Tension over Hamas Rising

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

NOT according to the Hamas Oath that I posted.
Check it out. It wants ALL Jews dead. It also
says that there can be no peace talks ... none.
Just kill the Jews. Oh ... and also the Lion's Club
and the Rotary Club are dangerous as well

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

TaupeDragon, I endorse most of your position, and also the way you've wronged these utterly incoherent and misinformed views that some people have here on the civil war in Israel.

But just one minor thing... although this conflict has more to do with religion than... "vanity" , the true reasons of this conflict are the same than with most wars and military occupations... namely control over territory, economical gains and/or political/financial supremacy. Even if, yes, religion is -just as nationalism or perscecution complex- a very effective discursive instrument for getting masses of people involved into a war, the reasons why politicians of warlords would wage war are far more material. In the case of the israeli/palestinian conflict, it's about a Western colonial State waging war against a bunch of resistant "natives", and these natives fighting by every way they CAN to resist against the occupation and to try to take back their right to self-determnination and have their fair share of the land.

It's a mistake that too many people do to identify wars, at large, as being religious wars. This is not just oversimplistic, but also ignoring the fact that wars and invasions are always started by States or just people in a position of political authority, and the true reasons why they are being fought always have to do with gaining something material, or more immaterial but still tangible "rights" or "freedom" in other cases...

[edit on 29/1/06 by Echtelion]

[edit on 29/1/06 by Echtelion]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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??

Hamas do charitable work for the poor in their community. Which is not to say they aren't a terrorist organisation, but one which knows good P.R. when it sees it:

LINK

Here's an amusing one about their developing interest in politics:

www.guardian.co.uk...

I'd argue that Israel gave away 'everything' at Camp David - Gaza and the West Bank don't constitute all of Israel by any means. Not, in fact, even the original UN partition plan.

Like I keep saying, we can't keep moaning about arabs and their lack of democracy and then cry like girls when we don't like the result. There are reasons why electorates back extremists.



[edit on 31/1/06 by JAK]

Originally posted by Echtelion

TaupeDragon, I endorse most of your position, and also the way you've wronged these utterly incoherent and misinformed views that some people have here on the civil war in Israel.

But just one minor thing... although this conflict has more to do with religion than... "vanity"

, the true reasons of this conflict are the same than with most wars and military occupations... namely control over territory, economical gains and/or political/financial supremacy.

[edit on 29/1/06 by Echtelion]

OK thanks Echtelion, valid comment, I should probably have stated that the more I see of organized religion, the less I believe in mankind!

Cheers

TD

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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??

They do the same as the drug lords in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. They help those around them so they can have someone who is on their side.

In the case of the Hamas, they help build schools and hospitals for the people.

To those people, they are the good ones, not the ones who where the previous authorities and who did nothing to help them.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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

NOT according to the Hamas Oath that I posted.
Check it out. It wants ALL Jews dead. It also
says that there can be no peace talks ... none.
Just kill the Jews. Oh ... and also the Lion's Club
and the Rotary Club are dangerous as well

I was not aware of that "Hamas Oath" and apparently no one else was, it just appeared on the Jerusalem Post on January 5.

In that they also say that

under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned...

so I am a litle divided on what to think of it.

You can find the all text (apparently) here

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

So the point is which is really worse ? Knocking money off or knocking people off ? If they truly are ever so benevolent then I presume the answer would be obvious.

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.

Yeah the first time a country moves towards democracy it is acceptable but if has been at it for a while and still cant develope an atmosphere of tolerance it shows a basic defect in its society.

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.

Very well, the Electorate should be ready for the consequences also. That would be no aid form the wold, less food and more misery.
I am sure if they are mature enough to make decisions they can handle the heat it entails too.

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?

You not still claiming that the Jews were responsible for the Arab exodus are you ??
I have never stated that people were not displaced, I very strongly state that they were displaced. But by whom and what for is a different matter altogether.

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.

LOL,
You can claim some sort of higher ground if you wish if it makes you feel better. I have never said anything about anti-semeticism, you have concocted that up. They pray to the same god why would they be anti-semetics !

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?

I would suggest the simple and basic logic of "family planning" that has worked wonders in the West and in many third world nation too.

Can you claim a moral superiority for either?

The Jews are not "breeding" they are immigrating and creating the state that was meant to be created according to the plan. The Arabs there are doing this soley to be a drain on the Israelis and swamp them with their numbers. Any race would instead try to work towards their state by dialogue.

Just don't like unfairness, bias and frank racism. Which is why I felt compelled to weigh in on this topic.

Similarly I dont like armchair "newsprint" liberals champion-of-the-oppressed-types who pass judgement from their ivory tower.

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.

Well i dont know which west you come from but in the US we have priorities straight, family first possesions next. Also this kinda thing has happened a lot, let me take the example of the Japanese Americans who were taken out of their homes and made to stay in a place worse than a reservation. They didnt go all kamakazi on the govt, they earned the trust of the people to bring themselves back into the fold and are respected for doing so.

Ever heard of the Absentee Property Law that was passed in Israel in 1950? What do you expect, gratitude?

Sign. The Absentee Property Law was passed as you have rightfull said in 1950 which is nearly 3 years after the Palestinians fled to Gaza and the West bank. If they havent come back in 3 years it is safe to say that they arent comming back and its not like they left behind mansions, it was sheds and shacks.
After 1947 war we have 1984- no palaestinians return, 1949- still waiting and then 1950- no palestinians still so they put it to good use. Can you blame them ?
Not really, a stop to terrorism would be enough.

There were there first. Fair enough. Not going to argue with you - see you back in Europe!

If the Indian can take the us "pale faces" Out, I would gladly leave.

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

I see, so getting jobs and aid is oppression and zero economic power. Then obviously the entire world and you are on two separate pages. It is a privilege to get aid and much more so a job yet if it seen as oppression, then I think that maybe the Jews should put on their silk tuxedos and bring out the champagne.

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'.

Very true, we are on different pages.
This isnt the first time that I have been on a discussion about the legitimacy of Israel on ATS. It has been discussed in detail with all the maps, links, book, pictures etc over and over again. I cant bother to bring up all the resources at this time because I havent been on this topic in while but you are free to search through ATS and find all the definitive proof you need about the Jewish legitimacy on Israel. I have responded with reason and logic as my tools and all I get is ' They were driven out of their homes, there was an exodus ' again and again. In previous threads on the topic it has been extensively dealt with and I suggest you go through that. Yet I am not suprised by the obstinate responses that I have received.

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.

Listen, if wikipedia is your holy grail of fact, then that is pitiful indeed because everyposter on ATS knows that wikipedia is merely a broad sketch of popular perception about any issue not a definitive source in any way.
In the past on ATS we have gone through the actuall trascripts between the Arab leaders, the zionists and the British Secretary to determine the facts, also numerous UN reports have been gone through by members and in the end it has been found that the Jews were in no way responsible for the way the palestinians have turned out now. Also I should mention that I have personally have been to both the Isreal and the middle east during Desert Storm and Sheild and know ARabs and what they are like, especially Palaestinians.

And about your 'UN link' let me jsut enlighten you to a fact that you have obiously forgotten to notice in your haste to blame the Jews.

