[AKcrab]

From what I can gather, Israel is pulling out of the Gaza strip, which is good for the Palestinians. There was a nice little cease fire going on, and Israel actually has pulled out families and removed structures, not just talked about doing it.

This is what the Palestinians want, right? So why is Hamas running around attacking BOTH Israel and the PA Police? Does Hamas feel the PA has capitulated and is now "in league" with Israel?

I was thinking we had some real progress going here, but it seems to be blowing up.

[von Wrangell]

Israel is going to "leave" but stay in control of all borders, harbours, airspace, water and the list goes on. It's only the colonists that are leaving. And while they do this they are expanding colonies in the West Bank, continuing to build the wall on territory that belongs to the Palestinians, continue to openly accept that they use torture, continue to use blackouts as a method of punishing the whole population, continue to control the water supply(IIRC about 80% of the water found in the West Bank is diverted to Israel or to the settlements and the Palestinians are forbidden from digging new wells without permit which is almost impossible to get) and the list goes on.

[AKcrab]

Ah, so the Israeli pullout was not as complete as I thought.

I guess the PA sees it as at least *some* progress, but Hamas doesn't.

[Big Mac]

Why don't we do this. . . Let's find the state of Israel on a map:



Wait, what's wrong with that map? I see Saudi Arabia, I see Iraq, I see Jordan, I see Syria, I see Iran, Kuwait, Arab Emirates, I see Oman, I see Yemen. What country do I not see? Why, where's that "expansionist," "colonial," "oppressive," country named Israel? Why, [FONT=Impact]IT'S SO SMALL[/FONT] this map does not even see fit to label it!

Why don't we take a look at some figures of religious predominance by country?
Number of Predominantly Christian Countries: Approximately 110
Number of Predominantly Muslim Countries: 52
_____Subset of Predominantly Arab Countries: 22
Number of Predominantly Buddhist Countries: 4
Number of Predominantly Hindu Countries: 3
Number of Predominantly Jewish countries: 1

There is only homeland for the Jewish people - the land of Israel. The Jewish people have endured two millennia of genocide and disperson, crusade and inquisition, pogroms and the Holocaust. The modern state of Israel has, by G-d's will, defended itself in four major wars (1948, 1956, 1964, 1973), as well as an unremitting stream of terrorism. Much to the pan-Arabist's chagrin, the sons of Ishmael have not been able to obliterate the tiny country and "push the Jews to the sea" as they often pledged they would. How could a tiny nation, exiled from its land, disunited and persecuted for centuries, possibly come to restore itself? And how could that tiny, nascent state, upon its rebirth, possibly repel the combined force of six Arab countries? Is there any more probable explanation for that miraculous rebirth and repeated triumphs, other than divine providence? Despite the hateful ignorance of the many, there will remain one eternal homeland for the Jewish people.

[FONT=Century Gothic]"And the L-rd said to Abram, "Go forth from your land and from your birthplace and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you. . . . And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you."
-Genesis 12[/FONT]

[Troll]

The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel (neither under international law nor does Israel claim them) so that last post is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

There should be a Jewish state in Israel. Almost everyone agrees on that. The problem is that Israel refuses to stop its occupation of the territories and its practise of apartheid in the territories. It refuses to stop oppressing and stealing from the Palestinians and it refuses the creation of a real, viable Palestinian state. That's where the dispute lies. This zionist raising of the holocaust every time Israel comes under pressure is old and tired. It's just another form of playing the race card. Stick to the issues and they're quite simple to resolve ... if you really want a resolution.

[von Wrangell]

Big Mac. Why should the Palestinian people suffer because of what the Europeans did?

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Big Mac. Why should the Palestinian people suffer because of what the Europeans did?

Haven't you heard? The Palestinian people don't exist!

How can a people suffer if they never existed in the first place?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel (neither under international law nor does Israel claim them) so that last post is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

There should be a Jewish state in Israel. Almost everyone agrees on that. The problem is that Israel refuses to stop its occupation of the territories and its practise of apartheid in the territories. It refuses to stop oppressing and stealing from the Palestinians and it refuses the creation of a real, viable Palestinian state. That's where the dispute lies. This zionist raising of the holocaust every time Israel comes under pressure is old and tired. It's just another form of playing the race card. Stick to the issues and they're quite simple to resolve ... if you really want a resolution.

Troll,

Will you please explain how land owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, siezed in war by Israel, agreed to be returned to those countries in exchange for peace, somehow reverts to other owners (Palestinians) when the countries either settle on less land (Egypt) or none at all (Syria, Jordan)?

(this is question 1)

And what are we to make of the Palestinians own founding documents that state they have no claim on Gaza or the West Bank?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization, known today as The Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964 at a time when the "occupied territories" were under Jordanian control. There was not one Jewish settlement in the territories, nor any Jewish "occupation." Yet the charter of the PLO from 1964 till this very day states as its goal "the destruction of Israel."

http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_two.html

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

(this is question 2)

I have a final question i wish you to respond to, but am hesitant to add it because I fear you won't address what I have asked above.

You state that almost everyone agrees there should be a Jewish state in Israel. The truth of the matter is that the Palestinians do not. We know this by their words, whether it is Hamas, or Fatah leaders in Abbas' own party.

November 2004:
Fatah chief Farouk Khaddoumi said the Palestinian strategy toward Israel was two-fold. In the first stage, he said, the Palestinians would accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In the second stage, the Palestinians would seek to eliminate the Jewish state.

"At this stage there will be two states," Khaddoumi told Iran's Al Aram television. "Many years from now, there will be only one."

Khaddoumi, who regards himself as Palestinian foreign minister, said he was confident that Israel would be eliminated. He said he always opposed Israel's existence and cited the Arab numerical superiority over the Jewish state.

"[There are] 300 million Arabs, while Israel has only the sea behind it," Khaddoumi said.

Khaddoumi said his platform was endorsed by the PLO in 1974. He said the strategy called for a phased plan that would establish authority over any territory obtained from Israel, concluding with an Arab war to destroy the Jewish state.

Rhetorical: how can peace come when the Palestinian position has been one of saying no at negotiations, saying yes and not following through, saying they accept Israel to the Western World media and saying they will destroy it in a phased plan to the Arab world?

[von Wrangell]

Rhetorical: how can peace come when the Israeli position has been one of saying no at negotiations, saying yes and not following through, saying they accept Palestine to the Western World media and saying they will destroy it in a phased plan to the Zionist world?

....

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Big Mac. Why should the Palestinian people suffer because of what the Europeans did?

