[Cody Dawg]

I mean, Israel is so big and threatening.

[Monique]

But, since the Arab world cannot get along among themselves, Israel can remain secure.

[gururafiki]

That little tiny area of yellow happens to be the only country with nuclear weapons, and the most powerful and advanced military out of all those countries.

Since when did how much land a country occupies determine how powerful it is?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

That little tiny area of yellow happens to be the only country with nuclear weapons, and the most powerful and advanced military out of all those countries.

Since when did how much land a country occupies determine how powerful it is?

Can flip that reasoning around - that they have the nukes and advanced military BECAUSE of being that little tiny yellow sliver.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Can flip that reasoning around - that they have the nukes and advanced military BECAUSE of being that little tiny yellow sliver.

That is very true. However, most of those other countries are not nearly as powerful as Isreal, so their fear of Isreal makes sense.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

That little tiny area of yellow happens to be the only country with nuclear weapons, and the most powerful and advanced military out of all those countries.

Pakistan is on that map and it has nuclear weapons.

That said, the map includes way more than just Arab countries.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Monique

But, since the Arab world cannot get along among themselves, Israel can remain secure.

They have to protect themselves against people who think that would be fun to exterminate Jews, those are maniacs and anything Israel chooses to do to defend themselves, well they are right and rightous.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by itai195

Pakistan is on that map and it has nuclear weapons.

That said, the map includes way more than just Arab countries.

I didn't notice Pakistan, but you are right. So where do Arab countries end, and Asian(?) countries start? If Pakistan is on there, shouldn't India be on there too?

[Big Mac]

The demarcation should not be Arab countries only but rather all Islamic countries, which would include Iran and Pakistan. And as we know, Pakistan's former nuclear head gave nuclear technology (including centrifuges) to Iran.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Monique

Originally Posted by Monique

But, since the Arab world cannot get along among themselves, Israel can remain secure.

They have to protect themselves against people who think that would be fun to exterminate Jews, those are maniacs and anything Israel chooses to do to defend themselves, well they are right and rightous.

Just curious, what's it like to have a conversation with yourself?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

I didn't notice Pakistan, but you are right. So where do Arab countries end, and Asian(?) countries start? If Pakistan is on there, shouldn't India be on there too?

Arab countries are basically the Middle East minus Iran and Turkey as well as Northern Africa including Sudan.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by itai195

Arab countries are basically the Middle East minus Iran and Turkey as well as Northern Africa including Sudan.

Minus Iran? I could have sworn that Iranians consider themselves Arab too.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

Minus Iran? I could have sworn that Iranians consider themselves Arab too.

They don't. Only 3% of the Iranians are Arabs. You should have noticed that they don't speak Arabic.

Demographics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Imagine if the tables were turned- that it was Jews who controlled most of those nations, and Muslims were just trying to have a homeland in the tiny strip of yellow. Add to it, imagine that the Muslims were the ones who'd been rounded up in Europe, and carted off to gas chambers, and many then decided to go back to a more welcoming homeland where they had come from originally.

Is there ANYONE who's honest, who thinks the surrounding Jewish nations wouldn't say, "come on back" with open arms?

Is there anyone who honestly thinks the surrounding Jewish nations would spend vastly inordinate amounts of their time and resources thinking of ways to destroy the tiny Muslim nation? That many of their citizens would constantly chant death to the Muslim state, and support terrorists with that goal- to the point of reducing much of their own existence to squalor, backwardness, and oppressive dictatorial regimes? That Jews would send their children against the Muslim state as suicide bombers? That once the Muslims began to defend themselves against the neighboring hostility, that most of the world would either side against them, or float the notion they were "equally to blame" for the turmoil and strife their presence in the ME causes? That the absurdity of the Jews insisting to the death that they MUST have that little strip of land in addition to all the rest, is really a legitimate excuse for so much worldwide conflict, and nearly constant warfare?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Just curious, what's it like to have a conversation with yourself?

I was thinking the same thing.

[OAW]

Half of that map contains countries that are not Arab. Even less if you take Sudan off the list because only the northern part is predominantly Arab there. Looks like someone could use a refresher course in geography and social studies.