The United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) was established and is being developed by the Division for Palestinian Rights

The Group mentioned is a NGO that works for the Palaestinina rights set up by Arabs for Arabs. You come to me with that as 'unbiased' ??

Again, I condemn terrorism in all it's forms.
My point simply is that unless there is an understanding of the reasons behind the conflict, there is never going to be solution.

You keep saying that " I condemn terrorism" and then you claim that you sypathise with what the Palaestinians are doing. How can you continue to expound this non-sequitor logic over and over again?
You condemn terrorism yet you rationalize their terrorism all in the same breadth ? Isnt that a little bit hypocritical ?

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.

My words exactly.

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.

Ah! Finally so you have come out of the shadow yourself .
Ethnic Clensing, Hmmm let see is that before or after the car bombs and the suicide bombers ??
Okay so what your saying is that the Palaestinians literally stab you in the back and want the knife back ?? Because thats what they did when they launched their attacks on the ill prepared Jewish people and asked their Musliim brothers to 'cleanse' the land for them but when the couldnt get rid of the jews they want their stuff back? That makes sense !

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.

Again the same tone of obstinance, Oh well !
If you live in a 2 bed room apartment and want 10 kids it will be crowded. One would be well advised to not "breed" beyond one limits.
Their is only war if you want it to be. the day they give up bombings that is the day they will taste peace.
What your opinoin is about American attitudes towards Arabs is immaterial and frankly irrelevant on this thread.

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

I dont see any thing wrong with that quote at all ! Ben-Gurion was quite right in trying to help the Palaestinians settle more comfortably so that they could live decent lives in a country that is more suited to their predispositions.
This statement just shows his magnanimity towards his opponents, he is concerned for their well being and has seen an effective plan to bring the troubles of the Palaestinian people to an end.

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..... " (Michael Bar-Zohar - Official Biographer of Ben-Gurion

I cant see anything wrong with this as well, what he says is true, Jews were a minority when they arrived and the arabs were a majority. About what the rest of the Western civilizatons do to the lands they capture is immaterial in this context.

2 No-one lived in Palestine before the founding of the state of Israel

Well I did state that the Bedouins wandered the place trading and robbing other travelers. Not to forget gathering dates and rearing camels.

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.

You do realise that HAMAS has won the election and you do realise that they do not recognise. My statement should be taken in this context.

At the risk of repeating myself
www.israelipalestinianprocon.org...

So if their are 100,000 people it necessarily means that they are a farming community even though they are in the a desert and lack basic ammenities like electricity etc ??

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.

Wonder how they got independence then, maybe you could have given him some tips and that would have expedited the process.
You havent covered Gandhi anywhere unless you think that the statement " I dont support terrorism " is some all-encompassing axiom on Gandhi.

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?

Not at all. The compramise is as you have said when both sides give something .The Israelis already had the terretory and the Palaestinians by recognizing that are not doing any favors while the JEws have looked after theri upkeep and contended with their machinations all this while.

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.

Well its not like East Jeruselem is an integral part of the Palaestine state is it? It was annexed by Jordan and to keep the peace the Jews had to refrain from taking it back. in the meantime the arabs quietly set up shop and now claim it as theirs.

There you go again, branding an entire people! Why not just go the whole hog and call them Untermensch?

Well I doub the Nazis would be so generous as to call them Untermensch would they ? They would first need to recognise them as 'Mensch'

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

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

What ever, point taken the English couldnt stand up to Seinn Fein. Maybe becasue they were after all Europeans and they were more flexible but that just speculation on my part.
Anyway Israel will not follow in Englands footsteps with the Palaestinians, that you can be sure of.

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

So you are saying that the massacre of 6 million Jews is similar to clothing,feeding and providing for a state full of people who have dedicated themselves entirely to the destruction of the Jews in Israel ??

Truth is the first casualty of war. Damn right. Again - the complete denial of a Palestinian exodus is a case in point.
Don't transpose 'Jew's rights to exist', with Israel's right to exist. Fatah recognizes Israel, Hamas does not.

Again I am not dening that the Palaestinians left in large numbers.
ISnt this thread about the HAMAS rise to power and doesnt that obviate the HAMAS view on things ? That is the central basis for my statement.

People fight against injustice, and they fight against other tribes.

Give people another way, hope, compromise, *something*, and there might be progress.

What do you think the Jewish pull out of GAZA was, a charade ? It was meant to instil "hope" and a guesture of good will and how do the Palaestinians respond ? They elect a terrorist group to power !
Now, that is a stroke of genius isnt it Shows their "democratic" vigour indeed.

My point being that there are views being expressed here that are extreme to the point of fascism.....

So now you resort to labeling anyone who speaks for the Jews as ' fascist ' that makes sense !

See the demographics at the top of the page. Must have been an awful lot of people strolling around

They are bedouins, they are semi-nomadic people who to put it simply- 'drift/graze' about in search of better pastures.

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

Well it wasnt and what you interpret as sentiments is your prerogative.

IAF

Originally posted by IAF101

Sign. The Absentee Property Law was passed as you have rightfull said in 1950 which is nearly 3 years after the Palestinians fled to Gaza and the West bank. If they havent come back in 3 years it is safe to say that they arent comming back and its not like they left behind mansions, it was sheds and shacks.
After 1947 war we have 1984- no palaestinians return, 1949- still waiting and then 1950- no palestinians still so they put it to good use. Can you blame them ?

I think if we address this single falsehood the rest of your very long post will unwind on its own.

Have you ever heard of The Right of Return?

The reason no Palestinians came back is because Israel did not allow any of them to come back.

Even though it was conditional on Israel joining the UN they have defied the international community for over 50 years.

The Palestinians fled their homes it fear of their lives in the face of a civil war, and Israel never allowed those people to return to their homes, and their land.

Instead Israel errected Racist policies that limited immigration to any Jew in the world, and a few others at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.

Without a constitution, or a defined border Israel absoluetely not a democracy without considering its racist laws.

Originally posted by IAF101
So the point is which is really worse ? Knocking money off or knocking people off ? If they truly are ever so benevolent then I presume the answer would be obvious.

I'm going to keep this short because I sort of addressed everything that you brought up (literally and figuratively) already.

There was never any claim made that Hamas was benevolent. I am simply trying to work out *why* people would elect an extremist organisation, rather than being grateful to the Israelis for the partition of their country. I think this is a more rational approach than demonizing an entire people.

Yeah the first time a country moves towards democracy it is acceptable but if has been at it for a while and still cant develope an atmosphere of tolerance it shows a basic defect in its society.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Palestinians really didn't *have* a lot of opportunity to vote until about 1996

www.cnn.com...

So they've been at it for 10 years. It took the US roughly 80 years to stop slavery after their democracy came into being. So fair's fair!

amistad.mysticseaport.org...

Very well, the Electorate should be ready for the consequences also. That would be no aid form the wold, less food and more misery.
I am sure if they are mature enough to make decisions they can handle the heat it entails too.

Because they're having *such* a good time at the moment, aren't they? You know, with all the free housing and stuff you keep telling me about. Which is pretty good, because according to you, they were not only nomadic, but lived in cattle sheds at the same time. Assuming they actually lived there at all.

