POLITICS: Palestinian PM Steps Down- Gives Job to Hamas

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
.................
Definitely a time to buy gold, if you are going to bother with earthly possessions.

I agree with you Thomas, it is time to buy gold while we "wait and see what will happen." it does seem that fate throws a whole bunch of rocks at us at a time, instead of one at a time huh?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by jsobecky


The palestinians had no right to claim that they were "invaded" when israel was made, Palestine didn't belong to the palestinians, it belonged to Britian, with the approving stamp of the united nations of the world itself.

I am not a history teacher but darn it I should start charging for my lessons.

(1) Palestine NEVER belonged to Britian, it belonged to the several million people, both Jewish and Arab who lived there. AND they generally got along until the push for a Jewish state. Britan was given a 30 year mandate to govern the area, after after the collaspe of the Ottoman empire at the end of WW1, by the treaty of Versilles and the League of Nations.
(2) The Balfour Declaration meant absolutely nothing when it was issued because Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire when it was issued. Britian was in the area stirring up an insurrection against the Turks because of their support of Austria and Germany...remember Garaballdi? Probably not. How about T.E. Laurence aka Laurence of Arabia? Probably not either. No matter both were part of the same british strategy to take down the Ottomans and expose Austria and Germany's eastern flanks and to relieve the Russians.
(3) The European Zionists marketed Palestine to the European Jews starting in the late 19th century as an under-populated and under-developed region, both of which were false though the area did support less people than it could. There were 3 or 4 million people living in the Palestinian region which included trans-Jordan. At first the Jews were welcomed as they bought up undeveloped land from absentee landlords but as time wore on that welcome was strained by their buying up land and evicting the tenant farmers and by their insistance that they were building a Jewish state. After WW2 allied guilt associated with the holocaust (from inaction more than anything else) the push became a stampede and the Jewish refugees from Europe were far more radical than their forebearers and forced the issue with a two pronged uprising aimed at grabbing as much land as possible and forcing off its occupants and preventing the British (who were just trying to carry out their mandate from the now UN) from stopping them. This grab for land continues to this day with among other things, the route that the security wall has taken and annexions by "settlers".

The point is, in this conflict, there are no innocent parties, both sides have acted violently and both have evoked GOD on their side which is a sure fired recipe for both insanity and stupidity. Hey there was an Isreali journalist who suggested that Katrina was GOD'S punishment on America for backing the Gaza pullout.

Finally if the Bush Administration was caught off guard by Hamas' win as they claim, then they are blinder, daffer and dumber than I ever imagined. Just cursatory glances at the evening news was enough to realize that this was going to happen. But that is what happens when you try and govern by ideology instead of pragmatism, you become blinded to even the most basic things. I must say though Bushes sputtering about how this was democracy in action which was what they wanted but not the results was quite amusing. He may not want to deal with Hamas but too bad, the situation is out of his control, as if it ever was in the first place.

One last thing....for all intents and purpose the Palestianian people are literally a people without a country, a large minority have lived in massive refugee camps (going on generations now) that were never intended for permanant use...mind you this is not west bank or even Gaza palestianians but people who were forced off their land in Isreal proper and want rightly or wrongly their homes back (wouldn't you?) and that demand for a return (and the one for Jeusalem as a capital) has always been the sticking point in every negotation. Biblical claims aside, the possession is nine tenths of the law, is really the only leg that Isreal has to stand on, that and armaments. Remember the crusader colony of Outreamer lasted almost 200 years before it fell, Isreal has only been around for 58 years and it really only has two options, the creation of a stable Palestinan state or a full annexion of the west bank and Gaza into a true Isreali/Palestinan state with full rights for the Palestinans and run the risk (though it will happen anyway eventually) of becoming a minorty. The present status quo is untenable and will not last and any attempts to make it so will only result in greater bloodshed.

Originally posted by grover
(1) Palestine NEVER belonged to Britian, it belonged to the several million people, both Jewish and Arab who lived there.

This is fundamentally incorrect. The british took palestine from the Ottomans. Thats ownership.

Britian was in the area stirring up an insurrection against the Turks because of their support of Austria and Germany...remember Garaballdi? Probably not.

Not only do I rememer people like Garibaldi, but I can spell their names correctly.

