It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tension over Hamas Rising

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
But, If you do your research, most attacks commited by Hamas are actually retaliations against Israel for a previous attack on Palestinians.....Israel is constantly sending missle strikes against the Palestinian people.


Now this is one of the most arrogant reversal of reality, I've seen on ATS. Goebbels would be proud of you.




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
They call themselves 'resistors of occupation' - certainly if *I* had been removed from my home and put in a squalid refugee camp so that another people could return to their 'promised land', I'd be a little irritated, to say the least. And I'm approaching this as someone who believed Israel has a right to exist.

Apparently TaupeDragon you have fallen for the usual "oppressor-victim" propaganda that has been established to play upon the Western worlds compassion and play upon sympathy to mask their nefarious agenda.
Let me ask you, if they were in such squalor and misery then how in the world would Arafat have a 3 mansions in Paris where he finances one wife and how would the leaders of the HAMAS have their kids educated in Europe and have mansions all across the middle east ?
Also how are the Palestinians able to procure explosives like Plastique and RDX despite the IDF alleged 'brutal policing' ?? Can they manufacture this locally by investing thousands in refrigeration units and chemicals and laboratory equipment ? Can they import these instead of buying food, clothes and a descent life for their people and children ?


They get millions form the US, from the Israelis (Oh yes them too!) and the entire Arab world to improve their condition. Yet in nearly 30 years there has not been any major construction or rehaul of the general conditions of the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Why is this so ?? What do they do with the money ??
The Palestinians get free education at Israeli schools, jobs, access medical care, access to civic amenities etc all this without charge. And what is asked from them in return ?
Stop killing !! Is that so totally alien that its very mention is incomprehensible ?

The present condition that they live in now are a product of their own doing, they have not availed the education provided by the Israelis nor the jobs nor the progress that the Jews brought to them. Instead they obstinately refuse to participate in a peaceful solution preferring rather to indulge their more primal instincts of decapitation and trauma with psychopathic relish .
That is the reason they are segregated, that is the reason that they are in morbid squalor not because the Jews have stolen "their" land.
In truth it is the other way around, what land they still posses is historically Jewish and so is Jordan and Lebanon and parts of Egypt . Do you see the Jews launching suicide attacks and killing their civilians ?
The State of Israel is well versed with the machinations of persecution and the horrors that this can cause, Jews have faced this for eons and nobody more than the Jews would jump to campaign for the rights of the oppressed . However Palestine presents an entirely different picture where the people who live in squalor have necessitated a segregation of themselves by their perpetual vehemence towards civility.


What would *you* do if your family had been kicked out of your land by a superior force and put on reservation? Not justifying suicide bombings or anything, but how would you resist? When would you know you were beaten, and just accept your new existence?

Had I been in the Palestinians present state I would most sensibly have taken any one of the free homes that the Israelis have built, gotten a job, sent my kids to school whereby I satisfy my basics needs first. Then I would set about disassociating myself from the brazen cowardice that the others have resorted to and gain credibility as a moderate, just and equitable group that is willing to compromise and develop the general situation as a whole. By gaining credibility I would not only hold the Israelis morally responsible to respond with reciprocity. This reciprocity would act as the foundation for furthering both positions.
But the Palestinians today are in a state of anarchy and the only common thread that holds them together is hate. Reason doesn’t hold sway over their actions any longer.



I'd take issue with the 'Freedom is Not Acheived Through Terrorism' line. Sinn Fein/IRA didn't 'win', but they certainly took the British Government to the negotiating table. The Stern Gang bombed the British out of Palestine/Israel.
en.wikipedia.org...

Firstly, the Israelis are ever ready to resolve the situation through negotiation as long as the Palestinians stop the reckless killing but they are unable to kick their addiction.
Secondly, the British left Israel because that was the original plan and by retreating tactically they saved face and Churchill could still show his face in public even after the dubiousness he employed in trying to cheat the Jews and the Arabs thereby principally responsible for the entire mess the region is in now.
Never has terrorism led to Peace that lasts and it never will. It is either through outright war or outright civil disobedience before anything can be achieved. History has taught us that, the African were able to shake off Apartheid and the Indians were able to shake off the British Empire, these are all examples of what HAVE been done and in today’s world of ubiquitous media coverage a non-violent struggle is all the more easier.



From their point of view, their country was stolen from them in the 1940's and their people displaced into 'refugee camps', where they have been living ever since, mainly because the Europeans felt bad about murdering millions of Jews in the 1930s'/40's.

This statement is self-explanatory about the scope of your comprehension on the issue. Let me just say that Israel was "guaranteed" to the Jews much before WW2 had even taken place by the sovereign of the British Empire.


Why *would* the Palestinian electorate vote for a 'compromise' that legitamizes their plight?

So instead they compromise all that they have worked for these past few decades in some vain exhibition of defiance??
Jerusalem on the other hand is still shared by the two parties, it is clearly more Jewish than Arab ( the name itself is indicative! ) Yet the Jews are ever accommodative. The Palestinians on the other hand seek to pervert the undeniable Jewish identity and value of the city.

Their electorate now not doesn’t just legitimize their plight now but in fact vindicates their very intent towards the Jewish people. A defining moment in the history of the conflict. A validation of Israeli claims and a proclamation of intent by the Palestinians.


Whoah! Substitute 'Jew' for 'Palestinian' and you'd sound like a German in the 1930's!

No, If we get around to writing, " Don't buy from this ARAB "/ " Arabs are scum" etc and start parading them naked in public then I think we can come close to that comparison.
[[ edit : Above statements are ment as examples only ! ]]



Walk a mile in their shoes before you make statements like that - maybe you *would* be singing 'Give Peace a Chance' as occupiers bulldozed your family home and threw you off your land.


I would think that the Jews have had enough "miles" on their shoes to know how to treat people.
As for ME, I can say that you might want to walk a mile in the Israelis shoes before you can lay judgement on what is and what isnt a justified accusation.


It's amazing that a country which is sacred to three related and major world religions has inspired so much evil and inhumanity over the past 1,000 years. It's enough to turn anyone into an atheist!

It isnt the land that is to blame, neither is it faith. The only culprit that can be claimed here is vanity.



IAF

[edit on 28-1-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Taupe, did you read my lengthy post that I linked you to? Apparently not.

No Arabs (no such thing as "Palestinians" as was adopted for political lies, no such people, no such nation) were removed or displaced in the creation of Israel. Those Arabs who displaced themselves so that the rest of the Arab world could try and slaughter the Jews have no right to return. When you throw the bones, don't try and get your money back when you lose.
Also, As anyone who knows history can tell you, Judea and Samaria are a part of Israel. Also, as anyone who knows, they were originally supposed to be part of the area for the Jews. Regardless, due to Arab agression, the "West Bank" (Properly called Judea and Samaria) was lost to the rightful owners (funny how the truth sounds awkward, but it is as it is), and due to this fact, the Arabs can stop whining.

Again, as the "Palestinians" are actually Syrian,. why is it that Syria won't help their brethren, their citizenry, by repatriating them?

Sure, there is a LOT of brotherhood in the Arab world. They talk about it all the time. You mean that isn't exactly the truth, either? Man. It seems that one can't believe any of the political bantering and strategic positioning anymore!