You not still claiming that the Jews were responsible for the Arab exodus are you ??
I have never stated that people were not displaced, I very strongly state that they were displaced. But by whom and what for is a different matter altogether.

Um. Read the links. A lot of people were forced out by the new arrivals. A majority population that had lived there for generations was immigrated and legislated out of the picture by people intent on reclaiming their historical rights. It happened, I'm not suggesting Israel should 'go home', but your complete denial of history of shocking - it's either complete ignorance or deliberate prejudice. Take your pick.

Here's yet another link.

mondediplo.com...

The double standards here are just incredible - Holocaust revisionism is wrong, but the revisionism over the displacement of 700,000 people is completely acceptable.

LOL,
You can claim some sort of higher ground if you wish if it makes you feel better. I have never said anything about anti-semeticism, you have concocted that up. They pray to the same god why would they be anti-semetics !

You've said, I believe that the Palestinian Race wanted to gut and butcher all jews, for no apparent reason. If that's not a definition of anti-semitism, what is?

I would suggest the simple and basic logic of "family planning" that has worked wonders in the West and in many third world nation too.

So you *are* saying that the Palestinians breed too much. Classy.

The Jews are not "breeding" they are immigrating and creating the state that was meant to be created according to the plan. The Arabs there are doing this soley to be a drain on the Israelis and swamp them with their numbers. Any race would instead try to work towards their state by dialogue.

1 Yes. Mentioned immigration and the fact that minority population became a majority one via immigration. See link in my last post to you.

2 What PLAN was this? Did anyone tell the people that lived there (admittedly semi-nomadically and in cowsheds, as you keep saying). Would have been polite, don't you think??

3 There wasn't much dialogue with the Palestinians by Balfour when he gave their country away, was there? There wasn't much dialogue when they got kicked out of their (cowsheds).

Can you not, in some small way, admit that they've had a raw deal?

Similarly I dont like armchair "newsprint" liberals champion-of-the-oppressed-types who pass judgement from their ivory tower.

Hey, I vote Tory! Having said that, call me 'newsprint liberal' over ignorant bigot any day!

Well i dont know which west you come from but in the US we have priorities straight, family first possesions next. Also this kinda thing has happened a lot, let me take the example of the Japanese Americans who were taken out of their homes and made to stay in a place worse than a reservation. They didnt go all kamakazi on the govt, they earned the trust of the people to bring themselves back into the fold and are respected for doing so.

Err. This has to do with the Palestinian conflict how, exactly? Would be more relevant if, for example, they were still living in camps somewhere in Alaska, don't you think? And someone else was living in their homes? Are you saying the Palestinians have a right to return and can earn respect that way? Cool.

If you're going to make a comparison, make it a sensible one.

Ever heard of the Absentee Property Law that was passed in Israel in 1950? What do you expect, gratitude?

Sign. The Absentee Property Law was passed as you have rightfull said in 1950 which is nearly 3 years after the Palestinians fled to Gaza and the West bank. If they havent come back in 3 years it is safe to say that they arent comming back and its not like they left behind mansions, it was sheds and shacks.

The war went on until at least 1949. Here's a link

en.wikipedia.org...

I know you think Wikipedia is run by Al-Jazeera, but I have always found it to be a fairly reliable source - it even states when contributions are disputed.

'It's not like they left behind mansions'. REALLY classy.

After 1947 war we have 1984- no palaestinians return, 1949- still waiting and then 1950- no palestinians still so they put it to good use. Can you blame them ?
Not really, a stop to terrorism would be enough.

Yes, because, people would really just stroll across the border back to their homes after a war. Actually, inconvienently some did. And here's a link:

en.wikipedia.org...

Despite, and I quote 'efforts by the Israeli military to stop them'. That's by Benny Morris. Heard of him?

LINK

PLEASE read this link and call him a newsprint liberal. PLEASE.

If the Indian can take the us "pale faces" Out, I would gladly leave.

Not my point, maybe you are being deliberatly obtuse. Someone said that the Israelis had a right to the land because they were there first. I just reversed the logic and applied it to North America (where I live), and where most of the hateful bigotry in this thread appears to have come from.

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

I see, so getting jobs and aid is oppression and zero economic power. Then obviously the entire world and you are on two separate pages. It is a privilege to get aid and much more so a job yet if it seen as oppression, then I think that maybe the Jews should put on their silk tuxedos and bring out the champagne.

I think being expelled from your homes and lands and not being allowed to return is pretty much oppression in anyone's book. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Very true, we are on different pages.
This isnt the first time that I have been on a discussion about the legitimacy of Israel on ATS. It has been discussed in detail with all the maps, links, book, pictures etc over and over again. I cant bother to bring up all the resources at this time because I havent been on this topic in while but you are free to search through ATS and find all the definitive proof you need about the Jewish legitimacy on Israel.

When have I EVER stated that Israel is not a legitmate state? When have I ever stated that it did not have a right to exist? When did I ever endorse Hamas?

An admission that the country was created at a cost to the people that lived there is probably all a lot of people are asking for.

I have responded with reason and logic as my tools and all I get is ' They were driven out of their homes, there was an exodus ' again and again. In previous threads on the topic it has been extensively dealt with and I suggest you go through that. Yet I am not suprised by the obstinate responses that I have received.

Errm. I'd hate to see you being unreasonable then! The only thing I've really got from you is that you don't like Palestinians and feel that they breed to quickly.

Benny Morris. don't forget to dismiss him, please.

LINK

Listen, if wikipedia is your holy grail of fact, then that is pitiful indeed because everyposter on ATS knows that wikipedia is merely a broad sketch of popular perception about any issue not a definitive source in any way.

Recent article found it to be as good and accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica

www.nature.com...

In the past on ATS we have gone through the actuall trascripts between the Arab leaders, the zionists and the British Secretary to determine the facts, also numerous UN reports have been gone through by members and in the end it has been found that the Jews were in no way responsible for the way the palestinians have turned out now. Also I should mention that I have personally have been to both the Isreal and the middle east during Desert Storm and Sheild and know ARabs and what they are like, especially Palaestinians.

Wash those hands!

I'm glad you know arabs and what they are like, DO tell ) Try not to froth at the mouth as you type.

You keep saying that " I condemn terrorism" and then you claim that you sypathise with what the Palaestinians are doing. How can you continue to expound this non-sequitor logic over and over again?

So Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to vote? Fair enough. I sympathise with their plight, and think that they got screwed in the creation of Israel. You think they didn't live there in the first place and should be grateful. Like I said, different world views.

I at no point said 'Oh Good, let's see Hamas murder some more children'. I may well have said that extreme conditions beget extremist politicians. What's your alternative?

You seem irate that the Palestinians just *aren't more damn grateful* to the Israelis for taking their country from them.

You condemn terrorism yet you rationalize their terrorism all in the same breadth ? Isnt that a little bit hypocritical ?

Difficult position. I was brought up in the UK, my family did tours of duty in Northern Ireland, and I hated what the IRA was doing - and *they* played about as fair as a terrorist can play, as I said before, with lots of notable exceptions.

At the same time, I could understand that there were reasons, going back about 1000 years, for what they were doing.

What's the alternative? Knee jerk retaliation and unthinking and continuous cycle of violence?
If you don't try and understand your enemy how will you ever achieve a stable peace? Apart from genocide, obviously.