OAW

[TETENAL]

[OreoCookie]

Muslim = Arab, right? All those Arabs in Iran would get pretty ticked off … 

[Rumor]

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

Minus Iran? I could have sworn that Iranians consider themselves Arab too.

no, they're Persian, mainly. Persian is their main language.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Just curious, what's it like to have a conversation with yourself?

yes, that post could be construed as rather telling when taken in context with previous posts by Monique which address points not raised.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I mean, Israel is so big and threatening.

That map is fekked up badly.

You also forgot to include the U.S. and Israel joined at the anus.

[Cody Dawg]

They don't. Only 3% of the Iranians are Arabs. You should have noticed that they don't speak Arabic.

I think OreoCookie pointed out adeptly that Iran backs the Arab nations - and Hezbollah.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

That is very true. However, most of those other countries are not nearly as powerful as Isreal, so their fear of Isreal makes sense.

The attacks on Israel began shortly (days?) after they were granted statehood by the UN. And several times in their history ALL of their immediate neighbors joined together to simultaneously attack Israel and each time they were able to repulse those attacks.

It's like five bad guys all attacking Chuck 'Norrisberg' at the same time and he kicked all their asses each time. But he knows that he might not be able to overcome every one of their future attacks so he went out and got a gun and hid it somewhere on himself, just in case.

He never talks about it and doesn't show it.

He has even made a peace treaty with two of the bad guys.

But in case he's going down for the count and there's no other way to survive he knows he has the 'piece' to use after all else has failed. Going back to talking directly about Israel and the Jews, not so long ago when the Nazis were destroying millions of Jews they vowed they would never again let this kind of thing happen. NEVER AGAIN.

Never again would the Jews allow themselves to be victimized that way.

The nuclear weapons assures that it will never again happen.

They are very responsible about having nukes but have never officially admitted having them.

Everyone knows the Israelis are not going to use their nukes without SERIOUS provocation.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." That indicates why he should NOT have nukes. He is very likely to use it/them against Israel.

There is no reason why any of the other Arab/Muslim nations in the M.E. should have nukes, either. Same reason. They are driven by their religion and by a general hatred toward jews so much so that putting nukes in their hands would be tantamount to signing Israel's death warrant.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I think OreoCookie pointed out adeptly that Iran backs the Arab nations - and Hezbollah.

No, I pointed out that many of the peoples on that map are not Arabs. Uzbeks, Iranians, etc.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." That indicates why he should NOT have nukes. He is very likely to use it/them against Israel.

There is no reason why any of the other Arab/Muslim nations in the M.E. should have nukes, either. Same reason. They are driven by their religion and by a general hatred toward jews so much so that putting nukes in their hands would be tantamount to signing Israel's death warrant.

It does not matter how "responsible" a country is with nukes. Having them at all is irresponsible. There are other ways to defend yourself besides nuclear bombs. Israel has the right to defend itself, especially with the rhetoric that comes from Iranian President Ahmadinejad. But until recently, why did Israel need nukes when they have the most powerful military in the region, and the U.S. backing their every move?

Most of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's talk is just talk. His threats against Israel, which I am sure are very real, are also a form of propaganda. He is saying things like that to gain support and popularity from the people in that region. But he also knows full well that any aggressive action he takes against Israel will result in consequences from the U.S.

I do not believe at all that Arab/Muslim nations have just a plain general hatred towards Jews. There are still 20,000 Jews living in Iran today. I believe that after years of watching Israel occupy it's neighbor Lebanon (Shebaa Farms), and the way Israel treats Palestinian civilians, Arab/Muslim nations are suspicious and not very trusting of Israel and it's motives.

[Troll]

I saw "My Name is Rachel Corrie" a few days back and this thread made me think of something from the play. The play is based on extracts from emails from Rachel Corrie and her personal journal entries. Rachel Corrie was the young American woman killed by the IDF in Rafah in 2003 when she tried to stop the IDF from implementing its apartheid policy of forced removals. She was run over by an armoured bulldozer. The IDF soldier driving the bulldozer was eventually convicted of manslaughter. The house she was trying to protect from demolition wasn't destroyed on that day but it was eventually destroyed.

