[Logic]

I started this thread to not derail christ's thread.

I will start by saying that I do not believe Israel should be "pushed" into the sea. They are there now and that is a fact. But the thing is that vmarks claim(see below) is false and I have to answer it. Hopefully this thread will also explain to some of our members why there is so much resistance/terrorism in Israel/Palestine. This is what vmarks said:

Voodoo: your assertion strikes me as trying to state that Israel is a colonist state. This isn't wholly true- it was founded by Jews who had lived there for thousands of years, Jews who were refugees from the surrounding Arab countries who were tired of being second class subhumans in those nations, and later there was an influx of refugees from Europe, and even later, refugees from Russia. But you must not forget the Jews who had always lived there, and the ones who sought refuge and freedom from the oppression of neighboring Arab countries. You also might not forget that the Jews were aided in founding the nation by Arabs, aiding the work with NILI, who spied for the British against the French and Turkish. Of course non-Jews in Israel are not automatically Arabs. There are European Christians who became Israelis, but they are far fewer in number than the Arab Christians, Muslim, Druze, and Bedouin.

This whole point vmarks raises about Israel not being a colonial state is factually incorrect.

Today only about 20% of the Israeli Jewish population is born in Israel. That is about the same number as Arabs living in Israel.

Israel was founded by the colonial states, and not by Jews living in Israel. They split up the Middle-East between them and decide under what mandate they should have been under. Palestine got promised several times that it would become an independent mandate since they fell under the class A category. Then after that the Zionists started their lobbying and from that got the Balfour declaration, that many consider to have been illegal and of no relevance today. The Balfour declaration is the first document showing the intent to start a Jewish homeland in Palestine. At the time only about 5% of the population in Palestine were Jewish so this encountered some fierce resistance from the population living in Palestine at the time. The Balfour declaration also goes against he Wilson "mandate" that people should be given independence after WW-I. This was not what happened in Palestine. It was also agreed earlier that Palestine should be under the French mandate and not the British. There has also been some fighting about what the Balfour declaration really says. Here's the relevant part.

'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 or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

Like you see it says "a national home" and not "the national home". This implies that in Palestine a national home should be established and that jews should be able to live there and prosper without any foreign influence. This is all OK, but for the fact that in Palestine there were already Palestinians. The complete and utter bigotry and racism shown by the Zionist movement at that time is very well shown in this slogan that was the start of this movement.

"A land without people for a people without land"

And this completely ignores the fact that there where already more than half a million Palestinians living in that area. This is but one of many examples of the attitude shown by the Zionist founders of Israel.

And to end this post of mine I'll post some legal views of Professor Henry Cattan who as well as many(if not most other lawyers) question the validity of the Mandate.

From among the several authorities of international law who have questioned the validity of the Mandate, the views of Professor Henry Cattan may be quoted:

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

"1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. In so far as the Mandate purported to recognize any rights for alien Jews in Palestine, it was null and void.

"2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the authority of which it purported to be made. The Mandate violated Article 22 in three respects:

"(a) The Covenant had envisaged the Mandate as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories.

"Was the Palestine Mandate conceived for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine? The answer is found in the provisions of the Mandate itself. The Mandate sought the establishment in Palestine of a national home for another people, contrary to the rights and wishes of the Palestinians ... It required the Mandatory to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home. It required the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. It provided that a foreign body known as the Zionist Organization should be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. It is clear that, although the Mandates System was conceived in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of mandates. As Lord Islington observed when he opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate: "The Palestine Mandate is a real distortion of the mandatory system". The same distinguished Lord added:

"When one sees in Article 22 ... that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race."

"(b) The Palestine Mandate also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey at the end of the First World War. In the case of those countries, the intention was to limit the Mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance. It is doubtful whether the people of Palestine, as also other Arab peoples detached from Turkey, were in need of administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory. Their level of culture was not inferior to that existing at the time in many of the nations that were Members of the League of Nations. Such Arab communities had actively participated with the Turks in the government of their country. Their political maturity and administrative experience were comparable to the political maturity and administrative experience of the Turks, who were left to stand alone.