Ah! Finally so you have come out of the shadow yourself .
Ethnic Clensing, Hmmm let see is that before or after the car bombs and the suicide bombers ??

Err. What shadows are these? Wasn't aware saying other than I believed Palestinians had been removed from their homes in the creation of Israel. And that they had been treated squalidly. How is this in any way shadowy?

Okay so what your saying is that the Palaestinians literally stab you in the back and want the knife back ?? Because thats what they did when they launched their attacks on the ill prepared Jewish people and asked their Musliim brothers to 'cleanse' the land for them but when the couldnt get rid of the jews they want their stuff back? That makes sense !

This is going around in circles. The British gave Palestine away without asking the Palestinians. The Palestinians were a bit perturbed when they saw that they were going to be a minority in a Jewish state and then everyone went to war. Lots of people got kicked out of the country and still haven't been back to this day.

Benny Morris. Don't forget the link. Here's a little quote:
********************************************************************
There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.
*******************************************************************

Right. That's as much energy as I prepared to waste on this topic for now.

Israel has a right to exist. Terrorism is wrong.

And *you* need to learn to understand the roots of the conflict and the reason why it shows no signs of petering out any time soon. (Clue: it's not because the Palestinians breed too much or lived in cattle sheds).

TD



[edit on 29-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 31/1/06 by JAK]

I suggest that those who insist that Hamas is always going to be about a permanent and constant violent hostility to Israel and Israelis should have a look at this report from the UK's Channel 4 news outlet.

It shows the Hamas mayor of Nablus and talks about how they are involving themselves with the practicalities of political power and responsibility - those being the day to day practicalities for all, Jew, Arab and Christian.

I'm not for saying everything is OK or even on the verge of being OK but the one-dimensional portrayal so often seen is hardly accurate.

Take a look at the news report this links to.....

Hamas's victory in this week's Palestinian elections is not winning it friends at home or abroad.

Washington has said tonight it is reviewing its aid to Palestinians because it "does not provide money to terrorist organisations". While in Gaza, three people were wounded in the first gunbattle since Hamas beat Fatah at the polls.

Fatah supporters gathered outside the Palestinian legislative building to protest against the victory by the militant group, while elsewhere activists burned cars in anger.

So the prospects for any revival of the peace process look bleak - today Israel reiterated its determination not to negotiate with Hamas.

But at the local level it's a different picture. Inigo Gilmore reports from the Hamas-run town of Nablus, in the West Bank, where the mayor's a former businessman who says some of his best friends are Israelis.

www.channel4.com...

[edit on 29-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Indeed, the peace road-map is convoluted. I am not optimistic about a peace garnered by todays politicians........

www.keyway.ca...


An important point about Abraham is that although all bloodline Jews of today are descended from him, Abraham himself was not a Jew. Abraham's son Isaac, had a son Jacob (who was renamed Israel), who had 12 sons (from whom came The Tribes Of Israel), one of which was Judah, from whom came the Jews. The first "Jew" was Judah, Abraham's great-grandson (see Hebrews). Both Jews and Arabs are equally descended from Abraham, but Abraham himself was neither "Jew" nor "Arab".

I only see the beginings that lead to endings and all that is inbetween should be seen as the filler to the climax.

That's an interesting link, Sminkey - here's one on the BBC website concerning the fact that Hamas is going to be rather unpopular if it gets foreign aid from the EU cut off.

news.bbc.co.uk...

And here's a couple of links to this Benny Morris guy - concerning the Palestinian Exodus, and why Ben-Gurion didn't go far enough.


www.guardian.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

Cheers

TD




[edit on 30-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
There was never any claim made that Hamas was benevolent. I am simply trying to work out *why* people would elect an extremist organisation, rather than being grateful to the Israelis for the partition of their country.

And in the process insinuating that the Israelis have committed in your own words, " ethnic clensing " and what the Palaestinians are doing is but a 'natural response' to the "horrors" that have been done by the Jews.
Yeah, that sounds like a "balanced" viewpoint doesnt it ??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Palestinians really didn't *have* a lot of opportunity to vote until about 1996
So they've been at it for 10 years. It took the US roughly 80 years to stop slavery after their democracy came into being. So fair's fair!

The Palaestinians were not able to vote because they were unable to kick their homicidal addictions. After Arafat streamlined the terrorism, effectively conceling it and thereby disassociating himself they were able to get down to things like voting.
As for the United States, I am sure every black person here would castigate you vehemently for even comparing the Black movement to the Terrorism that the Palaestinians use as their modus operandi.

Um. Read the links. A lot of people were forced out by the new arrivals.

It happened, I'm not suggesting Israel should 'go home', but your complete denial of history of shocking - it's either complete ignorance or deliberate prejudice. Take your pick.

Okay, let us look at those links that you put forth;
The people that were forced out :

en.wikipedia.org...
Demographic outcome

Between 700,000 and 750,000 Arab Palestinian refugees were created during this conflict. More than 600,000 of the Jews living in Arab countries and territories fled or immigrated to Israel, with another 300,000 seeking refuge in various Western countries, primarily France.
[That makes 900,000 Jews that were displaced form Arab countries because of the 1947 war started by the arabs !]

The humiliation of the Arab armies at having been routed by the Jewish forces, together with the rising nationalist frenzy in Arab nations, contributed to rising hatred for the Jews living in Arab lands. The status of Jews in Arab states varied greatly from state to state. Some observers maintain that the Jewish populations were more "prevented from leaving" than "expelled." Their civil liberties, too, were in many cases vastly inferior to those of their Muslim fellow citizens. For example, in Yemen, Jews were and are prohibited from carrying weapons of any type, even to the point of prohibiting traditional ceremonial Yemeni knives, carried by a large portion of the Yemeni population. The net result was that after over two thousand years of living in Arab controlled countries, the atmosphere was sufficiently anti-Jewish that entire communities of Jews in the hundreds of thousands felt they had no option but to take leave of old homes and move to the uncertainties of the new Jewish state of Israel, in effect becoming "refugees" in everything but name.

So now from this we learn that :
1) More Jews were displayed
2) The Hatred for the Jews was widespread in the Arab world.
3) The Jews have been facing persecution for millenia in the middle east due to arab domination.
4) The Palaestinian refugees were created by the 1947 war, which ironicaly was started and prolonged by the Arabs themselves.
When I go through your "sources" I simple seem to validate my own postition thereby strengthening my assurtions all along. Now that the real "exodus" was by the jews who were driven by the Arabs not the other way around as you have claimed all along. This is from your own source !!

Also about those Palaestinians being forced off their property by the Israelis let me again take the liberty of quoting form your source:

en.wikipedia.org...
The road to Jerusalem was interdicted by Arab fighters located in the villages surrounding the road. The city of Jerusalem was under siege by the Arabs. Numerous convoys of trucks bringing food and other supplies to the besieged city were attacked. In Operation Nachshon, the Haganah continued its attacks on Arab fighters co-located with civilians, and temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem (April 20).