Why should Jews suffer because of what Europeans and Arabs did to them over the past two thousand years? You know, the land was given the name Palestine by the Romans when it was Jewish, not Arab or Muslim. So what's a Palestinian?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Will you please explain how land owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, siezed in war by Israel, agreed to be returned to those countries in exchange for peace, somehow reverts to other owners (Palestinians) when the countries either settle on less land (Egypt) or none at all (Syria, Jordan)?

This question is completely irrelevant to anything. None of the answers to that question justifies Israel's practise of apartheid in the occupied territories or its denial of a Palestinian state. If I tell you the land is Egypt's or Syria's or Britain's or Father Christmas' land, none of that justifies either the treatment of Palestinians or the breach of international agreements on the creation of a Palestinian state.

The apartheid part you can answer for yourself. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Nothing can justify Israel continuing to commit that crime in the land it itself describes as under its occupation. For the second part, let's look at some of the arguments. First, you are wrong. The land never belonged to Egypt or Jordan. Second, Israelis often raise this argument that if you win land in a war, it becomes your own. Well, that's rubbish. You do not become the owner of land if you win a war. That is not what international law says. Third point, your argument that the occupied territories are being held hostage until Egypt, Jordan and Syria make peace with Israel. I think it's pretty obvious why that's a non-starter. Peace by any empirical measure broke out long ago. Fourth point, Israel's rights as occupying power are set out in UN Resolutions and Conventions. That is the only justification Israel has for being in the occupied territories. International law now condemns continued occupation of the land by Israel. Fifth point, United Nations Resolution 181 - international law (the same thing that created the state of Israel) allocates land to the Palestinian state the same way it allocated land to the Jewish state. Sixth point, the Oslo accords. That's how the land "reverts to the owners".

But as I said, all of that is completely irrelevant. Because the best case scenario for your argument is that the occupied territories are terra nullius; they belong to no one. Since Israel has been very clear about the fact that they don't claim the OTs as their own, that means that anyone who claims ownership is the owner. So far, the only people who claim ownership of that land are the Palestinians. Ergo, even on Israel's own argument, the land belongs to the Palestinians. And just to reinforce that, this is precisely what Israel publicly argues - that the land belongs not to Israel, Egypt, Jordan or Father Christmas, but to the Palestinians.

Originally Posted by vmarks

And what are we to make of the Palestinians own founding documents that state they have no claim on Gaza or the West Bank?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization, known today as The Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964 at a time when the "occupied territories" were under Jordanian control. There was not one Jewish settlement in the territories, nor any Jewish "occupation." Yet the charter of the PLO from 1964 till this very day states as its goal "the destruction of Israel."

The PLO is just one party that claims to represent the Palestinians. The PLO's constitution is not the "Palestinians' own founding documents". Besides, you know as well as I do that the PLO has publicly gone back on that claim. The same applies to your singling out of particular Hammas leaders.

Originally Posted by vmarks

how can peace come when the Palestinian position has been one of saying no at negotiations, saying yes and not following through, saying they accept Israel to the Western World media and saying they will destroy it in a phased plan to the Arab world?

One might ask the same of the Israelis. Israel never keeps its word either.

[dreilly1]

I tried to come to an understanding of this issue a while back, too, AKcrab. The conclusion that I came to (which is aptly displayed in this thread so far) is that neither side trusts the other. Peace will only come when a few brave individuals on both sides reach out and trust the other side, (without getting shot by their own side as a traitor), risking their political career to keep promises made to the other side with no guarantee of reciprication. And then, that individual trust needs to blossom and multiply until there is at least a small sense of trust bridging the divide between the general public on both sides. Until (and unless) that happens, the region will always be unsettled.

[von Wrangell]

The last Israeli PM who worked towards peace was killed for it. This is what both sides are dealing with and the extremes on both sides(Fatah and Hamas on one side and vmarks, Big Mac and Zimphire on the other side) are unable to condemn acts like that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There won't be peace until the world steps in and separates the two and then that peace can only be kept if the world then treats both as equals and not like the master(Israel) and slave(Palestine) like now.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

I tried to come to an understanding of this issue a while back, too, AKcrab. The conclusion that I came to (which is aptly displayed in this thread so far) is that neither side trusts the other. Peace will only come when a few brave individuals on both sides reach out and trust the other side, (without getting shot by their own side as a traitor), risking their political career to keep promises made to the other side with no guarantee of reciprication. And then, that individual trust needs to blossom and multiply until there is at least a small sense of trust bridging the divide between the general public on both sides. Until (and unless) that happens, the region will always be unsettled.

Precisely. I'd go one step further though and say that the onus is with Israel. Not morally, but practically. There are always going to be rogue elements on both sides that will not follow the brave people that commit to making sacrifices for peace. Israel is more in control of its people than anyone in Palestine is, it has greater resources and therefore more capability to control its people and to make a change stick. Until the Israeli people can produce and elect brave leaders and manage to keep them alive long enough to make a difference, I don't see peace coming to the Middle East.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

has greater resources and therefore more capability to control its people and to make a change stick. Until the Israeli people can produce and elect brave leaders and manage to keep them alive long enough to make a difference, I don't see peace coming to the Middle East.

Aha. That's the crux of the matter- you require a government to control its people- I tell you that peace cannot last until the people are ready for it, despite whatever governments may do.

The Israelis are ready, and have been. The strength of the Israeli military has been what has facilitated keeping so many people alive.

Find me more Palestinians who are ready. Let me know how you do on that. Israel gives and gives, offers and offers, and the Palestinians and their apologists keep on spreading propaganda, violence, incitement, and falsehoods surrounding UN resolutions.

[vmarks]

With regard to UN 181 which Troll claims is law establishing Israel and Palestine- The resolution refers to Western Palestine- Eastern Palestine is now called Jordan. This is no coincidence, Palestinians make no secret that as a part of the phased plan they intend to reunite Palestine. Shoot, they tried to take Jordan in the 70s with Arafat's Black September.

From a legal point of view, UN GA resolution 181 did not have the authority of international law; it merely expressed the political opinion of a majority of the General Assembly at that time. It did give a number of member states a pretext to recognize Israel as an independent state, but such recognition was often made on a de facto rather than a de jure basis, anyway. And even for those states that needed such a pretext, the League of Nations mandate was, and is, still in force and provides plenty of legal basis for recognizing Israel as the realization of the need for a Jewish homeland.

