: Believing that you can defend yourself with deadly force when in a "foreign" territory, when under assualt with weapons that can kill you (rocks are indiscriminate by the way).

No, because these soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place.

Quote: So if the Israeli soldier felt his life was in danger then he is within his right to defend himself.

With rocks.

Quote: They won't? Palestine the land of suicide bombings wouldn't pull out a grenade under the disguise of being a rock thrower?...
So basically any Israeli can be killed for being in Palestinian land no matter what? Also if I recall ALL of Israel is OCCUPIED land is it not? So I guess your words or a great reason for a military buffer zone.

I suppose, but you forget something: Palestine is not a land of suicide bombers. It's a land of people who just want to be free.

Quote: And then consider these same people elected a terorrist orginaztion to lead their government, the same people who ruined the most promising peace talks they have seen to this date...

The only people who ruined the peace talks are Barak and his cronies.

Quote: If these people didn't desire the death of the Jewish state of Israel so badly maybe they could stop their terrorism long enough to get some place? Rather they apparently use the same strategy for 50 years which has gotten them no place. I believe it would be good to realize that the military has come out because the Palestinians have launched their attacks, the military stays because they throw rocks, shoot RPGs, shoot AKs... etc...
If your tired of the military being there then you should ask your fellow countrymen to stop the terrorism.

The military is there for occupation, for a political purpose. They're not their for defense, but for inciting further offense. Israel is a victim of its own aggression, not that this aggression is justified. If Israel truly wants safety, I suggest it leaves the Palestinians alone, returns the pre-67 borders with East Jerusalem as well, and presto! You've got peace.

[Nico]

Venom wrote:
Quote: The idea of a religious root to the palestinian resistance, rather than a demographic one, is one of the great red herrings of our time, and is convenient to now tag on with the current conflicts elsewhere. It is entirely disingenuous in the larger historical situation in palestine/Israel.

This idea that this is not about a hijacked religion's war on everyone else is like putting your head in the sand. One simply needs to go to YouTube to watch a video of a child whom has been taught to kill "The Jews" to wipe out Israel. If it was about land the Palestinians could have done a million things, one espically being going through with the peace talks, however they didn't because they want the Jewish State of Israel gone.



Religion has become the focus, but it wasn't the root. Palestine had few problems when the population was in a steady demographic state pre-1910. The root of the tension was a vast influx of europeans over a short period of time. That's a basic living pressure. That the newcomers were jewish was secondary at the time, as jews had already been living there side by side with the christians and Muslims. The face of the new pressure becomes simplified as "The Jews" as it is an easy descriptor for the new people, not because they inherently hated people from that faith.

This is the crux of the separation between the western concept that it's "because they hate the jews" which is absurdly played on and absurdly simplistic among the panic mongers who swarm around the idea; and the reality that this is a demographic catastrophe where the name of judaism has become attached to an issue, where in fact it deserves not to be attached.

This is how Iran can have a practicing Jewish population among an extremely devout Muslim one and yet not see Judaism and Zionism as the same issue. One is a faith they respect, the other is a policy which has affected yet another group of people to a shameful degree, that being displacement/ replacement.



That things are becoming more polarised religiously over time is a function of the catastrophe having remained unresolved for so long.



Palestinians, I will say again, were constituted by Muslims and Christians and even arguably the Jews among them pre-Aliya. It's nice to box them into "Crazy Muslims" but it is intellectual dishonesty of the first order.


I also ask you: If 5 of you lived in a house and 5 more suddely burst in the door, pushed you into a back room and declared the house theirs, do you seriously think that the people in the back room are troublemakers because they won't agree to the situation on terms they didn't even write?
This would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

[Tepic]

Nico wrote: Religion has become the focus, but it wasn't the root. Palestine had few problems when the population was in a steady demographic state pre-1910. The root of the tension was a vast influx of europeans over a short period of time. That's a basic living pressure. That the newcomers were jewish was secondary at the time, as jews had already been living there side by side with the christians and Muslims.
The question is, European to whom, and secondary to whom?

The Palestinians? Probably. But this article suggests that Zionism was largely the result of 'racial' profiling in eastern europe. Corroborated by the Wikipedia article on internal Soviet passports:

Quote: As mentioned, the internal passports identified every bearer by "nationality" (национальность, natsional’nost’), e.g., Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Estonian, Jew. This was on the so-called "fifth record" (пятая графа, pyataya grafa) of the passport. When an individual applied for his passport at age 16, his nationality would automatically be that of his parents if they were of the same nationality as one another (verified by the recorded nationality of the parents on the applicant's birth certificate). If they differed in nationality (again, based on the parents' nationality on the child's birth certificate), then the applicant would have to choose between the two nationalities. In this way an individual's passport nationality was fixed for life at age 16.

[prometeus]

Nico wrote: ...Palestinians, I will say again, were constituted by Muslims and Christians and even arguably the Jews among them pre-Aliya. It's nice to box them into "Crazy Muslims" but it is intellectual dishonesty of the first order.