Some of these villages along Jerusalem road were attacked and demolished. The April 9 Deir Yassin massacre, by Irgun and Lehi forces, of at least 107 Arabs was denounced by Ben Gurion................... the events at Deir Yassin panicked Arab villagers, causing many to flee. While this may have benefited the Jewish forces, who then encountered less resistance from depopulated villages, it also inflamed public opinion in Arab countries, providing those countries further reason for sending regular troops into the conflict. Four days later, on April 13, the Arabs launched a strike on a medical convoy traveling to Hadassah Hospital. Around 77 doctors, nurses, and other Jewish civilians were massacred.

Just as I have always maintained, the Palaestinians left of their own accord. What your "source" forgets to add is that this "exodus" was part of the Arab plan to let the "Arab National Army" and other guerilla irregulars go on a rampage through Israel without mistakenly attacking their own.
Now tell me is it "it's either complete ignorance or deliberate prejudice" ??

You've said, I believe that the Palestinian Race wanted to gut and butcher all jews, for no apparent reason. If that's not a definition of anti-semitism, what is?

That is a defintion of " Terrorists " !!

1 Yes. Mentioned immigration and the fact that minority population became a majority one via immigration.

Yes, immigration. There is nothing wrong with that !

2 What PLAN was this? Did anyone tell the people that lived there Would have been polite, don't you think??

The Plan that was decided upon by the rulers of Palaestine and the Jewish people. The Zionists had in fact made 'contact' with the natives that roamed the land and were met with a great welcome. They were invited by the representative of the locals and the Zionists were seen as a progresive and mordernizing agent to the land.

3 There wasn't much dialogue with the Palestinians by Balfour when he gave their country away, was there?

Balfour is responsible for that and so are the Arab people who were indiffernt to the affairs of their land. It is not the duty of the Zionists to interfere with the locals, yet they still made an effort.

Can you not, in some small way, admit that they've had a raw deal?

No, I cannot say that. Historicaly they have gotten what they deserve and nothing more. They tried duplicity and underhandedness in dealing with the Zionists and were paid back in return. This could be what they call 'devine retribution' .

Hey, I vote Tory! Having said that, call me 'newsprint liberal' over ignorant bigot any day!

I didnt infer that you were a liberal I was merely stating what people I "didnt like" in response to the same by you.
If you feel that this refers to you, I am not responsible.

Would be more relevant if, for example, they were still living in camps somewhere in Alaska, don't you think? And someone else was living in their homes? Are you saying the Palestinians have a right to return and can earn respect that way? Cool.

Apparently, you know very little of history and secondly seem incapable of relating the obvious. Let me explain :
The Japs during WW2 were relegated to " camps" and were evicted from theri houses, they lost their jobs and were demeaned in general by the Govt for it was suspicious of their allegiance to the USA. In effect they lost "everything". This didnt however make them resort to "terrorism", as they being more civilized. Instead they set themselves up to demonstrate their allegiance to the US by their active involvement in the war and their co-operation with the US inspite of their treatment. THIS act not only earned them the confidence of the American people but also admiration from them.
Juxtapose this with the Palaestine situation and you/most of us can see that had the arabs been more "civil" and co-operative with the Israelis their situation would have improved drasticaly and they might even have been integrated back into Israel and become part of the population. But being as they are they didnt and thus deserve to get the treatment that they received.

I know you think Wikipedia is run by Al-Jazeera, but I have always found it to be a fairly reliable source - it even states when contributions are disputed.

That is again one of those 'visions' that you seem to have about things I apparently have said to you.
Nevertheless my position on wikipedia is that- If your looking to complete your high school term paper, then it is a usefull tool but to find out history it is meager at best.

Yes, because, people would really just stroll across the border back to their homes after a war. Actually, inconvienently some did.

Yeah they were called "arab guerillas'" were "co-located" with civilians. They steal across to the battle field fight and when the heat is on retreat back to the villages and hide in the sand.
Now, the world knows such people by another name, they are called "Terrorists" . Try the wikipedia article on Terrorism.

Despite, and I quote 'efforts by the Israeli military to stop them'. That's by Benny Morris. Heard of him?

So Benny Morris is your "Israel Sponsor " ?? If you want to claim that Mr Morris is the 'authority' on history then that is your right to make such a claim. But the whole world knows that he is merely an attention seeker and known for his skewed opinions. If you are trying to quote his name to me just because he is jewish in order to sway the truth then you are wasting your time.
Their are people from all sides that say various "opinions", it is not my business to dwell upon them .

Someone said that the Israelis had a right to the land because they were there first. I just reversed the logic

They were there first, the Arabs claim this to be their land because they claim that they are have been residing there for generations. This is laughable when compared to the historical jewish settlement in "Palestine" for many millenia.

I think being expelled from your homes and lands and not being allowed to return is pretty much oppression in anyone's book. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think resorting to back stabbing and nefarious trickery inorder to win a country by massacring can go wrong at times and when it does you better hope that your captors are more moral than you were.
In this case the Jews are by letting the Arabs continue to remain on land that is jewish by all measure.
As for jobs etc, this has been provided by the Jews, the arabs refuse to accept it leaving the blame squarely on their shoulders.

When did I ever endorse Hamas?

Every time you try in vain to justify their "suffering" and "sypathise" with the terrorism that they commit religiously.

Wash those hands!
I'm glad you know arabs and what they are like, DO tell

) Try not to froth at the mouth as you type.

Is this an attempt at humour ??

So Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to vote? Fair enough.

Those yet again are not my words. They can vote but they should handle the heat too. Plus what kind of people would let a terrorist group stand for elections in the first place ??

I may well have said that extreme conditions beget extremist politicians. What's your alternative?

I have already said what is needed. Once again :
1. Stop terrorism
2. Stop hate filled rhetoric
3. Stop fundamentalism
4. Start co-operating with authorities.
5. Start Dialogue
6. Earn Trust and Credibility regionally and globally.

What's the alternative? Knee jerk retaliation and unthinking and continuous cycle of violence?
If you don't try and understand your enemy how will you ever achieve a stable peace? Apart from genocide, obviously.

So giving into violence is the "proper" thing to do ? Setting a very good precedence for future generations, making violence an acceptable form voiceing displeasure ? The british didnt think much of their governance and might have felt compelled to give in due to pity or disgust but the Israelis will not let this conflict become dictated by terrorists.

Wasn't aware saying other than I believed Palestinians had been removed from their homes in the creation of Israel. And that they had been treated squalidly. How is this in any way shadowy?

Does your memory fail you ?
You asserted that the state of Israel had commited "ethenic clensing " which is nowhere near the truth. Is this not then the revelation of your 'hate' towards the Jews of Israel ?

And *you* need to learn to understand the roots of the conflict and the reason why it shows no signs of petering out any time soon.

Apparently wikipedia has taught you so much that you have now stopped accepting any other view that doesnt meet your worldview of "ethinicaly oppressed Palestinians" and "land-grabbing" Jews.


IAF

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Have you ever heard of The Right of Return?

The reason no Palestinians came back is because Israel did not allow any of them to come back.
Even though it was conditional on Israel joining the UN they have defied the international community for over 50 years.

The Law of Return is a simple document to understand. It says that Jews all over the world can come to Israel and settle down. It DOES NOT state anything about Arabs. The law is the very reason Israel was created without which Israel would have served no purpose especially in a time when Anti-Semetic sentiment was rampant.
Does your hate limit you form this logic ??
About UN resolutions, they only refer to the original refugees and not to their descendents. Secondly, the UN resolution is not international law and states are not bound by it. Lastly, these resolutions were massed by a select group of nations in 1950 and doesnt represent international opinion.