"Be that as it may, the framers of the Palestine Mandate did not restrict the Mandatory's role to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance, but granted the Mandatory 'full powers of legislation and administration' (Article 1). Such 'full powers of legislation and administration' were not laid down in the interest of the inhabitants, but were intended to be used, and in fact were used, to establish by force the Jewish national home in Palestine. Clearly this was an abuse of the purpose of the Mandate under the Covenant and a perversion of its raison d'être.

"The whole concept of the Palestine Mandate stands in marked contrast to the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was given to France on 24 July 1922. This Mandate conformed to Article 22 of the Covenant ...

"... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers. The denial to the Palestine Arabs of their independence and the subjection of their country to the immigration of a foreign people were a breach of those pledges." 63/

At the time that the Mandate was established, however, the people of Palestine were unable to question or to challenge it, and the process of establishing the "Jewish national home" commenced.

So claiming that Israel is not a colonial state is nothing but a lie and at best re-writing history.

And no religion should ever be used to "claim" land. Religion goes beyond borders set down by humans. By making Israel a jewish state(Judenland like the first Zionists called it) they effectively made Jews all over the world foreigners in their countries that they had lived for centuries.

[Zimphire]

Of course we will all have to wait for vmarks to get some free time so he can debunk the this thread right?

Good.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course we will all have to wait for vmarks to get some free time so he can debunk the this thread right?

Good.

He won't but I will still wait to see his reply. The fact that you won't post anything useful in this thread is just an example of how you blindly support Israel though.

Perhaps I should bring up Plan D, Unit 101 and other things as well in this thread. Just to get your thoughts on it.

[spiky_dog]

i'd be very interested in reading vmarks' response to this, assuming he actually addresses the subject rather than going off on a tangent.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
He won't

He usually does. What would make this any different?

The fact that you won't post anything useful in this thread is just an example of how you blindly support Israel though.

No, I just know vmarks is better at the smack down than I.

I am not so deluded to think I know more about this than him.

I have no reason to be blindly supportive of Israel. I benefit in no way.

[Logic]

This will be my last reply to you in this thread unless you bring something of interest to the debate.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

He usually does. What would make this any different?
[/b]

That's the problem. He doesn't but because he tells you what you want to hear you think he is winning the debate.

No, I just know vmarks is better at the smack down than I.

I am not so deluded to think I know more about this than him.

I have no reason to be blindly supportive of Israel. I benefit in no way.

Someone who has such a strong opinion on something should know something about it. That is what I'm trying to fix for you, so please read my post above and those that will follow. These aren't lies, but documented facts.

So please do us all a favour and read the posts, and then post something of interest and on topic. Not just silly™, knee-jerk™, smackdown™ etc. Show us what you are made of when it comes to an open debate.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
This will be my last reply to you in this thread unless you bring something of interest to the debate.

Heh

That's the problem. He doesn't but because he tells you what you want to hear you think he is winning the debate.

No actually he does. It just so happens I agree with him.

Someone who has such a strong opinion on something should know something about it. That is what I'm trying to fix for you, so please read my post above and those that will follow. These aren't lies, but documented facts.

Wait, you confused me thinking vmarks would do a better job with me not knowing what is going on.

Don't do that.

So please do us all a favour and read the posts, and then post something of interest and on topic. Not just silly™, knee-jerk™, smackdown™ etc. Show us what you are made of when it comes to an open debate.

Read above.

[eklipse]

: grabs popcorn :

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, I just know vmarks is better at the smack down than I.

It's sad that you have to rely on vmarks to argue for you. What? Can't you form your own opinion?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

He usually does. What would make this any different?
[/b] No, I just know vmarks is better at the smack down than I.

I am not so deluded to think I know more about this than him.

I have no reason to be blindly supportive of Israel. I benefit in no way. [/B]

Except in the smackdowns. Coz that's what you are here for.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It's sad that you have to rely on vmarks to argue for you. What? Can't you form your own opinion?

Read what I said. I said vmarks could do a better job than I. And he could.

That isn't saying I don't have my own opinion, or that vmarks is arguing FOR ME.

Please be a bit more honest in your replies next time.

Thanks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Except in the smackdowns. Coz that's what you are here for.

What are you saying? I support Israel because of smackdowns?

Heh.

You guys crack me up.