What this reminded me of was her point that Israel likes to imply that the fight between them and the Palestinians is a fair one and a lot of people in the US and elsewhere imagine that Israel is a small country facing a life-threatening barrage of attacks. That couldn't be further from the truth.

It's worth reading the whole thing but for those with short attention spans (and God knows I'm sometimes one of those), I've bolded the parts that rung most true to me.

Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded. Jenny and I stayed in the house with several women and two small babies. It was our mistake in translation that caused him to think it was his house that was being exploded. In fact, the Israeli army was in the process of detonating an explosive in the ground nearby - one that appears to have been planted by Palestinian resistance.

This is in the area where Sunday about 150 men were rounded up and contained outside the settlement with gunfire over their heads and around them, while tanks and bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses - the livelihoods for 300 people. The explosive was right in front of the greenhouses - right in the point of entry for tanks that might come back again. I was terrified to think that this man felt it was less of a risk to walk out in view of the tanks with his kids than to stay in his house. I was really scared that they were all going to be shot and I tried to stand between them and the tank. This happens every day, but just this father walking out with his two little kids just looking very sad, just happened to get my attention more at this particular moment, probably because I felt it was our translation problems that made him leave.

I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed - the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here - recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people's vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can't.

So when someone says that any act of Palestinian violence justifies Israel's actions not only do I question that logic in light of international law and the right of people to legitimate armed struggle in defence of their land and their families; not only do I question that logic in light of the fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits collective punishment, prohibits the transfer of an occupying country's population into the occupied area, prohibits the expropriation of water resources and the destruction of civilian infrastructure such as farms; not only do I question that logic in light of the notion that fifty-year-old Russian guns and homemade explosives can have any impact on the activities one of the world's largest militaries backed by the world's only superpower, I also question that logic on the basis of common sense.

If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours - do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.

You asked me about non-violent resistance. The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Ghandian non-violent resistance. Who do you think I'm staying with in houses that are going to be demolished amid gunfire? ... Who do you think these families are that I tell you about, who won't take any money from us even though they are very, very poor and who say to us: "We are not a hotel. We help you because we think maybe you will go and tell people in your country that you lived with Muslims. We think they will know that we are good people. We are quiet people. We just want peace"? Do you think I'm hanging out with Hamas fighters? These people are being shot at every day and they continue to go about their business as best they can in the sight of machine guns and rocket launchers. Isn't that basically the epitome of non-violent resistance?

When that explosive detonated yesterday it broke all the windows in the family's house. I was in the process of being served tea and playing with the two small babies. I'm having a hard time right now. Just feel sick to my stomach a lot from being doted on all the time, very sweetly, by people who are facing doom. I know that from the United States, it all sounds like hyperbole. Honestly, a lot of the time the sheer kindness of the people here, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the wilful destruction of their lives, makes it seem unreal to me. I really can't believe that something like this can happen in the world without a bigger outcry about it. It really hurts me, again, like it has hurt me in the past, to witness how awful we can allow the world to be. I felt after talking to you that maybe you didn't completely believe me. I think it's actually good if you don't, because I do believe pretty much above all else in the importance of independent critical thinking ... All of the situations that I tried to enumerate above - and a lot of other things - constitute a somewhat gradual - often hidden, but nevertheless massive - removal and destruction of the ability of a particular group of people to survive. This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities - but in focusing on them I'm terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here - even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon's possible goals), can't leave. Because they can't even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won't let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can't get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide. Even if they could get out, I think it would still qualify as genocide. Maybe you could look up the definition of genocide according to international law. I don't remember it right now. I'm going to get better at illustrating this, hopefully. I don't like to use those charged words. I think you know this about me. I really value words. I really try to illustrate and let people draw their own conclusions.

[amsalpemkcus]

Someday all those Arab countries are going to get their own nookilar wmd's and thats one crazy holymoly scenario!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

It does not matter how "responsible" a country is with nukes. Having them at all is irresponsible. There are other ways to defend yourself besides nuclear bombs. Israel has the right to defend itself, especially with the rhetoric that comes from Iranian President Ahmadinejad. But until recently, why did Israel need nukes when they have the most powerful military in the region, and the U.S. backing their every move?

