[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Jess, reading the quoted part of your reply reminded me why I have Zimphire on ignore. Posting the video was a personal attack ?

I thought the video was on the topic of the never-ending story. One looks to one's children for hope and look what one sees. Israeli kids like those I posted and Palestinian kids like those we've seen all over these boards including Bstone's last post. Never-ending story indeed.

No it was a troll. Had nothing to do with the topic. As I pointed out Palestinian kids have said WORSE yet you've never went on a posting spree about it.

Why is that?

BTW you have me on ignore because I ask questions you don't like.

Like above.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No it was a troll. Had nothing to do with the topic. As I pointed out Palestinian kids have said WORSE yet you've never went on a posting spree about it.

Why is that?

BTW you have me on ignore because I ask questions you don't like.

Like above.

Quoted for Troll's benefit.

[Kevin]

One thing I noticed in here the only people that get put on ignore are Rob, and those that hit too close to the mark for those with thin skin.

There was actually complaints by forums members in the Feedback forum that they could no longer read posts of ignored posters anymore after the new forum was uploaded.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Quoted for Troll's benefit.

Thanks. Nice to see that he took back his personal attack remark.

I have him on ignore because I learn nothing from his posts. He's more about how you're saying something than what you're saying. And the two quotes I've read from him here just prove that. Neither of them say anything on topic - they're about me. If I wanted to talk about me, I'd go on Oprah or something.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Troll 

How far back do you go in determining ownership of the land you live on? What would you say if Indians came and claimed your land on the basis that 800 years ago, they were forced off it?

In most cases, if land lies unused for a couple of decades (let alone centuries), the original owners lose their claim. That's how most laws resolve the issue. If you can't prove undisturbed possession of the land for the minimum amount of time (normally about 30 years), then you lose your rights.
That's how STATES are recognised. For this reason, the state of Israel exists. The US and the UN do NOT recognise the West Bank, Gaza or Golan as part of Israel. If the nations of the world recognised a the Occupied Territories to be part of Israel, that would have no effect on private ownership of the land. It would simply mean that all of the people that live there would become Israeli. Same applies if it were to become Palestine. What Israel has done in the Occupied Territories is forcibly remove Palestinians from their land rather than incorporate those Palestinians into Israel. And what these kids are doing is invading private land.

Well you can set up your own "rules" as to who has claim to land. according to your 'rule' the previous 'occupant' has claim to the land. that argument has no relevancy, cause if the arabs were given control of the land, your argument would make the Jews/Israeli's claim more valid, and so on and so forth.
Your pro-palestinean stance seems tp boils down to this: anyone who occupied the land from the time the arabs invaded to 1947 have greater claim to the land. that aint going to fly.

So these "occupied" territories you speak of...does Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or Egypt have a claim for the land ? no ? well then the only 2 groups that seem to lay claim are 1. Israel (a legitimate nation) and a group of militias classified as terrorists by the U.N.

My personal reasons for supporting israel are 2 fold:
-better society (less racial, less radical, prosperous, progressive)
-historical claim as the Jewish state

The last-resort argument is 'might-is-right'. Israel clearly wins. And even if Israel doesnt have the might in case the arabs team up, guess which side the most powerful(and arguably enlightened) nations of the world are on.

If the arabs (by making some deal with the devil) were to get control of the land, what do you suggest all the current legal residents of that area do ? where do you recommend they relocate to ?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The reason why I think your presentation of that radical israeli youth-group

What radical Israeli youth group? The video I posted is of two drunk settler kids.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They did and we've granted them exponentially more territory than Arabs seem willing to grant Israel. What would you say if Israel claimed the Arab world should be at least 1/3rd as gratuitous as the US government?

I asked you what you would say if Indians came and wanted YOUR house. We're not talking about what happened in the 1860's here. And afaik, no villages were ever displaced for the creation of Indian reservations. The laws were passed when whites tried to steal the land from the Indians and the Indians fought back. That's not like the scenario where the lands were abandoned for hundreds of years is it?

Indian reservations are 2.3% of the surface area of the US. You want to tell me Israel is 2.3% the size of the Palestinian territories?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not to mention your appeal to the US as some authority on the matter which has got to be a first for you right? Would you like the full scope of official US opinion on the issue?

Not JUST the US. The US recognised Taiwan as a state for a long time. That didn't make it one. You need many states to recognise the existence of a state.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are over 1,400,000 Arab Israelis with 12 representatives in Israeli Parliament, judges in Israeli courts and on the Supreme Court benches, and tenured professors and Ph.D's teaching throughout Israeli colleges and universities. Where did they come from?

Are you suggesting that no Palestinians were displaced by Israeli expansion into the Occupied Territories?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Well you can set up your own "rules" as to who has claim to land. according to your 'rule' the previous 'occupant' has claim to the land.

No, that's not my argument at all. You need to re-read what I wrote. Understand the difference between the borders of a state and the ownership of private land within a state.

It is possible in all legal systems to acquire ownership of land through occupation. If land is abandoned, whoever takes possession of it becomes the de facto owner. In most legal systems, the relevant period is 30 years. If someone abandons their land, then after 30 years, it becomes "terra nullius" and anyone can then occupy the land and become the owner. It has been thousands of years since Jews lived in the Occupied Territories. Specific individuals cannot prove claims to specific parcels of land because they don't have a clue who their forefathers were or where they lived. Those lands were abandoned hundreds of years ago and the people that occupied that abandoned land (and can today prove consistent, undisturbed occupation) became the owners.

Now I agree with you partially when it comes to state boundaries. If the rest of the world woke up tomorrow and decided that the West Bank was part of Israel, then Israel would have acquired the West Bank as part of Israel. That would make all of the people living in the West Bank Israeli. It would NOT mean that the people living on the land suddenly lost their rights to their homes and land. They would remain the owners of the land. Israel, the state, could then pass laws expropriating that land and then giving it to whoever they wanted and if they paid fair market value, made alternative arrangements for the locals and had a valid moral reason for the expropriation, they could give it to whoever they wanted. This is happening in countries like South Africa all the time.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

well then the only 2 groups that seem to lay claim are 1. Israel (a legitimate nation) and a group of militias classified as terrorists by the U.N.

Wrong on both counts. I'm surprised that you even bother to post on this topic if you don't know the basics. So long as there are Palestinians living in teh OT's, Israel will never claim it. Because if they did, Israel would instantly cease to be a Jewish state. Secondly, it is not the militias who claim the OT's - it is the Palestinian people.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

My personal reasons for supporting israel are 2 fold:
-better society (less racial, less radical, prosperous, progressive)
-historical claim as the Jewish state

I have no idea what less racial means and suspect I don't want to know. It's kinda hard to be prosperous when you're under military rule, cannot trade with foreign countries, cannot govern yourselves, cannot collect taxes etc. You name me one country that was prosperous in its 50th year of occupation. As for the historical claim, do you believe that the Indians should have a state in America? What percentage of the territory of the USA should it represent? How about the Amazons or the Incas or the Ottomans? The Vikings?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

The last-resort argument is 'might-is-right'. Israel clearly wins.

Israel hasn't won peace has it? Those same powers that you say will line up behind the Israelis will also line up behind the Palestinians if Israel attempts the genocide that would be necessary to achieve a Jewish state in all of the land that Jews historically claim. Genocide is the only way for them to get the land back that God gave them.

[Hawkeye_a]

Where to begin ? hmmmm... quick question...have you been to the middle east ? just asking, cause im here right now.

so anyway...30 years eh ? well Israel (and its inhabitants) has existed since 1948, thats 59 years...so i guess they have every possible right to the land, and hammas, etc, cannot legally force them off, right ? And as far as current legal systems to aquire land....go a little further back and offer your legal services to the Jews, Christians, Zorastrans who were driven off the land to begin with.

Also, 1948 and 1967 didnt see the first Jews return to Israel. Jews have lived there as second class citizens under muslim rules for far longer. in fact during WWII the then Sheikhs of that land supported the 'final solution' and welcomed Hitler to take care of their "Jewish problem".

What 'less radical' means... well let me illustrate by highlighting the opposite:
-civilians flying civilian airliners into sky scrapers
-civilians blowing themselves up on public transport in U.K., India, Cyprus, etc
-Assasinating non-muslim politicians in Lebanon (which was mostly a Christian nation 50 years ago, guess they all saw the light and converted to Islam).
-In short waging war and commiting murder based on religious differences.

I have yet to see Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Budhist, Shinto, Athiests civilians kill members of faith-not-their-own.

Then there's the social aspect... which in all honest im sick of listing. so yeah...'less radical'.