[Lerkfish]

Back to the topic (sort of):

I have often wondered, not at the alliance of US and Israel, which is somewhat understandable, but at the unwavering support of any actions the other one takes...to the point of almost feeling like some americans feel its unpatriotic to criticize Isreal, which is absurd since its another country.
I mean, if I criticize Iraq am I being unpatriotic as an american? Great Britain? Mexico? Canada? Ireland?

Israel is the ONLY country I know of that carries that connotation of "patriot peer pressure" to support it. There are other countries that we ally with, there are even other countries that we supply with weapons....but no other country relationship demands we unwaveringly support it.

perhaps someone can explain this to me?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Back to the topic (sort of):

I have often wondered, not at the alliance of US and Israel, which is somewhat understandable, but at the unwavering support of any actions the other one takes...to the point of almost feeling like some americans feel its unpatriotic to criticize Isreal, which is absurd since its another country.
I mean, if I criticize Iraq am I being unpatriotic as an american? Great Britain? Mexico? Canada? Ireland?

Israel is the ONLY country I know of that carries that connotation of "patriot peer pressure" to support it. There are other countries that we ally with, there are even other countries that we supply with weapons....but no other country relationship demands we unwaveringly support it.

perhaps someone can explain this to me?

My opinion...

It is biblical. Israel is the promise land and the Jews are the chosen people. Agree, disagree...please don't just flame or attack the Bible or God because of this. It is just one of probably many factors that some use in their decision making process.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
My opinion...

It is biblical. Israel is the promise land and the Jews are the chosen people. Agree, disagree...please don't just flame or attack the Bible or God because of this. It is just one of probably many factors that some use in their decision making process.

Your are absolutely right that one shouldn't flame the Bible or Allah because of this. I actually think that Allah should be completely left out of this and shouldn't be used as some legal source for who owns the land. I actually like the idea the UN came with that Jerusalem should be under UN control because it is important for all three religions of "God".

But don't you agree that the Bible, Quran et al should never be used as legal arguments when determining who owns a particular piece of land?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Back to the topic (sort of):

I have often wondered, not at the alliance of US and Israel, which is somewhat understandable, but at the unwavering support of any actions the other one takes...to the point of almost feeling like some americans feel its unpatriotic to criticize Isreal, which is absurd since its another country.
I mean, if I criticize Iraq am I being unpatriotic as an american? Great Britain? Mexico? Canada? Ireland?

Israel is the ONLY country I know of that carries that connotation of "patriot peer pressure" to support it. There are other countries that we ally with, there are even other countries that we supply with weapons....but no other country relationship demands we unwaveringly support it.

perhaps someone can explain this to me?

I think this is largely to do with the huge pro-Israel lobby you've got going in America. It's been there for a while, but has become much more prominent with Bush in office.

The friendly relationship between Israel and America goes back years. America practically equipped Israel with it's military capability.

I think it's also the compatibility of their foreign policies which make them very strong allies. US foreign policy regarding the Middle East suits Israel substantially. Since Israel is not admired by most of the countries surrounding it, it does her a great service to have America, a powerful country economically and military, on her side. Israel's attitude towards the other Middle Eastern countries is identical to America's and they both rely on each other for this support. Israel was obviously a staunch ally of the US in the Iraq war as well as a strong advocate of the 'War on Terror'.

Presently, I think the pro-Israeli lobby which absolutely includes the neo-conservatives is at its strongest in this Bush administration. It did not surprise me at all to hear that the US opposed the latest UN resolution regarding Yassin. The lobby is extremely influential and makes sure that the US will never adopt any sort of critical line regarding Israel.

[Logic]

Just thought I should post Article 22 so that everyone can see for themselves what it says.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 June 1919



Article 22. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Your are absolutely right that one shouldn't flame the Bible or Allah because of this. I actually think that Allah should be completely left out of this and shouldn't be used as some legal source for who owns the land. I actually like the idea the UN came with that Jerusalem should be under UN control because it is important for all three religions of "God".

But don't you agree that the Bible, Quran et al should never be used as legal arguments when determining who owns a particular piece of land?

This is where we disagree. I don't think there is a legal argument. No matter how far or recent you go back in history...there is one indisputable fact...Israel is controlled, occupied, and developed by the Jews. It is their land and the court of 'Arabic' opinion just isn't gonna change that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
but has become much more prominent with Bush in office.

No, no it hasn't.

