Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Stole? They were attacked and invaded. They spread out to set up buffer zones after 48. The original land was legally recognized and authorized by the UN.

I am referring to the land they took post 1967, clearly. Not the original land given to them in '47 (even though that was a far fairer deal to both parties).

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Show me proof of massacres.

Do I really have to? Because they are widely known and well documented. Look up the Deir Yassin or Balad al-Shaykh massacres, or perhaps the activities of Irgun and the Stern Gang... I know you know this though.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Many Arabs remained behind and became citizens. They have parties in the Knesset and even serve in the military.

And many did not, almost a million in fact.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
There are many parallels with Northern Ireland, especially the Intifada and the Troubles. Heck the PLO and the IRA were allies. So I don't understand the reaction here.

The only parrallel is the fight between two bloody stupid groups of people over what God they worship. That is where similarities end.

You didn't see the British invade and occupy parts of Eire that were used as bases, you didn't see British airstrikes on Dublin due to a couple of bombs in Belfast, you didn't see British tanks rolling over Irish houses and crushing their occupants. The two situations should serve as an example, one path which has led to peace with minimal lives lost and the other which has led to perpetual war with many tens of thousands killed.

To the victor belong the spoils.

Nuff said.

Originally posted by Carseller4
How can land be taken from Jordan, by Israel, and returned to "Palestine", which never existed?

If Palestine never existed, explain the existence of a Palestine dating back to Roman times and the 1947 settlement splitting the land almost equally between Arabs and Jews? If Palestine never existed, who exactly was going to have that land designated for Arabs?

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
There were Jews already living there. More came from outside, but there were communities already there and had been there for thousands of years.

In the 1920's, only 10% of the land we now know as Israel was Jewish. Illegal immigration jumped this up to around 20% just before WW2 with the rest flooding in after the War.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
The British Empire "stole" the land from the Ottoman Empire during World War I. If anything the Middle East should be given back to the Turks. They had ruled the region for 400 years.

Someone had to take control, otherwise carnage would have ensued. The British had little desire to control that region, hence the Balfour Delcaration, but that was on the condition a peaceful settlement could be induced with Jews and non-Jews alike, which both sides made quite impossible.

reply to post by stumason

I am referring to the land they took post 1967, clearly

Took? Since when is being attacked by an enemy, and that enemy losing their land being "theft"..That is completely absurd. War has ALWAYS since time immemorial worked that way. They attacked Israel, and Jordan lost control of the most Jewish part of Eretz Yisrael. Thats how War works.

the activities of Irgun and the Stern Gang... I know you know this though.

Right. And were not these attacks by the Lechi, Irgun and Hagana reprisals for British and Arab violence against Jewish communities? Who started the killings? Hebron Massacre of 29, Safed massacre of 29? The Arab revolts of 36-39?

In any case, most of those the Irgun and Lechi killed were evil British - like Lord moyne who often shared his vitriolic Naziesque hate for Jews - colonialists and they had it coming.

You didn't see the British invade and occupy parts of Eire that were used as bases, you didn't see British airstrikes on Dublin due to a couple of bombs in Belfast, you didn't see British tanks rolling over Irish houses and crushing their occupants. The two situations should serve as an example, one path which has led to peace with minimal lives lost and the other which has led to perpetual war with many tens of thousands killed.

These situations are too different to be equated. For one, Ireland is separated by a large body of water. Gaza is a few miles away. Secondly, the British have their own repulsive colonial history in the middleeast so the king of hypocrites - the british - should really just shut their mouths.

And was London facing terrorist attacks? Were there anti-tank missilies being shot at buses? How bout suicide bombings?

As radical as th IRA was, they will never reach the fanaticism of men and women willing to blow themselves up, as Hamas, and other terror organizations have been doing in Israel for 20+ years.

Originally posted by dontreally
You are psychotic if you think there arent actual Israel supporters and every Israel supporter online is pai by Mossad...

No, they aren't paid by Mossad, they sign up with the JIDF out of sheer racism.

www.thejidf.org...

reply to post by stumason


In the beginning of the conflict there were planes and all of that in the Irish Civil war and Irish War for Independence.
The Partition of Ireland is in many ways like the mess in the Middle East. Britain and France's partiton of the Ottoman Empire gave us this mess.

At least you do agree the pre 67 borders are legal. In my mind if Israel had to go back to the 67 borders, the land should go back to who they took it from: Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

It doesn't make legal sense to give it to another party.

If anything Turkey should get the whole region back.

reply to post by stumason


ummm. Palestine was an ADMINISTRATIVE REGION. The inhabitants were most certainly not Arabs, but Jews, Hellenists...and through the middle ages Palestine had a very cosmopolitan population. The idea of a 'palestinian' people is a myth and you know full well it is a made up, non-factual people.

And what about the name Palestine? You can see what the Roman intention was in that name. Its the latinization of PHILISTINE - the biblical enemy of the Jewish people. It was their way of spiting them. And the British resurrected this name to spite the Jews further. To remind them of the imperialistic vision of the same ones who ousted them 2000 years earlier.

reply to post by bsbray11


So then according to you im signee of that website? I dont actually support Israel?

reply to post by dontreally


According to me, you're inconsequential and Israel's own actions towards its neighbors, other nations and even humanitarian aid ships will eventually send enough of a message on their own that they will be dealt with. I really don't care what happens to that country. As long as their military is taken away from them at some point, and they are left with less of a defense force than Japan or Germany, then I'll be satisfied. I wouldn't care if they were even taken completely off the map again, or given to Egypt or something.

