Andrewwhyte 1 #26 June 15, 2007 De facto is not De jure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #27 June 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou need to have an option in your poll that there is no "Palestine", and there never has Amen brotha. People seem to forget this fact. "Palestine" was where Israel was plopped. The Brits called it "Palestine". If you want to go earlier then you can take your pick. There's "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel", "Trans Jordan". And many many more names. Why is it that people only want to acknowledge a Zionist viewpoint? Personally I think they should just call it "The Southern Levant" or maybe "The Holy Land". That way it works for everyone. To try to deny the multi-cultural history in favor of one group or another is just plain ignorant and why we have this problem. There has never been a recognized country called Palestine. The land never belonged to the "Palestinian" people. They simply occupied the land. That' doesn’t make it theirs, just like the old apartment I used to occupy, but did not own. You can call that piece of land whatever name you want, including "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel". However the land to this day doesn’t belong to the "Palestinians", just like it didn’t belong to them in the 40's, when England, the rightful owner, handed the land over to the Israelis, who are now the rightful owners. And what was that land called when "the rightful owner" handed it over to the UN for partitioning? See: "British Mandate of Palestine and "United Nations Special Committee on Palestine for a hint. I'm not sure why some people respect the validity of the borders drawn by the British in all other partitions except those dealing with "Palestine". Also, where do you draw the border for the current "rightful owners"? I'm pretty sure, regardless of what you want to call the West Bank and Gaza, that the UN didn't say "here's Israel and here are your borders. Feel free to move them as you see fit and by all means, if we pass resolutions telling you to cut it out, please be sure to ignore them". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 June 15, 2007 Quote this is not better in any way or form. not for israel and not for the palestinians. now, instead of a dispute over land (as problematic as it is) with a (alightly) pragmatic entity it will become a religious issue of a holy war where Iran and other religious extremists are pulling the strings. Hold on to your hats everyone. Falxori, I completely agree with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #29 June 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou need to have an option in your poll that there is no "Palestine", and there never has Amen brotha. People seem to forget this fact. "Palestine" was where Israel was plopped. The Brits called it "Palestine". If you want to go earlier then you can take your pick. There's "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel", "Trans Jordan". And many many more names. Why is it that people only want to acknowledge a Zionist viewpoint? Personally I think they should just call it "The Southern Levant" or maybe "The Holy Land". That way it works for everyone. To try to deny the multi-cultural history in favor of one group or another is just plain ignorant and why we have this problem. There has never been a recognized country called Palestine. The land never belonged to the "Palestinian" people. They simply occupied the land. That' doesn’t make it theirs, just like the old apartment I used to occupy, but did not own. You can call that piece of land whatever name you want, including "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel". However the land to this day doesn’t belong to the "Palestinians", just like it didn’t belong to them in the 40's, when England, the rightful owner, handed the land over to the Israelis, who are now the rightful owners. And what was that land called when "the rightful owner" handed it over to the UN for partitioning? See: "British Mandate of Palestine and "United Nations Special Committee on Palestine for a hint. I'm not sure why some people respect the validity of the borders drawn by the British in all other partitions except those dealing with "Palestine". Also, where do you draw the border for the current "rightful owners"? I'm pretty sure, regardless of what you want to call the West Bank and Gaza, that the UN didn't say "here's Israel and here are your borders. Feel free to move them as you see fit and by all means, if we pass resolutions telling you to cut it out, please be sure to ignore them". QuoteAnd what was that land called when "the rightful owner" handed it over to the UN for partitioning? See: "British Mandate of Palestine and "United Nations Special Committee on Palestine for a hint.*** You can call that piece of land whatever name you want, including "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel". However the land to this day doesn’t belong to the "Palestinians". Show me one document that recognizes Palestine as a country.