Presently, I think the pro-Israeli lobby which absolutely includes the neo-conservatives is at its strongest in this Bush administration. It did not surprise me at all to hear that the US opposed the latest UN resolution regarding Yassin. The lobby is extremely influential and makes sure that the US will never adopt any sort of critical line regarding Israel.

Do you know the party most of the Jewish people vote for in this country LBK?

I'll give you a hint, It's not the Republican party.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This is where we disagree. I don't think there is a legal argument. No matter how far or recent you go back in history...there is one indisputable fact...Israel is controlled, occupied, and developed by the Jews. It is their land and the court of 'Arabic' opinion just isn't gonna change that.

I don't want to get into too much about how it is today. Israel isn't going away, but understanding and knowing the history of Israel is very important when "taking sides" in this whole mess.

The Jewish population at the time of the Balfour(1920's IIRC) declaration was about 56000 and went up to 608000 in 1946. Mostly due to immigration from abroad. The Balfour declaration and following declarations and treaties gave immigration rights to jews from all over the world to move into Palestine while the Palestinians had nothing to say about it. Similarly jewish land ownership(vmarks most popular argument) increased by 250% in that time. But still that was only 6.5% of Palestine and about 12% of the cultivable land in Palestine. So you see, that even if you take the later numbers Jews are not a majority. Do you think it is fair to give a nation to a people that hasn't lived there for centuries without consulting with the population who has lived there for centuries? At the same time as their neighbors(Syria and Trans-Jordan) are given their independence?

And just one more quote:

"The Arab reaction to this sudden and striking development was quite natural. All that the Arab leaders had felt in 1929 they now felt more bitterly ... the greater the Jewish inflow, the greater the obstacle to their attainment of national independence. And now, for the first time, a worse fate seemed to threaten them than the withholding of their freedom and the continuance of Mandatory rule. Hitherto, with the high rate of natural increase among the Arabs, it has seemed impossible that the Jews could become a majority in Palestine within measurable time. But what if the new flood of immigration were to rise still higher? That question gave a very different colour to the idea of self-government in Palestine as Arab nationalists had hitherto conceived it. It opened up the intolerable prospect of a Jewish State - of Palestinian Arabs being ruled by Jews. It is not surprising, therefore, to find ... the old antagonism growing hotter and hotter, till it bursts again into flames."
The Peel report from 1937

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
My opinion...

It is biblical. Israel is the promise land and the Jews are the chosen people. Agree, disagree...please don't just flame or attack the Bible or God because of this. It is just one of probably many factors that some use in their decision making process.

That explains some people's reasons for considering Isreal an appropriate choice to ally with, I agree. Thanks for answering that part of it.

My MAJOR question, though, is why it would be considered disloyal or unpatriotic for an american to criticize another country's policies, specifically Isreal's?
Its something that makes absolutely no sense to me. I can see saying "hey, don't dis them, they're our friends". But that's not the level of the objection, its much deeper than that.

Its like Isreal is the "mini-me" of america or something, in the eyes of those who bristle if you criticize their policies. In fact, if you criticize their policies, you can be called a "hater".
Why that level of emotional objection? To contrast, if I said "yeah, Great Britain needs to listen to the Irish", no one is going to call me a "hater", or call me unpatriotic, etc.
And Great Britain is certainly our ally, and that situation is minimally analogous.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Read what I said. I said vmarks could do a better job than I. And he could.

That isn't saying I don't have my own opinion, or that vmarks is arguing FOR ME.

Please be a bit more honest in your replies next time.

Thanks.

Since vmarks seems intent on leaving this thread "unnoticed" and give you an opinion on Logic's post, why don't you at least try to form your own arguement?

[Wiskedjak]

I think the fact that Logic's post has gone almost four hours with nothing resembling a counter-arguement counts as a smackdown.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
That explains some people's reasons for considering Isreal an appropriate choice to ally with, I agree. Thanks for answering that part of it.

My MAJOR question, though, is why it would be considered disloyal or unpatriotic for an american to criticize another country's policies, specifically Isreal's?
Its something that makes absolutely no sense to me. I can see saying "hey, don't dis them, they're our friends". But that's not the level of the objection, its much deeper than that.