It is also questionable to lend legitimacy to a plan that only one side of the issue agrees to (and with great reluctance). The Arab states rejected the plan outright, and Great Britain abstained from voting on the issue.

From a practical point of view, the UN did nothing to assert, and far less enforce the resolution. Israel was left to defend itself from invasions from all its borders, and Jerusalem - designated as UN territory - came under siege.

Since the Arab states made war instead of accepting the resolution that Israel had agreed to, why you even bring it up today is interesting- the act of choosing war instead of accepting the plan set forth renders it irrelevent today. Saying it does is not so far different from taking pity on the child who murders his parents because he is now an orphan.

As for the apartheid claims you always make and then justify by saying 'Desmond Tutu says it's so, so it must be true!' well, they fall as flat as ever. With great respect to Bishop Tutu, it's quite possible he's looking through a perspective that sees apartheid where it is not.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...id#post2511333

Was South Africa the only country that received international attention, singled out?
Apartheid in South Africa began in 1917 and ended in 1994. "White Australia" or "Australia for Australians" began in the 1890s and lasted through the 1950s.

The comparison is false. Israel has no such policy.

As citizens of the only democracy in the Middle East, Israeli Arabs enjoy equal rights to Israeli Jews, including, proportional representation within the Israeli Parliament.

Under South African apartheid, the black South Africans were not considered citizens of the country in which they represented the vast majority of the population. Conversely, Israeli Arabs, while the minority, are citizens with an equal political voice. While no nation is perfect, Israeli Arabs, especially women, enjoy more freedom in Israel than do most other Arabs in the Middle East. Therefore, it is absurd to attempt to draw analogies between South Africa and Israel proper.

The divestment campaigns started on university campuses by Chomsky are basically fraudulent: Chomsky himself has said so: He told a Harvard audience that although he had signed- indeed spearheaded- the anti-Israel divestment petition, that he was actually opposed to divestment from Israel. Chomsky said, "I am opposed and have been opposed for many years, in fact, I've probably been the leading opponent for years of the campaign for divestment from Israel and of the campaign about academic boycotts." When asked why he signed the petition in view of his principled opposition to divestment, he explained, "No one who signs a petition is expected to approve of every word, even of large parts, if the main thrust is appropriate and sufficiently important."

The university divestment campaigns demanded that Israel comply with all of resolution 242, that it end the use of "legal torture", and that it offer Palestinians the option to "return to their former homes or be compensated." Never mind that Israel has complied with 242 (returning land to Egypt and making peace with Jordan, offering the Golan for peace with Syria (thus far turned down) and offering 94-96% of disputed West Bank and Gaza lands for peace (also thus far turned down). Never mind that Israel outlawed physical pressure in eliciting information from terrorists two years before the university divestiture petition circulated. Never mind that Israel offered Palestinians the opportunity to be compensated for losses at both Taba and Camp David, both offers turned down.

[Fred_Cokebottle]

I was pretty surprised that a few Palestinians I met recently did not know who this man is and what he achieved in his lifetime.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Aha. That's the crux of the matter- you require a government to control its people- I tell you that peace cannot last until the people are ready for it, despite whatever governments may do.

The Israelis are ready, and have been. The strength of the Israeli military has been what has facilitated keeping so many people alive.

Find me more Palestinians who are ready. Let me know how you do on that. Israel gives and gives, offers and offers, and the Palestinians and their apologists keep on spreading propaganda, violence, incitement, and falsehoods surrounding UN resolutions.

What has Israel given?

What has Israel offered?

And since you mention UN resolutions. How come you took one particular UNGA resolution as worthy of your acceptance while all other are just "anti-semitism"?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What has Israel given?

What has Israel offered?

And since you mention UN resolutions. How come you took one particular UNGA resolution as worthy of your acceptance while all other are just "anti-semitism"?

Israel has repeatedly offered to coexist alongside Palestinians. Palestinians repeatedly answer no.

Israel gave up Sinai. Israel is now giving up Gaza, in exchange for no promise of peace.

I didn't start mentioning UN resolutions, I mentioned the one that Troll brought up when he was answering my questions. Keep up, pay attention.

In virtually every action since 1947, the UN has sought to deny Israel the sovereignty every other member state takes for granted. In each of the Arab-Israeli wars, the Security Council has done nothing when fighting was going against Israel; only to act swiftly when it looked like Israel would be too successful. Israel is the only member state that is not eligible to serve on the Security Council and is subject to more condemnation than any other government on this planet.

As it is, the legacy of resolution 181 reflects the shortcomings of the UN itself. Resolution 181 was well-intended, idealistic, and hopeful.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The strength of the Israeli military has been what has facilitated keeping so many people alive.

People? You mean Israeli settlors. The Israeli Army is doing anything but keep Palestinians alive. It's keeping settlers alive by killing Palestinians and facilitating the theft of their land and the destruction of their industries and livelihood.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Israel gives and gives, offers and offers, and the Palestinians and their apologists keep on spreading propaganda, violence, incitement, and falsehoods surrounding UN resolutions.

If Israel has given so much, how is it that Israel has more land today than it did at its formation? If Israel has given so much, how is it that Palestinians still so few rights?

[CreepingDeth]

If anything, why are there more and more Palestinian refugees? The number ain't goin' down. Isn't that the deal when you're a refugee…you move, right? Go somewhere else. Makes perfect sense to me. Shouldn't more and more be moving to neighboring countries, like Jordan?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

With regard to UN 181 which Troll claims is law establishing Israel and Palestine

I said it was ONE of the many things which establish how land is due to the Palestinians - which you will recall was your original question to me. I notice you've now abandoned that line of reasoning. There is 50 years of history in the development of the Palestinian state. The G8 just allocated $3Bn to its formation and you would have us believe that the Palestinians have no valid claim to land!

Originally Posted by vmarks

As for the apartheid claims you always make and then justify by saying 'Desmond Tutu says it's so, so it must be true!' well, they fall as flat as ever. With great respect to Bishop Tutu, it's quite possible he's looking through a perspective that sees apartheid where it is not.

Yeah, that was exactly my point. I didn't quote line and verse from apartheid laws that Israel enforces in the occupied territories, did I.

Originally Posted by vmarks

As citizens of the only democracy in the Middle East, Israeli Arabs enjoy equal rights to Israeli Jews, including, proportional representation within the Israeli Parliament.