He may not want to deal with Hamas but too bad, the situation is out of his control, as if it ever was in the first place.

He is legally bound to not deal with Hamas.

Hamas is at war with Israel. Therefore, Isreal is justified in continuing to occupy the palestinian territory. It'd be stupid for israel to go to the negotiating table with an organization that wants them destroyed. At least with Fatah there was a semblence of a possibility that they'd settle for and end to the occupation of the west bank and self government in that territory.

for all intents and purpose the Palestianian people are literally a people without a country

Well, thats what you get for going to war and loosing.

a large minority have lived in massive refugee camps (going on generations now) that were never intended for permanant use.

And despite the money that the international community has gifted them, they've failed to build permanent housing. Too busy engaging in their guerilla war.

who were forced off their land in Isreal proper and want rightly or wrongly their homes back (wouldn't you?)

If its been 'generations' than the current generation has no claim to land that was left by their grandparents. Besides which, this might've applied before the wars between these two peoples, but clearly not after. You don't get to go to war, loose, and then say, "well that house that my grandfather owned still belongs to me". If anything, the Palestinians and the rest of the arab league should be paying war reparations to isreal.

has always been the sticking point in every negotation

Well, now with hamas as the government, the sticking points will be "All jews please drop dead or get the 'eff out"

and it really only has two options, the creation of a stable Palestinan state or a full annexion of the west bank and Gaza into a true Isreali/Palestinan state with full rights for the Palestinans

Or, the third option. Continue to occupy the west bank and gaza strip. Don't bother to build any more settlements in it, and complete a wall that will prevent the vast majority of attacks from occuring, while at the same time blowing up every hamas meeting and burning down every "government" office. Hell, they may as well make another leg of the wall around the whole of the west bank, that'd keep other foreign agigtators out also.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by grover

who were forced off their land in Isreal proper and want rightly or wrongly their homes back (wouldn't you?)

If its been 'generations' than the current generation has no claim to land that was left by their grandparents.

Using the logic implicate in that statement then, After 2,000 years the Jews have an even less of a claim to the land.

Originally posted by grover
Using the logic implicate in that statement then, After 2,000 years the Jews have an even less of a claim to the land.

I agree absolutely, the claim that 'the jewish original homeland was israel is meaningless.

Its all about the british mandate and then the jews winning the war afterwards. Thats why Israel, the west bank, and the gaza strip are theirs.

There are so many outright lies in this post it would take we all weekend to clear them up so i'll start with this one now.

And there is nothing like "Palestinian nation", there never was something like Palestine (unlike Jewish state)those people are simply Arabs (Egyptians and Jordanians).

There was a nation called Palestine.

What did you think the area was called before Israel was born?

Did you think the land just rose up out of the sea with Jews already living on it?

The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, 1922

Even the Jews were Palestinians back then.

The "Palestinian nation" was created by neighbouring Arab states just to make Israelies look like oppressors

FALSE.

There is no Palestinian nation now, only territories occupied by Israel that are refered to as Palestine.

Israel invaded in a sneak attack in 1967 seizing these lands.





They 'created' it by stealing land from their neighbors.

Before that the lands were part of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

How can you say the Arabs created it when it was all the work of Israel?

(because noone would care about borders change after 6day war, but ocupation of "sovereign" nation is something different, you know).

The majority of people in the world do care.

The 'border change' as you call it affects more than four million people.

If it really were a border change Israel would have given all of the Palestinians living there citizenship, and equal rights.

It was NOT a border change.

Israel has never declared its borders so how could they change, and Israel has not declared the occupied territories to be part of Israel.

Please try to look at the other side of the history.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, not the extreme Zionist viewpoint you seem to have been programmed with.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by ArchAngel]

Sometimes the Truth is hard to Except…

For as long as people have held belief in something, they have fought over it. It is a game of whose “Imaginary Friend” is the strongest, when they win it is due to God praising them and when they loose it is due to God punishing them and this is clearly evident in this conflict. In fact, through history it is more evident in the Judeo-Christian relations than any other and part of the conflict is linked to this, hatred, prejudice and inequalities all also factor into it.

To argue that you can’t mention the history of the Israeli/Palestine affair, is idiotic and not in the spirit of denying ignorance. To understand why HAMAS were elected, in such a majority you have to go back and look at the establishment of the State and the hatred and resentment older members of the community feel. It is them, with a lot of power. It is them who remember the British Mandate Of Palestine and the development of the conflict it tends also to be these who desire to remove Israel the most.