Its like Isreal is the "mini-me" of america or something, in the eyes of those who bristle if you criticize their policies. In fact, if you criticize their policies, you can be called a "hater".
Why that level of emotional objection? To contrast, if I said "yeah, Great Britain needs to listen to the Irish", no one is going to call me a "hater", or call me unpatriotic, etc.
And Great Britain is certainly our ally, and that situation is minimally analogous.

No offense...I think it is just your perception. Meaning, I think many people are opposed to Israeli policy. But...I think it has to do mostly with religion. Israel is a holy land for Christians as well. Whether it is racism or not, justified or not, America has decided that Israel is the better choice to occupy such a land. Not to mention the terrorist factor and distrust of Islam.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
arguement?

I keep noticing this in your posts, I'm just gonna have to say something now. It's spelt, argument!

Sorry...just had to say it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Since vmarks seems intent on leaving this thread "unnoticed

And this is why people are posting what they are now that vmarks has been busy.

tin foil hat indeed.

Wisk did you not read the thread were vmarks said he is busy at the moment and would be right back ?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think the fact that Logic's post has gone almost four hours with nothing resembling a counter-arguement counts as a smackdown.

Ahh. so Lerk, you was saying?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ahh. so Lerk, you was saying?

Perhaps you should do a search and count how many times the word "smackdown" appears in my posts relative to your's?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ahh. so Lerk, you was saying?

Don't use me to abuse other members, thanks. That's your head trip.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Perhaps you should do a search and count how many times the word "smackdown" appears in my posts relative to your's?

I wasn't referring to your usage of smackdown. Not at all.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Don't use me to abuse other members, thanks. That's your head trip.

I am not abusing members. How silly.

No head trip. I was dead on.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am not abusing members. How silly.

No head trip. I was dead on.

in your mind. In the future, do not use me to do it.
If you want to be "dead on" with other members, be man enough to do it on your steam.
the last thing I EVER want to be is associated with any "dead on" attacks YOU make on other people....capiche?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
in your mind. In the future, do not use me to do it.

Use you to do it? What are you going on about now?

You told me what I said was all in my head. I replied to you that it wasn't. Read the rest of the forum and found that gem to back my point up.

Said thread

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=207126

If you want to be "dead on" with other members, be man enough to do it on your steam.

Again MORE silliness. I DID prove it on my own. My steam indeed.

the last thing I EVER want to be is associated with any "dead on" attacks YOU make on other people....capiche?

Please show me where I attacked ANYONE.

Don't revert to being dishonest just because you made fun of me for something, and I actually backed my notion up with proof.

That makes you look like a sore loser.

Just bite the pillow.

[OAW]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This is where we disagree. I don't think there is a legal argument. No matter how far or recent you go back in history...there is one indisputable fact...Israel is controlled, occupied, and developed by the Jews. It is their land and the court of 'Arabic' opinion just isn't gonna change that.

This statement is unequivocally and patently false! I suggest you check the historical record before making such ridiculous claims.

The fact of the matter is that the geographic area known today as the State of Israel along with the Occupied Territories has a 5000+ year recorded history. The first 2000 of those years it was known as "Canaan" and there was no Jewish presence at all. Since then it has commonly been known as Palestine or some derivative of that. It has only been known as Israel/Judah for 533 of those years, not counting the 50+ years since the creation of the modern day state of Israel. The Jews ... or more accurately the Hebrews ... were not the original inhabitants of the land. Those people would be the Canaanites who were invaded and conquered by the Hebrew tribes ... and this was justified with the so-called "Promised Land" story. Additionally, the Palestinians weren't the ones who caused the Jews to lose control of the land. That would be the Assyrians who conquered Israel in 721 BC and the Babylonians who conquered Judah in 586 BC. In 165 BC the Jews under the leadership of the Maccabees revolted against the Seleucids (Greek rulers who took over after the death of Alexander the Great) and established an independent state. But soon the land was brought under the dominion of the Roman Empire. Finally in 70 AD, with the destruction of the Temple, Israel ceased to exist as a state.

In summary, out of the 5000 year recorded history of Palestine , the Jews have only ruled the land for 533 years (not including the rule of the European Jews starting in 1948). Ever. And they didn't even show up until 2000 years after the recorded history of Palestine began! Consider your "indisputable fact" officially disputed.

OAW

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think the fact that Logic's post has gone almost four hours with nothing resembling a counter-arguement counts as a smackdown.