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #30 June 15, 2007 You can call that piece of land whatever name you want, including "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel". However the land to this day doesn’t belong to the "Palestinians". Are you talking about the land outside of Israel's 1967 borders or inside? If it's outside, then it doesn't belong to Israel regardless of whether or not you think the Palestinians have a claim. Show me one document that recognizes Palestine as a country. It was not a country, it was considered a territory, or region. There are plenty of documents that refer to "Palestine". And here's one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan But look it up yourself. What did they call the area that was partitioned to create the state of Israel? I'm really not sure why you're having trouble with the concept that the southern levant is basically the homeland to a large portion of population of the planet and is the birth place to at least three dominant religions. Meaning that they ALL have a historical claim to the region. That's why Jerusalem was supposed to be considered an international city when the UN carved out the borders of Israel. That is, of course, after the "rightful owners" relinquished their claim[.red] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #31 June 15, 2007 PSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #32 June 15, 2007 QuoteDe facto is not De jure. Well, that is a snappy one liner, you might as well say that 1 doesn't equal 2. Don't you have anything more substantial to contribute to the discussion? Of course we're not going to actually solve anything here. We're just ordinary blokes arguing on the internet, but sometimes I learn something, or gain a newfound respect for a different perspective. This is still a world where the use of violent force to achieve political objectives is the reality. The national boundaries of the entire world are subject to the results of armed conflict. Sometimes a more peaceful approach happens, but not too often. I give Clinton a lot of credit for brokering the deal that Arafat rejected against the advice of his own negotiators, and it was a very good deal indeed for the PA. Arafat didn't want a peace that left Israel still there. It would seem that the enemies of Israel only want the result of a war to persist if that result is in their favor. When they lose, they expect a negotiation to give them the result they sought by war. That isn't the way it works.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #33 June 15, 2007 QuotePSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. So you support Israel's policy of continuing to take land from their neighbors along with the US's unofficial support of same? Will you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? Or will you cry "foul" and quote UN resolutions as justification for US intervention? For the record, I'd call "foul". That's how international agreements work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #34 June 15, 2007 Quote I give Clinton a lot of credit for brokering the deal that Arafat rejected against the advice of his own negotiators, and it was a very good deal indeed for the PA. Actually it wasn't a very good deal for the PA. Have you seen the proposed map? The "Palestinian state" basically was comprised of four separate reservations (my word) with access controlled by Israel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #35 June 15, 2007 QuoteQuote I give Clinton a lot of credit for brokering the deal that Arafat rejected against the advice of his own negotiators, and it was a very good deal indeed for the PA. Actually it wasn't a very good deal for the PA. Have you seen the proposed map? The "Palestinian state" basically was comprised of four separate reservations (my word) with access controlled by Israel. I didn't think that proposal ever actually got out for public viewing. Perhaps you're thinking of later proposals. I've heard extensive interviews of Dennis Ross, the chief US representative during the negotiations. He does not seem to be an idealog at all, and his detailed accounting of what happened left no room for doubt that Arafat didn't really want a peace that included the survival of Israel.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #36 June 15, 2007 QuoteSo you support Israel's policy of continuing to take land from their neighbors - throughout history land exchanged hands in wars. keep in mind that Israel did not start these wars. and in the past 30 years Israel has been trying to give back these lands in exchange for peace. with egypt and Jordan this has worked, but both with Lebanon and the palestinians (whos land was Jordanian) after Israel's pull out all we got is rockets flying over the border. trust me when I tell you that most Israelis will give back lands that are very dear to us for the hope of peace. Gaza for us was a test case, Israel has pulled out completely and ever since then all of our border towns receive a daily (and i do mean daily) dose of missiles. and now it has become a terrorist organization controlled area with strong ties to the most extreme entitiles in the world (risking the PA, Israel and also egypt and jordan) O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tonyhays 86 #37 June 15, 2007 QuoteWill you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? They tried that in '67. Look how well it worked out for them.