I also ask you: If 5 of you lived in a house and 5 more suddenly burst in the door, pushed you into a back room and declared the house theirs, do you seriously think that the people in the back room are troublemakers because they won't agree to the situation on terms they didn't even write?
This would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

You are making a good point, but it misses a bit. The question remains: What claim do the "5" have to the house?

It can be argued endlessly that both parties have legitimate claims without actually coming to a definite conclusion. I do not think that it is the claim that creates the problem, but rather the exclusivity that both parties want in the politics associated with the "land ownership"

[Venom]

Quote: Their age doesn't matter because they're still human.
As are the same people they are attacking with rocks....

Quote: No, they don't. What really happens is that Israel not only undermines these negotiations but also carries out strikes against the Palestinians, and worsen their occupational hazards by bringing in more settlers and increasing checkpoint "security".
What happened when Arafat was talking to Israel during the Peace Talks under Bill Clinton? The Palestinian terrorists struck out against the Israeli people to stop these talks.
Palestine's acts have outline Israeli's policy.....
[quote]The many suicide attacks by HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad since 1993 including a wave of suicide attacks prior to the Israeli elections in May 1996 led to a declared new policy by elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuquote]
Notice Hamas was one of the groups and now the governing body of Palestine.
Quote: President Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that President Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none.
So no what happens is Palestine has a habit of using violence to ruin peace deals and also not even being able to make a counter-offer towards the removal of the "occupation".
Quote: The Palestinians lived there and it's there land. I'm not justifying terrorism, but Israel is in no way a moral superior. Palestinians don't simply want to kill Jews; Jews were living with Palestinians prior to
Israel does hold the moral high ground. They refuse to back down to terrorism have some restraint from using their military to wipe out Palestine as the Palestinians would if the situation was reversed and also they have come to peace talks time and time again even when the Palestinian side doesn't bring anything to the table.
Palestine never existed on it's own prior to the creation of Israel, it was under British control.

Quote: Tel Aviv and Haifa fall in the same category.
Maybe in WW 2 when Hitler was bombing the UK... otherwise no they are simply not in the same category.

Quote: Yet the bullet has a bigger chance of killing.
So I assume it's ok to throw rocks because they might kill you? Alright... well where does this end? I guess anything that IDF can get their hands on that might kill you is fair game for them to use on Palestinians.

Quote: Perhaps... if the Israelis believe they can just rattle up a town with their tanks and bombs, they'd better expect a warm welcome. The Palestinians have had enough of the daily shellings and attacks.

Obviously not...why is the IDF there? Looking for terrorists... who did Palestine elected to government? Hamas a terrorist organization. The build tunnels, smuggle in weapons, etc... they clearly have not had enough of this because they have yet to cease their pursuit of Israeli annihilation.

Quote: No, because these soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place.
Well you also believe all the Jews in Isreal shouldn't be there to begin with. Israel shouldn't be there to begin with.... so using that same line of thinking you can kill any Israeli no matter what and be in the right.

Quote: With rocks.
So and IDF soldier should shuffle around looking for stones while he has a rifle? Not only does that not make sense to be running around looking for rocks while being pelted, but what happens when the IDF throws rocks back and happens to knock a little boys eye out, kill one, break bones, etc?
Oh the IDF would be such monsters....

Quote: I suppose, but you forget something: Palestine is not a land of suicide bombers. It's a land of people who just want to be free.
Your own government tells a different stories... the parading of little children of suicide vests says a different story.
Again if Palestine wanted to be free they could have A: proposed a peace deal when they rejected one (Arafat), stop using terrorism to validate the need for the IDF to be in Palestine.

Quote: The only people who ruined the peace talks are Barak and his cronies.
Wikepedia certainly puts a lot of blame on the Palestinians....

Quote: The military is there for occupation, for a political purpose.
Well it's a politicaly bad move to allow your people to be attacked with no response.... the military is there primarily for self defense of the state of Israel.

Quote: They're not their for defense, but for inciting further offense
The military left part of Gaza and it appears this act opened a flood gate to smuggling in weapons and digging tunnels in preperation for fighting.....

Quote: Israel is a victim of its own aggression, not that this aggression is justified
Israel has been under attack since it's creation. If anything Israel is a victim of the Arab world's inability to negotiate and deal with something they disagree with using words rather than violence.

Quote: If Israel truly wants safety, I suggest it leaves the Palestinians alone, returns the pre-67 borders with East Jerusalem as well, and presto! You've got peace.
They didn't have peace then why would it be different now? You really believe that Israel would have peace when even you consider the state of Israel to be all stolen land? This is just not reality. They would be attacked until the last Jew left Israel and the state no longer existed.

Quote: Religion has become the focus, but it wasn't the root. Palestine had few problems when the population was in a steady demographic state pre-1910. The root of the tension was a vast influx of europeans over a short period of time. That's a basic living pressure. That the newcomers were jewish was secondary at the time, as jews had already been living there side by side with the christians and Muslims. The face of the new pressure becomes simplified as "The Jews" as it is an easy descriptor for the new people, not because they inherently hated people from that faith.
The Jews that moved there were used as scapegoats to the problems of the Arabs in that area. The fact that people in that area of the world joined Hitler in an effort to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth shows their hate for this religion of people.