50 years.... Japan and Germany come to mind.... as well as Israel. As far as trade...seems as though those Arabs have no problem getting hold of amunition wouldnt you say ? so much for "trade", and the financial backing of the entire muslim world (which by the way have nothing to do with Israel). I am reminded of a story at Apple M.E. which reported that Powermac users in Bahrain in the late 90s demanded refunds cause a component in the machine was made in Israel. And the fact that if you have immigration-stamp of Israel on your passport, you are automatically banned from many middle-eastern countries. but nevermind, thats just normal (as opposed to radical) i assume.

Might is right. Israel (nation) exists, Palestine(nation) never has.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

so anyway...30 years eh ? well Israel (and its inhabitants) has existed since 1948, thats 59 years...so i guess they have every possible right to the land, and hammas, etc, cannot legally force them off, right ?

No, not quite. I said that if you abandon land, then it becomes terra nullius. If you are forced off, that doesn't mean you've abandoned it. If you keep trying to get back onto that land, if you make it clear that you have not abandoned the land, then it isn't abandoned land.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And as far as current legal systems to aquire land....go a little further back and offer your legal services to the Jews, Christians, Zorastrans who were driven off the land to begin with.

They have abandoned their claims. I agree that while there were people who could still identify the land they were forced off and continued to attempt to go back to the land, there was no abandonment. But, in the case of the people from the Occupied Territories, that is not the case. The Palestinians weren't fighting off people trying to get their land back in 1700 were they? The people who used to own that land gave up their claims a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

What 'less radical' means... well let me illustrate by highlighting the opposite:
-civilians flying civilian airliners into sky scrapers
-civilians blowing themselves up on public transport in U.K., India, Cyprus, etc

Palestinians did none of those things. You're attributing the acts of a few individuals to Arabs (and Persians) as a race. And if Israel hasn't been motivated by religion in it's wars, what has motivated it? As Taliesin said, pretending that there is any difference between Zionists and Muslim extremists is dishonest. Attributing the acts of extremists to the entire population is similarly dishonest.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I have yet to see Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Budhist, Shinto, Athiests civilians kill members of faith-not-their-own.

Well then you're not looking very hard. Do a search on Nagaland and Tripura.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

50 years.... Japan and Germany come to mind.... as well as Israel.

None of them were ever occupied for 50 years.

Btw, have you given up your argument that Israel claims the Occupied Territories?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I asked you what you would say if Indians came and wanted YOUR house.

I'd tell them "no".

We're not talking about what happened in the 1860's here.

What arbitrary time of your choosing shall we discuss then? If we're not talking about the 1860's, why are you asking about Native Americans? With all due respect Troll, you're all over the place.

And afaik, no villages were ever displaced for the creation of Indian reservations.

So, you're saying you're not happy unless people are displaced? This is a huge part of the problem my friend.

The laws were passed when whites tried to steal the land from the Indians and the Indians fought back. That's not like the scenario where the lands were abandoned for hundreds of years is it?

It doesn't really matter whether the land was abandoned or not. Technically, the region's populations have always been rich in diversity. I'm curious though, what pre-1967 capital was Jerusalem again?

Back to your derailment; before the "whites" passed laws trying to steal land, land was stolen by other tribes under the darkness of night. Personally, in the very least I'd rather glance at some laws first. This notion that Anglo-Euro white people somehow hold the monopoly on territorialism and aggression is striking me as jr. high-school naive.

Indian reservations are 2.3% of the surface area of the US. You want to tell me Israel is 2.3% the size of the Palestinian territories?

If you want to tell me that a plot of land the size of New Jersey, flanked 360 degrees by fertile Arab country is worth this much strife, I'd tell you that "Palestinians" apparently occupy too much already.

Are you suggesting that no Palestinians were displaced by Israeli expansion into the Occupied Territories?

No. I said;

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There are over 1,400,000 Arab Israelis with 12 representatives in Israeli Parliament, judges in Israeli courts and on the Supreme Court benches, and tenured professors and Ph.D.'s teaching throughout Israeli colleges and universities.

Then I asked; where did they come from?

You didn't answer...

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No it's YOU that fails to see the realities. That land they want to live in is called Israel. And that land they want has people living in it already.These same people want to push those people into the sea because of their religion. That is what is going on.



Saying otherwise is dishonest. You are saying what YOU want to happen. Not what the people want to happen. They've already spoken.
We've been over this before.

Again the two state solution isn't something the Palestinians want. SO bringing it up is irrelevant

Exactly, we've been over this before. Read this posting of mine and espescially take a through look at the three surveys I linked to at the bottom of my posting:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...3/#post3287502

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BTW there is another option. The Palestinians can stop trying to drive the Jews and Christians out of the holy land and become civilized human beings and stop acting like animals.

Acting like animals? Warfare and political as well as religious strive are pretty much exclusive human actions, acting like animals would mean to let themselves be driven out.

But what about your other point: You claim there were another option for the palestinians in the occupied territories, namely by stopping to drive the jews and christians out of the holy land, right? But what about Israel, would it then try to stop the driving out of palestinians out of the holy land? If, yes, then it would mean : a) Israel welcomes the peaceful palestinians into the israeli state as equal citizens, or b) it would make peace with the palestinians in the form of a two-state-solution.

So how exactly are that new options? I have already mentioned them.


Taliesin

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd tell them "no".

Isn't that exactly what the Palestinians are saying to people claiming that God gave THEM the land the Palestinians are on?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What arbitrary time of your choosing shall we discuss then? If we're not talking about the 1860's, why are you asking about Native Americans? With all due respect Troll, you're all over the place.

1860 is the year that the US started creating Indian Reservations. You said that Indians did ask for your land and it was given to them. I pointed out that this is not true because it wasn't YOUR land that was given to the Indians because you weren't even alive in 1860.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So, you're saying you're not happy unless people are displaced? This is a huge part of the problem my friend.

No, what I'm saying is that your point that "we've granted them exponentially more territory than Arabs seem willing to grant Israel" is not a valid comparison because when "you" granted the Indians 2% of your land mass that was unoccupied, it didn't have anything like the same effect as displacing millions of people in the Middle East has had and would have if the OTs were cleared out for Jewish occupation. Besides which, the Indians had been in continuous occupation of that land before "you" came along so they had a valid right to the land. "You" granted them land that they really owned already. Not the same thing at all as what is happening in the Occupied Territories - not in terms of era or facts. A biblical claim that is thousands of years old is infinitely worse than a claim by Indians to the entire United States that goes back only a few hundred years and yet you recognise the claim to the holy land but refuse the Indian claim to your land. Clearly you draw a line somewhere and it's WAY after the time that the Jewish settlers are relying on.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It doesn't really matter whether the land was abandoned or not. Technically, the region's populations have always been rich in diversity. I'm curious though, what pre-1967 capital was Jerusalem again?

Again, you're confusing two totally different things. If Jewish or Christian or Muslim individuals can't prove a direct link to land in the occupied territories and can't prove that they didn't abandon that land then irrespective of what country that land is in, they can never privately own the land. If Israel annexes Gaza tomorrow, the people living in Gaza will not suddenly cease to be the owners of the land they are on. All that will change is that their land will now be part of the state of Israel. Do you understand? The state doesn't own the land your home is on. You do.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Back to your derailment; before the "whites" passed laws trying to steal land, land was stolen by other tribes under the darkness of night. Personally, in the very least I'd rather glance at some laws first. This notion that Anglo-Euro white people somehow hold the monopoly on territorialism and aggression is striking me as jr. high-school naive.

That isn't what I said. I simply referred to the context in which the Indian Reservation laws were passed. They were passed after unrest resulting from white occupation of land the Indians considered to be theirs. That's not a social commentary; it's an historic reality.

From wikipedia: "The establishment of reservations became prevalent under Presidential administration of Ulysses S. Grant in the late 1860s in response to the perceived "Indian problem" of growing conflicts between U.S. settlers and Native American tribes in the West."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you want to tell me that a plot of land the size of New Jersey, flanked 360 degrees by fertile Arab country is worth this much strife, I'd tell you that "Palestinians" apparently occupy too much already.

Read what you wrote right at the top of your post. You said you would resist if someone came along and tried to take your land away from you. Why can't you understand that Palestinians would do the same thing?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I said;

Then I asked; where did they come from?

You didn't answer...

Which amounts to the same thing. Of course there are Arabs IN ISRAEL. Some emigrated there, some were already there when the state of Israel was created. Millions of others fled Israel and haven't been allowed back in. You were implying that all of the people who used to live there were taken on as citizens in the new Israel. That is patently untrue.