“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pop 0 #38 June 15, 2007 QuoteYou can call that piece of land whatever name you want, including "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel". However the land to this day doesn’t belong to the "Palestinians". Are you talking about the land outside of Israel's 1967 borders or inside? If it's outside, then it doesn't belong to Israel regardless of whether or not you think the Palestinians have a claim. Show me one document that recognizes Palestine as a country. It was not a country, it was considered a territory, or region. There are plenty of documents that refer to "Palestine". And here's one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/...47_UN_Partition_Plan But look it up yourself. What did they call the area that was partitioned to create the state of Israel? I'm really not sure why you're having trouble with the concept that the southern levant is basically the homeland to a large portion of population of the planet and is the birth place to at least three dominant religions. Meaning that they ALL have a historical claim to the region. That's why Jerusalem was supposed to be considered an international city when the UN carved out the borders of Israel. That is, of course, after the "rightful owners" relinquished their claim QuotePSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. What she said....7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #39 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo you support Israel's policy of continuing to take land from their neighbors - throughout history land exchanged hands in wars. keep in mind that Israel did not start these wars. and in the past 30 years Israel has been trying to give back these lands in exchange for peace. with egypt and Jordan this has worked, but both with Lebanon and the palestinians (whos land was Jordanian) after Israel's pull out all we got is rockets flying over the border. trust me when I tell you that most Israelis will give back lands that are very dear to us for the hope of peace. Gaza for us was a test case, Israel has pulled out completely and ever since then all of our border towns receive a daily (and i do mean daily) dose of missiles. and now it has become a terrorist organization controlled area with strong ties to the most extreme entitiles in the world (risking the PA, Israel and also egypt and jordan) O I'm not going to get into Gaza right now but there seems to be plenty to illustratate that while the "withdrawl" was official and the settlers left that the military presence didn't. It was on par with the daily antagonizing that Israel shared with the Lebanese but that also could be for another discussion. The question I have for you is, has Israel been continuing to annex the west bank and have they continued to issue building permits since Olmert came in to power on the promise of ending the expansion? The BBC and Haaretz says that's the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #40 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteWill you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? They tried that in '67. Look how well it worked out for them. Ok, to be Devil's advocate on this one. Who would have won if the US had backed the Palestinians with arms? Would the debate be different if over the last few decades we had given the Palestinians nukes, $3 billion/yr in aid and helped them with targeting their enemies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #41 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWill you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? They tried that in '67. Look how well it worked out for them. Ok, to be Devil's advocate on this one. Who would have won if the US had backed the Palestinians with arms? Would the debate be different if over the last few decades we had given the Palestinians nukes, $3 billion/yr in aid and helped them with targeting their enemies? The US didn't give Israel nukes, South Africa did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #42 June 16, 2007 QuoteOk, to be Devil's advocate on this one. Who would have won if the US had backed the Palestinians with arms? Would the debate be different if over the last few decades we had given the Palestinians nukes, $3 billion/yr in aid and helped them with targeting their enemies? To be the Angels advocate.... The Arabas and Palistinians backed.. who in WWII... Gee was it the NAZI's.... and when Israel was created ALL of the Arab countries around Israel tried really hard to destroy them... So.. with the Russians backing the Palistinians...and the Arabs... we supported the vastly inferior forces of the Jews. Seems to me the Arabs and the Plaistinians do not have a real good record of supporting or getting support from the right people. Just the facts... no matter how hard it is to swallow for some people.... a smater groiup of people Might be ready for peace and to salvage something..................The Jordanians.. and The Egyptians.. got tired of stirring up trouble and getting their asses kicked.. since then its been pretty peacefull for them in terms of Israel. There is a lesson to be learned there.. for those SMART enough to learn it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #43 June 16, 2007 Quote QuotePSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. What she said.... Please, just answer one question for me. You both can get together in a confab if it will make things easier. Why should the Palestinians respect Israel's borders when Israel doesn't respect its own border? Look, I don't have a dog in this fight other than that I'm helping to finance one side of it and that it may be the reason that my 3 year old son eventually gets drafted to fight in a war that is caused in part by this stupid, holy land blood fest by a bunch of people who are ALL CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, essentially BROTHERS! What it comes down to is this: The modern state of Israel was planted in a land that is Holy primarily to three religions. The people who were displaced got pissed off and have understandably been resisting. Hell I'd be pretty pissed off too if my country had spent a millenium expelling foreign invaders only to have my land GIVEN to someone else. Israel has continued to expand its presence ever since and the only way that has been allowed to happen is because my country