Not really. Its the same spin on his propaganda that he always posts. I mean what are you going to say, "Israel wasn't carved up purposely with the intent to be colonized by Jews." Or course it was, but so what. Texas was purposely colonized by Americans in an effort to gain enough of a majority to overtake it and we don't see any movement to give a chunk of that back. Sometimes history gives it to someone to give to others. And in cases of land it is never really fair to everyone. It was probably done manipulatively but there's enough legal argument for it to remain the way it is now.
People haven't gone replied because 1) its futile to argue with a whackjob like Logic over any Arab issue and 2) Maybe if you majored in Middle Eastern studies in college, and that obviously leads to a good paying job, you might have the knowledge to talk about this off the top of your head but no one cares enough to read his entire post and then find the holes in it.

And I really don't care what Henry Cattan has to say about the issue. He was the representative for the Arabs in the UN which is like asking Jonnie Cochran if he thinks OJ did it. I am sure they are both very intelligent men but their bias clouds everything that ever came out of their mouths on the issue. So no, MOST OTHER LAWYERS do not question the validity of the mandate. Some, sure but there are just as many who support it.


Whoopie.. OAW joined the party. Lets all read the bold typeface words. Hey how long did the Indians, I mean Native Americans, control North America?

[christ]

Originally posted by dcolton:
My opinion...

...Israel is the promise land and the Jews are the chosen people...

What does that make Christians?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by christ:
What does that make Christians?

Followers of God's only son.

[swrate]

I wouldnt say Israel is ALL illegal, parts of it are, and the people in the governement are,

Those votes were relevant, I wasn’t surprised.
Oil and control over the ME, a needed ally, of military/economical use.


Logic, I am glad you posted that today, has been in my mind a lot.
We have the same numbers.
I had posted it as a question to vmarks, he never answered, so again, c’est tombé à pic, merci

And that 1919 article too LBK, colonisation…..
Dcolton
The colt on: prophets are the same whether Muslim or Christian, Israel is holy Issa Mariam Abraham and others lived there.


It’s strange to see how numbers changed over the decades, to think in 1917, 2.5 % of Palestinians were Jews, and Israel didn’t quite yet exist. Now, 20 % of “Arabs only, so there is a decrease of 77.5 % in the Arab population, 750 000 deported left their lands, and still are not well integrated and creating problems in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan…. Problems yet to solve.

Then I thought about different populations lost on the planet being moved around, kept under control, oppressed people who after colonization often commit collective suicide, -unknowingly- by drinking, catching diseases, taking drugs. The Indians of America, the darker populations of any place, the small entities controlled by communists, Russians, local tribes, being moved around either to build a new military base or a new factory, or whatever…. the list goes on.

Delocalisation of the former owners (the “state” owns it).
Often, the “other” invader/colonisator attempts to impose religion onto them too, and often it fails. The Palestinians chose another way of -collective suicide- "freedom fighters"

Why does /did the government not stop the illegal colonisations?

Isn’t sending civilians in disputed zones a way of putting human shields into the conflict?

[OAW]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Whoopie.. OAW joined the party. Lets all read the bold typeface words.

The fact that this is all you have to say in response to the facts I presented in my post shows that you Obviously remain an utterly clueless individual. Please make use of the following ASAP:

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Hey how long did the Indians, I mean Native Americans, control North America?

1) This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

2) To answer the question, for thousands of years longer than European immigrants. So if someone made the statement ....

"No matter how far or recent you go back in history...there is one indisputable fact... North America is controlled, occupied, and developed by the Europeans" ...

... then it would be just as false as the statement made by dcolton. But given your apparent need for that little item above, I doubt that such realities even register with you.

OAW

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by OAW:
IMAGE!

Saved.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I keep noticing this in your posts, I'm just gonna have to say something now. It's spelt, argument!

Sorry...just had to say it.

apologies

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
(...)
Sometimes history gives it to someone to give to others. And in cases of land it is never really fair to everyone. It was probably done manipulatively but there's enough legal argument for it to remain the way it is now.
(...)
Hey how long did the Indians, I mean Native Americans, control North America?

History gives nothing. History is a human concept to tell and report what is done by people. And often it is biased as an act of self-glorification from depreciation of victims...

"Manipulatively" is extremely weak a term to describe several decades of genocide...