Instead Israel errected Racist policies that limited immigration to any Jew in the world, and a few others at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.
Without a constitution, or a defined border Israel absoluetely not a democracy without considering its racist laws.

Again, the wild accusation of "race" to the Jews. I am a christian, I have travelled to Israel more than 10 times in my life so far. There was no "race" factor to it ! You just take your passport and a ticket that all .
But your hatred for the Jews doesnt allow this view to exsist does it ? It is understandable when you refer to the Jews as a "race" because the only people who did that were NAZI"s !!



[edit on 30-1-2006 by IAF101]

not tryin to attack you IAF, but dont we consider Wiki to be a noncredible source? just for the sake of it, list a different source so people wont complain that the facts are crooked just because wki isnt credible.

And in the process insinuating that the Israelis have committed in your own words, " ethnic clensing " and what the Palaestinians are doing is but a 'natural response' to the "horrors" that have been done by the Jews.
Yeah, that sounds like a "balanced" viewpoint doesnt it ??

Hey. This is a quick lunchtime post, please excuse me if I'm going to have to come back to this later. I'll try and answer point by point.

The 'ethnic cleansing' line I hadn't heard of before the Balkan War, but it seemed appropriate. If you read the last paragraph of my last reply to you it's lifted from a direct quote by the historian at Ben-Gurion University, dated around 2002.

So it's not like *I* made it up the term or anything.

The Palaestinians were not able to vote because they were unable to kick their homicidal addictions. After Arafat streamlined the terrorism, effectively conceling it and thereby disassociating himself they were able to get down to things like voting.
As for the United States, I am sure every black person here would castigate you vehemently for even comparing the Black movement to the Terrorism that the Palaestinians use as their modus operandi.

I think, if we read the posts, that I was simply responding to your statement that the Palestinians had an opportunity to vote for a long time and were thus revealing inherent flaws and weaknesses by rioting in the streets - I think it was your response to *my* statement mentioning the establishment of parliamentary democracies in Spain, and I think, South Korea.

I think, if you actually read the post, I was stating that the Palestinians have had 10 years 'playing' at democracy, and that the US had about 80 years before it got around to abolishing slavery.

How does that translate into calling African-Americans terrorists? DO tell.

Okay, let us look at those links that you put forth;
The people that were forced out :

en.wikipedia.org...
Demographic outcome

Between 700,000 and 750,000 Arab Palestinian refugees were created during this conflict. More than 600,000 of the Jews living in Arab countries and territories fled or immigrated to Israel, with another 300,000 seeking refuge in various Western countries, primarily France.
[That makes 900,000 Jews that were displaced form Arab countries because of the 1947 war started by the arabs !]

And your point is? Two wrongs make a right?

You spent most of your last post denying the Palestinian Exodus. You are now ignoring this and saying that Jews moved to Israel after the second world war. I never denied that. It was kind of the reason Israel was created.

Was there, or was there not a *forced* Palestinian Exodus?

The humiliation of the Arab armies at having been routed by the Jewish forces, together with the rising nationalist frenzy in Arab nations, contributed to rising hatred for the Jews living in Arab lands.The status of Jews in Arab states varied greatly from state to state. Some observers maintain that the Jewish populations were more "prevented from leaving" than "expelled." Their civil liberties, too, were in many cases vastly inferior to those of their Muslim fellow citizens. For example, in Yemen, Jews were and are prohibited from carrying weapons of any type, even to the point of prohibiting traditional ceremonial Yemeni knives, carried by a large portion of the Yemeni population.

Again, your point is?

Palestinian Exodus. Yes or no? That has been the point of these painfully long posts.

If it speeds it up any, I'll *repeat* - Jews have been horribly discriminated against, and murdered en masse. It explains the reason for the creation of the state of Israel. I have no argument with anything in your last paragraph.

The net result was that after over two thousand years of living in Arab controlled countries, the atmosphere was sufficiently anti-Jewish that entire communities of Jews in the hundreds of thousands felt they had no option but to take leave of old homes and move to the uncertainties of the new Jewish state of Israel, in effect becoming "refugees" in everything but name.

Whoah. You said in start of the paragraph that the rout of the Arab armies caused the anti-Jewish pogroms and explusion of Jews from various countries.

I'm not going to argue with you on any of that.

What's this got to do with 'Reasons for Palestinians Voting for Terrorists'?

So now from this we learn that :
1) More Jews were displayed
2) The Hatred for the Jews was widespread in the Arab world.
3) The Jews have been facing persecution for millenia in the middle east due to arab domination.
4) The Palaestinian refugees were created by the 1947 war, which ironicaly was started and prolonged by the Arabs themselves.

1 Err. I thought the whole point of Israel was to be a safe homeland for the Jews. Whole point of Zionism, wasn't it?

2 Chicken and Egg. Probably quite a lot more hostility after 1949. Considerably more so after Absentee Property Seizures.

3 Err. You're bashing on open door here.

4 So there were Palestinian Refugees now? Jolly Good. So people actually lived there? Excellent.

The Arabs started the war? You *could* argue that Balfour started the war by giving the Palestinian's land away, seeing as we both now agree Israel wasn't uninhabited.

You could argue that not having a Right of Return, or indeed their property back irritated the Palestinian Refugees a bit. You could argue that this *possibly* is prolonged the situation even as we speak.

When I go through your "sources" I simple seem to validate my own postition thereby strengthening my assurtions all along. Now that the real "exodus" was by the jews who were driven by the Arabs not the other way around as you have claimed all along. This is from your own source !!

Your 'assertions' haven't really answered any of my questions have they? On the plus side there seems to have been a tacit admission that there was a forced Palestinian Exodus (which is progress).

And you also haven't accused the Arabs of breeding too much, so far at least. Well done.

I'm also looking forward to your promise to tell me 'all about the arabs' as per your last post.

APOLOGIES FOR PROBLEMS WITH THE QUOTE PROBLEMS I AM HAVING HERE. The stuff below is part of my current reply.

Also about those Palaestinians being forced off their property by the Israelis let me again take the liberty of quoting form your source:

en.wikipedia.org...
The road to Jerusalem was interdicted by Arab fighters located in the villages surrounding the road. The city of Jerusalem was under siege by the Arabs. Numerous convoys of trucks bringing food and other supplies to the besieged city were attacked. In Operation Nachshon, the Haganah continued its attacks on Arab fighters co-located with civilians, and temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem (April 20).

There was a war. Point is?

Just as I have always maintained, the Palaestinians left of their own accord. What your "source" forgets to add is that this "exodus" was part of the Arab plan to let the "Arab National Army" and other guerilla irregulars go on a rampage through Israel without mistakenly attacking their own.
Now tell me is it "it's either complete ignorance or deliberate prejudice" ??

Ah. You're back to saying the Palestinians left of their own accord. Fair enough. On the plus side, you at least admit they now lived in villages, rather than cowsheds, or indeed being nomads as per your last post.

Did you get to Benny Morris yet?