has enabled it. People are now pissed off at my country because of it and it is one of the reasons that we were attacked six years ago. We know all of this yet we continue to fan the flames because we let Israel continue its expansion with no accountability for their land grabbing, or human rights violations. Frankly, I'm tired of it and I'm tired of people reducing the discussion to talking point repetition as opposed to actually acknowledging and addressing the problem and trying to put an end to it. If we could insert some balanced honesty into the debate we might make some progress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #44 June 16, 2007 Quote To be the Angels advocate.... The Arabas and Palistinians backed.. who in WWII... Gee was it the NAZI's.... and when Israel was created ALL of the Arab countries around Israel tried really hard to destroy them... So.. with the Russians backing the Palistinians...and the Arabs... we supported the vastly inferior forces of the Jews. Seems to me the Arabs and the Plaistinians do not have a real good record of supporting or getting support from the right people. Just the facts... no matter how hard it is to swallow for some people.... a smater groiup of people Might be ready for peace and to salvage something..................The Jordanians.. and The Egyptians.. got tired of stirring up trouble and getting their asses kicked.. since then its been pretty peacefull for them in terms of Israel. There is a lesson to be learned there.. for those SMART enough to learn it. Correct me if I'm wrong you're telling me that the Palestinians are too stupid to be awarded any respect. Just like the Native Americans were. That about sum it up? I hope not because that's not what I expected from you. P.S. Your points about the Nazis is one of the reasons that I can't comprehend that the Israelis have no trouble doing the same thing to another people. P.P.S. When you get a chance please try to answer my question about respecting borders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #45 June 16, 2007 QuoteThe people who were displaced got pissed off I don't pretend that this site is neutral, but please don't refute it just by calling it biased: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html QuoteYour points about the Nazis is one of the reasons that I can't comprehend that the Israelis have no trouble doing the same thing to another people. Doing the same thing? What a load of crap! Respecting borders? It was the Arabs that decided they couldn't live with the result of the UN decision, basically another result of WWII. They promised to not respect the decision/borders.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #46 June 16, 2007 AS a Native American ... yes( My great grandmother was a full blooded Seminole.) You learn to adapt.. or you die...we never signed a peace treaty.. we just quit fighting.... and the tribe makes the white eyes pay to see what they won down in South Florida. Borders are simple.. every time they were attacked.. and won they got more defensible borders.. OH and by the way there had been jewish settlements in the area for quite a while before WWI...go look up some history on the country. The Jews may have been hauled off into slavery... but some of them remained during all that time... they have JUST as much right to the land as anyone else who has a claim to it. Why is it that no one wants to acknkoledge that little fact???? ( look up the rather large group of arabs who are Israeli citizens) Anti-semitism has been alive and well for a VERY long time. Some groups are just a little more up front about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #47 June 16, 2007 QuoteI'm not going to get into Gaza right now but there seems to be plenty to illustratate that while the "withdrawl" was official and the settlers left that the military presence didn't. wrong. all military presence was removed also. the only place where there is a "kind" of presence is by remote video in the border crossing between Gaza and egypt which is supposed to be monitored by UN or european personnel (not that it matters because they cross wherever they want anyway) QuoteThe question I have for you is, has Israel been continuing to annex the west bank the only part "annexed" by law is Jerusalem. the rest of the west bank is not considered Israeli by Israeli law (suggesting that there was no long term desire to keep it. I agree that many of the settlements in the west bank are a waste of time and money and everybody knows that they will be removed when peace is achieved. but to tell you the truth, although i was very happy to pull out of gaza, seeing the mess that exists there now, i'm not sure i want the same mess 5 minutes from where I live. Gaza was a test case and there were already plans to pull out from the west bank (with or without negotiations), sadly the palestinians failed this test case big time. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crwtom 0 #48 June 16, 2007 Quote Does modern Palestine (since 1947) have a history of civil rivalries on par with recent developments? I'm not a historian on this - as far as I understand this there have certainly been disruptions within the Palestinian movements. However, this is of a more fundamental nature. In decades befoe it was about various rivaleries within the PLO, and mostly about pro or con Arafat fights. Mostly these were splinter groups that thought Arafat was not radical enough. By and large though all them were based on a secular socialist philosophy, with varaitions only how much "revolution" and militant "struggle" they want to engage in. In fact, becasue of its secularism, PLO isn't rellay the darling of the islamic world that you'd think it should be. Hamas is religious mostivatred and thus a totally different animal. The first thing they did when they took over Gaza was to proclaim a an islamic state. The current split is between groups of fundamentally different philosophies rather than spliterings from the same types of organizations. In addition this conflict is now also manifestly territorial, which PLO infights haven't really been. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crwtom 0 #49 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteFor Israel it's even better than "divide and conquer" this is not better in any way or form. not for israel and not for the palestinians. take mine as a rethorical phrase - I definitely agree that this is bad for everyone for the reaons you give. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #50 June 18, 2007 QuoteAS a Native American ... yes( My great grandmother was a full blooded Seminole.) You learn to adapt.. or you die...we never signed a peace treaty.. we just quit fighting.... and the tribe makes the white eyes pay to see what they won down in South Florida. You really have me confused with this one. "As a Native American" are you somehow defending the way that early America treated the Native American population? Borders are simple.. every time they were attacked.. and won they got more defensible borders.. OH and by the way there had been jewish settlements in the area for quite a while before WWI...go look up some history on the country. Yes, and it was a very small percentage of the total population at that time. The Jews may have been hauled off into slavery... but some of them remained during all that time... they have JUST as much right to the land as anyone else who has a claim to it. Why is it that no one wants to acknkoledge that little fact???? Exactly. "Just as much". That's my point. ( look up the rather large group of arabs who are Israeli citizens) Anti-semitism has been alive and well for a VERY long time. Some groups are just a little more up front about it. All groups involved (except for the US) are semitic. But if you're trying to say that my views are anti Jewish then you're completely missing the point. I'm anti-Israeli foreign policy and I'm certainly anti-Zionist Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
idrankwhat 0 #30 June 15, 2007 You can call that piece of land whatever name you want, including "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel". However the land to this day doesn’t belong to the "Palestinians". Are you talking about the land outside of Israel's 1967 borders or inside? If it's outside, then it doesn't belong to Israel regardless of whether or not you think the Palestinians have a claim. Show me one document that recognizes Palestine as a country. It was not a country, it was considered a territory, or region. There are plenty of documents that refer to "Palestine". And here's one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan But look it up yourself. What did they call the area that was partitioned to create the state of Israel? I'm really not sure why you're having trouble with the concept that the southern levant is basically the homeland to a large portion of population of the planet and is the birth place to at least three dominant religions. Meaning that they ALL have a historical claim to the region. That's why Jerusalem was supposed to be considered an international city when the UN carved out the borders of Israel. That is, of course, after the "rightful owners" relinquished their claim[.red] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 June 15, 2007 PSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #32 June 15, 2007 QuoteDe facto is not De jure. Well, that is a snappy one liner, you might as well say that 1 doesn't equal 2. Don't you have anything more substantial to contribute to the discussion? Of course we're not going to actually solve anything here. We're just ordinary blokes arguing on the internet, but sometimes I learn something, or gain a newfound respect for a different perspective. This is still a world where the use of violent force to achieve political objectives is the reality. The national boundaries of the entire world are subject to the results of armed conflict. Sometimes a more peaceful approach happens, but not too often. I give Clinton a lot of credit for brokering the deal that Arafat rejected against the advice of his own negotiators, and it was a very good deal indeed for the PA. Arafat didn't want a peace that left Israel still there. It would seem that the enemies of Israel only want the result of a war to persist if that result is in their favor. When they lose, they expect a negotiation to give them the result they sought by war. That isn't the way it works.