And your legal arguments were made from YOUR laws. The "spoils of war" are nothing but the rewards for abuse and oppression.

Your ignorance is appalling...

[Logic]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Not really. Its the same spin on his propaganda that he always posts. I mean what are you going to say, "Israel wasn't carved up purposely with the intent to be colonized by Jews." Or course it was, but so what. Texas was purposely colonized by Americans in an effort to gain enough of a majority to overtake it and we don't see any movement to give a chunk of that back. Sometimes history gives it to someone to give to others. And in cases of land it is never really fair to everyone. It was probably done manipulatively but there's enough legal argument for it to remain the way it is now.
People haven't gone replied because 1) its futile to argue with a whackjob like Logic over any Arab issue and 2) Maybe if you majored in Middle Eastern studies in college, and that obviously leads to a good paying job, you might have the knowledge to talk about this off the top of your head but no one cares enough to read his entire post and then find the holes in it.

And I really don't care what Henry Cattan has to say about the issue. He was the representative for the Arabs in the UN which is like asking Jonnie Cochran if he thinks OJ did it. I am sure they are both very intelligent men but their bias clouds everything that ever came out of their mouths on the issue. So no, MOST OTHER LAWYERS do not question the validity of the mandate. Some, sure but there are just as many who support it.


Whoopie.. OAW joined the party. Lets all read the bold typeface words. Hey how long did the Indians, I mean Native Americans, control North America?

So you have basically nothing to say except some personal attacks?

Like I said, Cattan is just one of many that question the mandate and the legality of the Balfour declaration. You can just see it yourself if you would read what I posted above.

Compare the Balfour declaration with Article 22 and tell me that they work together.

Balfour goes against Article 22 since Article 22 says that the people living in the area should gain independence. Not that you should transfer a foreign population and give them the land.

Just read the two, come back, and state your counter-argument without attacking me. Unless your goal with that post was to get me into some flame-fest that would get this thread locked.

So please read what I have posted and prove me wrong if you think I'm wrong.

[Logic]

And one more thing. Please stop the namecalling and attacks on other members. If you can't debate stay out. If you are gonna post, only post something that is relevant to the topic at hand.

Thanks.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No offense...I think it is just your perception. Meaning, I think many people are opposed to Israeli policy. But...I think it has to do mostly with religion. Israel is a holy land for Christians as well. Whether it is racism or not, justified or not, America has decided that Israel is the better choice to occupy such a land. Not to mention the terrorist factor and distrust of Islam.

Actually America had little to do with it to begin with. It was not until the Anglo-American conference that the US got involved.

Anyway, Palestine is the land of all these religions. Therefor I support the UN proposition that Jerusalem would be under international control. And that is also why I think that we should keep religion out of this. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with borders set down by humans. Borders should be there(but preferably not) to create borders between people of different nationality. One people, one nation and all that.

I'll ask again, do you think that religion should play apart in determining borders on earth?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you have basically nothing to say except some personal attacks?

[undotwa]

Israel an 'illegal colonialist state', according to which authority's law?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Logic:
Actually America had little to do with it to begin with. It was not until the Anglo-American conference that the US got involved.

Anyway, Palestine is the land of all these religions. Therefor I support the UN proposition that Jerusalem would be under international control. And that is also why I think that we should keep religion out of this. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with borders set down by humans. Borders should be there(but preferably not) to create borders between people of different nationality. One people, one nation and all that.

I'll ask again, do you think that religion should play apart in determining borders on earth?

Yes, but the state of Israel is already well established and quite stable (even to some extent prosperous). The UN wouldn't be any improvement.

To put it blankly, the terrorist are willing to compromise. They want the Israelis out of Palestine and they will not stop till all the Jews are out.

I remember some militant Palestinian said something like this: 'The fools, they keep on offering us little pieces, when they don't realise we just want the whole lot!' (not exact quote, and I can't remember who said it).

[Logic]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Israel an 'illegal colonialist state', according to which authority's law?

Did you read my posts above?

To clarify:

The league of nations had certain rules that were the international laws of that time. Among the most important ones was Article 22 that states that the control of a nation should be in the hands of the "modernized" world until the the nation mandated to the "modern nation" can handle their lives as an independent. This did not mean that the mandating power did have absolute control over what it could do with the mandated territory. Mandated territories were put in three groups: class A, class B, and class C. Class A being those nations closest to being able to take care of themselves. For all these classes one specific rule had to be followed for the mandating power. Namely:

From Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Meaning that the mandating power should only help the mandated nation to become independent and should act with their(the mandated nations) best interest in mind.