Perhaps it's because Israel is tiny and surrounded by a host of countries bent on its destruction. Btw, what makes you think America supports every move Israel makes? Was America's endorsement of the "Road Map" supportive of Israel's every move? Was America's strong pressure on Israel to show "restraint" whenever it struck back after bombings of its civilians supportive of Israel's every move? Was America's backing of Oslo and its offspring supportive of Israel's every move? And if you go back further in history and look at the U.S. reaction to Israel's bombing of Osiraq - was that supportive of Israel's every move? And what about the run up to the 1967 War - was LBJ's statement that the U.S. was "neutral in thought and in deed" toward Israel supportive of Israel's every move?

America is not the guarantor of Israel's security. America's support for Israel will wax and wane based on the varying political climate of the times. Heck, during the Arab oil embargo of the '70s, some Americans would display bumper stickers with slogans like, "Don't burn oil burn Jews." America is a great ally to Israel, but it does not grant unconditional support. Thus, Israel cannot be dependent on America's good will for its survival.

Most of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's talk is just talk. His threats against Israel, which I am sure are very real, are also a form of propaganda.

Uh, if it's propaganda it cannot also be real.

He is saying things like that to gain support and popularity from the people in that region. But he also knows full well that any aggressive action he takes against Israel will result in consequences from the U.S.

Are you willing to bet millions of lives on that contention?

I do not believe at all that Arab/Muslim nations have just a plain general hatred towards Jews. There are still 20,000 Jews living in Iran today. I believe that after years of watching Israel occupy it's neighbor Lebanon (Shebaa Farms), and the way Israel treats Palestinian civilians, Arab/Muslim nations are suspicious and not very trusting of Israel and it's motives.

You apparently don't know that Israel had been out of Lebanon for six years prior to the latest war with Hezballah and that Israel would never have been there in the first place if it had not been forced to defend itself. You don't realize that the "Palestinian" identity is a fake and wholly illegitimate one, fabricated for the purpose of destroying Israel. You don't know what motivates Islamic aggression. You don't know the conflict very well, mostly because you don't know its historical antecedents.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

It does not matter how "responsible" a country is with nukes. Having them at all is irresponsible. There are other ways to defend yourself besides nuclear bombs. Israel has the right to defend itself, especially with the rhetoric that comes from Iranian President Ahmadinejad. But until recently, why did Israel need nukes when they have the most powerful military in the region, and the U.S. backing their every move?

Most of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's talk is just talk. His threats against Israel, which I am sure are very real, are also a form of propaganda. He is saying things like that to gain support and popularity from the people in that region. But he also knows full well that any aggressive action he takes against Israel will result in consequences from the U.S.

I do not believe at all that Arab/Muslim nations have just a plain general hatred towards Jews. There are still 20,000 Jews living in Iran today. I believe that after years of watching Israel occupy it's neighbor Lebanon (Shebaa Farms), and the way Israel treats Palestinian civilians, Arab/Muslim nations are suspicious and not very trusting of Israel and it's motives.

just about to do chores when I saw your spreading a falsehood.

Egypt and Iran EACH has larger militaries than Israel.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

just about to do chores when I saw your spreading a falsehood.

Egypt and Iran EACH has larger militaries than Israel.

To be fair, he wrote most powerful.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Monique

But, since the Arab world cannot get along among themselves, Israel can remain secure.

Don't worry, if the US continues to intrude, they will unify.

I seem to remember Bush saying something about not giving the terrorists what they want shortly after 9/11....

[Rumor]

[Cody Dawg]

Where's Cindy Sheehan's new digs there in your map showing Crawford?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Btw, what makes you think America supports every move Israel makes? Was America's endorsement of the "Road Map" supportive of Israel's every move? Was America's strong pressure on Israel to show "restraint" whenever it struck back after bombings of its civilians supportive of Israel's every move?