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   


Apparently TaupeDragon you have fallen for the usual "oppressor-victim" propaganda that has been established to play upon the Western worlds compassion and play upon sympathy to mask their nefarious agenda.
Let me ask you, if they were in such squalor and misery then how in the world would Arafat have a 3 mansions in Paris where he finances one wife and how would the leaders of the HAMAS have their kids educated in Europe and have mansions all across the middle east ?


Are you saying that dictators 'skim' from aid donations whilst the population suffers? Not arguing with you there. If you are saying that Arafat pocketed vast sums, again, I would agree wholeheartedly with you.

How this transmutes into the bulk of the populaton of Gaza living in anything other than squalor is beyond me.



Also how are the palestinians able to procure explosives like Plastique and RDX despite the IDF alleged 'brutal policing' ?? Can they manufacture this locally by investing thousands in refrigeration units and chemicals and labratory equipment ? Can they import these instead of buying food, clothes and a descent life for theri people and children ?


I never accused the IDF of brutal policing. This argument is concerning the election of Hamas, an extremist organisation, by the Palestinians. I was simply trying to find reasons why a population would elect terrorists - economic deprivation, political corruption and political injustice are three very powerful ones.



They get millions form the US, from the Israelis (Oh yes them too!) and the entire Arab world to improve their condition. Yet in nearly 30 years their has not been any major construction or rehaul of the general conditions of the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Why is this so ?? What do they do with the money ??


As I said before, corruption in Arab dictatorships is pretty much taken as read. I have never argued that most of the money didn't get siphoned away. My point it that a fair election returned an extremist organisation, and I was trying to rationalize *why*, rather than just condemning it routinely without any attempt at understanding the situation.



The palestinians get free education at Israeli schools, jobs, access medical care, access to civic amenities etc all this without charge. And what is asked from them in return ?
Stop killing !! Is that so totally alien that its very mention is incomprehensible ?

The present condition that they live in now are a product of their own doing, they have not availed the education provided by the israelis nor the jobs nor the progress that the Jews brought to them. Instead they obstinately refuse to participate in a peacefull solution prefering rather to indulge their more primal instincts of decapitation and trauma with psychopathic relish .


Were, or were not Palestinians displaced en masse during the creation of Israel? Do they have a right to be angry about this?

Is or is not Gaza an overcrowded hell-hole?

Are or are not useful resources mostly outwith Gaza and the West Bank?

Would or would not you fight if your family were removed from your home and place of birth and placed in a refugee camp?



That is the reason they are segragated, that is the reason that they are in morbid squallor not because the Jews have stolen "their" land.
In truth it is the other way around, what land they still posses is historicaly Jewish and so is Jordan and Lebanon and parts of Egypt . Do you see the Jews launching suicide attacks and killing their civilians ?


I am not saying it was 'stolen', but the perception is that it *was * stolen.

If we are talking 'historical' land rights, I look forward to North America being returned to the Aboriginals ASAP.
)

I utterly condemn suicide bombings against civilians. The question arises *how* an utterly inferior force fights against a military superior one. They can hardly 'stand up and fight', can they? Throwing rocks at tanks doesn't seem to effective, either.



The State of Israel is well versed with the machinations of persecution and the horrors that this can cause, Jews have faced this for eons and nobody more than the Jews would jump to campaigne for the rights of the oppressed . However Palestine presents an entirely different picture where the people who live in squallor have nessesitated a segregation themselves by their perpetual vehemence.


I am not denying the persecution of Jews historically, nor the Holocaust, nor the right of Israel to exist as a state. My question remains however - do you deny that Palestinians who had lived in Palestine/Israel for generations were displaced? Do they have a right to be angry about this? A history of oppression does not give a race the right to oppress another race.

Are you saying that Palestinians live in squalor because they are Palestinian? Sounds like the sort of thing more right-wing politicians in Europe say about gypsies. I would argue that the Palestinians live in squalor because of the squalid way they have been treated.



What would *you* do if your family had been kicked out of your land by a superior force and put on reservation? Not justifying suicide bombings or anything, but how would you resist? When would you know you were beaten, and just accept your new existence?




Had I been in the Palestinians present state I would most sensibly have taken any one of the free homes that the Isrealis have built, gotten a job, sent my kids to school whereby I satisfy my basics needs first. Then I would set to dissassociate myself from the brazen cowardic that the others have resorted to and gain credibility as a morderate just and equitable group that is willing to compramise and develop the general situtaion as a whole.


I don't think that any of us could put themselves in the position of being evicted and displaced by a 'foreign' power. I am sure that sizeable minority of us would fight - by any means necessary.

Are you seriously suggesting that Palestinians would be in some way grateful for being given 'free homes' after losing their farms and houses? How many Palestinian diaspora have ended up in Jordan with no right of return? I don't see *them* getting any thing.

I think the point is that moderates don't flourish in conditions of rank injustice. I believe that Arafat was willing to settle on Gaza and the West Bank with East Jerusalem - which is a pretty big compromise if you're a Palestinian - but the Israelis wouldn't budge on their eternal capital.

There's compromise and there's abject surrender. You need to see the difference between the two.



By gainig credibility I would not only hold the Isrealis morally responsible to respond with reciprocity. This reciporcity would act as the foundation for furthering both positions.
But the Palestinians today are in a state of anarchy and the only common thread that holds them together is hate. Reason doesnt hold sway over their actions anylonger.


Democracy isn't pretty, but what would you prefer? A dictator? You may loathe the result, but a people have spoken - you must surely hear at least a little of what they are saying in this result. Or do you simply loathe the people?



I'd take issue with the 'Freedom is Not Acheived Through Terrorism' line. Sinn Fein/IRA didn't 'win', but they certainly took the British Government to the negotiating table. The Stern Gang bombed the British out of Palestine/Israel.
en.wikipedia.org...




Firstly, the Israelis are ever ready to resolve the situtaion through negotiation as long as the Palestinians stop the reckless killing but they are unable to kick their addiction.
Secondly, the British left Israel because that was the original plan and by retreating tactically they saved face and Churchill could still show his face in public even after the dubiousness he employed in trying to cheat the Jews and the Arabs thereby principaly responsible for the entire mess the region is in now.


They're probably not willing to negotiate on East Jerusalem. They're definitely not going to negotiate on the right of return of refugees because it would destroy them demographically. The best chance for peace happened in the 90's and now it's all gone back to blood, land tribalism and religion, which suits extremists on both sides fine.

My point was that someone had said that terrorism never worked. I simply pointed out that Sinn Fein/IRA the Stern Gang are both terrorists who became politicians, and democrats, and in some way achieved their aims.

The region is mess because two tribes are fighting over the same piece of land. And you can dress it up any way you want to, but that's what it comes down to.



Never has terrorism led to Peace that lasts and it never will. It is either through outright war or outright civil disobedience that anything can be acheived.


Eire.

Northern Ireland.

South Africa.

Israel

Algeria

Rhodesia/Zimbabwe

Kenya

Terrorists/Freedom fighters brough governments to the negotiating table. Some of those states are stable, some are basketcases, but then again, they probably would be regardless.



From their point of view, their country was stolen from them in the 1940's and their people displaced into 'refugee camps', where they have been living ever since, mainly because the Europeans felt bad about murdering millions of Jews in the 1930s'/40's.