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #33 June 15, 2007 QuotePSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. So you support Israel's policy of continuing to take land from their neighbors along with the US's unofficial support of same? Will you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? Or will you cry "foul" and quote UN resolutions as justification for US intervention? For the record, I'd call "foul". That's how international agreements work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #34 June 15, 2007 Quote I give Clinton a lot of credit for brokering the deal that Arafat rejected against the advice of his own negotiators, and it was a very good deal indeed for the PA. Actually it wasn't a very good deal for the PA. Have you seen the proposed map? The "Palestinian state" basically was comprised of four separate reservations (my word) with access controlled by Israel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #35 June 15, 2007 QuoteQuote I give Clinton a lot of credit for brokering the deal that Arafat rejected against the advice of his own negotiators, and it was a very good deal indeed for the PA. Actually it wasn't a very good deal for the PA. Have you seen the proposed map? The "Palestinian state" basically was comprised of four separate reservations (my word) with access controlled by Israel. I didn't think that proposal ever actually got out for public viewing. Perhaps you're thinking of later proposals. I've heard extensive interviews of Dennis Ross, the chief US representative during the negotiations. He does not seem to be an idealog at all, and his detailed accounting of what happened left no room for doubt that Arafat didn't really want a peace that included the survival of Israel.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #36 June 15, 2007 QuoteSo you support Israel's policy of continuing to take land from their neighbors - throughout history land exchanged hands in wars. keep in mind that Israel did not start these wars. and in the past 30 years Israel has been trying to give back these lands in exchange for peace. with egypt and Jordan this has worked, but both with Lebanon and the palestinians (whos land was Jordanian) after Israel's pull out all we got is rockets flying over the border. trust me when I tell you that most Israelis will give back lands that are very dear to us for the hope of peace. Gaza for us was a test case, Israel has pulled out completely and ever since then all of our border towns receive a daily (and i do mean daily) dose of missiles. and now it has become a terrorist organization controlled area with strong ties to the most extreme entitiles in the world (risking the PA, Israel and also egypt and jordan) O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #37 June 15, 2007 QuoteWill you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? They tried that in '67. Look how well it worked out for them.“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #38 June 15, 2007 QuoteYou can call that piece of land whatever name you want, including "Palestine", "Syria Palestinia", "Caanan", "Philistia", "Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Land of Israel". However the land to this day doesn’t belong to the "Palestinians". Are you talking about the land outside of Israel's 1967 borders or inside? If it's outside, then it doesn't belong to Israel regardless of whether or not you think the Palestinians have a claim. Show me one document that recognizes Palestine as a country. It was not a country, it was considered a territory, or region. There are plenty of documents that refer to "Palestine". And here's one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/...47_UN_Partition_Plan But look it up yourself. What did they call the area that was partitioned to create the state of Israel? I'm really not sure why you're having trouble with the concept that the southern levant is basically the homeland to a large portion of population of the planet and is the birth place to at least three dominant religions. Meaning that they ALL have a historical claim to the region. That's why Jerusalem was supposed to be considered an international city when the UN carved out the borders of Israel. That is, of course, after the "rightful owners" relinquished their claim QuotePSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. What she said....7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #39 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo you support Israel's policy of continuing to take land from their neighbors - throughout history land exchanged hands in wars. keep in mind that Israel did not start these wars. and in the past 30 years Israel has been trying to give back these lands in exchange for peace. with egypt and Jordan this has worked, but both with Lebanon and the palestinians (whos land was Jordanian) after Israel's pull out all we got is rockets flying over the border. trust me when I tell you that most Israelis will give back lands that are very dear to us for the hope of peace. Gaza for us was a test case, Israel has pulled out completely and ever since then all of our border towns receive a daily (and i do mean daily) dose of missiles. and now it has become a terrorist organization controlled area with strong ties to the most extreme entitiles in the world (risking the PA, Israel and also egypt and jordan) O I'm not going to get into Gaza right now but there seems to be plenty to illustratate that while the "withdrawl" was official and the settlers left that the military presence didn't. It was on par with the daily antagonizing that Israel shared with the Lebanese but that also could be for another discussion. The question I have for you is, has Israel been continuing to annex the west bank and have they continued to issue building permits since Olmert came in to power on the promise of ending the expansion? The BBC and Haaretz says that's the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #40 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteWill you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? They tried that in '67. Look how well it worked out for them. Ok, to be Devil's advocate on this one. Who would have won if the US had backed the Palestinians with arms? Would the debate be different if over the last few decades we had given the Palestinians nukes, $3 billion/yr in aid and helped them with targeting their