Quote: This is the crux of the separation between the western concept that it's "because they hate the jews" which is absurdly played on and absurdly simplistic among the panic mongers who swarm around the idea; and the reality that this is a demographic catastrophe where the name of judaism has become attached to an issue, where in fact it deserves not to be attached.
Tell that to the Palestinian terrorist groups that preach to killing all the Jews all the infidels... all the Muslims that subscribe to the belief that the Koran says to kill Jews.

Quote: This is how Iran can have a practicing Jewish population among an extremely devout Muslim one and yet not see Judaism and Zionism as the same issue. One is a faith they respect, the other is a policy which has affected yet another group of people to a shameful degree, that being displacement/ replacement.

I believe the Jews of Iran might tell a different story: Quote: At least 13 Jews have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution 19 years ago, most of them for either religious reasons or their connection to Israel. For example, in May 1998, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding, apparently for assisting Jews to emigrate.7

Today, Iran's Jewish population is the second argest in the Middle East, after Israel. Reports vary as the the condition and treatment of the small, tight-knit community, and the population of Iranian Jews can only be estimated due to the community's isolation from world Jewry.

Source

Quote: Palestinians, I will say again, were constituted by Muslims and Christians and even arguably the Jews among them pre-Aliya. It's nice to box them into "Crazy Muslims" but it is intellectual dishonesty of the first order.
A time when there was no chance of Israel and only seemingly random violence? Ignoring the fact that this group "matured" to a point where they were siding and joining with Hitler in an effort to exterminate the Jews is a clear indicater of their hate.

Quote: If 5 of you lived in a house and 5 more suddely burst in the door, pushed you into a back room and declared the house theirs, do you seriously think that the people in the back room are troublemakers because they won't agree to the situation on terms they didn't even write?
Where does this scenario include a world body creating Israel? Also Palestine was even under Palestinian control it was under British control.
If the 5 people that burst into my house came under a legal act that was deemed by the governing body of the world then I would have to accept it. If I did not I could take it to court, appeal it, etc... I would be a trouble maker if I ran in there chopping off heads and attempting to blow myself up....

[slitedeviance]

Venom wrote: So I assume it's ok to throw rocks because they might kill you?


Still be interested to see how many IDF troops have died in rock attacks. Might go along way to defending the soldiers actions.

Quote: . The fact that people in that area of the world joined Hitler in an effort to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth shows their hate for this religion of people.

Same can be said for Europeans. In fact, had the US or Russia joined WW2 earlier and opposed Hitler maybe we wouldn't have had Belsin or Sachsenhausen. No country involved is entirely holy when it comes to WW2.

[The Comrade]

slitedeviance wrote: [
Still be interested to see how many IDF troops have died in rock attacks. Might go along way to defending the soldiers actions.


lets throw rocks at you and see how long you take it before trying to stop it.

[Venom]

Quote: Same can be said for Europeans. In fact, had the US or Russia joined WW2 earlier and opposed Hitler maybe we wouldn't have had Belsin or Sachsenhausen. No country involved is entirely holy when it comes to WW2.
Yes there some of Europe sided with Hitler, not all. The same goes for the Arab nations.
Now about Russia and the United State's waiting to join the war... well I thought the war in Europe was their business and the US shouldn't stick their noise in it? Isn't that what everyone is saying about the US in the middle east? Why yes it is..
Lets see in WW 2 the United States was selling weapons to the allies to "help" them...
In Israel we are selling weapons to help them.
In WW 2 we joined the war after a large attack by an Axis Power.
In the war on terror we joined the war after a large attack by terrorists..

[unclesamual]

Quote: You are making a good point, but it misses a bit. The question remains: What claim do the "5" have to the house?

Quote: It can be argued endlessly that both parties have legitimate claims without actually coming to a definite conclusion. I do not think that it is the claim that creates the problem, but rather the exclusivity that both parties want in the politics associated with the "land ownership"

well, the claims for zionism are 3 things. They have been oppressed/killed by europeans so they have the right to take land(violently if need be) for their own defense. Their people lived their 2000 years ago. And that the bible said....they are the god's master race(chosen people) and this is god's holy land for that race". The first 2 are the reasoning of political zionism and the third is the reasoning of religious zionism.

Now, if palestinians hold onto their claim for palestine for 2000 years like the jewish people, I would be surprised. But it is likely that it will go on for quite a bit longer. That shows how ridiculous the claim is that they they lived their historically. Basically, "my great great great great great great great great great grandmother lived here, this is my house". Even Jewish religious people that have no family connection to Israel are allowed in under the right of return law for only jews in Israel. so, the reasoning for them is "I knew a guy whose girlfriend's rabbi's wife knew someone that knew someone that knew someone that passed down judaism through that line who lived in that house". For the religious reasoning, the bible is not a land contract. As for being oppressed and killed being the reason for aqcuisition of land, generally that does not aid in your cause. It generally just angers the people that live there, leading to more hatred. And they had the chance of Uganda to escape europe pre ww2, they didn't go for it. They were fixated on Palestine and ousting Palestinian and Brittish control of the area for the bad historical and religious reasons. Let's remind ourselves that only 50% of the Jewish people in Israel are Israeli born. Let's remind ourselves that antisemitism in Europe has subsided, so the idea that Israel is a safe haven no longer exists as legitimate.