This statement is self-explainatory to the depth of your comprehension on the entire issue. Let me just say that Israel was "gaurenteed" to the Jews much before WW2 had even taken place by the sovereign of the British Empire.


Ahem. Did anyone ask the people who were living there at the time?
I'm fully aware of the Balfour Declaration, and I haven't stooped to questioning your comprehension of the subject.

I simply found the smug condemnation of entire people by affluent Americans with *no* recognition of the moral complexities of situation a little irritating. If someone would just admit that people got kicked out of their homes and had a right to be angry I would have found it less irritating.


So instead they compramise all that they have worked for these past few decades in some vain exhibiton of defiance ??


When would you know you were beaten? When would you accept you were never going home?



Jeruselem on the other hand is still shared by the two parties, it is clearly more jewish than Arab ( the name itself is indicative! ) yet the jews are ever accomodative. The Palestinians on the other hand seek to pervert the undeniable jewish identity and value of the city.


Demographics before 1940, please?
Demographics of "Arab East Jerusalem' pre-1967, please?

'Pervert' is a perjorative term. You cannot reasonably deny they had a presence in Israel any more than they can deny Jews have a historical right to live there.


Their electorate now not doesnt just legitamize their plight now but in fact vindicates their very intent towards the Jewish people. A defining moment in the history of the conflict. A validation of Israeli claims and a proclamation of intent by the Palestinians.


Two peoples, one land and buckets of blood. They're at war and having been losing for 60 years. What do you expect them to do? Give up?



No, If we get around to writing " dont buy from this ARAB "/ " Arabs are scum"etc and start parading them naked in public then I think we can come close to that comparision.


Someone called the Palestinian people 'Demons'. An entire people. Reverse that statement and think about it.




I would think that the Jews have had enough "miles" on their shoes to know how to treat people.
As for ME, I can say that you might want to walk a mile in the Israelis shoes before you can lay judgement on what is and what isnt a justified accusation.


Am I denying the Holocaust? No. Am I denying the persecution and pograms in Europe?

Are you denying Palestinians were evicted from Palestine to create Israel? Are you denying their right to anger about their current conditions?



It isnt the land that is to blame, neither is it faith. The only culprit that can be claimed here is vanity.


The more I see what does to people religion, the less I believe in God.

TD

Have to take to dog to the vet - will try to edit this later!

mod edit to fix quotes

[edit on 28-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 28-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon

Northern Ireland.

NI's peace was not made by terrorism. You'd be a fool to think it was.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by TaupeDragon

Northern Ireland.

NI's peace was not made by terrorism. You'd be a fool to think it was.


Yet it did work in Algeria.

They may have still been a French colony today were it not for the terrorist acts of the Algerian resistance.

Maybe it is not as well known in your reading circles, but most every arab, and Muslim knows that occupiers have fled in the face of endless terror attacks.

The difference being strength of motive where France did not want to steal Algerian land as much as Israel wants to steal Palestinian land.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Yet it did work in Algeria.

They may have still been a French colony today were it not for the terrorist acts of the Algerian resistance.

Maybe it is not as well known in your reading circles, but most every arab, and Muslim knows that occupiers have fled in the face of endless terror attacks.

The difference being strength of motive where France did not want to steal Algerian land as much as Israel wants to steal Palestinian land.

Am I talking about algeria? Or anywhere else than NI? No.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Hey

Here's a link back at you

en.wikipedia.org...

It happened.



Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Taupe, did you read my lengthy post that I linked you to? Apparently not.

No Arabs (no such thing as "Palestinians" as was adopted for political lies, no such people, no such nation) were removed or displaced in the creation of Israel. Those Arabs who displaced themselves so that the rest of the Arab world could try and slaughter the Jews have no right to return. When you throw the bones, don't try and get your money back when you lose.
Also, As anyone who knows history can tell you, Judea and Samaria are a part of Israel. Also, as anyone who knows, they were originally supposed to be part of the area for the Jews. Regardless, due to Arab agression, the "West Bank" (Properly called Judea and Samaria) was lost to the rightful owners (funny how the truth sounds awkward, but it is as it is), and due to this fact, the Arabs can stop whining.

Again, as the "Palestinians" are actually Syrian,. why is it that Syria won't help their brethren, their citizenry, by repatriating them?

Sure, there is a LOT of brotherhood in the Arab world. They talk about it all the time. You mean that isn't exactly the truth, either? Man. It seems that one can't believe any of the political bantering and strategic positioning anymore!



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Are you seriously suggesting that the negotiations between the IRA and the British were not linked to the bombing campaign on the mainland, especially against the City of London?

I have no time for terrorism, but to suggest that Sinn Fein/IRA would have been invited into government if they were not effective at their joint policy of bombs and ballots is surely a denial of reality.

I'm not saying that the IRA 'won', rather that both sides reached a stalemate and reached a compromise position

TD


Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by TaupeDragon

Northern Ireland.

NI's peace was not made by terrorism. You'd be a fool to think it was.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Are you seriously suggesting that the negotiations between the IRA and the British were not linked to the bombing campaign on the mainland, especially against the City of London?

Yes I am, negotiations where put together after what 30 years of fighting, terrorism secure nothing but the fact that the army would be there.


I have no time for terrorism, but to suggest that Sinn Fein/IRA would have been invited into government if they were not effective at their joint policy of bombs and ballots is surely a denial of reality.

Sinn Fein havnt exaclty seen "eye to eye" with the IRA , you know that as well as me.


I'm not saying that the IRA 'won', rather that both sides reached a stalemate and reached a compromise position

Then you need to re read about NI.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Are you seriously suggesting that the negotiations between the IRA and the British were not linked to the bombing campaign on the mainland, especially against the City of London?


Yes I am, negotiations where put together after what 30 years of fighting, terrorism secure nothing but the fact that the army would be there.


Well, I'd respectfully disagree on that. It cost the British government a lot of money and manpower, meant that middle-class Protestants tended to leave for the mainland, and changed the demographics in favour of the Catholic minority.

*Before* the troubles started, there had been a more or less malign disinterest by the British government towards the treatment of the Catholic minority by Stormont, and that certainly changed after Bloody Sunday.

If the leaders of an armed faction, such as Adams and McGuinness got into government due to negotiations with the British, I'd hardly call it a defeat on their part. That there appears to be some sort of power share and quotas, where there was frank discrimination implies that there as something more than a resounding defeat for the IRA.

I would argue that no side was going to win militarily, and calmer heads on both sides realised that some sort of negotiated settlement was going to have to happen.



Sinn Fein havnt exaclty seen "eye to eye" with the IRA , you know that as well as me.


Can you substantiate that statement? I was pretty much of the opinion that Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA, and that Gerry Adams carried the vast majority of that organisation with him. I appreciate that there have been offshoots, such as the Real IRA, and that the organisation appears to have 'diversified' into organized crime, however I was not aware of any frank struggle.

en.wikipedia.org...



Then you need to re read about NI.


I wasn't assuming any moral position about the IRA, and I would argue that my position is as well-informed as yours. If I have made any factual errors, then please show me where - maybe U2U would be best because this is going off topic!

Regards

TD

[edit on 28-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Well, I'd respectfully disagree on that. It cost the British government a lot of money and manpower, meant that middle-class Protestants tended to leave for the mainland, and changed the demographics in favour of the Catholic minority.