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Perhaps it's because Israel is tiny and surrounded by a host of countries bent on its destruction. Btw, what makes you think America supports every move Israel makes? Was America's endorsement of the "Road Map" supportive of Israel's every move? Was America's strong pressure on Israel to show "restraint" whenever it struck back after bombings of its civilians supportive of Israel's every move? Was America's backing of Oslo and its offspring supportive of Israel's every move? And if you go back further in history and look at the U.S. reaction to Israel's bombing of Osiraq - was that supportive of Israel's every move? And what about the run up to the 1967 War - was LBJ's statement that the U.S. was "neutral in thought and in deed" toward Israel supportive of Israel's every move?

America is not the guarantor of Israel's security. America's support for Israel will wax and wane based on the varying political climate of the times. Heck, during the Arab oil embargo of the '70s, some Americans would display bumper stickers with slogans like, "Don't burn oil burn Jews." America is a great ally to Israel, but it does not grant unconditional support. Thus, Israel cannot be dependent on America's good will for its survival.

No, the US has not supported every move Israel has made, but they have supported quite a few. The US was the first country to recognize Israel after its creation in 1948, and the first US veto in the UN was in 1972 on a Syrian-Lebanese complaint against Israel. Between 1967 and 1972, the U.S. supported or abstained on 24 resolutions, most critical of Israel. From 1973-2000, the UN Security Council adopted about 90 resolutions on the Middle East with most of them critical of Israel. The U.S. vetoed a total of 33 resolutions. Since 1962 the US has sold Israel weapons or weapons systems, and in 1973 the US became the top supplier of arms to Israel, which is still true to this day. If this is not unconditional support, then what is?

Uh, if it's propaganda it cannot also be real.

I guess I didn't use the right word here. His threats are real, but the likelihood of him following through on these threats is very slim. He is basically rallying support for extremist views like his with these threats.

Are you willing to bet millions of lives on that contention?

No, however I still believe that as long as the US stands by Israel, the chance of Iran attacking Israel is slim to none,

You apparently don't know that Israel had been out of Lebanon for six years prior to the latest war with Hezballah and that Israel would never have been there in the first place if it had not been forced to defend itself.

Israel never left Lebanon six years ago as Lebanon claims the Shebaa Farms as theirs.

You don't realize that the "Palestinian" identity is a fake and wholly illegitimate one, fabricated for the purpose of destroying Israel. You don't know what motivates Islamic aggression. You don't know the conflict very well, mostly because you don't know its historical antecedents.

I completely disagree here. The Palestinian identity is as real as Isreal's. Hamas has made it clear that they do not want to recognize Israel's existence, but Hamas does not represent the entire Palestinian population.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

Israel never left Lebanon six years ago as Lebanon claims the Shebaa Farms as theirs.

Shebaa Farms is just a red herring Hezbollah uses to continue hostility toward Israel. The UN agreed that Israel completed its pullout from Lebanon in 2000.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by itai195

Shebaa Farms is just a red herring Hezbollah uses to continue hostility toward Israel. The UN agreed that Israel completed its pullout from Lebanon in 2000.

I don't know ... you guys seem to have some extraordinarily weak and contrary arguments! On the one hand, the UN is irrelevant and yet you cite it here as if it is the yard stick for determining whether Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon! Then, on the one hand you argue that Hezbollah seeks the destruction of the state of Israel and yet you claim that Shebaa Farms is just an excuse to keep up the violence against Israel - if it wanted to destroy Israel, wouldn't the mere existence of Israel be excuse enough for it to keep up the violence, never mind Israeli apartheid, human rights abuses, the lack of a Palestinian state and the plight of the Palestinians? Why does it need Shebaa Farms as an excuse?

I don't think Shebaa Farms is an excuse for Hezbollah. They have enough other reasons to keep up the violence against Israel.

[itai195]

When did I say the UN is irrelevant? You are confusing me with someone else.

As far as Shebaa Farms goes, I assume you are familiar with the concept of a pretext? Hezbollah, and other terrorists, have learned that it's valuable to have one.

[Troll]

What's interesting is how power is really shifting in the Middle East and it's all in completely the opposite direction to that which the neocons predicted. First, the US invades Iraq and the net benefactor of the war and the subsequent collapse of the country is Iran. Then Israel invades Lebanon, Bush cheers from the wings and holds back the referees but Israel winds up losing the war and the net benefactor once again is Iran (and Hezbollah).