Hamas, didn‘t come out of nowhere - they are funded, primarily as a military wing and now the desire of the population has shown us they want them to be their political aim. Like it or not, this is democracy in action the next step is how the Western World reacts.

If they go down the route, the route of punishing the Palestinian people - cutting off funding and refusing to communicate will only help to strengthen this gain. When more people begin to starve, this will bring more resentment not against Hamas but the United State’s who withdrew the funding. They can’t back a political, democratic process and then complain when they dislike the result. This judgement, will do a lot of harm - to Israel and to the United State’s.

So in reality what is the next step? To me and many others, the step is clearly evident. Hamas, need to be treated as a political party and brought into discussion. An agreement, needs to be devised with both sides being able to gain something from it. Israel security and Palestine its own independent State - furthermore, both groups need to allow for Jerusalem to be shared. Jews, Christians, Muslims and so on and so fourth all see it as a Holy City, in fact it is one of the most important places in the World and the Jewish people need to allow the United Nation’s to Govern and Control it. The Muslims have to accept this as the only way for them to gain the City.

Once this happens, Israel and Palestine should freely be able to use it as their “Capital” but with administration controlled by an external Government. In that area, they all need to be treated as equal and controlled through international law.

Some hard-line Muslim’s, Christian’s and Jew’s won’t like this however it is the best bet for stability. Once that has been established, the majority of Muslim’s will see a good act by Israel towards them and this will stop the terrorism. Once this happens, the discussion can begin to happen. Israel can begin to gain stability as can Palestine. The Westbank, Gaza are not important to them - no where near as important as Jerusalem.

The history of the area is dirty, it is filled with hatred, murder and much evil - in fact, on a level most people will never truly understand. Each side blames the other for the causations of the war, or the problems we are seeing now. However, we can begin to work towards peace and move away from the missiles and bullets which have so far clearly failed them.

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by jsobecky


The palestinians had no right to claim that they were "invaded" when israel was made, Palestine didn't belong to the palestinians, it belonged to Britian, with the approving stamp of the united nations of the world itself.

I am not a history teacher but darn it I should start charging for my lessons.

Just fyi

The above post by grover seems to indicate that I was the person that made that quote. I wasn't part of that exchange. It was a result of incorrect placing of quote tags by the author.

thank you odium and archangel those are two of the sanest posts I have seen on this thread. I have been trying to say the same things but keep getting caught up in digressions, both inspired by others and my own ...it is only ideas that keep us apart and as for the middle east, not until the needs of the people there are addressed will there be change. Perhaps this is good...perhaps a hard line stance from both sides will force the real examination of the issues but any approach to this that is wrapped up in religion (and I am no atheist, I am a liberal christian) and God on my sideism will just prolong the bloodshed. We don't need a god as the justification for human stupidity, we do it quite well on our own.

Originally posted by Nygdan
.........
Or, the third option. Continue to occupy the west bank and gaza strip. Don't bother to build any more settlements in it, and complete a wall that will prevent the vast majority of attacks from occuring, while at the same time blowing up every hamas meeting and burning down every "government" office. Hell, they may as well make another leg of the wall around the whole of the west bank, that'd keep other foreign agigtators out also.

Not only are they building it all the way around they are locking out people from their land.

The 'Green Line' and the path of the wall are two different things.

The wall is a land grab.

Armed robbery if you will.

Gush Shalom: The "Separation Wall" - separating Palestinians from their land...

Believe it or not there are Israeli Jews that believe the Wall is wrong, and they are among the majority of the world.

I think that a wall is a good idea, but the path of the current one is not an equitable solution.

It is an offense.