Why would it change the demographics to be in favour with the catholics ?



*Before* the troubles started, there had been a more or less malign disinterest by the British government towards the treatment of the Catholic minority by Stormont, and that certainly changed after Bloody Sunday.

Well its not often that an event like bloody sunday happens now does it?


If the leaders of an armed faction, such as Adams and McGuinness got into government due to negotiations with the British, I'd hardly call it a defeat on their part. That there appears to be some sort of power share and quotas, where there was frank discrimination implies that there as something more than a resounding defeat for the IRA.

Theres a difference between defeat and victory...


I would argue that no side was going to win militarily, and calmer heads on both sides realised that some sort of negotiated settlement was going to have to happen.

Yes I agree that calmer minds on both sides realised that negotiation was needed but frankly the terrorism didnt bring them to the negotiation table.



Can you substantiate that statement? I was pretty much of the opinion that Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA, and that Gerry Adams carried the vast majority of that organisation with him. I appreciate that there have been offshoots, such as the Real IRA, and that the organisation appears to have 'diversified' into organized crime, however I was not aware of any frank struggle.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sinn Fein has stood back and even complained about some IRA attacks, if my memory serves me right. The IRA has internal politics no matter what or who they hold loyalty to.



I wasn't assuming any moral position about the IRA, and I would argue that my position is as well-informed as yours. If I have made any factual errors, then please show me where - maybe U2U would be best because this is going off topic!

It is going slightly off topic, IMO you havent made errors but I believe you have...misunderstood what happened.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
... forgive me if Im wrong, but the palestinians want the israeli's to recognise the borders that were setup PRIOR to the 1967 war....

not remove israel COMPLETELY... just go back to the borders before Israel forcefully took the land..?


??..... please correct me if im wrong



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
what concerns me is how easily HAMAS is manipulated.

On one side they are the peaceful ideology helping their people

On the otherside they want to wipe all who don't believe from the face of the earth (namely ISREAL).

they can easily be seen as good but just as easily provoked into tyranny.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
On the otherside they want to wipe all who don't believe from the face of the earth (namely ISREAL).


Now, I might be reading your statement wrong. You'll have to correct me if I am. What it all boils down to is the demonized word, Jihad. Muslims have been fighting for centuries, even milenia. It's all part of thier religion, and it will be to the end of times. Nothing we do will change thier religion, and nothing they do will change yours.

Regarding the topic of the thread. I'm going to have to side with TD. I've been educating myself on this conflict for a few years now, and I just can't seem to agree with either side; but if I was forced to I would join in the Palistinian cause.

It's conflicts like this which have led me to become a Deist. I used to believe in athiesm since early childhood despite my Christian upbringing. Recently, I could not deny the existance of something greater, which led me to change my philosophies.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Are you saying that dictators 'skim' from aid donations whilst the population suffers?
How this transmutes into the bulk of the populaton of Gaza living in anything other than squalor is beyond me.
I was simply trying to find reasons why a population would elect terrorists - economic deprivation, political corruption and political injustice are three very powerful ones.

YES he didnt just 'skim' aid donations, he took fistfulls of it. To buy bombs and mansions, to pamper his wife's shopping sprees and to bribe arab leaders across the world into supporting his cause.
This transmutes on to society by reducing the share of rightfull aid that is meant for them without which they recede further into poverty.
Economic and political corruption are predipositions for arab politicians while political insjustice is a term that is alien to them . They believe in dictators who are elected not leaders who are accountabe. Demogogery and rhetoric is the only language that meets their ears.
I think it is clear form present events as to the scope of political justice that Palaestinians enforce upon themselves,with gunmen from either side resorting to steet fights and storming parliments.


I was trying to rationalize *why*, rather than just condemning it routinely without any attempt at understanding the situation.

Is that a question ? Why are arab politicians corrupt ??
Honestly, isnt it blatantly obvious !


Were, or were not Palestinians displaced en masse during the creation of Israel? Do they have a right to be angry about this?

Yes Palaestinians were displaced during the 1948 war BUT not by the Jews but by the Arab high council that wanted to clear out the Arabs from the path of the invasion armies of the Arabs that were ment to sweep through ISrael and massacre the Jews. When the Jews fought back and defeated not only the present Arab militia but also the invading forces they Arabs were cornered in the regions they had congregated at.
THAT is why the Palaestinians were displaced, Not because of any Jewish murdering hordes that the Arabs confabulate.


Is or is not Gaza an overcrowded hell-hole?

In 1948 after the war their were 10,000 jews and nearly 200,000 arabs. But where the number of jews has increased at geometrically the Arabs have bred Exponentially. Whos fault is that ? HAve the Jews abducted the Palaestinian women and impregenated them in some sick campaign against themselves ? Unlikely, the reason is that the Arabs hoped that through superior numbers and steady immigration they would be able to have demographic domination on the Jews.
(did you know that Arafat himself was born in Egypt and stayed there through out his childhood returning to Palaestine much after he started the PLO in Egypt. )


Are or are not useful resources mostly outwith Gaza and the West Bank?

Nonesense.
The West Bank is the most fertile region in Israel, the Gaza stip also has some of the best soil in Israel and not to mention they are a corridor to the entire Suez canal. Also Gaza is a very profitable region for the fishing industry.
Typically, the Arabs have not invested in such trivialities, why would they? They live of other fools across the world who work hard and pay taxes so their govt can pay them to blow up Jews and slack off all year long with petty excuses.
Hey its more profitable to strap a mentally retarded Palaestinian child with C4 and let him wander into an IDF cordon than it is to work 7 hrs a day .


Would or would not you fight if your family were removed from your home and place of birth and placed in a refugee camp?

NO I would not, especially if I were Palaestinian. As long as my family is safe, thats all that matters.
Is this meant to be some sort of rhetorical question becasue I dont see it.



I am not saying it was 'stolen', but the perception is that it *was * stolen.
If we are talking 'historical' land rights, I look forward to North America being returned to the Aboriginals ASAP.
)

That perception is amongst the ignorant or the ARabs. Everyone else knows better.
As for the Native Americans, they are free to try to take america any time from the 'pale face' .


I utterly condemn suicide bombings against civilians.
The question arises *how* an utterly inferior force fights against a military superior one.

I am glad to hear that.
How has any inferior force fought off a larger force? With no hope of victory.
Are you telling me that the Palaestinians are today facing more oppression than the Afrikans did with the Aparethied of South Africa ? Are you telling me that they are more miserable than Gandhi ? If he can kick off the British empire without a shot I am confident that any oppressed people can get their war. That is if they are truly oppressed in the first place.
Any petty excuses of 'suffering', 'mis-treatment' and 'injustice' is just a pitiful attempt at garnering sympathy, nothing else.



do you deny that Palestinians who had lived in Palestine/Israel for generations were displaced?
Do they have a right to be angry about this?
A history of oppression does not give a race the right to oppress another race.

No, I do not I have already explained why.
Nobody cares about their feelings, everybody cares about their actions.Bottom line- Stop killing innocent jewish Civilians.
HA ! Another one for the Arabs. That is another famous pice of pseudo-righteous babble that the Arabs have come up with. What oppression is there exactly, preventing somebody from murdering you and your entire people is not 'oppression'. Neither is it unjust. The only oppression in Palaestine is the 'oppression of reason ' by the Arabs there.