enemies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #41 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWill you support a takeover of Israel if Arabs and Persians unite and take over the land? They tried that in '67. Look how well it worked out for them. Ok, to be Devil's advocate on this one. Who would have won if the US had backed the Palestinians with arms? Would the debate be different if over the last few decades we had given the Palestinians nukes, $3 billion/yr in aid and helped them with targeting their enemies? The US didn't give Israel nukes, South Africa did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 June 16, 2007 QuoteOk, to be Devil's advocate on this one. Who would have won if the US had backed the Palestinians with arms? Would the debate be different if over the last few decades we had given the Palestinians nukes, $3 billion/yr in aid and helped them with targeting their enemies? To be the Angels advocate.... The Arabas and Palistinians backed.. who in WWII... Gee was it the NAZI's.... and when Israel was created ALL of the Arab countries around Israel tried really hard to destroy them... So.. with the Russians backing the Palistinians...and the Arabs... we supported the vastly inferior forces of the Jews. Seems to me the Arabs and the Plaistinians do not have a real good record of supporting or getting support from the right people. Just the facts... no matter how hard it is to swallow for some people.... a smater groiup of people Might be ready for peace and to salvage something..................The Jordanians.. and The Egyptians.. got tired of stirring up trouble and getting their asses kicked.. since then its been pretty peacefull for them in terms of Israel. There is a lesson to be learned there.. for those SMART enough to learn it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #43 June 16, 2007 Quote QuotePSSST... for thousands of years.... You win a war.... you get the land.... and the fucking slaves... to do with as you will.... Bring back galleons...and house slaves.... problem solved. Its what happened to the jews over and over... if the Palestinians want equality.. then perhaps a few thousand years of being slaves.. and pogroms.. will make them a cohesive people. What she said.... Please, just answer one question for me. You both can get together in a confab if it will make things easier. Why should the Palestinians respect Israel's borders when Israel doesn't respect its own border? Look, I don't have a dog in this fight other than that I'm helping to finance one side of it and that it may be the reason that my 3 year old son eventually gets drafted to fight in a war that is caused in part by this stupid, holy land blood fest by a bunch of people who are ALL CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, essentially BROTHERS! What it comes down to is this: The modern state of Israel was planted in a land that is Holy primarily to three religions. The people who were displaced got pissed off and have understandably been resisting. Hell I'd be pretty pissed off too if my country had spent a millenium expelling foreign invaders only to have my land GIVEN to someone else. Israel has continued to expand its presence ever since and the only way that has been allowed to happen is because my country has enabled it. People are now pissed off at my country because of it and it is one of the reasons that we were attacked six years ago. We know all of this yet we continue to fan the flames because we let Israel continue its expansion with no accountability for their land grabbing, or human rights violations. Frankly, I'm tired of it and I'm tired of people reducing the discussion to talking point repetition as opposed to actually acknowledging and addressing the problem and trying to put an end to it. If we could insert some balanced honesty into the debate we might make some progress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #44 June 16, 2007 Quote To be the Angels advocate.... The Arabas and Palistinians backed.. who in WWII... Gee was it the NAZI's.... and when Israel was created ALL of the Arab countries around Israel tried really hard to destroy them... So.. with the Russians backing the Palistinians...and the Arabs... we supported the vastly inferior forces of the Jews. Seems to me the Arabs and the Plaistinians do not have a real good record of supporting or getting support from the right people. Just the facts... no matter how hard it is to swallow for some people.... a smater groiup of people Might be ready for peace and to salvage something..................The Jordanians.. and The Egyptians.. got tired of stirring up trouble and getting their asses kicked.. since then its been pretty peacefull for them in terms of Israel. There is a lesson to be learned there.. for those SMART enough to learn it. Correct me if I'm wrong you're telling me that the Palestinians are too stupid to be awarded any respect. Just like the Native Americans were. That about sum it up? I hope not because that's not what I expected from you. P.S. Your points about the Nazis is one of the reasons that I can't comprehend that the Israelis have no trouble doing the same thing to another people. P.P.S. When you get a chance please try to answer my question about respecting borders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #45 June 16, 2007 QuoteThe people who were displaced got pissed off I don't pretend that this site is neutral, but please don't refute it just by calling it biased: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html QuoteYour points about the Nazis is one of the reasons that I can't comprehend that the Israelis have no trouble doing the same thing to another people. Doing the same thing? What a load of crap! Respecting borders? It was the Arabs that decided they couldn't live with the result of the UN decision, basically another result of WWII. They promised to not respect the decision/borders.