Does this mean that Palestinians should own all the land even if they have a claim? That is up to them. In my opinion though, they should be pragmatic and take the west bank and gaza (with some surrounding territory so one of the most crowded places on earth can breath a little), accept israel, and be done with it even though those pieces are a small part of Israel (really, they are giving up a lot of land). Yet, they were never offered all of the West Bank and Gaza.

Quote: So no what happens is Palestine has a habit of using violence to ruin peace deals and also not even being able to make a counter-offer towards the removal of the "occupation".

Remember that many Israeli's didn't like the Oslo Accords. Spokespeople for the settlers (400,000 in the west bank) have talked about a Jewish war over issues regarding the settlements. They make up a big chunk of Israelis. You saw the conflict over removing 8,000 settlers from Gaza? Think of removing settlements built after 1967 in the territory gained in the 1967 war in which 400,000 live. That is why Israel only offered 73-90 percent of the west bank in their peace talks. Not giving it all back. Maybe the settlements can peacefully co-exist in a Palestinian State? The Settlers are the extreme religious right of Israel. They want Israeli control of historic judea and wouldn't want to live under palestinian majorities. And they don't want to give up their land. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli over signing the Oslo Accords. The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in a muslim worship area was by an Israeli which killed 29 muslims.


Quote: Obviously not...why is the IDF there? Looking for terrorists... who did Palestine elected to government? Hamas a terrorist organization. The build tunnels, smuggle in weapons, etc... they clearly have not had enough of this because they have yet to cease their pursuit of Israeli annihilation.

The Israeli's have not siezed their taking of land. The settlements are expanding. Many have been built since 2000. Do people really accept this as being justiifed by the idea of a military buffer zone (human shield)? If occupation was for defense, their wouldn't be these settlement building permenant infrastructure and moving in civilians. Let's all be honest here, Israel was founded on the conquest of Palestine. Many believe it is not yet complete.

Quote: They didn't have peace then why would it be different now? You really believe that Israel would have peace when even you consider the state of Israel to be all stolen land? This is just not reality. They would be attacked until the last Jew left Israel and the state no longer existed.

You can have a compromise even though it is all stolen land. Look at a map, Israel wasn't there pre 1949. How did it get there? Something must have happened. People can pretend that 1949 is ancient past, but it is within living memory. The palestinians remember what occured. They lived through it.

Quote: The Jews that moved there were used as scapegoats to the problems of the Arabs in that area. The fact that people in that area of the world joined Hitler in an effort to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth shows their hate for this religion of people.

Wait, lets get the climate straight back then in world war 2. Christians were the persecuters of Jews in that time and back quite a bit with their pogroms. 850,000 Jews lived in peace with Arabs pre-israel. There was debate within the jewish community of which side to support in the war. Would the zionists continue their attacks on Brittian that they have been doing. In fact, the stern gang (a zionist organization) was willing to strike a deal with the nazis and support them. The group considered the explusion of jews from europe reconciable with the idea of the a Jewish State in Palestine. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem that people trumpet as arab support of the nazis. Well, he was put in in a rigged election by the Brittish high commissioner supposedly. It was a brittish created position. That makes them hardly representative of the arabs in the region. Let's also remember that Palestine was for decades under Brittish occupation. Perhaps they had a reason to fight against them and by implication, fight with germany. We fought with the soviet union, mass killers in their own right, because we were fighting against a common enemy also. Let's also remember that the zionists were using terrorism back then also. So, if arab actions back then supposedly show their hate for Jews, I guess Zionist terrorism back then show their willingness to employ terrorism? Any list of massacres that occured in the 1948 war shows that the Israelis perpetrated more. Does that mean they were out to exterminate them like you talk about palestinian extermination of the jews? Maybe the zionists wanted to just depopulate arab villages which they succeeded at. Maybe the Palestinians just want to depopulate israeli settlements?

Quote: If the 5 people that burst into my house came under a legal act that was deemed by the governing body of the world then I would have to accept it. If I did not I could take it to court, appeal it, etc... I would be a trouble maker if I ran in there chopping off heads and attempting to blow myself up....

Who is this governing body of the world? I suppose you are talking about the U.N. and their partition plan. Well, the general assembly vote was 33 to 13 to implement the partition plan, with 10 absentions. I doubt that 60 or so nations there represented the whole world. In fact, much of the world was still under colonialism. Do the people in the colonies have representation in the "government of the world".