I would argue that the Palestinians live in squalor because of the squalid way they have been treated.

So giving free education, free healthcare, free homes, free civil ammentites, jobs, civil liberties, massive aid, the rule of law and freedom to speach are all - "SQUALID" treatment ?
What else in your opinion would you give to a people whose sole desire is to gut each and every one of your family along with your entire race and profess their utmost hate for you in every opportunity they get ?
The treatment meted out to them is beyond what they rightful deserve. It is due to this treatment and mollycoddling by the international community that their society has degenerated into a depraved and barbarous society which would rather spend time on carry out suicide bombings at hospitals and schools than earn a livelihood.


I don't think that any of us could put themselves in the position of being evicted and displaced by a 'foreign' power. I am sure that sizeable minority of us would fight - by any means necessary.

You still seem to believe that the Jews drove the pious Arabs out of their land and into the cattle sheds they live in now.

Not true. They were the ones who started a riot even after the Jews accepted a UN resolution to divide what little was given to them between them and the Arabs. The Arabs were the ones who called upon their "saviours" to massacre the "infidels" that live amongst them .

Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."



Are you seriously suggesting that Palestinians would be in some way grateful for being given 'free homes' after losing their farms and houses? How many Palestinian diaspora have ended up in Jordan with no right of return? I don't see *them* getting any thing.

Yes they should be gratefull. Not only for getting free homes but also for beign allowed to exsist in ISrael when they do not consider the Jews right to exsist.
And what "farms" are you talking about ?? They were bedouins and traders, the only thing they grew were dates and cactus. You think that it was some green paradise that the Jews enviously took back ??? Palaestine was nothing more than desert with smal pockets of arabs who lived on trade, sheep, camel breedig and dates.
[ICYDK-> Dates as in " date the fruit " not like " go on a date " ]

AS for Jordanian diaspora, they left on their own volition. That too at the behest of their leaders who also fled the land till it was " cleansed' of the Jews. What right is it that they claim from Israel ? Its not the JEws who drove them out, they left because they were afraid their invading brethern would mistake them for jews and thus face the same massacre that they had planned for the Jews.


I think the point is that moderates don't flourish in conditions of rank injustice. I believe that Arafat was willing to settle on Gaza and the West Bank with East Jerusalem - which is a pretty big compromise if you're a Palestinian - but the Israelis wouldn't budge on their eternal capital.

Really ? Wonder what Nelson Madela, Gandhi etc were doing when they were beaten up by riot police and jailed for dissent ??
Sure the "oppressors" then didnt use Apache gunships with precision guided bombs to blow up active terrorists rigging bombs on infants but still you get the picture.


There's compromise and there's abject surrender. You need to see the difference between the two.

It is a compramise, the Jews still let them stay in ISrael dont they ?? That is a compramise, why should they when they have beaten the arabs back not once but twice ? The Arabs on the other hand want more and more land, not to mention the inalienable right to fire mortors at jewish settlements as a spectator sport.


Democracy isn't pretty, but what would you prefer? A dictator? You may loathe the result, but a people have spoken - you must surely hear at least a little of what they are saying in this result. Or do you simply loathe the people?

I dont care if Hitler/Genghis Khan ran Palaestine, as long as they keep to themselves and let Israel remain "bomb-free" . What they do on their side is of no concern to Israel or to the international community.
Bottom line - The violence must stop.

All this result signifies is that the Palaestinians have stepped out of the shadows and have reveled their deperate and malicious intent to the world. A overwhelming majority only furthers to cement this picture as a truly cumulative one and not an abberation from the majority.
And No, its is not loathing but general contempt that I have for them .



My point was that someone had said that terrorism never worked. I simply pointed out that Sinn Fein/IRA the Stern Gang are both terrorists who became politicians, and democrats, and in some way achieved their aims.

WRONG ! The IRA has not acheived its aim, N.Ireland is still british and Westminister didnt talk to them because they threw a grenade at it. It was only when the violence stopped that the British decided to begin talks, these talks didnt result with N.Ireland gettin freedom and neither did it boost the economy in N.Ireland. Their was only a withdrawl of police and military and the situtaion went back to how it was before the IRA became so vociferous. The end result was the IRA joining active politics after they had abandoned any hope of freeing N.Ireland by force. This was mostly due to the lack of public support to the IRA and its murderous ways which any civilised society cannot stand. No respectable governmetn will yeild to threats from terrorists.


The region is mess because two tribes are fighting over the same piece of land. And you can dress it up any way you want to, but that's what it comes down to.

Its not about wo tribes fighing about one peice of land but rather or one tribe refusing to forge peace even after they have been defeated numerous times. Its about the intractibility of one side which has no locus standi over the situation and has nothing to bargain with.



Northern Ireland.

nope


South Africa.

No


Israel

Obviously NO !
Is there peace now after what the SG did ?


Algeria

Maybe but that was against the French. They couldnt hold on to it anyway.


Rhodesia/Zimbabwe
Kenya

Kenyatta was completely against the Mau MAu. Moreover the Mau Mau were defeated much before they received independence. The MauMau also was more guerilla warefare than terrorism. It was mainly after military and official buildings. I dont remember history ever saying that they bombed school busses or used suicide bombers to kill innocent children.
In the end it was Kenyatta and the KAU that through dialogue and representation were able to arrest freedom from the British.


From their point of view, their country was stolen from them in the 1940's and their people displaced into 'refugee camps', where they have been living ever since, mainly because the Europeans felt bad about murdering millions of Jews in the 1930s'/40's.

Well that is their perspective doesnt mean it is right. The NAzi's thought they were getting rid of gypsies and other undesirables by 're-location' little did the general public know that they were taken to camps where they were gassed.
What popular perception amongst the deluded is, is of little relevance, the truth of the matter is what counts. The truth is they do not believe in the Jews right to exsist, this has lead to deaths of many Jewish civilians and that has to stop FIRST.


Did anyone ask the people who were living there at the time?
I'm fully aware of the Balfour Declaration, and I haven't stooped to questioning your comprehension of the subject.

Whether you stooped or stretched, the fact remains that the means do not justify the end.
The Palaestinians cannot justify their terrorism by making some vainglorious political statement about 'freedom and justice' when the very path they resort to is contrary.
And yes the Arabs at first welcomed the Jews into Palaestine heralding them to be the bringers of wealth, progress and development to the moribund society that the Arabs called their own.


When would you know you were beaten? When would you accept you were never going home?

When the cost outweights the gains, that is when you have truly lost. The Palaestinians are way past the mark but are incapable of accepting the inescapable reality of their situation.


Demographics before 1940, please?
Demographics of "Arab East Jerusalem' pre-1967, please?

www1.cbs.gov.il...


'Pervert' is a perjorative term.

Your point being ??


You cannot reasonably deny they had a presence in Israel any more than they can deny Jews have a historical right to live there.

I'm not dening that they wandered the lands at that time. What I am refuting is the claim that the Arabs have more claim to the land than the JEws.


Two peoples, one land and buckets of blood. They're at war and having been losing for 60 years. What do you expect them to do? Give up?

Yes, atlest their armed 'struggle' . Political demonstrations and other means could continue but the killing must stop.


Someone called the Palestinian people 'Demons'. An entire people. Reverse that statement and think about it.