Let's not go down this road again. I very clearly said in this thread that Israel practises apartheid IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. I didn't raise the discrimination practised in Israel. Come back and tell me that a Palestinian that commits a crime in the occupied territories has the same rights as an Israeli that commits a crime in the Occupied Territories and then we'll start talking about apartheid.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Under South African apartheid, the black South Africans were not considered citizens of the country in which they represented the vast majority of the population. Conversely, Israeli Arabs, while the minority, are citizens with an equal political voice. While no nation is perfect, Israeli Arabs, especially women, enjoy more freedom in Israel than do most other Arabs in the Middle East. Therefore, it is absurd to attempt to draw analogies between South Africa and Israel proper.

Apartheid is an international crime against humanity. There's a definition of apartheid in international law. You don't have to replicate the circumstances that existed in South Africa to be guilty of apartheid. It's not only apartheid when you treat your Arabs worse than any other country in the Middle East treats theirs. On this note, blacks in South Africa were significantly better off than anywhere else in Africa (higher literacy, better infant mortality rates, better off economically). It's not only apartheid when a minority dominates a majority. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm - there's the definition of apartheid. Go and look at the definition and then tell us Israel isn't committing the international crime of apartheid in the Occupied Territories.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Israel has repeatedly offered to coexist alongside Palestinians. Palestinians repeatedly answer no.

Who said no? Was there a referendum that I'm not aware of? If you ask any group of people any question, there will always be some who disagree with the rest. Why does Israel choose whoever opposes peace as the designated representatives of the Palestinians? Could it be that the Israeli government really doesn't want peace? Could it be that when peace breaks out and the Americans stop pumping money into Israel and they have to buy the water they steal from Palestine, that things will suddenly become a bit more difficult for Israel. Could that be the reason why they apparently prefer a state of perpetual tension than peace? I'm not suggesting that's the case, but it's a valid question.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Fatah and Hamas on one side and vmarks, Big Mac and Zimphire on the other side

Finally, a fair fight!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Why does anyone care what happens in that godforsaken strip of a land? (Israel/Palestine)

Really people, just ignore it. It has nothing to do with us and no interest of ours will move things either way there. Enjoy your life where you are and unless you're in Israel or Palestine, you shouldn't care one squat.

cheers

W-Y

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Israel has repeatedly offered to coexist alongside Palestinians. Palestinians repeatedly answer no.

Israel gave up Sinai. Israel is now giving up Gaza, in exchange for no promise of peace.

I didn't start mentioning UN resolutions, I mentioned the one that Troll brought up when he was answering my questions. Keep up, pay attention.

In virtually every action since 1947, the UN has sought to deny Israel the sovereignty every other member state takes for granted. In each of the Arab-Israeli wars, the Security Council has done nothing when fighting was going against Israel; only to act swiftly when it looked like Israel would be too successful. Israel is the only member state that is not eligible to serve on the Security Council and is subject to more condemnation than any other government on this planet.

As it is, the legacy of resolution 181 reflects the shortcomings of the UN itself. Resolution 181 was well-intended, idealistic, and hopeful.

1. Not a single offer made by Israel has been even close to acceptable. Every offer made has been about making Palestine into a Bantustan.

2. Israel is not giving up Gaza. They just won't colonise it anymore. Gaza will still be strangled by the Israeli warmachine. No control over their own borders, no control over their own air-space, no control over their own beaches. The only thing that will change is that there will no longer be colonists living in Gaza.

3a) Israel isn't allowed to serve on the Security Council? I didn't know that. But if true I can't say I disagree with it. Only thing I disagree with is that they are the only ones.

3b) Maybe Israel deserves a lot of the criticism they get(I know, crazy idea)?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

I said it was ONE of the many things which establish how land is due to the Palestinians - which you will recall was your original question to me. I notice you've now abandoned that line of reasoning. There is 50 years of history in the development of the Palestinian state. The G8 just allocated $3Bn to its formation and you would have us believe that the Palestinians have no valid claim to land!
Yeah, that was exactly my point. I didn't quote line and verse from apartheid laws that Israel enforces in the occupied territories, did I.
Let's not go down this road again. I very clearly said in this thread that Israel practises apartheid IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. I didn't raise the discrimination practised in Israel. Come back and tell me that a Palestinian that commits a crime in the occupied territories has the same rights as an Israeli that commits a crime in the Occupied Territories and then we'll start talking about apartheid.
Apartheid is an international crime against humanity. There's a definition of apartheid in international law. You don't have to replicate the circumstances that existed in South Africa to be guilty of apartheid. It's not only apartheid when you treat your Arabs worse than any other country in the Middle East treats theirs. On this note, blacks in South Africa were significantly better off than anywhere else in Africa (higher literacy, better infant mortality rates, better off economically). It's not only apartheid when a minority dominates a majority. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm - there's the definition of apartheid. Go and look at the definition and then tell us Israel isn't committing the international crime of apartheid in the Occupied Territories.

A Palestinian that commits a crime in the territories is subject to whatever the PA wants to do to them, unless it's an act against Israel, which Israel has the moral right to pursue. There again, we see a hint that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself in your eyes.

An Israeli who commits a crime in the territories is subject to law as well. That they are subject to different authorities is not representative of apartheid, the Palestinians voted for Abbas, if we're to believe Jimmy Carter who certified the election.

Nice link. Now, is it apartheid within that definition when only one point of one article is met? Is it apartheid when only one article is met? Is it apartheid when more than one article is met, but for other articles, there is a record of working towards the opposite, positive condition?

For all the talk about water rights and such, people forget that Israel attempted to build housing for Arabs in the territories up to current building code, greatly improving standard of living. It never came to pass, the Arabs didn't want it.

As for the G8 pledging money, watch that money go to terrorists and corruption as always. Why does the G8 do it? Because they want to impress Bob Geldof and his bleeding hearts and if it actually DID help, it would be a legacy builder for the history books. They're willing to take a win win for the PR.

I would love for someone to address the question mentioned earlier about refugee numbers growing- the UN has two refugee organizations, one for Palestinians and one for the rest of the world. Everywhere else, refugee numbers decline, but the UNRWA grows refugee numbers. Why is that?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Why does anyone care what happens in that godforsaken strip of a land? (Israel/Palestine)

Really people, just ignore it. It has nothing to do with us and no interest of ours will move things either way there. Enjoy your life where you are and unless you're in Israel or Palestine, you shouldn't care one squat.

cheers

W-Y

You forgot to mention a few areas that are affected by the developments in Palestine. Such areas as Madrid, London, NY & Washington, Bali and the list goes on. And attempted genocide(from both sides) is our business. Or do you think we should have let the Balkan war just develop without our interference?