Quote: The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented. After spending three months conducting hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on August 31. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. A minority (India, Iran, Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Partition_plan_for_Palestine

Notice that countries like Canada, Guatemala, Netherland, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay voted for partition. They are half a world away. This is an era in transition from colonialism so this kind of action to determine who owns land was seen as ok I guess. The countries like India, Iran and Yugoslavia that are more geographically and culturally united with the region in question voted for a singular state. The west has been horrible at controlling eastern and near eastern affairs including boundary decisions. The topographers in charge basically thought drawing squares and straight lines was easier, so that is what they did. The Jewish state was to recieve 55% of the Mandate of Palestine though only 33% of the population was Jewish. Besides, what the general assembly did was make a non-binding recommendation. It hardly is the governing body of the world telling you to get out of your house. Truly, would you really accept UN partition of the United States into North and South, Jewish and Arab, Latino and Caucasian?

[Nico]

Venom wrote:
A time when there was no chance of Israel and only seemingly random violence? Ignoring the fact that this group "matured" to a point where they were siding and joining with Hitler in an effort to exterminate the Jews is a clear indicater of their hate.


'This group'? You are making an inference that this was something being done by all palestinians.
If you tell the whole story instead of dropping this gem every time a point comes up, the truth becomes much less generalised. But it doesn't paint Palestinians with quite the brush you appear to want to tell the whole story.

Shamir himself tried to get the Nazis to evict Jews from Europe, and conducted negotiation to that end. Quote: in secret contacts with German representatives at Beirut the group offered to open up a military front against the British in the Middle East in return for the expulsion of the Jewish population of Europe to Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir


you say 13 Jews have been killed in Iran since the revolution. I wonder how many Muslims have been killed in Iran since the revolution? The fact is that Jews can and do practise their religion freely in Iran. Given that this is possible at all, shows the hollowness of the Idea that Iran is against the Jews as people. Iran is against the machinery of the process that uprooted the palestinians, which it names as Zionism a man made cause. We all know that Iran is imperfect into the deal, that there is hardship for everybody there at some level, in particular b'hai, who have genuine case for grievance.

As I stated earlier, it is unfitting that this process have a jewish face when it is not judaism that has done this but the machinations of people, be they the Nazis in their treatment of the jews, or the nationalists in the name of the jewish people who thought that pushing out the other people in the area by exclusivist labour laws, panic, force, refusing return of refugees after hostilities with other nations, until they only lived in camps, was somehow right or just.

[Nico]

Venom wrote:
Quote: If 5 of you lived in a house and 5 more suddely burst in the door, pushed you into a back room and declared the house theirs, do you seriously think that the people in the back room are troublemakers because they won't agree to the situation on terms they didn't even write?
Where does this scenario include a world body creating Israel? Also Palestine was even under Palestinian control it was under British control.
If the 5 people that burst into my house came under a legal act that was deemed by the governing body of the world then I would have to accept it. If I did not I could take it to court, appeal it, etc... I would be a trouble maker if I ran in there chopping off heads and attempting to blow myself up....


If you were a resident of the house, and had been there as a family for all your life and generations into the past, what decision by any 'greater power' would make your sudden catastrophe pleasant to taste?

What fictional power would reverse this situation under appeal and leave your house as it was?

The reality is a demographic mugging, and the people mugged are urged to just shut up and do as they are told, by whoever is in 'power'.
God forbid that they should be upset about it and react as humans do in such situations. That would make them crazies.

[superskippy]

Quote: in secret contacts with German representatives at Beirut the group offered to open up a military front against the British in the Middle East in return for the expulsion of the Jewish population of Europe to Palestine

Nico I think your being a little unfair, think about the situation he was in. If he had the ability no matter the cost to save the Jews from the fate the Nazis were carrying out and bring them to safety in Palestine wouldnt that be a more favorable option to massacre?

[prometeus]

unclesamual wrote: well, the claims for zionism are 3 things...

Lets see: The reverse of what you are saying is political and religious anti-Semitism/ Zionism. It is myopic to reduce the issues of claim to one’s neighbor’s classmate’s rabbi, whatever. For the record, ‘their people’ lived there 5000 years ago too, before Christianity and Islam even existed.
Why would Muslims, descendants of conquering Arabs have a more legitimate claim? Because they conquered? Along the same lines Israel has conquered now. Hardly a good reasoning for either party. So what is a true and acceptable test of ownership? Pragmatic you say? What about the fact that for their entire history, Palestinians have never had real state, never ruled themselves and to this day can not exhibit any capacity to form and run a viable state, both politically and economically. Are you suggesting that the formation of an independent Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank would make for a prosperous nation(s) Remember East Pakistan or as it is known Bangladesh? Same people split up because they did not want to belong to India? What a prosperous nation they became? Pragmatic? Based on your reasoning, [And they had the chance of Uganda to escape Europe] the Palestinians could go to Syria, Jordan, so on. At lest that way the ‘clash’ of Islam against Judaism would subside [maybe?]
Just to be fair, I am not implying that Israel, is lily white here, but they are certainly not without merit.

[Saracen]

Since most of your post was just another simple bounceback, I will address the main points:

Venom wrote: Israel does hold the moral high ground. They refuse to back down to terrorism have some restraint from using their military to wipe out Palestine as the Palestinians would if the situation was reversed and also they have come to peace talks time and time again even when the Palestinian side doesn't bring anything to the table.
Palestine never existed on it's own prior to the creation of Israel, it was under British control.