Gush Shalom: Background - Birth of the Separation Wall



Note:
Israel has the right of self defence. Not only a right, but an obligation to defend her citizens.
Some questions, however, remain to be answered:
Why is fence built deep inside Palestinian territories, rather than on the Green Line?
Will this path, designed by Sharon, provide more security? or is it part of a totally different agenda?
Background

The second phase of the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation started
on September 2000, after the failure of the Camp David summit between Ehud Barak
and Yassir Arafat.
After several suicide attacks in Israeli cities, the public started applying pressure
on the government to provide security.
After all actions aimed at breaking the Palestinian spirit, while maintaining the occupation, have failed, the government caved in to public demand, and started building a separation Wall.
The natural path was the green line - the border before the occupation started in 1967. So natural, in fact, that many did not even raise the issue of the path.
Some Israelis still believe the Wall is being built on the green line.
In fact, Sharon is building a Wall that is cutting deep into Palestinian territory (latest map) Is it necessary to uproot 115,000 Palestinian olive trees in order to "separate between us an them" ?
Is it necessary to separate thousands of Palestinians from their land?
Is it necessary to confiscate 37 wells that provide 4 million cubic meters of water, and about 25% of Palestinian territories?
When the Eastern Wall is built, the confiscation will amount to approximately 45% .
It is interesting to note, that the Wall planned by Sharon will annex the most fertile and rich land,
leaving the Palestinians with only 40% of their agricultural land. Visit one of these sites to find out the real reason for creating the Wall.

Continued...

Of course there is the other option of giving Palestinians full Israeli citizenship, and backing it up with a constitution that supports equal rights and defines a border.

But that would go against the racist idea of a 'Jewish Homeland'.

Prior to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Jewish population was spread out througout Europe, and the middle east. After World War II, the Jewish population became concentrated in the US and Israel. Europeans and Arabs basically kicked Jews off their land. However, the Arabs don't even want Jews to have little sliver of land, called Israel. The so-called "Palestinians" are kept out of the numerous Arab countries so that they can harras Jews.

Arafat was a liar and con-artist, who wanted to destroy Israel. However, he suceeded at "legitimizing" himself by claiming he wanted peace, and then failing to follow lots of peace proposals. However, his military Al-Asqua brigades conducted many suicide bombings againsts Israel, while his wife squandered his billions he received from foreign supporters.

Likewise, Hamas is devoted to the destruction of Israel. However, they are at least honest about it. Furthermore, they appear to actually honor their truces.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
There are so many outright lies in this post it would take we all weekend to clear them up so i'll start with this one now.
........................

Should we say that you are making outright lies with your statements because you are not presenting the whole truth on this?

Originally posted by ArchAngel
There was a nation called Palestine.

What did you think the area was called before Israel was born?

As you say it was an area, not a nation. there was never a nation known as Palestine, and most modern Palestinians are not truly descendants of the early Philistines(Palestinians). Today Palestinians took the name from that area as they migrated and fought for these lands, just like the Israelis did.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Did you think the land just rose up out of the sea with Jews already living on it?

Just like the Muslims assimilated and took the lands from most of the Middle East from other ethnic groups so did the Israeli people won those lands.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Even the Jews were Palestinians back then.

No.... Philistines (Palestinians) were;

The historic Philistines (פלשתים Hebrew plishtim) (see "other uses" below) were a people who inhabited the southern coast of Canaan around the time of the arrival of the Israelites, their territory being named Philistia in later contexts. Their origin has been debated among scholars, but modern archaeology has suggested early cultural links with the Mycenean world in mainland Greece.
...................
Origin of the Philistines
It has been suggested that the Philistines formed part of the great naval confederacy, the "Sea Peoples", who had wandered, at the beginning of the 12th century BCE, from their homeland in southern Greece and the Aegean islands to the shores of the Mediterranean and repeatedly attacked Egypt during the later Nineteenth Dynasty.

Excerpted from.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ArchAngel
There is no Palestinian nation now, only territories occupied by Israel that are refered to as Palestine.

Paletine was the area where the "sea people", which were mostly from southern Greece btw, lived for a while until the Muslim Invasions started in the 7th century A.D.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Israel invaded in a sneak attack in 1967 seizing these lands.

And 6 Muslim nations attacked Israel and were repelled by Israel alone....

Originally posted by ArchAngel
They 'created' it by stealing land from their neighbors.

Before that the lands were part of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

How can you say the Arabs created it when it was all the work of Israel?

Again, why do people want to claim that "Israel stole these lands" when the Muslims did the same by right of conquest in the past?....

Israel does not exist from "stealing land." The Palestinian state has not been really recognized because they decided not to accept any resolutions that would have given them a state and because as a government, they cannot support themselves as they always need the help of other nations to support themselves. By international law this means that Palestine has never been a nation/State.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Israel has never declared its borders so how could they change, and Israel has not declared the occupied territories to be part of Israel.