1 Yes. Mentioned immigration and the fact that minority population became a majority one via immigration.

Yes, immigration. There is nothing wrong with that !

Excellent. 700,000 expelled Palestinians will be very happy you said that.
When can they come back?

2 What PLAN was this? Did anyone tell the people that lived there Would have been polite, don't you think??

The Plan that was decided upon by the rulers of Palaestine and the Jewish people. The Zionists had in fact made 'contact' with the natives that roamed the land and were met with a great welcome. They were invited by the representative of the locals and the Zionists were seen as a progresive and mordernizing agent to the land.

Great welcome, eh? How does that play out against 1947-9?

3 There wasn't much dialogue with the Palestinians by Balfour when he gave their country away, was there?

Balfour is responsible for that and so are the Arab people who were indiffernt to the affairs of their land. It is not the duty of the Zionists to interfere with the locals, yet they still made an effort.

Err. They sort of interfered when they turned the country into Israel, and expelled a good chunk of the population during the war. And of course seized absentee property.

How's the Benny Morris reply coming on, btw?


Can you not, in some small way, admit that they've had a raw deal?

No, I cannot say that. Historicaly they have gotten what they deserve and nothing more. They tried duplicity and underhandedness in dealing with the Zionists and were paid back in return. This could be what they call 'devine retribution' .

'They've gotten what they deserve, historically'. Care to expand?

'Divine Retribution'? Not *my* idea of loving God, thanks all the same.




Would be more relevant if, for example, they were still living in camps somewhere in Alaska, don't you think? And someone else was living in their homes? Are you saying the Palestinians have a right to return and can earn respect that way? Cool.

Apparently, you know very little of history and secondly seem incapable of relating the obvious. Let me explain :
The Japs during WW2 were relegated to " camps" and were evicted from theri houses, they lost their jobs and were demeaned in general by the Govt for it was suspicious of their allegiance to the USA. In effect they lost "everything". This didnt however make them resort to "terrorism", as they being more civilized. Instead they set themselves up to demonstrate their allegiance to the US by their active involvement in the war and their co-operation with the US inspite of their treatment. THIS act not only earned them the confidence of the American people but also admiration from them.

I'd argue my understanding of history is as sound as yours. Certainly I have learned from the mistakes of branding entire races as 'demons' and saying that they breed too much.

I am fully aware of the treatment of the Japanese-Americans and Canadians. You at no point answered my point as to what their attitude would be if they were stuck somewhere in Alaska with no chance to return.

I know you think Wikipedia is run by Al-Jazeera, but I have always found it to be a fairly reliable source - it even states when contributions are disputed.

That is again one of those 'visions' that you seem to have about things I apparently have said to you.

Just your basic tone of complete hatred to anyone with a towel on this head, is all. Or irate response when it is mentioned that possibly, just possibly, people may have been evicted from their homes in the creation of the state of Israel.

Nevertheless my position on wikipedia is that- If your looking to complete your high school term paper, then it is a usefull tool but to find out history it is meager at best.

Read the 'Nature' article I linked to, did we? Probably not. Biased source.

Yeah they were called "arab guerillas'" were "co-located" with civilians. They steal across to the battle field fight and when the heat is on retreat back to the villages and hide in the sand.
Now, the world knows such people by another name, they are called "Terrorists" . Try the wikipedia article on Terrorism.

That's 700,000 people men, women and children, who are all terrorists. Cool.

So Benny Morris is your "Israel Sponsor " ?? If you want to claim that Mr Morris is the 'authority' on history then that is your right to make such a claim. But the whole world knows that he is merely an attention seeker and known for his skewed opinions. If you are trying to quote his name to me just because he is jewish in order to sway the truth then you are wasting your time.

If you actually read the articles linked from the Guardian (my last post), he is a a darling of the right wing and proposes a complete transfer of Palestinians from the country.

Guess you're a bit not up to speed eh?

Gotta go! More later

TD

ps came back and edited the quotes after I finished work - hope it's clearer now

[edit on 30-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
just for the sake of it, list a different source so people wont complain that the
facts are crooked just because wki isnt credible.

The only reason I listed Wiki was becasue the poster was adamant I look at his links and "learn" about the situation. So I obliged him with wiki

IAF

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Have you ever heard of The Right of Return?

The Law of Return is a simple document.......

I said RIGHT of Return, not Law of Return.

Your reply is a diversion.

Please use the link I supplied if you do not understand what it means, and try again.

About UN resolutions, they only refer to the original refugees and not to their descendents.

The original refugees were not allowed to return from 1948 until today, and beyond.

Lets have a look at the official documents and see how it stack up against your interpretation.

UN Resolution 194
.......
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

I believe that supports my statements on the matter.....

Secondly, the UN resolution is not international law and states are not bound by it.

So the Arab States were not bound by the UN resolution that created Israel, and had every right to take back what was theirs?

Lastly, these resolutions were massed by a select group of nations in 1950 and doesnt represent international opinion.

The same group that gave Arab land to the State of Israel!

Are you implying that the UN Resolution that created Israel are also not legitimate?

You can't have it both ways.

Again, the wild accusation of "race" to the Jews.

I agree that Jews are not a race, but I used the term because unlike you claim it is non un-common for Jews, and Christians to refer to Jews as a race, and I wanted to avoid just this debate.

I have known Jews in real life, and even people on this forum that refer to Jews as a race.

Even an Israel Supreme Court Judge agrees:

President Agranat of the Israeli Supreme Court, for instance, chimes in with racial arguments to support the rabbis’ prohibition of marriage with gentiles.

”The most important Jewish opinion, is after all the holiness of the Jewish race . . . “ Agranat said. “It is difficult to speak about race today . . . because the Nazis have made the word ‘race’ smell bad. But let us not allow the Nazis to turn out minds from the true significance of this quality . . . which consists of the feelings of people who see themselves as having common blood.”

Source

There are plenty of other sources if you don't care for this one.

But your hatred for the Jews doesnt allow this view to exsist does it ? It is understandable when you refer to the Jews as a "race" because the only people who did that were NAZI"s !!

PLEASE show where I have said one single Anti-Semitic thing, and I want quotes.

My Grandmother was a Sephardic Karaite Jew, and I loved her dearly.

I support a Jewish majority Israeli nation behind the Green Line, and equal rights for everyone.

My views are simply not Anti-Arab like yours, and the dichotomy has confused you into believing there is no middle ground.

[edit on 30-1-2006 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by IAF101
Every time you try in vain to justify their "suffering" and "sypathise" with the terrorism that they commit religiously.

Sorry, the Quote option is doing my head in here, hence the edit.

Anyone, if anyone's unclear, I'm the reasonable one and IAF101 is the guy that thinks arabs breed too much.

Right. I'm back. Sorry about the delay - busy busy busy! Anyway, think this is where I left off. So let's roll up our sleeves and get to it!

People don't suicide bomb for recreation or amusement. It's abhorrent to me, but at the same time I can understand the reasons.

I've written it before and I'll write it again (and you'll ignore it), but here goes: I didn't like the IRA very much. They blew up things and people. At the same time I recognized a 1000-year history of oppression, famine and violence which probably explained their attitude.

If you have any problem with the logic of that paragraph please get back to me.

And where did I write 'sympathise', btw?