It was a question, a question that some agree with and some dont. Obviously you dont, that is your prerogative.


Are you denying Palestinians were evicted from Palestine to create Israel? Are you denying their right to anger about their current conditions?

Yes, they were not evicted they left because their leaders asked them too so that the Arab armies could come and route out the Jews. Also the UN declaration asked for what little remained of the jewsh state to be divided between the two groups and this resulted in massive relocations.
Their right to anger is irrelevant. I might be angry that I have to get up every morning and go to work, does that mean I strap a belt with explosives on and blow myself up at work ? It is not acceptable.

IAF



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
grim, freedom to kill more jews is all they gained.


I would have not take the time to write this if you had used the word "Israelis" instead of "jews".

It is the existence of the state of Israel that most Palestinians fight, not the existence of the Jewish people.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

YES he didnt just 'skim' aid donations, he took fistfulls of it. To buy bombs and mansions, to pamper his wife's shopping sprees and to bribe arab leaders across the world into supporting his cause.
This transmutes on to society by reducing the share of rightfull aid that is meant for them without which they recede further into poverty.


Morning!

Right. I think we can both agree that Fatah and Arafat are/were corrupt. I think that this corruption, and the economic mismanagement were among the main reasons that Hamas did so well in the elections.



Economic and political corruption are predipositions for arab politicians while political insjustice is a term that is alien to them . They believe in dictators who are elected not leaders who are accountabe. Demogogery and rhetoric is the only language that meets their ears.


Hmm. A massively corrupt government just got voted out and replaced by the opposition. Sounds like accountability to me.

We really can't all complain about 'arab dictators' and then bitch when we don't like who they vote for.



I think it is clear form present events as to the scope of political justice that Palaestinians enforce upon themselves,with gunmen from either side resorting to steet fights and storming parliments.


Fatah didn't like the result, they seem to have regarded themselves as having a right to govern, rather than being there under the sufferance of their people. A bit like the Liberal Party in Canada.


I can remember the Spanish military storming the newly elected parliament in Madrid just after their first free elections; I can certainly remember the South Koreans being ruled by a miltary junta until the 1980s. Both are now stable democracies.



Is that a question ? Why are arab politicians corrupt ??
Honestly, isnt it blatantly obvious !


I sort of can't see the point of this. Unaccountable autocrats are corrupt. No-brainer. Accountable governments that are corrupt get thrown out of office. You don't like the result, the electorate did - that's democracy.



Yes Palaestinians were displaced during the 1948 war BUT not by the Jews but by the Arab high council that wanted to clear out the Arabs from the path of the invasion armies of the Arabs that were ment to sweep through ISrael and massacre the Jews. When the Jews fought back and defeated not only the present Arab militia but also the invading forces they Arabs were cornered in the regions they had congregated at.


Oh come on. I know that this is a hot potato amongst the Israeli v Palestinian factions, however you're really not going to deny that a *lot* of people were displaced against their will, are you?

en.wikipedia.org...

and specifically,

en.wikipedia.org...

and importantly,

en.wikipedia.org...

Bad stuff happened. I'm not saying that the Israelis are evil zionists, but a lot of non-Jewish people were displaced against their will.

People get rightly furious about revisionists like David Irving denying the Holocaust. Some sort of acknowledgement that a forced Palestinian exodus, to *some* extent, happened would be gracious on your part.



THAT is why the Palaestinians were displaced, Not because of any Jewish murdering hordes that the Arabs confabulate.


Again, I refer you to my last paragraph. Bad stuff happened. You can put your head in the sand and condemn all Palestinians as irrational hysterics and anti-semites, or you can acknowledge that there are usually reasons for wars.



In 1948 after the war their were 10,000 jews and nearly 200,000 arabs. But where the number of jews has increased at geometrically the Arabs have bred Exponentially. Whos fault is that ? HAve the Jews abducted the Palaestinian women and impregenated them in some sick campaign against themselves ? Unlikely, the reason is that the Arabs hoped that through superior numbers and steady immigration they would be able to have demographic domination on the Jews.


The 'lesser races breeding like rabbits' line I tend to find slightly distasteful - I've heard it in other contexts, usual with respect to Africans, and it's never pretty. What would you suggest, mass sterilisation?

Demographics is important, as the founders of Israel knew - the Jewish population was around 11% of Palestine/Israel before 1922, and around 30% in 1940. Source

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's a graph of the population curve arab to israeli:

www.israelipalestinianprocon.org...

I think it's fair to say that both sides are playing the demographics game - one through mass immigration, the other through a higher birth rate. Can you claim a moral superiority for either?


(did you know that Arafat himself was born in Egypt and stayed there through out his childhood returning to Palaestine much after he started the PLO in Egypt. )


Yup. Never said I had much time for Arafat or Palestinian terrorists in general, either. Just don't like unfairness, bias and frank racism. Which is why I felt compelled to weigh in on this topic.




Would or would not you fight if your family were removed from your home and place of birth and placed in a refugee camp?


NO I would not, especially if I were Palaestinian. As long as my family is safe, thats all that matters.
Is this meant to be some sort of rhetorical question becasue I dont see it.



I don't think that *any* of us in the West can make that statement - we have pretty firm legal and constitutional rights. We have never been put in this position and never will. If my home had been stolen and I was placed in a refugee camp I would be pretty furious. I find the denial of their genuine right to anger slightly distasteful.

Ever heard of the Absentee Property Law that was passed in Israel in 1950? Thought not. Meant that the property and land of Palestinians who had been evicted (or left of their own free will, ahem), or indeed had only moved to a neighbouring village for a couple of days, lost the lot.

What do you expect, gratitude?

It's mentioned in the original Wikipedia link, it's also covered here:

www.arts.mcgill.ca...




That perception is amongst the ignorant or the ARabs. Everyone else knows better.
As for the Native Americans, they are free to try to take america any time from the 'pale face' .


My point was, there is a moral inconsistency here. It was argued that the Israelis have a 'historical right' to their homeland, to the extent of displacing the people who had lived there for generations. There were there first. Fair enough. Not going to argue with you - see you back in Europe!



I utterly condemn suicide bombings against civilians.
The question arises *how* an utterly inferior force fights against a military superior one.



I am glad to hear that.
How has any inferior force fought off a larger force? With no hope of victory.
Are you telling me that the Palaestinians are today facing more oppression than the Afrikans did with the Aparethied of South Africa ? Are you telling me that they are more miserable than Gandhi ? If he can kick off the British empire without a shot I am confident that any oppressed people can get their war. That is if they are truly oppressed in the first place.
Any petty excuses of 'suffering', 'mis-treatment' and 'injustice' is just a pitiful attempt at garnering sympathy, nothing else.


Define oppression. Losing your homes and farms? Being denied a right of return? Having zero economic power or access to resources?

I think we really have two different perceptions of reality here, and I really don't think that anything I can write is going to change your position. There was a 'land-grab', people were displaced and their property and land stolen. I've provided the best sources I can, and all I am getting in return is, 'No they weren't, No they didn't, Palestine was unpopulated etc etc'.

Look at the links, read them and draw your own opinions - there appears to be a consensus that bad stuff happened in the foundation of Israel. It may not justify the response, but it needs to be acknowledged, otherwise you are well down the road to demonizing an entire people.