And it's even less true when you look at settlements in the Occupied Territories which is what I specifically referred to. As Israel has expanded, it has forced people out of those territories and it has not allowed them back in. When Israeli settlements are established, they do not draw a ring around Palestinian lands and tell the people who own the land that they are now Israeli. They kick the Palestinians out, give the land over to Israelis and keep the Palestinians from coming back.

[Hawkeye_a]

Israel won. the Arabs lost, most gave up, a small minority didnt, they will eventually come to grips with reality.

"Occupied territories" ? To the victor go the spoils. that entire region not claimed by Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or Egypt is Israel territory, they can do as they will with it.

Ciao

PS>> i'm still in the mid-east ...im really looking forward to returning to the civilized world, especially after seeing all the anti-non-muslim stuff around.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

"Occupied territories" ? To the victor go the spoils.

Do you want to see the end of a Jewish state or are you advocating genocide? Because those are the only two possible outcomes of this stupid (yes that's what it is) argument that you keep making over and over and over again.

ISRAEL DOES NOT CLAIM THE TERRITORIES IT OCCUPIES. It doesn't want them. Ergo, the spoils are not going to go to the victors. If you insist that Israel takes the Occupied Territories you are either arguing that the Jewish state should become predominantly Muslim or you're arguing that millions of Palestinians should be murdered.

[Hawkeye_a]

If Israel doesnt want to grant citizenship to Arabs, it doesnt have to grant citizenship to Arabs.

If Israel wants to claim land not claimed by neighbouring nations, it can do so as well. It earned that right by fending off it's neighbours after repeated attacks.

If the state-less Arabs want to keep fighting, they can do so as well. but they wont succeede, they *should* relocate to the neighbouring countries who would accept them. They brought this on themselves by mistreating non-muslims when they were in charge. As long as their cause is to erradicate the Jewish state, which they have repeatedly said, they will not get support for a state of their own, simple as that.

By the way, did i mention.... Israel won.

[Taliesin]

So what it all boils down to is that Israel has a right to exist, based on the UN-security-council-decision in 1948 that legitimised Israel.

In 1967 Israel conquered and occupied Sinai, Gaza, the Westbank and the Golan-heights, as well as Jerusalem through a preemptive war against its neighbours Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The occupation by Israel is fundamentally different from the one by Egypt, Jordan or Syria, not only because the occupier has a different religion than the occupied, but also because the occupier started its colonising settler-movement, including expropriations and driving out of palestinians from the areas that the israeli settlers wanted to settle upon.

The occupation is a massive crime against humanity, because it denies millions of people its political existence, harrasses and tortures them daily, steals land and ressources from them and reacts to political and militant resistance with collective punishments.

Meanwhile Israel withdrew from Sinai and gave it back to Egypt, after Egypt started a surprising war in 1973 against Israel and managed to prove its military capibilities. The conflict ended with Egypt's military being driven back again and peace was signed between Egypt and Israel.

In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza, but remains the right to close down borders, and continues to control airspace and sea, in a deal with the US to get in return a guaranteed right to parts of the Westbank, ie. the political support to annex the parts of the Westbank with the major settler-blocks, the most fertile land and the waterressources.

So what now?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

If Israel doesnt want to grant citizenship to Arabs, it doesnt have to grant citizenship to Arabs.

If Israel wants to claim land not claimed by neighbouring nations, it can do so as well. It earned that right by fending off it's neighbours after repeated attacks.

If the state-less Arabs want to keep fighting, they can do so as well. but they wont succeede, they *should* relocate to the neighbouring countries who would accept them. They brought this on themselves by mistreating non-muslims when they were in charge. As long as their cause is to erradicate the Jewish state, which they have repeatedly said, they will not get support for a state of their own, simple as that.

By the way, did i mention.... Israel won.

Like Troll already made clear, states have the right to claim souvereignity over land, but not the right to dispossess land in private hands, except of course if Israel wants to be a pariah-state, annexing land, dispossessing it from private hands, driving the inhabitants out...

Wait, hasn't it done all that already?

According to Israel's own civil-agency, 40% of the land israeli settlements were built on in the Westbank has been illegaly (according to israeli law) expropriated from private palestinians owners.

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

If Israel doesnt want to grant citizenship to Arabs, it doesnt have to grant citizenship to Arabs.

If it wants to call itself a democracy and not be an apartheid state and international pariah, then yes it does have to grant "citizenship" to every resident. One man one vote. Heard of it?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

If Israel wants to claim land not claimed by neighbouring nations, it can do so as well.

Except that it doesn't. YOU and the Zionists want it to but Israel does not claim the Occupied Territories. Because it knows that it has no way of getting rid of the people there and if Israel remains a democracy, it will have to give them a vote and then it will no longer be a Jewish state. Israel's best chance of surviving as a homeland for Jews (which is what most of us want) is to stay out of the Occupied Territories. Israeli politicians recognise this even if the religious nuts don't.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

img

The Lebanese are Arabs? Iranians are Arabs?

Very culturally sensitive place you get your information from! States are not set up along language divides. We don't go around saying, "Oh, you speak Spanish, so take your stuff and go to Southern Europe" do we? States are usually set up along ethnic lines and the Arabs are not an ethnically homogeneous group!

You do of course realise that there is such a thing as an Arab Jew.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

...snipped idiotic image....

Turkey, Iran and all the countries east and north of them are not arab.

You should have posted that other ignorant image instead. Want another try?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Troll 

You do of course realise that there is such a thing as an Arab Jew.

That would be the original Jew but Hawkeye doesn't want that Jew to be a citizen of Israel.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

That would be the original Jew but Hawkeye doesn't want that Jew to be a citizen of Israel.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

End the unjust occupation of arab land

Your argument is depending on a special point of view and of course misleading.

I think not many people here are denying Israel the right to exist within internationally recognized borders, ie. pre67-borders. The problem is the occupation of Gaza (yes, the occupation is not ended until Gaza has control of its borders, airspace, ressources and sea, otherwise it would just be a prison), Westbank and the Golan-heights, and the oppression of the palestinians there.

Israel needs to decide what to do, to continue indefinitely the occupation, to make possible the establishment of a palestinian state in Gaza, Westbank and East-Jerusalem, or to use hard measures like etnic cleansing or even genocide.

The occupation is indeed unjust because it tortures millions of palestinians, robs them of their privately owned land and ressources and suffocates their economic, political and cultural potentials.

But if you prefer to look at the topic in a populistic fashion, then your argument is depending on how you view the israelis, as: a) jews, because of their religion: Only 15% of the israelis are religious, and everyone knows that Jesus was a jew, so christians are merely a jewish sect..., b) jews, because of their ethnicity: Most of the israelis are russians and europeans, and only two tribes have a paternal link to the middle-east, not to forget that many ehtnical jews converted religiously to christianity and islam.
Given the modern states in the west and the recognisement of human rights during the last few decades, the point can be maken that jews are much more welcome, secure and free in the west than in the middle-east, so why trying to stay in the middle-east then?

But that are populistic notions, bringing nothing constructively to the table and are pretty detached from reality.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Isn't that exactly what the Palestinians are saying to people claiming that God gave THEM the land the Palestinians are on?

No. That's what Israelis are saying to people still trying to cash in on an antiquated bet. You see, you don't get to throw $50 down on black jack hoping to double your money and when the cards don't fall your way expect to get your $50 back. Especially when you've promised to run the dealer into the sea. It just doesn't work that way.

1860 is the year that the US started creating Indian Reservations. You said that Indians did ask for your land and it was given to them. I pointed out that this is not true because it wasn't YOUR land that was given to the Indians because you weren't even alive in 1860.

I see this point, but then... Sitting Bull did not advocate a massive withdrawal of native Americans so they could destroy the white man and move back in to their land later.

No, what I'm saying is that your point that "we've granted them exponentially more territory than Arabs seem willing to grant Israel" is not a valid comparison because when "you" granted the Indians 2% of your land mass that was unoccupied, it didn't have anything like the same effect as displacing millions of people in the Middle East has had and would have if the OTs were cleared out for Jewish occupation.

No. I'm telling you the intent was to clear the Arab out until the Jew was conquered, for Arab occupation. It didn't work. The ones who left are crying "foul!" It doesn't work that way. They are heirs to an idle promise.

Besides which, the Indians had been in continuous occupation of that land before "you" came along so they had a valid right to the land. "You" granted them land that they really owned already.