[von Wrangell]

victor:

Tell me one thing after watching this video:

http://www.hi.is/~glb/lynching.mov

Do you think that the IOF would react in the same way if the victim had been an Israeli and the perpetrators Palestinians?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You forgot to mention a few areas that are affected by the developments in Palestine. Such areas as Madrid, London, NY & Washington, Bali and the list goes on. And attempted genocide(from both sides) is our business. Or do you think we should have let the Balkan war just develop without our interference?

Those acts weren't committed by Palestinians as near as I can tell. They were committed by people using Palestinians as an excuse. How cheapening, demeaning it is to be made into an excuse.

If you want to talk about Palestinian terrorism, it's appropriate to talk about Munich, Achille Lauro, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi, (who invariably gets described as a Jordanian or Palestinian- but then, if you ascribe to the notion that Jordan is Eastern Palestine then there's no difference.)

Now, if you want to talk about the Palestinians who cheered on the attacks on Madrid, London, NY & Washington, the Palestinian sheikhs who applaud it in their Friday sermons, go right ahead.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Why does anyone care what happens in that godforsaken strip of a land? (Israel/Palestine)

Really people, just ignore it. It has nothing to do with us and no interest of ours will move things either way there. Enjoy your life where you are and unless you're in Israel or Palestine, you shouldn't care one squat.

Is this a message to our government? Cause until they stop caring, I'm pretty much forced to care.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

victor:

We haven't been properly introduced. You've used many nicknames, denied them, admitted you used them, but never really told me who you really are. You have the advantage, I'm afraid I wouldn't know how to address you.

Tell me one thing after watching this video:

http://www.hi.is/~glb/lynching.mov

Do you think that the IOF would react in the same way if the victim had been an Israeli and the perpetrators Palestinians?

Let me take the video piece by piece.

There's a cut of a political assembly, with the station icon in the upper left hand corner. Then we cut to an anchor speaking in Hebrew, with a different station icon in the upper right corner.

The movie is titled lynching, but there's no evidence of lynching in the movie. In opening, we see the soldier approach the boy without violence, with his rifle on his shoulder.

Immediately following, there are bystanders throwing rocks at the soldier without concern for any rocks hitting the boy. We can't see the bystanders faces well enough to know if they're Israeli or Arabs, or what. The translator is embellishing, the subtitles tell far less details.

Then we cut to the boy making the accusation that he was grabbed, and had his arm twisted behind his back, in an attempt to break it. Of course, if you've ever been handcuffed by police, you know that arms behind the back is to subdue the person, not break their arm. Then we have a close up on the back of the soldier and the white of the boy's shirt, and the bystanders are still throwing rocks at the two of them.

The soldier tells the people to let him sit, and he lies down. They've stopped throwing rocks, which is odd, you would think they would still be pelting the soldier, or the boy. But they aren't.

The camera cuts again to the boy, wider shot, tent and plastic chairs. (For the conspiracy theory-minded, these are the same style chairs as seen in Abu Ghraib pictures. ooooh. scary.)

The translator tells us the boy's cousin was a witness to the barbaric acts. No bias there. He couldn't simply translate the story as reported and let it stand on it's own?

Then we see the soldier directing the bystanders to leave. They do. We get a different translator (new accent in his voice) saying "It looks as if the soldier has saved his life. But these pictures were taken later."

Then we see the boy being interviewed again. We're back with the first translator. "What can I tell you?" "How do you feel?"
And so we turn from facts to feelings. Feelings, those reliable things.

And then he tells us he woke up in the hospital.

Oops, back to the translator / narrator with the accent. He says "after the lynching.." even though we never saw evidence of a lynching, or heard the boy accuse anyone of a lynching. He just said he was beaten.

The translator is the non-accented one again, and he completely diverges from the subtitles of the Grandfather.

And then we end with a completely different news anchor, speaking British English instead of Hebrew, on a different set, with a different channel icon in the upper left hand corner.


Basically, there are a few things that must be said:

This video is difficult to give any credibility. The two translators both inject bias rather than reporting facts. The editor has chopped up the video so that we have no way of proving or disproving the statement about the soldier helping the boy being staged later. It looks the same from the daylight, the boy was taken to a hospital (likely by the soldier) but we can't know that because the editor has seen fit to break all continuity.
And lastly, the translators diverting from what was said, and ending on a completely different station icon and a different anchor in a different language is damaging to the credibility of the story. In fact, if we take the contention that the soldier staged attempting to help, then we must likewise be willing to believe that it isn't even a real soldier, but an actor staging the whole thing for propaganda purposes against Israel. We just can't know, because of the way the movie is put together.

What you're asking is that I first believe everything in that very problematic video and then answer the hypothetical, "what if a settler was beaten and/or lynched by a Palestinian Authority policeman, with Palestinians joining in, and then instead of killing the settler, they put him in a hospital and treated his wounds, how would the IDF have acted?"

I'm really not sure how to answer that question. There's no precedent since Palestinians have never come to the aid of a wounded Israeli. However, there's plenty of evidence of Israelis treating enemies in hospitals.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

A Palestinian that commits a crime in the territories is subject to whatever the PA wants to do to them, unless it's an act against Israel, which Israel has the moral right to pursue. There again, we see a hint that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself in your eyes.

Nonsense, Palestinians arrested in the Occupied Territories for precisely the same crimes that Jewish settlers are, face Israeli military tribunals. The Palestinian Authority does not have jurisdiction over these people. You make out as if they're a real state!

Let's compare two cases shall we. In 2001, Sana' Amer, a 14 year old Palestinian girl was arrested in Hebron, accused of planning to stab a settler. She was held in the Moscobiyyeh Detention Centre in Jerusalem for 19 days and was only allowed one visit from her father. She was tried before a Military Court in July. Her legs were bound throughout the trial and she was handcuffed when the judge left the room. She appeared not to have a clear understanding of the judges' questions, but was sentenced to one year's imprisonment with an additional four-year sentence suspended for five years. She was released in November, a month after she became eligible for parole. This is a 14 year old girl accused of PLANNING to stab a settler.

On 27 September 2004, an Israeli settler shot dead Sayel Jabara, a Palestinian taxi driver, as he was driving his passengers between Nablus and Salem. The settler claimed that he shot Sayel Jabara because he thought that he might attack him, even though Sayel Jabara was not armed. The settler was not subjected to a trial by a military tribunal but was released on bail less than 24 hours after the killing.