Israel is a nation which has been recognized by the UN and most of the world. The Palestinian authorities did not want to recognize Israel and rejected all resolutions that would have finally given them the right to call Palestine a nation/State.

Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israli cities and the Israeli government decided to take those areas of Palestine, or should we say Phillistine, to be able to protect, or try to protect their civilians from constant attacks by Palestinian terrorists.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Please try to look at the other side of the history.

What "other side of the story" do you want people to look at?.... that it seems most Palestinians want to destroy Israel like HAMAS wants because it seems that most Palestinians chose HAMAS to rule Palestine?

The Israelis might have done their share of inhuman acts, but in the overall they do not want the destruction of Palestine and all it's people. On the other hand it seems that most Palestinians do want the destruction of Israel and all it's people.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The truth lies somewhere in the middle, not the extreme Zionist viewpoint you seem to have been programmed with.

You do seem to agree and try to give credence to the extreme viewpoint of Hamas with your obvious statements that the Israelis "stole" the land, or they "stealthyly attacked Muslims lands according to you.... It was not stolen, nor is war a "stealthy" way to get land..... That land which you are mentioning was fought for and the israelis won, just like the Muslim nation won that land and most of the Middle East after the 7th century A.D.


[edit on 28-1-2006 by Muaddib]

There does seem to be a whole lot of lying going on in this thread, I have to agree with that. I think that most of the lies, though, are being spread by unwitting participants.

Let us set some pertinent facts straight and on the table, right off the bat. The first fact that can be set is the origin of the word, Palestine”. This word came about after the last time the Romans crushed a Jewish revolt. Afterward, it renamed Judea to “Palaestina”, in order to removed any connection to the Jewish people and minimize their connection to Israel.
Another fact to set straight is that the Jews do, in fact, have a definite claim to Palestine, or Israel. Many people think that they lost all ties to the land after they were forced into Diaspora, but this simply isn’t true. The Jews have always had ties to their homeland, not only with their own language, but also their own culture and traditions.
To put into a reference of time that Americans can understand, about twenty years after the Civil War, when there was a large immigration of Jews back to their homeland, there were only about 250,000 Arabs living in the area and most were new arrivals.

So far, we have seen that Israel was renamed Palaestina by the Romans in order to erase the pesky Jews’ history from the area, but still the Jews have always maintained communities, language and culture throughout the troubling times. But, what do the Arabs say about the whole idea of Palestine? Was there ever an Arab nation called Palestine? Well, let’s look back and see what they said.

We see what they6 said in 1919 at the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations by looking at this resolution:
“We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We care connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.”
I suppose this might even fall in line with what Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission: “There is no such country as Palestine! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for century’s part of Syria.”
This could be dragged out some more, but the point has been made; there is no “Palestine” to the Arabs. As a matter of fact, the term “Palestinian” was more specific to the Jew, and the Arab found it a little irritating to be called by that name back before it was politically convenient.

Now, we have covered where the term came from and who has kept ties to that area, and we have also read what a resolution by the First Congress of Arab-Christian Associations had to say, but what really was the “economic” state of the Arab “Palestine”?
A description of the Maritime Plain in 1913, from the Palestine Royal Commission:

“The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts…no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna (A Jewish village).”
Fairly desolate, huh? The reports get no better:
“Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen.”
“The ploughs used were wood.”
The yields were very poor.”
“Sanitary conditions in the villages were horrible.”
“Schools did not exist.”
“The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.”

Another description, this time from British Director of Development, Lewis French, in regard to “Palestine”:
“We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria.
“The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor those and other criminals. The individual plots changed hands annually.”
It would seem that whatever economic ties to this area was had by the Arabs, it was either criminal or not worth having at all.

This is beside the point, though, as there is no such thing as Palestine, according to the Muslim, and these Arabs parading as “Palestinians” (a name that was originally a slight slur to the Arab, meant mainly for the Jew) actually belong to Syria, by logic.