They didn't own the land any more than the tribe who lost it to them, and the tribe before that, and the tribe before that. Again, territorialism and aggression are not exclusive to the Anglo-Euro white man.

wNot the same thing at all as what is happening in the Occupied Territories - not in terms of era or facts. A biblical claim that is thousands of years old is infinitely worse than a claim by Indians to the entire United States that goes back only a few hundred years and yet you recognise the claim to the holy land but refuse the Indian claim to your land. Clearly you draw a line somewhere and it's WAY after the time that the Jewish settlers are relying on.

Yes. I draw the line at common sense. Anything beyond common sense (i.e. pride) only leads to more violence. The Native Americans somehow accept this reality. It is only those Arabs fighting over a plot of land the size of New Jersey (1/3rd the size of one Indian reservation in America) and those who use them as pawns to drive a geographical wedge through Israel that don't. In the end though, you're right. The two circumstances really don't have too much to do with one another seeing as how the "Palestinians" left in the hopes of returning to a land won by Arabs. It didn't work. It still isn't working. The Israelis have amassed a metric butt-ton of weaponry to ensure it won't work in the future. Even the white man could see that at some point, land must be allocated to the Native Americans for some semblance of sovereignty and peace. It is only the "Palestinians" and their masters who can't see this. I suspect it has something to do with the inability to see Jews. At least, that's what a great many of them are telling us. I've decided to take them at their word. You don't have to.

Again, you're confusing two totally different things. If Jewish or Christian or Muslim individuals can't prove a direct link to land in the occupied territories and can't prove that they didn't abandon that land then irrespective of what country that land is in, they can never privately own the land.

So... naturally this logic would include the "Palestinian" then. Right?

If Israel annexes Gaza tomorrow, the people living in Gaza will not suddenly cease to be the owners of the land they are on. All that will change is that their land will now be part of the state of Israel. Do you understand?

I understand that a great many Israelis were cleared out for the "Palestinians" and probably feel the same way. Life is unfair. It was unfair to these Israelis whose homes were uprooted, but they've decided to generally accept it. The only other option is to continuously fight for it.

The state doesn't own the land your home is on. You do.

... and with land ownership comes responsibility and stewardship. If I use my back yard to launch attacks at my city government and attack the civil apparatus including civilian infrastructure, I will likely lose my home or see my rights of land ownership hampered.

That isn't what I said. I simply referred to the context in which the Indian Reservation laws were passed. They were passed after unrest resulting from white occupation of land the Indians considered to be theirs. That's not a social commentary; it's an historic reality.

Why are we not still fighting Native Americans and the Palestinians are still fighting Israelis then? I suppose if some US senators proposed splitting the Indian reservations in two, there might be some resurgence of aggression. Thankfully, no one is proposing this. At least, not in the US. Here's the reality;
- if Native Americans insisted on reclaiming ownership of US territory you're stating is rightfully theirs (having been the original inhabitants of this land much like the "zionists" of Israel) they have a claim. However, they do not have the resources to make this claim with the only authority human kind respects; might. The "zionist" however, does have the resources and have fought several wars establishing this wealth of resource and as such, justice has been awarded them to the degree possible among human agencies. If the Native American were to come to my home and threaten my family, I'd hope to be better outfitted than he and as such would maintain possession of my home. If I am not, I may lose my home.

From wikipedia: "The establishment of reservations became prevalent under Presidential administration of Ulysses S. Grant in the late 1860s in response to the perceived "Indian problem" of growing conflicts between U.S. settlers and Native American tribes in the West."
Read what you wrote right at the top of your post. You said you would resist if someone came along and tried to take your land away from you. Why can't you understand that Palestinians would do the same thing?

Why can't you understand that if the Native Americans were launching attacks against US civil infrastructure from their reservations, they'd likely lose their reservations. Why can't you understand that the Israelis don't want to be uprooted any more than the "Palestinians" do?

Which amounts to the same thing. Of course there are Arabs IN ISRAEL. Some emigrated there, some were already there when the state of Israel was created. Millions of others fled Israel and haven't been allowed back in. You were implying that all of the people who used to live there were taken on as citizens in the new Israel. That is patently untrue.

What does the Israeli representation in the Palestinian parliament have to say about this? I'm curious though; how did they emigrate there if they weren't allowed in? Once you've answered that teaser, then I'm curious; What's the difference between the "Palestinians" who stayed in Israel when it was created to the ones who left? In light of your revisionist view of history, I would've thought it impossible for any Palestinians to have stayed. I certainly would've thought it impossible to the tune of over 1,400,000, with 12 representatives in Israeli parliament, and judges in their Supreme Courts, and tenured professors throughout Israeli colleges and universities.

And it's even less true when you look at settlements in the Occupied Territories which is what I specifically referred to. As Israel has expanded, it has forced people out of those territories and it has not allowed them back in. When Israeli settlements are established, they do not draw a ring around Palestinian lands and tell the people who own the land that they are now Israeli. They kick the Palestinians out, give the land over to Israelis and keep the Palestinians from coming back.

Sounds exactly like what they did to Israelis in order to give the Palestinians territory. If I launch an attack against you from my vehicle, I'd expect to lose my vehicle. If Peace was the goal, pride and territorialism would take a back seat. If they are bent on half of Jerusalem with an eventual totality of Israel (a plot of land the size of New Jersey), there will never be peace. This is what a significant portion of them are telling me. I believe them. This is what we see today. This is the reality. It is unfair and unjust and all that human kind is cracked up to be. The Palestinians may continue to use what little they have to attack the Israeli or they can become better stewards of what little they have, continue to fight the battles in the courtroom and in the Israeli parliament, and throughout Israeli colleges and universities, or they can continue to take up arms and live in violence. The choice is theirs. Native Americans in the US have made the decision. Palestinians can make their own decisions.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. That's what Israelis are saying to people still trying to cash in on an antiquated bet. You see, you don't get to throw $50 down on black jack hoping to double your money and when the cards don't fall your way expect to get your $50 back. Especially when you've promised to run the dealer into the sea. It just doesn't work that way.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here but clearly you confuse various different concepts. You confuse nationhood with private ownership of land although I think you now understand this concept. You also confuse the state of Israel that the UN recognises with the expanded state of Israel that only Israel recognises with Israeli presence in the Occupied Territories.

Very few people have any problems with recognising the state of Israel within the 1948 borders. Even the Palestinians that were displaced by the creation of the state of Israel have agreed to recognise that Israel and those who don't will be forced to recognise it.

The expanded Israel will be the subject of negotiation in my view. The various wars of expansion that Israel has fought though illegal and unjustified will no doubt end in some territorial gains for Israel. This is because there is some truth to the notion that might is right and Israel has some very powerful allies.

When it comes to the Occupied Territories, Israel will have to give up all of its settlements. There is simply no way that the international community will accept a bantustan situation and it will be practically impossible to have little islands of Israel within a Palestinian state. Those settlements are illegal and the settlers that went there should never have expected to be able to stay knowing that they were stealing the land from others.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I see this point, but then... Sitting Bull did not advocate a massive withdrawal of native Americans so they could destroy the white man and move back in to their land later.

That's what you THINK happened. I personally don't think that this was the motivation for leaving. But again, you confuse two totally different things - land in the state of Israel and land in the Occupied Territories.

When it comes to Palestinian land in Israel, it is true that Palestinians left their homes and have been denied the right to return to those lands. You only need to look at the negotiations around the right of return to know that there are Palestinians that wish to return but are being denied access. As to their motivations, I think that if a war broke out, I might also choose to leave my home. But it's irrelevant what their motivation was for leaving. Whether they left their homes because they were genuinely afraid of war or whether they left because the Arab nations said that there was going to be a war after which they could return, is entirely irrelevant. In either scenario, you yourself admit that the people intended to return. Therefore they did not abandon their land. Therefore it still belongs to them. But as I said, we have to create the Jewish state somewhere so I feel that if people are adequately compensated, we will have to take some Palestinian lands away within Israel.

That does not apply to settled land in the Occupied Territories. Palestinians did not abandon this land. Settlers are on land in the Occupied Territories because they forced Palestinians off.

Now your argument seems to be that Palestinians were using that land to launch attacks on Israel. Even if this were factually correct, it makes no sense to install Israeli CIVILIANS on that land. If it has strategic military significance, then you might be able to secure that land militarily on the basis that it will be returned to the owners when the threat is gone but you cannot give that land to civilians as if they are inheriting some ownership rights. That land clearly belongs to Palestinians and Israelis have no valid claim whatsoever. BTW, you are factually wrong too because the laws of war do not say that land that is used to launch attacks is forfeited. They specifically say the opposite. In a war, it would be okay to destroy the house from which an attack was launched, but the land would always remain the property of the individual that owns it.