The fact is Palestinians are tried by military tribunals where their rights are severely restricted and they neither have the same rights nor do they get similar sentences when accused for the same crimes in the territories.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

We haven't been properly introduced. You've used many nicknames, denied them, admitted you used them, but never really told me who you really are. You have the advantage, I'm afraid I wouldn't know how to address you.

I've actually only used two. You've added the famous "user-who-calls-himself-logic" once. Maybe you can go back to that

Let me take the video piece by piece.

There's a cut of a political assembly, with the station icon in the upper left hand corner. Then we cut to an anchor speaking in Hebrew, with a different station icon in the upper right corner.

The movie is titled lynching, but there's no evidence of lynching in the movie. In opening, we see the soldier approach the boy without violence, with his rifle on his shoulder.

Immediately following, there are bystanders throwing rocks at the soldier without concern for any rocks hitting the boy. We can't see the bystanders faces well enough to know if they're Israeli or Arabs, or what. The translator is embellishing, the subtitles tell far less details.

Then we cut to the boy making the accusation that he was grabbed, and had his arm twisted behind his back, in an attempt to break it. Of course, if you've ever been handcuffed by police, you know that arms behind the back is to subdue the person, not break their arm. Then we have a close up on the back of the soldier and the white of the boy's shirt, and the bystanders are still throwing rocks at the two of them.

The soldier tells the people to let him sit, and he lies down. They've stopped throwing rocks, which is odd, you would think they would still be pelting the soldier, or the boy. But they aren't.

The camera cuts again to the boy, wider shot, tent and plastic chairs. (For the conspiracy theory-minded, these are the same style chairs as seen in Abu Ghraib pictures. ooooh. scary.)

The translator tells us the boy's cousin was a witness to the barbaric acts. No bias there. He couldn't simply translate the story as reported and let it stand on it's own?

Then we see the soldier directing the bystanders to leave. They do. We get a different translator (new accent in his voice) saying "It looks as if the soldier has saved his life. But these pictures were taken later."

Then we see the boy being interviewed again. We're back with the first translator. "What can I tell you?" "How do you feel?"
And so we turn from facts to feelings. Feelings, those reliable things.

And then he tells us he woke up in the hospital.

Oops, back to the translator / narrator with the accent. He says "after the lynching.." even though we never saw evidence of a lynching, or heard the boy accuse anyone of a lynching. He just said he was beaten.

The translator is the non-accented one again, and he completely diverges from the subtitles of the Grandfather.

And then we end with a completely different news anchor, speaking British English instead of Hebrew, on a different set, with a different channel icon in the upper left hand corner.


Basically, there are a few things that must be said:

This video is difficult to give any credibility. The two translators both inject bias rather than reporting facts. The editor has chopped up the video so that we have no way of proving or disproving the statement about the soldier helping the boy being staged later. It looks the same from the daylight, the boy was taken to a hospital (likely by the soldier) but we can't know that because the editor has seen fit to break all continuity.
And lastly, the translators diverting from what was said, and ending on a completely different station icon and a different anchor in a different language is damaging to the credibility of the story. In fact, if we take the contention that the soldier staged attempting to help, then we must likewise be willing to believe that it isn't even a real soldier, but an actor staging the whole thing for propaganda purposes against Israel. We just can't know, because of the way the movie is put together.

What you're asking is that I first believe everything in that very problematic video and then answer the hypothetical, "what if a settler was beaten and/or lynched by a Palestinian Authority policeman, with Palestinians joining in, and then instead of killing the settler, they put him in a hospital and treated his wounds, how would the IDF have acted?"

I'm really not sure how to answer that question. There's no precedent since Palestinians have never come to the aid of a wounded Israeli. However, there's plenty of evidence of Israelis treating enemies in hospitals.

Ummm, ok.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Troll

People? You mean Israeli settlors. The Israeli Army is doing anything but keep Palestinians alive. It's keeping settlers alive by killing Palestinians and facilitating the theft of their land and the destruction of their industries and livelihood.
If Israel has given so much, how is it that Israel has more land today than it did at its formation? If Israel has given so much, how is it that Palestinians still so few rights?

When Arabs wantonly murder Israelis in barbaric suicide assaults, they never seem to realize there will be consequences for their aggression. The Arabs in Israel enjoy more rights, privileges, benefits and greater freedom than virtually the entire rest of their brethren, including the political privilege to get elected to Israel's parliament and call for the country's destruction on the floor of Knesset. And the Arabs of the territories work in Israel, unless they are temporarily barred after each terrorist attack they perpetrate. But praytel, what continued theft of land would you be referring to? In accordance with its vital national security interests, Israel held on to Judea-Samaria and the Gaza territories post-1967. Since the 1990s "peace" accords, the PA has been the legal authority empowered there. In any case, the reason why Israel has more land than at its founding is named the Six Day War. And if you're interested at all in the truth, you may wish to educate yourself about it and the other salient historical events of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Throughout the lengthy lead-up to the 1967 War Israel was provoked by bellicose Arab rhetoric and low-intensity warfare. There were around 113 terrorist attacks from the 1965 through the first four months of 1967. (Remember, these were terrorist attacks emanating from the territories, yet at that time they were governed not by Israel but by Jordan. Ask yourself, for what reason were they attacking Israel then?) There were also several Syrian attacks staged from the Golan Heights on the Israeli communes, which would have been sufficient cause for war by itself.

Here are a few of the Arab pledges of destruction during that period:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.
-Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map." -Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref

The U.N. Emergency Force that was stationed in the Sinai since the end of the 1956 war, rolled out the red carpet for Egyptian forces massing on the Sinai, prompting the Arabs to declare:

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.
-Voice of the Arabs radio, May 18, 1967

The blockade of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt on May 22 was the casus belli for war, and Nasser readily admitted his intention was war:

The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.... We will not accept any... coexistence with Israel... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel.... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.
-Abdel Nasser, May 27-28, 1967

On the eve of war more than 465,000 Arab troops, 2880 tanks and 810 aircraft were mobilized around Israel. Arabs rushed into the streets to celebrate the presumed slaughter they would soon enjoy. Thus, at the outset the world was certain the Arab forces would achieve their aims, yet the entire world would be astonished by the outcome. A preemptory strike against Egypt's air force was launched on June 5, and 300 Egyptian planes were destroyed within the first two hours. Due to Egypt's erroneous assurances to Jordan concerning their air force activity over Israel, Jordan entered the war by shelling West Jerusalem. Israel retaliated by destroying the Jordanian air force and followed-up by doing the same thing to Syria and Iraq's air forces. If Jordan had not entered the war, Israel would not have had the opportunity to unify Jerusalem. By the end of the first day, Israel had achieved complete air superiority over the once vastly numerically superior Arabs, and at a cost of only 20 fighters. The ground war was no less devastating to Arab pride, as their combined forces, which far outnumbered Israel, were routed and made to retreat. The war was over in six days, and the U.N. had to plead with Israel to accept a cease-fire.