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #46 June 16, 2007 AS a Native American ... yes( My great grandmother was a full blooded Seminole.) You learn to adapt.. or you die...we never signed a peace treaty.. we just quit fighting.... and the tribe makes the white eyes pay to see what they won down in South Florida. Borders are simple.. every time they were attacked.. and won they got more defensible borders.. OH and by the way there had been jewish settlements in the area for quite a while before WWI...go look up some history on the country. The Jews may have been hauled off into slavery... but some of them remained during all that time... they have JUST as much right to the land as anyone else who has a claim to it. Why is it that no one wants to acknkoledge that little fact???? ( look up the rather large group of arabs who are Israeli citizens) Anti-semitism has been alive and well for a VERY long time. Some groups are just a little more up front about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #47 June 16, 2007 QuoteI'm not going to get into Gaza right now but there seems to be plenty to illustratate that while the "withdrawl" was official and the settlers left that the military presence didn't. wrong. all military presence was removed also. the only place where there is a "kind" of presence is by remote video in the border crossing between Gaza and egypt which is supposed to be monitored by UN or european personnel (not that it matters because they cross wherever they want anyway) QuoteThe question I have for you is, has Israel been continuing to annex the west bank the only part "annexed" by law is Jerusalem. the rest of the west bank is not considered Israeli by Israeli law (suggesting that there was no long term desire to keep it. I agree that many of the settlements in the west bank are a waste of time and money and everybody knows that they will be removed when peace is achieved. but to tell you the truth, although i was very happy to pull out of gaza, seeing the mess that exists there now, i'm not sure i want the same mess 5 minutes from where I live. Gaza was a test case and there were already plans to pull out from the west bank (with or without negotiations), sadly the palestinians failed this test case big time. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #48 June 16, 2007 Quote Does modern Palestine (since 1947) have a history of civil rivalries on par with recent developments? I'm not a historian on this - as far as I understand this there have certainly been disruptions within the Palestinian movements. However, this is of a more fundamental nature. In decades befoe it was about various rivaleries within the PLO, and mostly about pro or con Arafat fights. Mostly these were splinter groups that thought Arafat was not radical enough. By and large though all them were based on a secular socialist philosophy, with varaitions only how much "revolution" and militant "struggle" they want to engage in. In fact, becasue of its secularism, PLO isn't rellay the darling of the islamic world that you'd think it should be. Hamas is religious mostivatred and thus a totally different animal. The first thing they did when they took over Gaza was to proclaim a an islamic state. The current split is between groups of fundamentally different philosophies rather than spliterings from the same types of organizations. In addition this conflict is now also manifestly territorial, which PLO infights haven't really been. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #49 June 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteFor Israel it's even better than "divide and conquer" this is not better in any way or form. not for israel and not for the palestinians. take mine as a rethorical phrase - I definitely agree that this is bad for everyone for the reaons you give. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #50 June 18, 2007 QuoteAS a Native American ... yes( My great grandmother was a full blooded Seminole.) You learn to adapt.. or you die...we never signed a peace treaty.. we just quit fighting.... and the tribe makes the white eyes pay to see what they won down in South Florida. You really have me confused with this one. "As a Native American" are you somehow defending the way that early America treated the Native American population? Borders are simple.. every time they were attacked.. and won they got more defensible borders.. OH and by the way there had been jewish settlements in the area for quite a while before WWI...go look up some history on the country. Yes, and it was a very small percentage of the total population at that time. The Jews may have been hauled off into slavery... but some of them remained during all that time... they have JUST as much right to the land as anyone else who has a claim to it. Why is it that no one wants to acknkoledge that little fact???? Exactly. "Just as much". That's my point. ( look up the rather large group of arabs who are Israeli citizens) Anti-semitism has been alive and well for a VERY long time. Some groups are just a little more up front about it. All groups involved (except for the US) are semitic. But if you're trying to say that my views are anti Jewish then you're completely missing the point. I'm anti-Israeli foreign policy and I'm certainly anti-Zionist Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