At the end of the day, you have provided no valid reason for settler's owning land within the Occupied Territories. Palestinians can prove with documentation undisturbed ownership of that land that goes back centuries. Israelis simply cannot prove a competing claim. Israel does not want to annex the OT's because it wants to remain a Jewish state. It might consider incorporating parts of the OT's into Israel if it can get rid of the Palestinians that live there but that doesn't seem to be something they are able to negotiate nor does it seem like something the international community will accept. The best Israel can hope to get is 1967 borders. God will be of absolutely no relevance in deciding who gets what.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Very few people have any problems with recognising the state of Israel within the 1948 borders. Even the Palestinians that were displaced by the creation of the state of Israel have agreed to recognise that Israel and those who don't will be forced to recognise it.

Wrong. Hamas is the leading government.

Hamas declares AGAIN that they refuse and will continue to refuse to recongize Israel.

http://pmw.org.il/home.htm

----------

Hamas movement spokesman, Mushir Al-Masri, said: “Hamas remains as it is: following its principles. It did not retreat, but advanced forward.” He confirmed that it will not recognize Israel, will not abandon the resistance [i.e. terror] and will not discard its principles.” He further said: “The Hamas [that existed] prior to the government, is Hamas of the government. Hamas prior to the unity [government] is Hamas after the unity.”


This was said during a rally organized yesterday by the Islamic University student council, as part of a series of activities of identification with the university. Thousands of university students and a group of representatives from the Legislative Council and ministers participated in the rally...Al-Masri added: “Hamas received national legitimization through the gathering of masses around it and around the option of resistance [i.e., terror] and received legislative legitimization through its victory in the Legislative Council elections. It now received Arab and Islamic legitimization and will receive international legitimization.” [Al-Ayyam, February 12, 2007]

------------

So who is it that you believe will force them to recognize Israel?

The expanded Israel will be the subject of negotiation in my view. The various wars of expansion that Israel has fought though illegal and unjustified will no doubt end in some territorial gains for Israel. This is because there is some truth to the notion that might is right and Israel has some very powerful allies.

There have been no wars of expansion. In every case, Israel defended itself against enemies who attacked first. That Israel didn't stop when driving her enemies back, but instead drove them to a defensible position does not suddenly make for "a war of expansion."

The best Israel can hope to get is 1967 borders. God will be of absolutely no relevance in deciding who gets what.

You're operating on the belief that Israel has to sue for peace. Israel won the war 40 years ago. No force has stepped forward to bend Israel to its will, and UN forces can't even come out at night to enforce resolutions to observe HizbAllah. The original plan for Israel was a series of 'bantustans' - Israel accepted and the Arabs (you call them Palestinians, but they rejected that name at the time, as that was the name by which the Jews went) refused.
Again, the plan was put forth, and instead, the Arabs started a war and lost. And then again. And again. At every turn, Israel has been ready to make peace, but insisted on defending herself, and the Arabs (including people who suddenly decided it was okay to call themselves Palestinians when the Jews adopted 'Israelis') have insisted on the notion that their repeated attacks and lost wars have not damaged or harmed their cause.

Because they do not accept their failure to win in war, they continue to attack and promote violence. You and those like you who support their 'rights' (wishes) enable them.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Wrong. Hamas is the leading government.

Hamas declares AGAIN that they refuse and will continue to refuse to recongize Israel.
...

So who is it that you believe will force them to recognize Israel?

The palestinians themselves are pressing for change and improvement and the reality of having resposibility for the palestinians is already softening Hamas' stance. Now they have agreed to form a national unity government with Fatah, which is a big and important step.

The agreement does not ask Hamas to recognize Israel, but at least Hamas is forced to respect , which still falls short of "accepting", previous peace-agreements with Israel, as long as the agreements are not enfringing the rights of the palestinians, which is also a cop-out-possibiliy, but still a big improvement to its previous uncomprosing stance.

The best thing though about the agreement though is that three cabinet-ministers responsible for the three most important fields, ie. finances, interior and foreign ministeries, will be independent experts.

So despite Hamas' comments to save its face, the development leads elsewhere.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There have been no wars of expansion. In every case, Israel defended itself against enemies who attacked first. That Israel didn't stop when driving her enemies back, but instead drove them to a defensible position does not suddenly make for "a war of expansion."

Actually it does exactly that. You would have a point, if Israel's government had not started to support the illegal settler-movement in the occupied territories, and not started to illegaly expropriate palestinians in the occupied territories from their privately owned land, and instead gave palestinians in the occupied territories the same rights as any other israeli, yes, then your argument would be at least halfsound, but as it is not the case, it falls completely flat.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You're operating on the belief that Israel has to sue for peace. Israel won the war 40 years ago. No force has stepped forward to bend Israel to its will, and UN forces can't even come out at night to enforce resolutions to observe HizbAllah. The original plan for Israel was a series of 'bantustans' - Israel accepted and the Arabs (you call them Palestinians, but they rejected that name at the time, as that was the name by which the Jews went) refused.

Actually a force has stepped forward to bend Israel to its will, it's called international community and international law and human rights. What do you think has forced Israel to enter peace-negotiations with the palestinians since 1993?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Again, the plan was put forth, and instead, the Arabs started a war and lost. And then again. And again. At every turn, Israel has been ready to make peace, but insisted on defending herself, and the Arabs (including people who suddenly decided it was okay to call themselves Palestinians when the Jews adopted 'Israelis') have insisted on the notion that their repeated attacks and lost wars have not damaged or harmed their cause.

Your argument again falls flat at the notion that Israel used every war to expand territorially and espescially through the support for the illegal settler-movement in the occupied territories, as well as the illegal expropriations and driving out of palestinians from their privately owned land.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Because they do not accept their failure to win in war, they continue to attack and promote violence. You and those like you who support their 'rights' (wishes) enable them.

What a nonsense, Egypt and Jordan accepted that they lost the war in 67 and made eventually peace with Israel, even Saudi-Arabia accepts that the arabs lost the war and seeks for peace with its 2002-peace-initiative, and even Syria has only the will to get back the Golan-heights and would sign peace with Israel for the return of that territory, and Lebanon would do likewise if the Sheeba-farms were returned and lebanese prisoners in Israel's prisons released.

The only country in the region that still dreams of destroying Israel as a state, is a non-arabic country, namely Iran, and the various islamistic resistance-movements it supports, ie. Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Taliesin

[Troll]

Vmarks, here's a simple question. Do you believe that international law recognises that a state can win territory by conquest?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I see this point, but then... Sitting Bull did not advocate a massive withdrawal of native Americans so they could destroy the white man and move back in to their land later.
No. I'm telling you the intent was to clear the Arab out until the Jew was conquered, for Arab occupation. It didn't work. The ones who left are crying "foul!" It doesn't work that way. They are heirs to an idle promise.

Your argument does not hold water, as it has already been debunked, thanks to access to previously closed israeli and arab archives. What has been gathered since then is that there were two phases of the palestinian exodus, one during the civil-war and one during the 1948-war, each accounting for half of the fleeing palestinians.

The civil-war led to atrocities against civilians from both sides, but it was the palestinian society that collapsed during it, while the jewish society held up against the pressure, because in contrast to the jewish society, the palestinians haven't managed or weren't allowed to create a state within a state during the british mandate . The collapse led to the fled of about 300,000 palestinians to neighbouring countries. This part of the fled can be seen as more or less voluntary, although under pressure of civil-war.



What could be gathered from the newly opened sources, was that during the war of 1948, ie. the second phase, Ben Gurion implicitly gave out the order to expell the palestinians from the territory that the israeli army conquered and to destroy the then evacuated arabic villages in order to make a return impossible.

This idea was in line with Ben Gurion's written statement during the thirties to use a possible furture war to force out the palestinian arabs in order to create a jewish state.

Here is a wiki-entry about the topic detailing the various developments in historic analysis: Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes. I draw the line at common sense. Anything beyond common sense (i.e. pride) only leads to more violence. The Native Americans somehow accept this reality..

Do you draw a line at common sense? That would be wonderful. Let's see, the indians accepted the reality? But wait, they had no other option, after 99% of them died out. And let's see the indians are allowed to remain in the US, right? So why aren't the palestinians allowed to remain in Israel?
I guess it might have to do with the fact that contrary to the indians they didn't nearly die out but quite to the contrary multiplied, putting a demographic threat upon Israel's jewishness.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is only those Arabs fighting over a plot of land the size of New Jersey (1/3rd the size of one Indian reservation in America) and those who use them as pawns to drive a geographical wedge through Israel that don't.