Wash those hands!
I'm glad you know arabs and what they are like, DO tell

) Try not to froth at the mouth as you type.

Is this an attempt at humour ??

Made me smile. You made a pretty strong statement to the effect that 'I served in the Middle East and I can tell you all about the Arabs and Palestinians in particular.'

So tell.

So Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to vote? Fair enough.

Those yet again are not my words. They can vote but they should handle the heat too. Plus what kind of people would let a terrorist group stand for elections in the first place ??

You spent your first post moaning about corrupt dictators looting the country and the lack of arab democracy. You then spent the next post moaning about the fact that the electorate voted for Hamas. So what's your alternative? Would you like to appoint a dictator for them or something?

Dunno what sort of people would let a terrorist group stand for elections - they certainly did in Northern Ireland (although they call them 'political wings', I think we all know where we stand). Same sort of deal in Spain with the Basques and ETA/their political wing - may have been banned since, think the bombing is still going on.

All I can say is that drawing terrorists into a political dialogue seemed to work in Ulster. The results are pretty plain for all to see.

I may well have said that extreme conditions beget extremist politicians. What's your alternative?

I have already said what is needed. Once again :
1. Stop terrorism
2. Stop hate filled rhetoric
3. Stop fundamentalism
4. Start co-operating with authorities.
5. Start Dialogue
6. Earn Trust and Credibility regionally and globally.

1 You stop terrorism by recognizing that terrorism has causes, which is not
to say that you cave in to it. Not sure if the Palestinian refugee thing has been ceded or not by you. Probably not.

2 OK. When are you stopping?

3 Do we include extreme Zionist rhetoric and policies here? Sorry.

4 Start co-operating with the UN concerning the return of refugees.

5 Start making acceptable compromises over the pre-67 status of the
country

6 Accountability of politicians in free elections is a pretty good start. Even
if the returning party doesn't like us very much. Or would you prefer a
corrupt dictator to bash people over the head with, as you've done with
Arafat for a good few paragraphs?

So giving into violence is the "proper" thing to do ? Setting a very good precedence for future generations, making violence an acceptable form voiceing displeasure ? The british didnt think much of their governance and might have felt compelled to give in due to pity or disgust but the Israelis will not let this conflict become dictated by terrorists.

Define 'giving in'. The British did (or did not, depending on your point of view) give in to Sinn Fein, in terms of sitting down and talking to them (see links above) - both sides compromised, and *ta da* no-one's being blown up in shopping centres any more.

I'm not saying give in. I said 'understand'. Or possibly acknowledge that there are reasons that people hate other people.

Or do you think the Palestinians are voting for extremists because they're a bit bored and have nothing better to do that riot and smuggle arms on a Saturday night?

I've explained (with links, which is more than you've even tried to do) the situation as best I can, and I'm really not getting anything back in return other than evasion and abuse.

I'm still waiting for you to 'Tell me all about Arabs', and I'm taking your swerve from 'no Palestinians were evicted', to 'well, lots of Jewish people moved to Israel', as a *tacit* admission that morally questionable things were done in the foundation of the state.

Wasn't aware saying other than I believed Palestinians had been removed from their homes in the creation of Israel. And that they had been treated squalidly. How is this in any way shadowy?

Does your memory fail you ?
You asserted that the state of Israel had commited "ethenic clensing " which is nowhere near the truth. Is this not then the revelation of your 'hate' towards the Jews of Israel ?

1 I'm a member of a Jewish Professional Fraternity

2 'Ethnic Cleansing' was a term used by Benny Morris, not me. There are links you know. I even posted them. He's not what you'd call a bleeding- heart liberal.

What would you like me to call it? 'Holiday Excursion to the scenic Transjordan desert'?

3 How does acknowledging that there was a violent struggle during the foundation of Israel which damaged a lot of people on both sides make me an anti-semite?

Really, stop being so lazy and falling back on the anti-semite thing.

Apparently wikipedia has taught you so much that you have now stopped accepting any other view that doesnt meet your worldview of "ethinicaly oppressed Palestinians" and "land-grabbing" Jews.

I think you've taught me that your 'Confess Hate' Signature under your Avatar is pretty accurate

What's your worldview? Other than that arabs are inferior beings, obviously.

Right. back to work.

TD

[edit on 30-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I said RIGHT of Return, not Law of Return.

If a link to the word "righ to Return" to google is your information, it is a joke.
google "right to live without persecution " ??

The original refugees were not allowed to return from 1948 until today, and beyond.

The Jews are not in the habit of making suicidal decisions and allowing Terrorists back into their nation. The Palaestinians have not even exhibited the ability to give up violnce why would they be allowed back into israel ??

Lets have a look at the official documents and see how it stack up against your interpretation.

UN Resolution 194
.......

I dont see where your source says that the refugees decendents should be allowed to return ?? Or are you confabulating this inorder to prove something that has no case in the first place ??


quote]
So the Arab States were not bound by the UN resolution that created Israel, and had every right to take back what was theirs?

Thats what they tried to do twice and both times were routed out. They havent ever accepted the Jewish state before or after Israel was created.
Secondly the UN resolution that sought to divide the region of Palestine into 2 countires was never accepted by the Arabs nor the Jews and was never implemented or carried out. After the British mandate expired their was war started by the Arabs to cease Palestine by force which failed miserably and thus the UN resolution on Israel is null and void. The UN resolution on Israel reflects a state that doest exsist and never exsisted in the first place. The UN resolution that I was refering to was the one that accepted the newly formed Jewsih State after the 1947 war.

The same group that gave Arab land to the State of Israel!

No group gave any arab land away for it was not their land in the first place and the UN resolution was a peice of paper that was never accepted by either party and the state of Israel that was formed has no relation to the UN resolution because the Jews accepted it outright and so did the Arabs.
Thats why the tried to take it with war. I am sure I have told you this before but you want to keep twisting the facts to fit your agenda.

I agree that Jews are not a race, but I used the term because unlike you claim it is non un-common for Jews, and Christians to refer to Jews as a race,

From the incoherent statement you are making above all I can understand is you are trying to find some excuse for calling the Jews a "race". There is no excuse for calling people of a perticular religion, a race.

I have known Jews in real life, and even people on this forum that refer to Jews as a race.
Even an Israel Supreme Court Judge agrees:

Others peoples ignorance cant be held as an excuse for ones own ignorance! The Jewsih people cannot be classified as a "race". Period.

PLEASE show where I have said one single Anti-Semitic thing, and I want quotes.

I have never called you Anti-Semetic did I ? I jsut said that your hate towards the Jewish people is unjustified. Like when you started calling Israel a "racist-bigot state" that is when I know that your position is not one that is free from prejudice.

My views are simply not Anti-Arab like yours, and the dichotomy has confused you into believing there is no middle ground.

I think I can safley say that I know the arab people a lot better than you. Also I do not hate the Arabs and have many Iraqi and Kuwaiti friends that I keep in touch with regularly. The middle ground I have already stated and it is the peopke who need change the most that should make the maximum effort to alleviate the situation.
Your views you call conveniently 'Anti-Zionic' but conveniently use this slip into anti-Jewish statements like calling Israelis "bigots" and "racist" when you should know that Zionism is a strong advocate of religious pluralism.