The argument of "restraint" is fallacious. Whether Israel is "restraining" or not is of no consequence to the Palestinians who are getting killed daily by this military machine.

Quote: Well you also believe all the Jews in Isreal shouldn't be there to begin with. Israel shouldn't be there to begin with.... so using that same line of thinking you can kill any Israeli no matter what and be in the right.

Look, I believe the Jews have a right to live in historic Palestine, but I don't believe in a military occupation where one subjugates the other (Israel subjugates Palestinians).

Quote: Obviously not...why is the IDF there? Looking for terrorists... who did Palestine elected to government? Hamas a terrorist organization. The build tunnels, smuggle in weapons, etc... they clearly have not had enough of this because they have yet to cease their pursuit of Israeli annihilation.

Not in every Palestinian town. Many Palestinians who get killed are innocent of such terrorism, and there usually are no "tunnels" or "terrorist camps" that Israel targets.

Quote: Your own government tells a different stories... the parading of little children of suicide vests says a different story.
Again if Palestine wanted to be free they could have A: proposed a peace deal when they rejected one (Arafat), stop using terrorism to validate the need for the IDF to be in Palestine.

The peace deals that Arafat rejected were not even "peace deals" to begin with, but in fact an acceptance to more subjugation and military occupation.

Quote: They didn't have peace then why would it be different now? You really believe that Israel would have peace when even you consider the state of Israel to be all stolen land? This is just not reality. They would be attacked until the last Jew left Israel and the state no longer existed.

I consider much of it stolen land, but that doesn't stop me from accepting a truce with Israel. If true peace should be achieved, all sides should be held accountable for their actions, and that way, we can start constructive dialogue. Accountability always works.

Also, Israel's creation was itself an invasion. That's part of the reason why the Arab armies invaded.

[unclesamual]

Quote: Lets see: The reverse of what you are saying is political and religious anti-Semitism/ Zionism. It is myopic to reduce the issues of claim to one’s neighbor’s classmate’s rabbi, whatever. For the record, ‘their people’ lived there 5000 years ago too, before Christianity and Islam even existed.

Well, the Canaanites were conquered by the Jewish people. So, watch out Israel, the Canaanites are coming back? I am sure they have some decendants. We might be able to find them by genetic analysis or something.

My point being is there is a point in which the people living there can not be subjugated to the crimes of their forefathers by others retaking the area. Palestinians today haven't conquered anything. The muslim invasion of the area is long past. Israel was created within living memory, and in the process hundreds of muslim villages were depopulated.

If we really had to go back to the 0 B.C. political boundaries like the creation of Israel suggested...well...that is some idea. Is it legitimate? Let's remake the Roman Empire. They existed also back in that time period . All the land of the united states has to go back to non-white natives..etc.

Quote: For the record, ‘their people’ lived there 5000 years ago too, before Christianity and Islam even existed.

Again, long time in the past....

Quote: Why would Muslims, descendants of conquering Arabs have a more legitimate claim? Because they conquered? Along the same lines Israel has conquered now.

No, because palestinians were living there back in the recent past. Muslims conquered in the ancient past. They can not be held accountable for what their great great great great great uncle did to whomever.

Quote: Hardly a good reasoning for either party. So what is a true and acceptable test of ownership? Pragmatic you say?

The test of ownership is "my father lived her all his life and he gave it to me". 50% of Jewish Israelis are foriegn born. Even less had their fathers or mothers born in Israel. They don't pass that test of ownership. Yet, the Palestinians at their prerogative can cede land to Israel in the exchange for what they see fit.

Quote: What about the fact that for their entire history, Palestinians have never had real state, never ruled themselves and to this day can not exhibit any capacity to form and run a viable state, both politically and economically. Are you suggesting that the formation of an independent Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank would make for a prosperous nation(s) Remember East Pakistan or as it is known Bangladesh? Same people split up because they did not want to belong to India? What a prosperous nation they became?

Well, the people of Bangladesh get along reasonably considering 1/3 of the country floods ever year and it has the highest population density of any country on earth (save gaza if it were to become independant).

And I am not for partition specifically. I am specifically against foriegn occupation for 40 years. The people of the west bank and gaza live under Israeli control without representation in their controlling power. That is foriegn occupation. If they don't want to be considered foriegn occupation, they should allow the palestinians to be citizens or get out of the arab majority areas. People call Israel a democracy but if you look at the people living under the government, about half are citizens. How about I create a "democracy" in which only me and my cronies have voting rights. At some point, the less people with voting rights, it stops being a democracy.

I want to add that the military neccessity of the occupation doesn't make much sense. The Israeli's have their new THEL laser which can destroy incoming mortar, artillery, missiles. They have their wall. They have the best defensive equipment in the world. They are just occupying the West Bank because they want to expand, and they are expanding. Or they want to keep the settlements in the West Bank and use the rest of the West Bank as a bargaining chip for it. Working outside of their defenses just angers people and puts their troops into the fray of arab majorities. The military justification for the occupation is an explanation and not a reason. Just because you can give an explanation, doesn't mean you are being reasonable. A serial killer might have their reasons for killing someone, but just because a reason is given, doesn't make it justified. The original reason for the occupation was as hostages of land and people alike to barter for recognition and to expand a bit also. The military neccessity idea was them scrambling for a legitimate reason. This ofcourse is my own interpretation of the facts on the ground. Think about it. Settlements of civilians to be a buffer between civilian areas and angry palestinians? No, the settlements just brought them closer and not "buffered".