What are you talking about? Nearly all arabic countries are ready to recognize Israel within internationally legitimised and definitive borders, ie within the pre67-borders. The conflict now is not about Israel proper but about the oppression of the palestinians in the occupied territories by Israel and its settlers.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In the end though, you're right. The two circumstances really don't have too much to do with one another seeing as how the "Palestinians" left in the hopes of returning to a land won by Arabs.

Yes, palestinian arabs that fled the area of warfare and conflict definitely hoped to return to their land and homes once the conflict and war was over, cause that was the usual procedure in the middle-east and in international law.

But Israel prevented the return of the palestinian refuggees, by destryoing palestinian villages and by expropriating land from those owners that were absent, ie. by stealing land.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It didn't work. It still isn't working. The Israelis have amassed a metric butt-ton of weaponry to ensure it won't work in the future.

Are you trying to convince yourself, that what Israel did was somehow morally justified. It was not, and it was also illegal according to international law. But that's all besides the point of this discussion, ie. the palestinians in the occupied territories.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Even the white man could see that at some point, land must be allocated to the Native Americans for some semblance of sovereignty and peace. It is only the "Palestinians" and their masters who can't see this. I suspect it has something to do with the inability to see Jews. At least, that's what a great many of them are telling us. I've decided to take them at their word. You don't have to.

I find it strange that your are likening the white man to the palestinians and the native americans to the israelis, cause it should be the other way around.

But let's remain in the picture, as flawed as it is: The arabs are ready to recognize Israel within the 67-borders, so there you go, are you now happy? That's more than the native americans, who have to accept that they can't have an independent military and secure borders ("white man"-americans can travel through the "navajo-nation") can rely upon.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I understand that a great many Israelis were cleared out for the "Palestinians" and probably feel the same way. Life is unfair. It was unfair to these Israelis whose homes were uprooted, but they've decided to generally accept it. The only other option is to continuously fight for it.

Really? 8,000 israeli settlers were uprooted by Israel itself from Gaza, in a deal with the US to get a guaranteed right to annex parts of the Westbank, those parts that contained the major settlements-block with the most fertile land and the waterressources.

These 8,000 settlers were not only removed by their own government, in contrast to the plight of the palestinians, but also generously compensated and most of them can resettle in the Westbank, where Israel decided that it would expand its settlements to account for them.

I somehow can't see what your argument is: They were removed from one part of the occupied territories, only to be able to resettle in another part of the occupied territory with a generous compensation on top of it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and with land ownership comes responsibility and stewardship. If I use my back yard to launch attacks at my city government and attack the civil apparatus including civilian infrastructure, I will likely lose my home or see my rights of land ownership hampered.

Really, according to which law?

As far as I remember, someone attacking from his backyard would not lose his property but be punished by law with emprisonment.

But most important, the courts would see to it, that really only those would be punished that attacked, and not the whole family, nor the whole street, nor the whole village and nor the whole town.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why are we not still fighting Native Americans and the Palestinians are still fighting Israelis then?

Hmm, why are the palestinians still fighting the israelis, why oh why? Can it be that it has something to do with the fact that they are occupied and that the occupation is oppressing them, stealing their land and ressources and suffocating their economical, political and cultural potentials?

But why aren't the native americans fighting anymore? Hmm, can it have to with the fact that more than 99% of them have died out, and that the survivors are not subject to further oppression and driving out?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I suppose if some US senators proposed splitting the Indian reservations in two, there might be some resurgence of aggression. Thankfully, no one is proposing this. At least, not in the US. Here's the reality;
- if Native Americans insisted on reclaiming ownership of US territory you're stating is rightfully theirs (having been the original inhabitants of this land much like the "zionists" of Israel) they have a claim. However, they do not have the resources to make this claim with the only authority human kind respects; might. The "zionist" however, does have the resources and have fought several wars establishing this wealth of resource and as such, justice has been awarded them to the degree possible among human agencies. If the Native American were to come to my home and threaten my family, I'd hope to be better outfitted than he and as such would maintain possession of my home. If I am not, I may lose my home.

That's interesting, you seem not to be able to decide who is who in your native-american-analogy? Why do you not take the time, make up your mind and decide who you want to be akin to the american natives, the israelis or the palestinians, and then stick to it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why can't you understand that if the Native Americans were launching attacks against US civil infrastructure from their reservations, they'd likely lose their reservations. Why can't you understand that the Israelis don't want to be uprooted any more than the "Palestinians" do?

Now we come closer to the conflict: Israelis don't want to be uprooted and palestinians don't want to be uprooted, so what can be done? Two-state-peace-solution, one-state-peace-solution or do you prefer ethnic cleansing/genocide of one side against the other, according to your line of the thinking, by the stronger against the weaker.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What does the Israeli representation in the Palestinian parliament have to say about this?

What are you talking about? Israel is as a defacto occupier of the palestinians the strongest might in the occupied territories, way stronger than any palestinians in a palestinian parliament.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm curious though; how did they emigrate there if they weren't allowed in? Once you've answered that teaser, then I'm curious; What's the difference between the "Palestinians" who stayed in Israel when it was created to the ones who left? In light of your revisionist view of history, I would've thought it impossible for any Palestinians to have stayed. I certainly would've thought it impossible to the tune of over 1,400,000, with 12 representatives in Israeli parliament, and judges in their Supreme Courts, and tenured professors throughout Israeli colleges and universities.

The reason why there are about a million muslim arabs in Israel is because some mayors in Israel's army didn't want to fulfill Ben Gurion's order to expell them, when they still were merely 100,000 in 1948. It was an accident so to speak.

What's the difference between the muslim israelis and the palestinians in the occupied territories you ask? The first have nearly equal rights to jewish israelis, the latters are occupied and oppressed by Israel and its settlers.

What's your argument?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sounds exactly like what they did to Israelis in order to give the Palestinians territory. If I launch an attack against you from my vehicle, I'd expect to lose my vehicle. If Peace was the goal, pride and territorialism would take a back seat. If they are bent on half of Jerusalem with an eventual totality of Israel (a plot of land the size of New Jersey), there will never be peace. This is what a significant portion of them are telling me. I believe them. This is what we see today. This is the reality. It is unfair and unjust and all that human kind is cracked up to be. The Palestinians may continue to use what little they have to attack the Israeli or they can become better stewards of what little they have, continue to fight the battles in the courtroom and in the Israeli parliament, and throughout Israeli colleges and universities, or they can continue to take up arms and live in violence. The choice is theirs. Native Americans in the US have made the decision. Palestinians can make their own decisions.

Indeed and the palestinians have decided that they want an independent palestinian state in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital, in full compliance with international law and UN-security-council-decisions.

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

Taliesin,
Israel's neighbouring muslim nations, such as Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria seem to be demonstrating "peace" as a big orchestrated show for the world at the diplomatic level. on ground level, it's painfully easy to see where funds, man power, amunition, etc are coming from to support the militant Arabs fighting against Israel. They claim to be a seperate entity, you call them Palestine, but i think that they are merely a proxy to ensure limited liability for the other muslim nations in the vicinity.

Example, why didnt Lebanon's armed forces curb Hez's activity before Israel retaliated ? there isnt any reasonable reason why they couldnt have, except that it might not have been "popular" to do so in the predominantely muslim nation.

There are sooooo many "charities" in the muslim world to help the Palestineans, i wonder where all that money really goes.

And despite your claim that Saudi Arabia wants peace, etc..... it is still illegal for a person of any nationality who has the stamp of entry into Israel on their passport to enter any nation in the Middle East. i wonder if the same applies the other way around ?

You also claim that the surrpunding nations want peace, as long as they get a chunk of territory. So why dont the Muslim countries curb their attacks ? Israel withstands a neverending barrage of amunition on a daily basis, do you guarantee this will stop one those areas are given up ? Israel has shown it can withdraw but what was the responce ? "we will not stop until they are pushed into the sea" (or something of that sort) from top officials ?

Admit it... "peace" isnt the primary objective....it's land, all of it.

[Sky Captain]

I didn't realize that Israel had laws prohibiting Palestinians to live in Israel.
(they don't)

It's Palestine has laws prohibiting Jews from living in Israel.

That was totally dishonest Talesin.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Taliesin,
Israel's neighbouring muslim nations, such as Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria seem to be demonstrating "peace" as a big orchestrated show for the world at the diplomatic level. on ground level, it's painfully easy to see where funds, man power, amunition, etc are coming from to support the militant Arabs fighting against Israel. They claim to be a seperate entity, you call them Palestine, but i think that they are merely a proxy to ensure limited liability for the other muslim nations in the vicinity.[

Example, why didnt Lebanon's armed forces curb Hez's activity before Israel retaliated ? there isnt any reasonable reason why they couldnt have, except that it might not have been "popular" to do so in the predominantely muslim nation.