Here's a UN General Assembly Document from around 1950 effectively saying that maybe it would be nice if the 711,000 refugees got a chance to go home and have their homes back.

domino.un.org

Pretty sure they're still waiting.

The British I think left because 80,000 soldiers didn't have a hope in hell of controlling 500,000,000 people intent on independence.



No, I do not I have already explained why.
Nobody cares about their feelings, everybody cares about their actions.Bottom line- Stop killing innocent jewish Civilians.
HA ! Another one for the Arabs. That is another famous pice of pseudo-righteous babble that the Arabs have come up with. What oppression is there exactly, preventing somebody from murdering you and your entire people is not 'oppression'. Neither is it unjust. The only oppression in Palaestine is the 'oppression of reason ' by the Arabs there.


Again, I condemn terrorism in all it's forms. This thread started about the election of an extreme organisation into the Palestinian parliament. My point simply is that unless there is an understanding of the reasons behind the conflict, there is never going to be solution.

The only thing these posts seem to have achieved is to demonstrate that some people will not look beyond their own prejudices before rushing to judgement. I think that I have demonstrated that the roots of this conflict lie in the manner in which Israel was created, and the unjust way in which the Palestinians were treated.

I'm not going to persuade you and you're not going to persuade me. A bit like the Israelis and Palestinians really. It's all a bit depressing.




So giving free education, free healthcare, free homes, free civil ammentites, jobs, civil liberties, massive aid, the rule of law and freedom to speach are all - "SQUALID" treatment ?


How is ethnic cleansing anything other than squalid? I think they'd probably just like a right to return to their homes and their property back, please. Probably capable of doing the other things on their own if given the opportunity.



What else in your opinion would you give to a people whose sole desire is to gut each and every one of your family along with your entire race and profess their utmost hate for you in every opportunity they get ?


You've really got to get over the branding an entire race as evil thing. It leads to gas chambers.

As I said before, it comes down to blood and land. People had their land taken from them and were evicted from their country. What do you expect them to do? Say, 'Thanks very much!'? It's a war, they're losing it and are doing desperate things.



The treatment meted out to them is beyond what they rightful deserve. It is due to this treatment and mollycoddling by the international community that their society has degenerated into a depraved and barbarous society which would rather spend time on carry out suicide bombings at hospitals and schools than earn a livelihood.


I agree. No-one rightfully deserves to be forced from their homes, even if their abusers were themselves horribly abused in their former countries.

I don't think confining two million people to about 60 square miles counts as mollycoddlying.

I think that it is difficult to form a civil society when you are at war.

I think the reaction of certain aspects of American society towards Arabs is frankly racist. It's certainly ugly.



You still seem to believe that the Jews drove the pious Arabs out of their land and into the cattle sheds they live in now.


Um, yes actually. See the links! I couldn't comment on their piety, however.



Not true. They were the ones who started a riot even after the Jews accepted a UN resolution to divide what little was given to them between them and the Arabs. The Arabs were the ones who called upon their "saviours" to massacre the "infidels" that live amongst them .

Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."



Umm. Bad things happened on both sides in the foundation of Israel. See links above. Also, if we're talking about using biased sources, which is fair enough, how about this quote?


"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159) Ben-Gurion

Or how about this one?

"Whatever became of the slogan: A people without a land returns to land without a people? The simple truth was that Palestine was not an empty land, and the Jews were only a small minority of its population. In the days of the empire building, the Western powers had dismissed natives as an inconsequential factor in determining whether or not to settle a territory with immigrants. Even after the [1st] world war, the concept of self-determination . . . . was still reserved exclusively for the developed world." (Michael Bar-Zohar - Official Biographer of Ben-Gurion

I've tried to keep this debate rational, and have provided the best evidence I can to back up what I say. All I really seem to be hearing from you is:

1 You don't like Palestinians very much
2 No-one lived in Palestine before the founding of the state of Israel
3 Palestinians breed too much
4 Palestinian refugees should be grateful for what they've been given
5 Palestinian dictators are corrupt, but Palestinians can't be trusted to vote for their leaders.



Yes they should be gratefull. Not only for getting free homes but also for beign allowed to exsist in ISrael when they do not consider the Jews right to exsist.


Um. The right of Israel to Exist. That's Hamas. Fatah I believe recognizes a two state solution.

I'm not going over the free homes issue again.



And what "farms" are you talking about ?? They were bedouins and traders, the only thing they grew were dates and cactus. You think that it was some green paradise that the Jews enviously took back ??? Palaestine was nothing more than desert with smal pockets of arabs who lived on trade, sheep, camel breedig and dates.


You really sound like one of the Afrikaaners claimed that South Africa was unpopulated prior to colonisation by Europeans!

At the risk of repeating myself:


www.israelipalestinianprocon.org...





AS for Jordanian diaspora, they left on their own volition. That too at the behest of their leaders who also fled the land till it was " cleansed' of the Jews. What right is it that they claim from Israel ? Its not the JEws who drove them out, they left because they were afraid their invading brethern would mistake them for jews and thus face the same massacre that they had planned for the Jews.


OK. So no Palestinians were forcibly evicted? - see links above.
OK. So no property was confiscated under the absentee property law? - see links above.



Really ? Wonder what Nelson Madela, Gandhi etc were doing when they were beaten up by riot police and jailed for dissent ??
Sure the "oppressors" then didnt use Apache gunships with precision guided bombs to blow up active terrorists rigging bombs on infants but still you get the picture.


OK - Mandela led the ANC, which was probably the world's worst terrorist organisation (edit - worst as in not very efficient!). We've covered Gandhi above, and I have already stated that I don't support terrorism. I have never said that the IDF didn't conduct itself in a relatively civilized manner, but of course armies placed in areas with a large hostile civilian population will occasionally make mistakes - see the link to the Guardian in a previous post, also Iraq-US or Northern Ireland-UK.



It is a compramise, the Jews still let them stay in ISrael dont they ?? That is a compramise, why should they when they have beaten the arabs back not once but twice ? The Arabs on the other hand want more and more land, not to mention the inalienable right to fire mortors at jewish settlements as a spectator sport.


Errr. Compromise is both sides giving something. If you approach it from the basis that the Palestinians were there first (don't start quoting Biblical stuff at me), were swamped by mass immigration and have had 80% of their land annexed, then they made a pretty big compromise in the mid-90's, by recognizing the 1948 boundaries of Israel, didn't they?

More and more land? Come on. They wanted Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They weren't asking for Tel Aviv!


I dont care if Hitler/Genghis Khan ran Palaestine, as long as they keep to themselves and let Israel remain "bomb-free" . What they do on their side is of no concern to Israel or to the international community.
Bottom line - The violence must stop.


Not arguing with that. It's not going to happen unless some sort of right to return 'fudge' and some sort of compromise on east Jerusalem happens. And frankly, with the sort of arrogant and aggressive statements that are being made on this board, I don't see it happening. Ever.


All this result signifies is that the Palaestinians have stepped out of the shadows and have reveled their deperate and malicious intent to the world. A overwhelming majority only furthers to cement this picture as a truly cumulative one and not an abberation from the majority.
And No, its is not loathing but general contempt that I have for them .


There you go again, branding an entire people! Why not just go the whole hog and call them Untermensch? Kind of ironic, but it's the sort of attitude you appear to have.