Quote: Based on your reasoning, [And they had the chance of Uganda to escape Europe] the Palestinians could go to Syria, Jordan, so on. At lest that way the ‘clash’ of Islam against Judaism would subside [maybe?]

Ohh, it comes downs to "the palestinians can just leave". Gotcha. And when Israel attacks the Iranian reactor creating a conflict between them and the rest of the middle east...and in the process Israel expands into those areas. They should just leave again?

[Saracen]

unclesamual wrote: Quote: Lets see: The reverse of what you are saying is political and religious anti-Semitism/ Zionism. It is myopic to reduce the issues of claim to one’s neighbor’s classmate’s rabbi, whatever. For the record, ‘their people’ lived there 5000 years ago too, before Christianity and Islam even existed.

Well, the Canaanites were conquered by the Jewish people. So, watch out Israel, the Canaanites are coming back? I am sure they have some decendants. We might be able to find them by genetic analysis or something.

My point being is there is a point in which the people living there can not be subjugated to the crimes of their forefathers by others retaking the area. Palestinians today haven't conquered anything. The muslim invasion of the area is long past. Israel was created within living memory, and in the process hundreds of muslim villages were depopulated.

If we really had to go back to the 0 B.C. political boundaries like the creation of Israel suggested...well...that is some idea. Is it legitimate? Let's remake the Roman Empire. They existed also back in that time period . All the land of the united states has to go back to non-white natives..etc.

Quote: For the record, ‘their people’ lived there 5000 years ago too, before Christianity and Islam even existed.

Again, long time in the past....

Quote: Why would Muslims, descendants of conquering Arabs have a more legitimate claim? Because they conquered? Along the same lines Israel has conquered now.

No, because palestinians were living there back in the recent past. Muslims conquered in the ancient past. They can not be held accountable for what their great great great great great uncle did to whomever.

Quote: Hardly a good reasoning for either party. So what is a true and acceptable test of ownership? Pragmatic you say?

The test of ownership is "my father lived her all his life and he gave it to me". 50% of Jewish Israelis are foriegn born. Even less had their fathers or mothers born in Israel. Theydon't have that test of ownership.

Quote: What about the fact that for their entire history, Palestinians have never had real state, never ruled themselves and to this day can not exhibit any capacity to form and run a viable state, both politically and economically. Are you suggesting that the formation of an independent Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank would make for a prosperous nation(s) Remember East Pakistan or as it is known Bangladesh? Same people split up because they did not want to belong to India? What a prosperous nation they became?

Well, the people of Bangladesh get along reasonably considering 1/3 of the country floods ever year and it has the highest population density of any country on earth (save gaza if it were to become independant).

And I am not for partition specifically. I am specifically against foriegn occupation for 40 years. The people of the west bank and gaza live under Israeli control without representation in their controlling power. That is foriegn occupation. If they don't want to be considered foriegn occupation, they should allow the palestinians to be citizens or get out of the arab majority areas. People call Israel a democracy but if you look at the people living under the government, about half are citizens. How about I create a "democracy" in which only me and my cronies have voting rights. At some point, the less people with voting rights, it stops being a democracy.

I want to add that the military neccessity of the occupation doesn't make much sense. The Israeli's have their new THEL laser which can destroy incoming mortar, artillery, missiles. They have their wall. They have the best defensive equipment in the world. They are just occupying the West Bank because they want to expand, and they are expanding. Or they want to keep the settlements in the West Bank and use the rest of the West Bank as a bargaining chip for it. Working outside of their defenses just angers people and puts their troops into the fray of arab majorities. The military justification for the occupation is an explanation and not a reason. Just because you can give an explanation, doesn't mean you are being reasonable. A serial killer might have their reasons for killing someone, but just because a reason is given, doesn't make it justified. The original reason for the occupation was as hostages of land and people alike to barter for recognition and to expand a bit also. The military neccessity idea was them scrambling for a legitimate reason. This ofcourse is my own interpretation of the facts on the ground. Think about it. Settlements of civilians to be a buffer between civilian areas and angry palestinians? No, the settlements just brought them closer and not "buffered".

Quote: Based on your reasoning, [And they had the chance of Uganda to escape Europe] the Palestinians could go to Syria, Jordan, so on. At lest that way the ‘clash’ of Islam against Judaism would subside [maybe?]

Ohh, it comes downs to "the palestinians can just leave". Gotcha. And when Israel attacks the Iranian reactor creating a conflict between them and the rest of the middle east...and in the process Israel expands into those areas. They should just leave again?

Stellar post, unclesamual and welcome to the forums. :clap:

[Nico]

superskippy wrote: Quote: in secret contacts with German representatives at Beirut the group offered to open up a military front against the British in the Middle East in return for the expulsion of the Jewish population of Europe to Palestine

Nico I think your being a little unfair, think about the situation he was in. If he had the ability no matter the cost to save the Jews from the fate the Nazis were carrying out and bring them to safety in Palestine wouldnt that be a more favorable option to massacre?