There are sooooo many "charities" in the muslim world to help the Palestineans, i wonder where all that money really goes.

As far as I know, Syria hasn't made peace with Israel, so they are to be expected to do everything to destroy Israel.

Jordan has a pretty good record of helping Israel, a really good record,

Lebanon's own army is weaker than Hezbollah's guerillia-army. Even if Lebanon were completely willing to disarm Hezbollah, it couldn't do it militarily right now.

Leaves, Egypt. Egypt has made peace with Israel and yet there is a weapon-smuggle from Egypt to Gaza happening. The question though is: Is the fault of Egypt that it happens or is it in the responsibility of border-ignoring islamistic groups like the muslim brotherhood, that is operating in Egypt and is the "father" of Hamas?

The other question that remains to be analysed is if the support for the palestinians by neighbouring arabs is aimed at the liberation of the palestinians from the israeli occupation, or at least aimed at lessening the burden of the occupation, or aimed at the destruction of Israel?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

And despite your claim that Saudi Arabia wants peace, etc..... it is still illegal for a person of any nationality who has the stamp of entry into Israel on their passport to enter any nation in the Middle East. i wonder if the same applies the other way around ?

This is not a totally uncommon practice to stigmatise a country for its crimes against humanity. African nations did it for South-Africa, during the apartheit-regime. I think it's an exaggerated response and I'm pretty sure that once the occupation of the palestinians is ended and peace is signed between the arabic council and Israel, that the stigma would vanish.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

You also claim that the surrpunding nations want peace, as long as they get a chunk of territory.

Yes, Syria wants peace with Israel, if Israel is willing to give back the Golan-heights, and Lebanon would sign peace if the sheeba-farms were returned and lebanese prisoners in Israel's prisons were released.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

So why dont the Muslim countries curb their attacks ? Israel withstands a neverending barrage of amunition on a daily basis, do you guarantee this will stop one those areas are given up ? Israel has shown it can withdraw but what was the responce ? "we will not stop until they are pushed into the sea" (or something of that sort) from top officials ?

What attacks? Except for the attack by Lebanon's Hezbollah, the arabic countries surrounding Israel have refrained from attacking Israel for quite a while, so what do you mean?

Israel gave back Sinai and made peace with Egypt, so why shouldn't it also work with Lebanon and Syria?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Admit it... "peace" isnt the primary objective....it's land, all of it.

What many arabic countries feared during the last few decades was that Israel would conduct what its extremistic ideologies propagated, namely to expand from Nile to Euphrates. That's why they wanted to destroy it before it developed the power to do so.

Nowadays though that danger has been considerably reduced due to the realities of israeli reproduction vs. arabic reproduction and due to gained trust in and understanding of international law, that denies legitimatation to expansion through warfare.

I admit though that the islamistic movements indeed want all of the land, because for them any land that was once under islamic governance is holy land, that must be reconquered as a holy duty, but these movements are in the minority and even among these movements there are divergences regarding that topic.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I didn't realize that Israel had laws prohibiting Palestinians to live in Israel.
(they don't)

It's Palestine has laws prohibiting Jews from living in Israel.

That was totally dishonest Talesin.

Could you please quote what you replied to exactly, it would help immensely.

Palestine has laws prohibitting jews from living in Israel? Was that supposed to somehow make sense, cause despite my best will I can't get behind its meaning.

Indeed Israel has laws prohibitting palestinians to live in Israel, otherwise quite a few of the palestinian refuggees that were expelled/fled from Israel would like to return.

Taliesin

[selowitch]

The basic problem is that everyone expects Israel to do all of the "compromising," which ultimately means giving up terroritory that she cannot afford to relinquish and still be a viable Jewish state. All Palestinians are ever expected to do is to take "steps" towards sorta-maybe ending some of the violence temporarily. As long as the world (and the region) holds that anti-Jewish double-standard, peace will be impossible.

The Palestinians can't even manage to stop killing each other. What makes anyone think they can refrain from killing Israelis for any length of time?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

The basic problem is that everyone expects Israel to do all of the "compromising," which ultimately means giving up terroritory that she cannot afford to relinquish and still be a viable Jewish state. All Palestinians are ever expected to do is to take "steps" towards sorta-maybe ending some of the violence temporarily. As long as the world (and the region) holds that anti-Jewish double-standard, peace will be impossible.

What the world expects from Israel is to end the illegal occupation and oppression of the palestinians. It would be a double-standard if Israel were allowed to get away with its ignorance of international law and UN-security-council.decisions.

Taliesin

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Could you please quote what you replied to exactly, it would help immensely.

Palestine has laws prohibitting jews from living in Israel? Was that supposed to somehow make sense, cause despite my best will I can't get behind its meaning.

Indeed Israel has laws prohibitting palestinians to live in Israel, otherwise quite a few of the palestinian refuggees that were expelled/fled from Israel would like to return.

Taliesin

Israel DOES NOT prohibit Palestinians frm living there.
I just called my friend from TelAviv to confirm this.
There are peacful Arabs living and have businesses there.

Palestine DOES prohibit Jews from living there.

Taliesin Wrote:
So why aren't the palestinians allowed to remain in Israel?

Again, that was completely dishonest.

They just don't allow the exploding ones to live there.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I admit though that the islamistic movements indeed want all of the land, because for them any land that was once under islamic governance is holy land, that must be reconquered as a holy duty, but these movements are in the minority and even among these movements there are divergences regarding that topic.

I hate to mention this, cause it has next-to-no credibility in itself let alone the process through which it was acheived, but worth mentioning none the less......

So let me get this straight..... the minority managed to vote Hammas, a terrorist orginization into power ? I understand that democracy isnt exactly a widely accepted practice in the muslim world, but how could a minority vote such an extremist group to represent them ?

Also.... your excuse for ME countries banning anyone with Israel's stamp of entry is well, BS. If a non-muslim country disagreed with Israel, it doesnt ban jews or Israelis from it's territories, yet the muslim countries have no problem doing that. And not just that, they even go a step further to ban people who have visited Israel from entering their counties. ludicrious.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Israel DOES NOT prohibit Palestinians frm living there.
I just called my friend from TelAviv to confirm this.
There are peacful Arabs living and have businesses there.

Palestine DOES prohibit Jews from living there.



Again, that was completely dishonest.

They just don't allow the exploding ones to live there.

Could you please quote the specific sentence from me that caused you to reply to me in the first place...

You really don't know what you are talking about: The arabs, to be more specific the muslim arabs that live in Israel, are israelis, and not palestinians, eventhough they might be called "palestinians" by jewish israelis, and eventhough they might refer themselves as "palestinians".

Those with an israeli passport are israelis, no matter what religion or ethnicity they might belong to. Israelis are of course allowed to live in Israel, but not the palestinians, who live in the occupied territories or in the refuggee-camps in the neighbouring arabic countries or wherever else they might live now on this planet. Those, and they are about 5-8 millions, are not allowed to live in Israel, ie. to reside therein, to buy land, build homes, nor settle down.

Some palestinians from the occupied territories are allowed, if they get a work-permit by Israel, to work in Israel, but they are not allowed to stay overnight in Israel, and they have no right to build, live, vote or do anything besides working there and going home into the occupied territories every day.

So if there is anyone here who is dishonest, it is you, or since you are probably just ignorant, it is your friend from Tel Aviv, who dishonestly calls israeli muslims "palestinians".

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I hate to mention this, cause it has next-to-no credibility in itself let alone the process through which it was acheived, but worth mentioning none the less......

So let me get this straight..... the minority managed to vote Hammas, a terrorist orginization into power ? I understand that democracy isnt exactly a widely accepted practice in the muslim world, but how could a minority vote such an extremist group to represent them ?

That is not very difficult. The fact that more people voted for Hamas than for Fatah does not mean that the palestinians are suddenly radical islamists, it means only that Fatah is so damn corrupt that they lost any trust, and Hamas seemed fresh, honest and trustworthy. Hamas ran with a campaign that was moderate enough to be acceptable, to the palestinians, and with their charity-program they have shown that they can manage things and are caring for the people.

The death of Jassin, the disabled spiritual leader of Hamas that got assassinated by Israel, has also helped to mobilise sympathy.