In spite of Israel's overwhelming victory, the country immediately displayed its willingness to give away the lands it legitimately conquered in a defensive war, including the oil-rich Sinai. Around 93% of the land captured in the Six Day War has been relinquished by Israel.

Again I return to my previous response: If Israel is an expansionist country that has so dispossessed and victimized the Arab world, why is Israel about the size of Rhode Island? The answer is that all that Arab rhetoric is an enormous lie designed to distract the ignorant from the truth. The Arab world will not come to terms with the existence of Israel of any size. What they failed to accomplish so many times militarily, they attempt to do through a combination of terrorism and pressured diplomacy. They work toward a phased destruction of the Jewish homeland, piece by piece until there is so little left that the Arabs will regain the confidence to launch another war of annihilation. It's still in the PLO/PA charter, in fact. It has never been about peace with Israel, all there has been is the hudna the Islamic provision for temporary cessation of violence until victory is assured. That's what they're working toward, and so many of you spread their propaganda through your tremendous ignorance.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

When Arabs wantonly murder Israelis in barbaric suicide assaults, they never seem to realize there will be consequences for their aggression.

Precisely the same applies to Israelis. In 2004, the Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. According to Amnesty International, most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force.

Palestinian armed groups killed 67 civilians including eight children in the same year. With their "barbaric suicide assaults", the Palestinians are still killing more than 10 times fewer civilians than the Israeli Army with its "civilised weapons of precision" is killing.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

In any case, the reason why Israel has more land than at its founding is named the Six Day War. And if you're interested at all in the truth, you may wish to educate yourself about it and the other salient historical events of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

...

In spite of Israel's overwhelming victory, the country immediately displayed its willingness to give away the lands it legitimately conquered in a defensive war, including the oil-rich Sinai. Around 93% of the land captured in the Six Day War has been relinquished by Israel.

The fact that you won the war is completely irrelevant. You should have given up 100% of the land. First off, the countries that you beat in the war didn't own the land you now occupy. It wasn't theirs to cede. Secondly, just because you won a war, doesn't mean you're entitled to keep the land you took. I don't know where you guys get this rubbish from that countries can extend their land through conquer. That is not the way international law works. Well done for defending yourselves succesfully. Now go home.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Troll

Precisely the same applies to Israelis. In 2004, the Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. According to Amnesty International, most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force.

According to a number of media sources, the fatality figures from the Arab uprising that started in 2000 is around 3000 Arabs to 1000 Israelis. 3 to 1 is a lot different from 10 to 1. And once again, the fact is that belligerent combatants fighting nation states are going to get what is coming to them. No other country on the face of the earth would be as lenient as Israel has been to her hostile fifth column. If any other country were in the same position, its enemies would have been driven off or murdered long ago.

And for the sake of the record, recall 1971 when the king of Jordan crushed and exiled the PLO for Arafat's attempted coup (and many of those who made it out of Jordan took refuge in Israel, btw). Decades later Israel welcomed back and falsely legitimized Arafat's terrorist gang and allowed them to further radicalize the Arab population. Nevertheless, it is true - the casualty figures on both sides are far too high. Two completely incompatible groups of people cannot dwell on the same parcel of land at the same time. Separating the two groups is the only path to peace. The Arab population could and should have been long ago absorbed by their brothers in the surrounding states.

The fact that you won the war is completely irrelevant. You should have given up 100% of the land. First off, the countries that you beat in the war didn't own the land you now occupy. It wasn't theirs to cede. Secondly, just because you won a war, doesn't mean you're entitled to keep the land you took. I don't know where you guys get this rubbish from that countries can extend their land through conquer. That is not the way international law works. Well done for defending yourselves succesfully. Now go home.

To say your grasp on the fundamentals of international law is tenuous would be a generous statement indeed. Nation-states fundamentally have the right to secure borders. A country whose borders are untenable and subject to constant threat of attack has not only the right, but the duty, to protect its citizenry by defending itself and absorbing sufficient land to guarantee its security. If you're so certain of your position, please name one other country that gave away land of substantive strategic value captured in a defensive war. Under normal circumstances, the victorious name the terms of surrender to the vanquished, but there's always a double standard for Israel.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by Troll

Secondly, just because you won a war, doesn't mean you're entitled to keep the land you took.

HERE, HERE! I say we make EVERYBODY give back the land they wrongfully conquered! Let's start with North America. I'm sure the Native Americans would appreciate that gesture. Wait, then wouldn't Israel naturally return to the Jews anyway? Hmmm. They were there before the palestinians historically.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by deomacius

HERE, HERE! I say we make EVERYBODY give back the land they wrongfully conquered! Let's start with North America. I'm sure the Native Americans would appreciate that gesture. Wait, then wouldn't Israel naturally return to the Jews anyway? Hmmm. They were there before the palestinians historically.

But then, they weren't. Read the Bible yourself. There were people there before the Jews came there. Those people are the Palestinians.

And tell me, why couldn't the Jews just move to Palestine and live in peace with the Palestinians? It had worked before the creation of the Zionist Entity. It's actually a documented fact that the Jews living in Palestine before the creation of the Zionist Entity lived there in peace with the other Palestinians in that area. Jewish, Christian and Muslim Palestinians lived together in peace. There was "something" that upset that balance. And that something was the illegal creation of the Zionist Entity.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

To say your grasp on the fundamentals of international law is tenuous would be a generous statement indeed. Nation-states fundamentally have the right to secure borders. A country whose borders are untenable and subject to constant threat of attack has not only the right, but the duty, to protect its citizenry by defending itself and absorbing sufficient land to guarantee its security. If you're so certain of your position, please name one other country that gave away land of substantive strategic value captured in a defensive war. Under normal circumstances, the victorious name the terms of surrender to the vanquished, but there's always a double standard for Israel.

I have a degree in international law, so I don't think my grasp of the law is tenuous. That said, you take issue with my point that in modern international law (of course the situation was different hundreds of years ago when there was basically no concept of international law deomacius) you cannot acquire land by conquest and then move on to a discussion about the rights of a country to secure its borders? Stick to the point please. That being that Israel has no right under international law to incorporate into its own territory one single square centimetre of the battlefields it took in any of the wars it fought.