Now, let us think for a moment about the region, before we go any farther. As a matter of fact, please take note of the maps so kindly offered to us by Arch Angel above. Take note the size the Jews have, compared to the vast area of land the Arabs enjoy. Also, take note that none of the Jew-bashers and Arab apologists ever bother to mention that the land comparison is ridiculous and that it is shameful that this discussion is even being made. It is being made, however, so let us continue a little farther. Not much farther, though, as my back is tired of being hunched over this infernal keyboard, and I probably should get back to my duties.

The Arabs who became refugees after leaving their homes did so voluntarily and not because the Jewish Israelis were going to do them harm. If any external force assisted their decision it was their Arab leadership. They were directed to vacate their homes so that invading Arab armies could destroy the infant Israel and run the Jews into the sea and after which time, the Arabs would have all of the land. Rather than staying in their communities and living their lives in relative prosperity, the Arabs left, thinking the invaders would kill the Jews and they would be able to return in a matter of days or weeks. So, the Arab refugee problem was created by the Arab leadership, and it seems pretty clear that the Arab leadership should resolve their problem. The fact that these people are Syrians by the words of the Arabs themselves; it seems clear where these people should be resettled. They should be given back their original places, you say? Gee, you probably think you can have your cake and eat it, too, don’t you? Since when did it say, “To the losing aggressor goes the spoils”?
I would like to take the time to address one more lie that I have read, and that the 1967 War was a sneak attack. It is insinuated that the Israelis acted out of a land grab. This is absurd when one looks at some very revealing facts.
Arab terrorist attacks were numerous before the ’67 war. In the two years beforehand, there were 76 of them. There were an additional 37 attacks launched in the first quarter of ’67. Syrian attacks from the Golan Heights seem to be not mentioned in the assertion that Israel’s preemptive strike was deceitful. It is also not mentioned that on May 15, Egyptian troops were massing near the Israeli border in the Sinai, and Syrian troops were making ready for war in the Golan Heights. The Arabs ordered the U.N. Emergency Force out of the Sinai and the Voice of the Arabs declared this on 18 May:
“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain anymore to the U.N. about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.”

I don’t think I have to go any farther in regard to the ’67 War. As a matter of fact, this is a good place to stop for the time being.

I think the Hamas win in the Palestinian elections was more of a protest vote against the graft and corruption of Fatah than an endorsement of Hamas. Be that as it may however, Hamas clearly won the election and the election seems to have been a fair one. Hamas will now have to take responsibility for both the good and the bad they do, they will have to run the government, keep roads repaired, schools open, administrative centers functioning, the legal system working, etc, etc.... As someone pointed out earlier, this will be a new role for Hamas and one they may not particularly like. This election could well be the beginning of the end of Hamas as it has been known now for many years.

I have seen some very polarized posts concerning the violent history of the area. Some say the Israelis stole the land from the Palestinians, but as I recall, the Israelis actually bought a lot of the land they are accused of stealing. Suffice it to say that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have clean hands in their past dealings with one another. The problem is a lot more complex than we tend to think of it and neither side is wholly right or wrong--just different.

The crux of the issue before us just now is what is happening now, what should happen now and how can some sort of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians be achieved. I, for one, do not believe an appropriate response by the Israelis would be to simply destroy everything they have worked so hard to bring about. Hamas won the election and now represents the majority of the Palestinians; therefore, they must be included in discussions concerning the area and people therein. Like it or not both the U.S., E.U., Russia, Israel, and everyone else will have to talk with Hamas. The Israelis cannot simply close all the borders and isolate themselves and I don't believe they will. They are a very pragmatic nation and will do whatever is in their best interest globally--not just regionally.

P.S.,
Great history lesson T.C.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Astronomer68]

In one respect, having Hamas as the legitimate government of Palestine should simplify the peace process. Now, when an agreement is reached, Hamas cannot disavow that agreement and continue attacks on Israel and they can't say they don't have the power to prevent/control those attacks either because they clearly do. Nope, Hamas has put themselves in a hell of a position for an avowed terrorist group to be in.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

the Jew-bashers and Arab apologists


I am not going to argue the issue on this thread anymore even though what I have read paints a different one that the one TC does.

I will say this however: Just because I don't support Isreal, doesn't mean that I am a jew-basher or hate them, nor does it mean I support the Arabs either. I am just smart enough and unblinded enough by dogma to know that as I have said before, there are no innocents in this conflict, both sides hands are bloodied.