Everything is backfiring on Bush and his neocon buddies.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by itai195

When did I say the UN is irrelevant? You are confusing me with someone else.

Perhaps. And if I am, I apologise.

Originally Posted by itai195

As far as Shebaa Farms goes, I assume you are familiar with the concept of a pretext? Hezbollah, and other terrorists, have learned that it's valuable to have one.

They have enough pretexts without Shebaa Farms. I think perhaps you're focussing too much on the detail and missing the big picture. Shebaa Farms is symptomatic of Israeli expansion and violence and it is that expansion and violence that Hezbollah opposes. Shebaa Farms is not the pretext for Hezbollah. The pretext is a state (Israel) that has, ever since its formation, constantly expanded its territory by inflicting violence on its neighbours and on the Palestinian people. Shebaa Farms is just one more example of that but Hezbollah could point to the West Bank or Gaza or the Golan Heights or any number of other examples if Shebaa Farms was part of Lebanon or Syria.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by itai195

Shebaa Farms is just a red herring Hezbollah uses to continue hostility toward Israel. The UN agreed that Israel completed its pullout from Lebanon in 2000.

Shebaa Farms is occupied land that was not part of Israel's original border. It does not belong to Israel, so they should leave it. Hezbollah did not use the Shebaa Farms as an excuse to attack Israel, they kidnapped Israeli soldiers (and offered an exchange of prisoners) which is what started this more recent wave of violence. Yes, the UN agreed that Israel completed its pullout of Lebanon, but the UN does not represent the government of Lebanon and the UN is not always right.

[DBursey]

The Shebaa Farms dispute centers on a red herring created by Syria and Hezbollah.

When originally occupied by Israel Shebaa Farms was an internationally acknowledged area of Syrian jurisdiction. Syria's claims - never substantiated - of a territorial transfer to Lebanese sovereignty following said occupation provides the premise for continued Hezbollah 'resistance' (i.e. attacks on Israeli civilians with Iranian anti-personnel rockets) following the 1st Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

The maps on this page are meant to represent the Muslim (as opposed to Arab) world, with glaring omissions, population-wise, each of India (which has larger muslim population than Iraq, Saudi Wahhabia and Pakistan combined), and of Indonesia, where over 100 million Muslims reside. For that matter millions of Muslims fall within the boundaries of communist China.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

I didn't notice Pakistan, but you are right. So where do Arab countries end, and Asian(?) countries start? If Pakistan is on there, shouldn't India be on there too?

India is not Muslim, it is Hindu. India was actually occupied by the Arabs thousands on years ago but the population is not Arab.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

India is not Muslim, it is Hindu. India was actually occupied by the Arabs thousands on years ago but the population is not Arab.

(Indian) Religions:

Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

(USA) Religions:

Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

CIA Factbook

[goMac]

Israel is sitting on the most holy site in all of Islam. It's kinda like France taking over Washington DC. Sure, it's a small piece of land, but it's pretty important.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac

Israel is sitting on the most holy site in all of Islam. It's kinda like France taking over Washington DC. Sure, it's a small piece of land, but it's pretty important.

Oh my. Are you joking? That post is astoundingly idiotic. Do you realize that you have lost all credibility on this subject with that post? I'm surprised I'm the first to comment on it. Go sit in the corner and put your dunce cap on.

The only way Israel could be "sitting on the most holy site in all of Islam" is if it were magically transported to Saudi Arabia. The two holy cities of Islam are Mecca and Medina, which are cities in Saudi Arabia. The holiest site in Islam is called the Kaba in Mecca, a site of former pagan worship that was turned into a mosque (the holiest mosque) by Mohammed. You've never heard of the Haj? Every Muslim is required to make a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia once to go to the Kaba. That is Islam's holiest site. And Colin Cornhole, FYI, Jerusaulem isn't even mentioned once by name in the Koran. For the sake of thoroughness, you should know that a mosque is sitting on the holiest site in Judaism. I think you should do yourself a favor and abstain from any future threads on the Arab-Israeli conflict because of your woeful ignorance.

[Big Mac]

I'm still waiting for your reply, Colin. Don't you have the decency to acknowledge how blatantly wrong you were?