Like I showed above the Balfour declaration that pretty much is responsible for the creation of Israel violated that basic trust. It was president Wilson that stated in one of his 14 points that:

The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development ..."

Meaning that the victorious powers should help the former occupied areas of the Ottoman empire develop without any hindrance as autonomous nations later to become independent.

Now some might say that this doesn't matter since it was the League of Nations, but it is important to realize that much of the laws set down by the League of Nations got transfered to the UN. Among those is the basic rules that Article 22 deals with as well as President Wilson.

So the basic creation of "a national homeland for Jews" was illegal since at the time only about 5-10% of the population were Jews.

Some might say that the Jews were treated badly but reports from that time do not agree. Sir Walter Shaw was put to the task of investigating the revolt of 1929. The Shaw commission said this:

"In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have differed in some material respect from those which previously obtained. Of this we found ample evidence. The reports of the Military Court and of the local Commission which, in 1920 and in 1921 respectively, enquired into the disturbances of those years, drew attention to the change in the attitude of the Arab population towards the Jews in Palestine. This was borne out by the evidence tendered during our inquiry when representatives of all parties told us that before the War the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which to-day is almost unknown in Palestine".

[Logic]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Yes, but the state of Israel is already well established and quite stable (even to some extent prosperous). The UN wouldn't be any improvement.

To put it blankly, the terrorist are willing to compromise. They want the Israelis out of Palestine and they will not stop till all the Jews are out.

I remember some militant Palestinian said something like this: 'The fools, they keep on offering us little pieces, when they don't realise we just want the whole lot!' (not exact quote, and I can't remember who said it).

Like I said, I'm not going to argue too much about todays events. What I'm trying to do here, is to show you how this whole thing started. Many people today believe that the Palestinians have always hated the Jews and just one day decided they should try to kill them all. That is far from the truth and the whole issue started with the Palestinians being screwed over and over and their right to determine their own fate denied. Not only denied but the fact that they were promised by the Mandating nations that they would become independent and later that promise was broken created the problems that are still today not solved. The Palestinians tried to negotiate with the mandating powers some kind of deal but the Zionists declined their offer and made a counter-offer. As I will show below that offer like most so far have been far from wanting peace and understanding between the two people that once lived side-by-side in peace. And it is worth noting that the Zionists responsible for the Balfour declaration and following negotiations were not living in Palestine like vmarks claimed, but lived mostly in Europe and some in the US. Well, to get back to show how the "peace-process" started I'll show the the offers made in the London conference.

The Palestinian Offer:

(a) Palestine would be a unitary State with a permanent Arab majority, and would attain its independence as such after a short period of transition (two or three years) under British Mandate;

(b) Within this unitary State, Jews who had acquired Palestinian citizenship (for which the qualification would be 10 years' residence in the country) would have full civil rights, equally with all other citizens of Palestine;

(c) Special safeguards would be provided to protect the religious and cultural rights of the Jewish community;

(d) The Jewish community would be entitled to a number of seats in the Legislative Assembly proportionate to the number of Jewish citizens (as defined) in Palestine, subject to the proviso that in no case would the number of Jewish representatives exceed one third of the total number of members;

(e) All legislation concerning immigration and the transfer of land would require the consent of the Arabs in Palestine as expressed by a majority of the Arab members of the Legislative Assembly; and the safeguards provided for the Jewish community would be alterable only with the consent of a majority of the Jewish members of the Legislative Assembly"

The Zionist Offer:

"(a) That Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the democratic world;

"(b) That the gates of Palestine be opened to Jewish immigration;

"(c) That the Jewish Agency be vested with the control of immigration into Palestine and with the necessary authority for the upbuilding of the country"

This is from the London conference that took place 1946-47. Who seems to be more interested in peace and a fair solution to you?

At this time Jews were because of the massive immigration in the years before up to about 20-25% of the population. Meaning that most of the Jews in Palestine at the time where not born there and had no other connection to that land except that the Book said so. This is how it has always been. And I'm afraid that this is how it will always be.