You spoke previously of Israel giving away land that it had "legitimately conquered". That is utter rubbish because it is not possible to legitimately acquire land through conquest. This is not a case of Israel doing more than it is obliged to; it's quite the reverse.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But then, they weren't. Read the Bible yourself. There were people there before the Jews came there. Those people are the Palestinians.

And tell me, why couldn't the Jews just move to Palestine and live in peace with the Palestinians? It had worked before the creation of the Zionist Entity. It's actually a documented fact that the Jews living in Palestine before the creation of the Zionist Entity lived there in peace with the other Palestinians in that area. Jewish, Christian and Muslim Palestinians lived together in peace. There was "something" that upset that balance. And that something was the illegal creation of the Zionist Entity.

Ah, sweet dhimmi status that it was- and of course, the minute the dhimmi oppression broke...

While some Arabs didn't mind living peacefully with Jews, for example, the Jews who bought land and kept the Arabs employed in working it, the truth is more than just that.

Yes, they all lived in peace, never mind the massacre of the Jews of Hebron, the Palestinians (*** Jordanians) using Jewish gravestones for paving stones, using Jewish holy sites as stables and toilets, never worry your sweet head about the truth.

If you go back, I think the folks who arrived before the Jews in ancient times were Caananites. The Philistines were around later, in Samson's time. But then, glossing over history is nothing new to Palestinians- the modern Palestinians have no relation to the Philistines of old, but what a great propaganda move to name themselves similarly.

Palestinians considered Palestine to be a Jewish name for the place. The rejected it, saying the land was southern Syria. They made no claim on Gaza or the so-called West Bank (Samaria) - but hey, apparently they can change their mind and demand whatever they want, at any time. "Didn't want it before, but now it's a part of our Historical Inheritence! The land was always Southern Syria- no, wait, nevermind, it was always Palestine since time immemorial, Palestine is an indivisible land, a part of a Muslim caliphate!"

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

If you go back...

Therein lies the rub. Too many people on both sides that have their heads screwed on backwards so they only look backwards!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

Therein lies the rub. Too many people on both sides that have their heads screwed on backwards so they only look backwards!

When he looks back and states falsehood as fact, I do no wrong in correcting him.

Meanwhile, I continue to look forward to the day that Palestinians police their own rather than making their terrorists a part of their policeforce.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Meanwhile, I continue to look forward to the day that Palestinians police their own rather than making their terrorists a part of their policeforce.

I don't think anyone out there expects the Palestinians, with the resources they have and without a state, to be able to keep people from waging an armed struggle against Israel. What do you expect the reaction of the populace to be when you kill them and destroy their homes, destroy their economy, prevent them from working, brutalise and torture them, deny them basic human rights. It's patently obvious to everyone that when you treat people the way Israel has treated the Palestinians for 50 years, you create a group of people who see violence as the only solution. We've seen this in every country from France to Spain to South Africa.

If it is really NECESSARY to kill 700 people including 150 children every year in order to "police" the Palestinians, then there's a serious problem. In no other society that I am aware of is the government required to behave the way that Israel is apparently required to behave in the Occupied Territories. Perhaps it's time Israel started realising that brutality is not going to solve the problem. And if it really is necessary to kill this many people every year in order to protect Israel, then I think the rest of us need to have a little think about putting the Jewish state somewhere else. Because I don't think the idea we had in creating a Jewish state was to sponsor another genocide. The whole idea was to avoid genocide. We can put the Jewish state somewhere else where it will create less tension and require less killing to sustain it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Ah, sweet dhimmi status that it was- and of course, the minute the dhimmi oppression broke...

Tell me about the dhimmi status in Palestine before the creation of Israel.

While some Arabs didn't mind living peacefully with Jews, for example, the Jews who bought land and kept the Arabs employed in working it, the truth is more than just that.

Yes, they all lived in peace, never mind the massacre of the Jews of Hebron, the Palestinians (*** Jordanians) using Jewish gravestones for paving stones, using Jewish holy sites as stables and toilets, never worry your sweet head about the truth.

Why do you ignore the massacre of Palestinians in Hebron? Aren't the Palestinians as worthy of life as Jews in your opinion?

And do you have any links for the other claims? I've read comments about that but I'd like to see some sources so I can investigate it a bit better.

If you go back, I think the folks who arrived before the Jews in ancient times were Caananites. The Philistines were around later, in Samson's time. But then, glossing over history is nothing new to Palestinians- the modern Palestinians have no relation to the Philistines of old, but what a great propaganda move to name themselves similarly.

Palestinians considered Palestine to be a Jewish name for the place. The rejected it, saying the land was southern Syria. They made no claim on Gaza or the so-called West Bank (Samaria) - but hey, apparently they can change their mind and demand whatever they want, at any time. "Didn't want it before, but now it's a part of our Historical Inheritence! The land was always Southern Syria- no, wait, nevermind, it was always Palestine since time immemorial, Palestine is an indivisible land, a part of a Muslim caliphate!"

1. How do you know that the Caananites aren't the Palestinians of today? Was it because the Jews slaughtered them all when they conquered their land? Hmmm this makes a lot more sense now. I was googling that comment that was meant to be a bad joke and I found this. Perhaps you could explain it to me(since I'm sure Judaism is a peaceful religion. Three of the 613 Jewish commandments state this:

514. Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs Lev. 25:46
596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597 Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16

So is the reason that the Palestinians can't be Caananites that the Jews slaughtered them all?

And if the Palestinians aren't from Palestine then from where are they? And when did they come to Palestine?

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Three of the 613 Jewish commandments state this:

514. Canaanite slaves must work forever unless injured in one of their limbs Lev. 25:46
596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597 Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16

613? Are there 603 that they've been holding out from us Christians?

[Chuckit]

There are 603 that Christians have been ignoring (that being why there is a whole lot more Torah than just that one chapter).

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

There are 603 that Christians have been ignoring (that being why there is a whole lot more Torah than just that one chapter).

I was picturing the fifteen commandments that God initially gave to Mel Brooks.

That was a pretty interesting list. Although it seems pretty obvious to me that Jews must not keep all 613 of these. or else the Jews would have a King who could not take "an excessive number of wives"....

[Chuckit]

Well, as the page explains, commandments pertaining to institutions that don't exist today (like the Temple or the kingdom of Israel as it existed at that time) aren't really possible to follow nowadays.

[Doofy]

I doubt there'll be any progress while this carries on:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/9.htm
(WARNING - very gory)