This is my point exactly. At the time, pragmatism reigned. Some grand Mufti thought the Nazis would save his people; some militant named Shamir thought he could use them to the same end. At that time the Nazis held potent cards and at the receiving end of their particular ill-deeds, both Jews and palestinians suffered, the jews directly, the Palestinians through the fall-out. Everybody knocked on the doors of the nazis for resolution, precisely because they were a root of the problem.

While I can't abide the terrorist Shamir, his ultimate aim was survival of his people. he never once did anything contrary to this cause. It is this same reason I don't abide Palestinian terrorists but appreciate that they want the survival of their people. That they should find life so desperate that this is their view of a last option, commiting acts such as shamir and his people did 60 years before, is the hallmark of a need for revolution in thinking.

Israel fought itself into a niche in the middle east, but this is not enough to suport their survival now. It has to be with consideration to the long term and a workable dealing with the people forced out of the same niche. can I blame Israel for wanting a safe place for Jews? no. But there is a people who will grant Jews all the security they ever wanted and I argue it is the Arabs/muslims when the two work together. I actually think there is a middle way through this, even if it takes generations to cement. I argue that those who are reactionary about the concept ignore the potential in favour of violence. It's simple, black and white, and completely non-functional . No one group should hold power over another, be it Muslims over Jews or vice versa. The latter is unfortunately the case in palestine IMO and this wound does nothing but fester.

Israelis may be fearful of a loss of Jewish identity in the middle east should any serious intergration happen, but I argue this is an impossibility given the past. You can no more cancel that identity than make the sun go dark.

[prometeus]

unclesamual wrote: Gotcha.

Actually you haven't got anything, not even passable reasoning. One thing is to favor one side or another, or even be biased, but at least support your position that with something that has basis. The best you can do is turn a phrase around to bolster your initial flawed position, or reduce issues to silly one-liners: "We might be able to find them by genetic analysis or something.
"

It was you who suggested the Jews should have gone to Uganda. I merely
highlighted its shortcoming by applying it to Palestinians. If that eluded you you could have asked for clarification. If you are so against the "occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank, why don't you also cite the Egyptian and Jordanian occupations as well. Should it not be those countries who should claim the land since it was theirs and NOT the Palestinians? Is it because your bias allows only an anti Israel stance?
"Lets remake the Roman Empire" :bang: Yes definitely, after all they were indigenous to the area.
So by the way what is the exact test of ownership or legitimate claim? Other than "what suits my POV"
Your point, well I think your point is only to support wiping Israel out of existence, is it not?

[unclesamual]

Quote: If that eluded you you could have asked for clarification. If you are so against the "occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank, why don't you also cite the Egyptian and Jordanian occupations as well. Should it not be those countries who should claim the land since it was theirs and NOT the Palestinians? Is it because your bias allows only an anti Israel stance?

The Palestinians lived in Palestine. It is their land. I fail to see how it is Jordan's or Egypt's. They don't seem to want it. It all comes down to freedom. Ariel Sharon suggested that 70% of the West Bank should be annexed. This obviously has to do with the people living in the area, yet, they don't have representation in the Israeli government. As I support the birth of my country the United States instead of being under the thumb of Brittian without represenation (no taxation without representation? well...what is stripping of land from people?), so do I support the Palestinian quest for freedom. Israel acts as a dictator over the occupied territories. We support them more than we supported Saddam in the Iran Iraq war (on the order of 3.5 billion dollars per year and weapons). Supporting such policies that fly in the face of freedom when we declare to the world how much we are for it and love it is hypocrisy. I am more against shipping of funds to an oppressive state that divides its constituents and economically crushes them than anything(yes, Palestinians should be considered constituents of Israel as long as Israel is the power over them...yet, they are not considered so). What Israel should do is secondary to my concerns of what the United States should do. I, afterall, am being represented by it. So, as far as you saying my bias lies in a anti-israel stance, my bias actually lies in an anti-pro-israel stance. I am against propping up such a regime by actively supporting it. Notice that I don't advocatte mobilizing U.S. forces to destroy Israel, or sending money to Palestinians.

Quote: So by the way what is the exact test of ownership or legitimate claim? Other than "what suits my POV"
Your point, well I think your point is only to support wiping Israel out of existence, is it not?

The Palestinians certainly have a reason to wipe out Israel. Whether they take that course or sue for peace is up to them.

As far as me advocating support of getting Israel off the map. Nahh, that is the Palestinian's deal. I have never once advocated any western power to come in militarily against Israel. Don't blame me for that kind of stuff. On a side note, the French leadership of the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon says it might have to fire on Israeli planes breaking the cease-fire.

[superskippy]

Quote: Some grand Mufti thought the Nazis would save his people

Your not honestly giving any excuse to the Grand Mufti's enormous crimes are you?

Sorry if I havent yet prepared a broader response to your post but this caught my eye.