In the election-manifesto Hamas ommitted its goal to destroy Israel and merely reffered to ending the occupation and winning palestinian rights in the occupied territories and Jerusalem. They have considerably toned down their stance for the election-campaign. Here is more about it: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hamas reveals election manifesto

The results of the election gave Hamas 76 seats in the parliament which has a total of 132 seats, that means they won with a majority of 57% of the votes. The turnout was 77%.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Also.... your excuse for ME countries banning anyone with Israel's stamp of entry is well, BS. If a non-muslim country disagreed with Israel, it doesnt ban jews or Israelis from it's territories, yet the muslim countries have no problem doing that. And not just that, they even go a step further to ban people who have visited Israel from entering their counties. ludicrious.

It's definitely rediculous and exaggerated, but I'm pretty sure it will vanish when peace is signed between the arabic council and Israel.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You really don't know what you are talking about: The arabs, to be more specific the muslim arabs that live in Israel, are israelis, and not palestinians, eventhough they might be called "palestinians" by jewish israelis, and eventhough they might refer themselves as "palestinians".

So... let me get this straight. The Arab Muslims living in Israel are calling themselves Palestinian and they are referred to as Palestinian by Jewish Israelis, but there are no Palestinians living in Israel. By your standards, could there ever be a Palestinian living in Israel? I just want to make sure there's some understanding here. You're telling someone else they haven't a clue what they're talking about when they're talking about what someone in Tel Aviv is telling them. Is it remotely possible that perhaps you haven't a clue what you're talking about? I mean, the slightest possibility?

Some palestinians from the occupied territories are allowed, if they get a work-permit by Israel, to work in Israel, but they are not allowed to stay overnight in Israel, and they have no right to build, live, vote or do anything besides working there and going home into the occupied territories every day.

Can you show me where this is common practice? Can you provide me a link that describes this relationship more precisely?

So if there is anyone here who is dishonest, it is you, or since you are probably just ignorant, it is your friend from Tel Aviv, who dishonestly calls israeli muslims "palestinians".

Can you tell me with any degree of certainty the Arabs living in Israel, that Sky Captain is referring to aren't Palestinians? You know... in the interest of honesty.

[Sky Captain]

Yes, I see the contradiction also.
There is nothing to argue. There is no problem other than the utter hatred of Jews in a TINY spot of wasteland.
Absolutely nothing more.
There is nothing to debate here.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That is not very difficult. The fact that more people voted for Hamas than for Fatah does not mean that the palestinians are suddenly radical islamists, it means only that Fatah is so damn corrupt that they lost any trust, and Hamas seemed fresh, honest and trustworthy. Hamas ran with a campaign that was moderate enough to be acceptable, to the palestinians, and with their charity-program they have shown that they can manage things and are caring for the people.

I'm sorry, but no. They did not run a moderate campaign. They ran a campaign based on increased violence, fighting stronger where Fatah was weak. They ran a candidate who called himself Hitler, who was elected. Of course, there was more than one candidate calling himself Hitler.

You can't murder on Thursday, do charitable works on Friday, and call yourself a charitable organization. It doesn't work that way.

The death of Jassin, the disabled spiritual leader of Hamas that got assassinated by Israel, has also helped to mobilise sympathy.

Yassin was behind the approval of terrorist attacks.

In the election-manifesto Hamas ommitted its goal to destroy Israel and merely reffered to ending the occupation and winning palestinian rights in the occupied territories and Jerusalem. They have considerably toned down their stance for the election-campaign. Here is more about it: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hamas reveals election manifesto

The results of the election gave Hamas 76 seats in the parliament which has a total of 132 seats, that means they won with a majority of 57% of the votes. The turnout was 77%.

That's the same press that tries to claim periodically that Hamas is going to recognize Israel, and then a Hamas spokesman pops up and says "no we aren't." They put words in Hamas' mouth that they've never said, why should I believe them when they claim a moderated campaign?

(regarding the Saudi and other Arab countries apartheid against Jews and people with Israeli passport stamps)

It's definitely rediculous and exaggerated, but I'm pretty sure it will vanish when peace is signed between the arabic council and Israel.

Taliesin

Don't be sure.
Let me know when the Saudis stop:
confiscating the bibles or crosses of flight attendants passing through.
when the Muttawa stops it's 'insensitivity' towards tourists.
when Saudi Arabia stops building it's apartheid fence on the border it disputes with Yemen.
and let me know when signs like this one come down:


See, you must remember, the Arab League was founded in part by Hajj Amin Al-Husseini. He was the Arab Nazi who begged Hitler to come to Palestine and kill Jews faster. He was the mentor of Arafat. His legacy lives on today in Fatah and Hamas. What makes you think the Arab League has grown away from its origins, when I see no evidence of that?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

The basic problem is that everyone expects Israel to do all of the "compromising," which ultimately means giving up terroritory that she cannot afford to relinquish and still be a viable Jewish state.

You've got it completely backwards. Israel cannot continue to occupy the Occupied Territories and remain a viable Jewish state. That's obvious to anyone that can count to 6,2 million.

Israel is a viable state within the '48 borders. If it weren't viable at the time, we would never have set it up.

[Hawkeye_a]

Vmarks, dont you see ? All we have to do is turn over land to them, Israeli, Albanian, Russian, Cyprus, Indonesian, Indian, Armenian, etc..to let them run as arpetheid states and we will [airquotes]magically[airquotes] have peace.

And we have Taliesin's personal guarantee on that

[Sky Captain]

I don't want to get in a personal pissing match.
But Taliesin, you've taken it upon yourself to define who is and is not a Palestinian.
This is rediculous in my opinion.


Now apparently the only solution is to have the Israelis vacate the contested territory.
(didn't Egypt take some land at once also?)
By some people's opinion, this will cease all hostilities against the Israelis.
(yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet pilot)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

You've got it completely backwards. Israel cannot continue to occupy the Occupied Territories and remain a viable Jewish state. That's obvious to anyone that can count to 6,2 million.

Israel is a viable state within the '48 borders. If it weren't viable at the time, we would never have set it up.

Is this even relevant? Say Israel went back to said borders (Not that the Palestinians would have given back Israel had it won the war but ok..)

What would that accomplish? Nothing. The Palestinians would STILL act the way they do now until they think they can push all the jews out of Israel, or make them second class citizens.

This is what they want. They claim they wont stop till they do.

So israel going back to 47 borders is just a smokescreen.

It doesn't even begin to touch the issue.

Not only that I doubt VERY SERIOUSLY if Israel would have lost that war that you'd be telling those that won that they needed to give back the Jews the 1947 borders etc. Lets be honest.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Now apparently the only solution is to have the Israelis vacate the contested territory.
(didn't Egypt take some land at once also?)
By some people's opinion, this will cease all hostilities against the Israelis.
(yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet pilot)

This solution is one that certain people in here want. It has no bearing to reality as to what the Palestinians want. So it's irrelevant.

The Palestinians don't care what some guy on a internet forum wants. He wants all the Jews gone. Or be second class citizens.

It's something you never hear those that are painting Israel as the bad guy talk about. Even thought it's the main message being sent out by those opposed to Israel.

Why do you think anyone would want to ignore this fact? It's because it's a rational they can't argue or justify. So they smoke screen and make up some fairy-tale event that will make the Palestinians happy that they CAN argue about.

One of the main reasons certain posters in here have me on ignore is because I keep pointing this out to them. Their arguments are irrelevant to the facts.

[selowitch]

I think the biggest reason why the Middle East problems are so hard to solve (both here in this forum and in the abstract and there in the real world) is that neither side can agree to a commonly held set of facts. Therefore there is little rational basis for negotiation. There are at least two (and possibly more) very passionately professed narratives of history, usually blaming the other side for all the difficulty. Add to that the fact that you're dealing with very small pieces of real estate with paradoxically humungously long borders (and, quite relevantly, points of entry for suicide bombers) and you have some of the reasons why things are such a mess today.

I don't lack sympathy for the Palestinian people and their position. I just think that, on the whole, their behavior has been significantly worse than that of the Israelis. I feel that Israel has shown much more concern for human life than the other side, and it shows in their policies. I am tired of everyone expecting Israel to commit suicide by territorial compromise. There has to be a solution that guarantees the survival of the Jewish state politically, militarily, economically, and demographically. Whatever other details there are, including some kind of independent Palestinian state, are important but of secondary concern to me.

The Palestinians' biggest liability is that they love death more than life, and they have even more contempt for the lives of their fellow Palestinians than they do for Israelis. On the other hand, whenever a society thinks that killing Jews for the sake of killing Jews is meritorious in its own right, that society has no future.