Also, just because I feel that the sanest thing to do is to remove religion from the arguement, does not mean I consider it silly or support Islam over Judaism or Christianity, just as just because I reject fundamentalism in Christianity (as I do fundamentalism in all religions as a henderance to real discourse) does not mean I reject Christianity, only the fundamentalist version of it, which is not, dispite what they claim, the only true version of the faith. I understand that if God's word is infinate, then it has infinate meanings and interpetations and that no single interpetation is authoritive.

Also, just because I disapprove of Bushes policies does not mean that I hate him...I don't care enough for the man to hate him, though I feel he is wrong more often than right and that his worldview is simplistic. Just because I try and see how our policies effect how the rest of the world looks at us, and am often critical of those policies does not mean I hate America. Far from it, but I can hat what is done in our name. Just because I do not support the Iraq war, does not mean I don't support our troops, again far from it, I am a veteran myself. I simply do not support the lies that they are bleeding and dying for.

The hard right is quick to claim that if you do not support_______ (fill in the blank) you hate America, or Bush or our troops and so forth, and like in so many things they are simply wrong. I can disagree with you and still love my country, or support our troops, have a different interpetation of Christianity and still be a Christian and so on. The either/or reteoric is not only a fallacy, its stupid and it sucks.

You aren't going to argue, yet you do. Interesting how that workls, isn't it?

Just as interesting as the same old lines I here all ovger the placy; I am not against the Jews, I just want to see Israel and it's none-Arabic citizens destryed, pushed into the sea.

Yup. I see the logic, don't you.

By the way, I have read the same stuff you have, the problem is, none of it stacks up against the documented evidence. Would their be any possible lying going on? Is there any evidence that this could be, besides the scriptural evidence from the Arab's own religious documentation? Maybe we could discuss Deir Yassin, for example? My back is still in knots from hunching over this infernal keyboard last night; if anyone is interested in Deir Yassin (I believe the spelling is correct. If not, I'll bet nickels to donuts that Google will correct it!) give it a search.

Allah willing, this unjust state... Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States will be erased; this unjust state, Britain will be erased... Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sakeof Allah... Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his son's and plunged into the midst of the Jews"
emphasis mine.
sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mahdi a few days after Yassir Arafat's cease-fire declaration, PA. Television, June 08, 2001

We distinguish the strategic, long term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure.
Faisel Husseini, Al-Arabi, June 24, 2001
(Yup, believe any agreement or accord if you want. They admit what they are, but don't listen to it; it'll crew up thelies you tell yourself)

Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him from his revenge on them was not enough.
Columnist Ahmed Rageb, Al-Akhbar (Egypt) April 18, 2001.

By the way, Subz, there are a few examples of their own words that I promised you. I know you can't applaud me for the hard work I put in to these last two posts as I am staff, but I know the sentiment is there, buddy; thanks.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
You aren't going to argue, yet you do. Interesting how that workls, isn't it?

Just as interesting as the same old lines I here all ovger the placy; I am not against the Jews, I just want to see Israel and it's none-Arabic citizens destryed, pushed into the sea.

I am sick and tired of idiots like you putting words in my mouth...I never said anything like that or implied it, nor would I. Nor have I seen anyone else on here say or imply it either, just you saying we were...if you cannot quote me accurately, don't even try.

While seeming to present a deep look into the meaning of Palestine the above posters have skipped right over the the most important part without even blinking: The history from the end of WWI to 1948.

There are a lot of years in that span.

What was the land called in that time period?

The Answer is PALESTINE.

What were the citizens of that land called?

They were called Palestinians no matter if they were Muslim, Christian or Jew the same as all citizens of America are called American.

Was it a sovereign nation?

No, it was under British occupation.

Your confusion is ignoring this part of the history.

Before the end of WWI the Jewish population of the land to later be named Palestine was a little more than 10%.

Jews were a small minority.

The British allowed massive Jewish immigration, especially after WWII.

Although for a brief period of time, and not Sovereign, Palestine was very much a nation recognized by the League of Nations.

Before WWI it belonged to seveal different Islamic Empires stretching back 1200 years uninterupted other than the relatively brief periods of occupations by the Crusaders.



I ask the Zionist Apologists:

If it was not called Palestine in this period what was it called?

Was the land was ever a Jewish majority, or Jewish controled in the last thousand years?