WRONG ! The IRA has not acheived its aim, N.Ireland is still british and Westminister didnt talk to them because they threw a grenade at it. It was only when the violence stopped that the British decided to begin talks, these talks didnt result with N.Ireland gettin freedom and neither did it boost the economy in N.Ireland. Their was only a withdrawl of police and military and the situtaion went back to how it was before the IRA became so vociferous. The end result was the IRA joining active politics after they had abandoned any hope of freeing N.Ireland by force. This was mostly due to the lack of public support to the IRA and its murderous ways which any civilised society cannot stand. No respectable governmetn will yeild to threats from terrorists.

Don't read the British news very much, do you?

The British Government was in talks with the IRA well before any ceasefire was announced

en.wikipedia.org...

As part of the manoeuvering before an IRA ceasefire, the British Government stated it had no selfish economic or strategic interest in NI, and would withdraw if the population required. With demographics (remember that? Quite important in the current situation), there should be a Catholic/Nationalist majority in a few decades.

Sinn Fein/IRA got into government without decommissioning *any* weapons (which was ridiculous - still haven't completely disarmed).

en.wikipedia.org...

Lack of public support for Sinn Fein/IRA? Ahem. They were running at about 10% of the population of Norther Ireland, which would be roughly 20% of Catholics/Nationalists if you follow the sectarian 'logic'.

en.wikipedia.org...

And guess who the largest nationalist party in Ulster is now? I'll give you a clue: Two words, first letter S......

I'd just like to say I'm not a supporter of Irish Republicanism, and this is way off topic, which is why I don't really want to get drawn into it, but, objectively, I think terrorism got the British government talking to them.



Its not about wo tribes fighing about one peice of land but rather or one tribe refusing to forge peace even after they have been defeated numerous times. Its about the intractibility of one side which has no locus standi over the situation and has nothing to bargain with.


Might makes right, eh? Good job the Founding Fathers didn't think like that!

Israel


Obviously NO !
Is there peace now after what the SG did ?


I was writing about whether or not terrorism ever 'works' in terms of reaching objectives. This is a whole other thread, so I'm not going down this road - feel free to U2U me if you want to continue it!




From their point of view, their country was stolen from them in the 1940's and their people displaced into 'refugee camps', where they have been living ever since, mainly because the Europeans felt bad about murdering millions of Jews in the 1930s'/40's.


Well that is their perspective doesnt mean it is right. The NAzi's thought they were getting rid of gypsies and other undesirables by 're-location' little did the general public know that they were taken to camps where they were gassed.


I'm not denying the Holocaust. Maybe you shouldn't deny what was done to the Palestinians.


What popular perception amongst the deluded is, is of little relevance, the truth of the matter is what counts. The truth is they do not believe in the Jews right to exsist, this has lead to deaths of many Jewish civilians and that has to stop FIRST.


Truth is the first casualty of war. Damn right. Again - the complete denial of a Palestinian exodus is a case in point.

I don't like to repeat myself, but I'm responding to the points that you are raising repeatedly. Don't transpose 'Jew's rights to exist', with Israel's right to exist. Fatah recognizes Israel, Hamas does not.

Again - I haver *never* condoned Hamas' actions. This debate started over the election of Hamas to the Palestinian parliament.



Whether you stooped or stretched, the fact remains that the means do not justify the end.
The Palaestinians cannot justify their terrorism by making some vainglorious political statement about 'freedom and justice' when the very path they resort to is contrary.
And yes the Arabs at first welcomed the Jews into Palaestine heralding them to be the bringers of wealth, progress and development to the moribund society that the Arabs called their own.


Moribund? There you go again!
Think they got a bit sniffy when the subject of zionism was brought up!

What they probably didn't welcome was being expelled from their country. See links above.



When the cost outweights the gains, that is when you have truly lost. The Palaestinians are way past the mark but are incapable of accepting the inescapable reality of their situation.


Again. We've got the tanks, we've got the nukes, we've got the land, so shut up. Human nature isn't like that. People fight against injustice, and they fight against other tribes.

Give people another way, hope, compromise, *something*, and there might be progress. Grinding their faces in the dirt just carries on the whole vicious cycle of violence, and if you can't see that then really there is little else to discuss.

'Pervert' is a perjorative term.


Your point being ??


My point being that there are views being expressed here that are extreme to the point of fascism, with absolutely no attempt at understanding the roots and reasons of this conflict.



I'm not dening that they wandered the lands at that time. What I am refuting is the claim that the Arabs have more claim to the land than the JEws.


Wandered!! That's awfully big of you. See the demographics at the top of the page. Must have been an awful lot of people strolling around


More claim? When did I ever say more claim? How about equal claim? Or at least the right to some sort of apology and compensation?

Someone called the Palestinian people 'Demons'. An entire people. Reverse that statement and think about it.


It was a question, a question that some agree with and some dont. Obviously you dont, that is your prerogative.

It read like a statement to me, and the sentiments were obvious

TD

Are you denying Palestinians were evicted from Palestine to create Israel? Are you denying their right to anger about their current conditions?

Yes, they were not evicted they left because their leaders asked them too so that the Arab armies could come and route out the Jews. Also the UN declaration asked for what little remained of the jewsh state to be divided between the two groups and this resulted in massive relocations.
Their right to anger is irrelevant. I might be angry that I have to get up every morning and go to work, does that mean I strap a belt with explosives on and blow myself up at work ? It is not acceptable.

IAF

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 29-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 29-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 29-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 29-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
hamas have proven themselves to help the community.

Oh? How is that? Their glorious leader Arafat (who was really
Egyptian) turned down a peace that gave them almost everything
they wanted. Bill Clinton got Israel to give away almost everying
at the Camp David talks. Arafat, and Hamas, refused true peace.
So how on earth does Hamas help the community when it perpetuates
misery, death, violence, and it takes funds and donations away from
education and healthcare just to use it on their death machine??


on the other hand they are believed to be terrorist,
since they refuse to reconize israel.


No. They are not believed to be terrorist because the don't
'recognize' Israel. They ARE terrorists because of their oath
and the fact that they follow through on it -

The Hamas "Martyr's Oath"
( www.newsmax.com... )

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The
Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and
more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is
vanquished and Allah's victory is realized...

"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day
of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews. When the
Jew will hide behind stones and trees, the stones and trees will say O
Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...'

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time
and vain endeavors.

"The day The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way
of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the
enemies...

"The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion... It relies greatly in its infiltration
and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such
as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage
groups. "

"Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. 'May the
cowards never sleep.'"



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
not remove israel COMPLETELY... just go back to the borders
before Israel forcefully took the land..? please correct me if
im wrong


Sorry Agit ... you are wrong. Check the post I just made with
the Hamas Oath. Also - the border you are talking about ...
it it 'The Green Line'?? Israel didn't forcefully take the land.
The fact is that Israel was declared a soverign nation and
immediately the Muslims decided to wage war against it.
Those Muslims LOST their war against Israel and in the
process the agressors LOST their half of Jerusalem that was
on the other side of the green line.

Israel won a war that was waged against it. They wouldn't
have taken land beyond 'The Green Line' if the Muslims hadn't
waged war against them. So ... the other half of Jerusalem
was won by Israel and .. frankly .. they deserve to keep it.
It's the Muslim's own fault that they waged a war and lost it
thereby losing 1/2 of the city.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join