Originally posted by dontreally
Took? Since when is being attacked by an enemy, and that enemy losing their land being "theft"..That is completely absurd. War has ALWAYS since time immemorial worked that way. They attacked Israel, and Jordan lost control of the most Jewish part of Eretz Yisrael. Thats how War works.

Actually, it isn't. unnilateral annexation of land is illegal. Land can only change hands, under international law, by virtue of a negotiated settlement, hence why most of the world, apart from the USA, regards Israeli occupation and settlement of these lands as illegal.

Originally posted by dontreally
Right. And were not these attacks by the Lechi, Irgun and Hagana reprisals for British and Arab violence against Jewish communities? Who started the killings? Hebron Massacre of 29, Safed massacre of 29? The Arab revolts of 36-39?

See, that's where Israel always loses the moral high ground.

"They did it to us first!" - whiney school kids use that excuse. Even now, with Israel clearly being the superior power, they practice collective punishment and bombard civilian area's with dodgy weaponry against men armed with rifles (if they're lucky) and stones.

Originally posted by dontreally
In any case, most of those the Irgun and Lechi killed were evil British - like Lord moyne who often shared his vitriolic Naziesque hate for Jews - colonialists and they had it coming.

I'm not here to defend the actions of my country from a century ago and even agree to a point that some things that were done were totally wrong. But that isn't the topic here, is it?

Originally posted by dontreally
These situations are too different to be equated. For one, Ireland is separated by a large body of water. Gaza is a few miles away.

I wasn't the one who made the comparison, go and read again.

Originally posted by dontreally
Secondly, the British have their own repulsive colonial history in the middleeast so the king of hypocrites - the british - should really just shut their mouths.

So has any country if you go back far enough. So, in your logic, if a country has done something, anything in it's past then citizens of that country, who had nothing to do with anything your whining about can't offer an opinion on the activities of a country today?

Total bollocks and you're mearly attempting to deflect.

Originally posted by dontreally
And was London facing terrorist attacks?

Let me see, from about the 1970's through to, well, now. Not too clued up on history I see.

Originally posted by dontreally
Were there anti-tank missilies being shot at buses?

How about mortars fired at residential areas, or snipers, or car bombs? Bombs put into bins at shopping centres, or maybe just not ebing able to go down the shops without fearing of attack. I lived in NI during the 80's mate.

Originally posted by dontreally
How bout suicide bombings?

We've had 3, but for the most part the Irish were too clever to blow themselves up. What's your point?

Originally posted by dontreally
As radical as th IRA was, they will never reach the fanaticism of men and women willing to blow themselves up, as Hamas, and other terror organizations have been doing in Israel for 20+ years.

Israel could achieve peace if it actually acted like it wanted it. At the moment though, a single bottle rocket landing in a field and hurting no-one ends up with the IDF launching a massive land and air assault into Gaza killing hundreds.

If you don't see the disparity, it is really quite pointless talking to you.

reply to post by bsbray11


So take the weapons from them? Take them off the map?

Why dont you say what you mean. You want all those Jews there killed. Because that would be the natural consequence of disarming them.

Originally posted by dontreally
So take the weapons from them? Take them off the map?

Why dont you say what you mean. You want all those Jews there killed. Because that would be the natural consequence of disarming them.

Here's more crying. Like I said, nobody cares anymore. You Israel supporters always cry when someone says something bad about Israel or steps on their toe but you never care when Israel attacks humanitarian ships or bombs residential areas in Palestine and kills hundreds of civilians. If Israel keeps on with the emotional immaturity you are displaying then yes, they will be wiped off of the map. Then the whole problem would be solved!!!

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
In the beginning of the conflict there were planes and all of that in the Irish Civil war and Irish War for Independence.

Those names invoke an image of heavy fighting and lots of deaths, when in reality it wasn't as bad. Also, at the end of it in 1922 we relented, negotiated and left. We were, in fact, looking for a solution to the Irish problem from the late 19th century, but events overook us, such as WW1.

Israel, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be as accomodating.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
The Partition of Ireland is in many ways like the mess in the Middle East.

It's worked out in the end through dialogue and the rule of law, not punitive military action and taking more land for excuse of "security". A lesson Israel would do well to learn. The USA won't have their backs forever and you can bet the EU won't fill the void.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
At least you do agree the pre 67 borders are legal. In my mind if Israel had to go back to the 67 borders, the land should go back to who they took it from: Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

Indeed, I have no objection to Israel existing, to be honest. I just object to their constant portrayal of being the victim when the evidence is quite clearly going the other way. They should be magnanamous in victory and help the palestinians, not kill them.

If it was down to me, I would have made them all live in one, secular country. Quite why they can't get on and why they must have religion involved is beyond me.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
It doesn't make legal sense to give it to another party.

The 1947 partition plan would have made those regions part of the "Arab state" in the two state solution.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
If anything Turkey should get the whole region back.

Turkey was having trouble in those regions long before WW1 and I doubt they'd want anything further to do with them.

reply to post by stumason

Actually, it isn't. unnilateral annexation of land is illegal. Land can only change hands, under international law, by virtue of a negotiated settlement, hence why most of the world, apart from the USA, regards Israeli occupation and settlement of these lands as illegal.

Ah..international law.. Another way of saying "Jews wont ever be dealt with fairly"....

"They did it to us first!" - whiney school kids use that excuse. Even now, with Israel clearly being the superior power, they practice collective punishment and bombard civilian area's with dodgy weaponry against men armed with rifles (if they're lucky) and stones.

Im sorry. Did not america enter the war after they were attacked at pearl harber? Why wasnt that a "whiney school kid exscuse"?

And what about Britain. Glorious britain who you demonicly defend. Wasnt the British bombing of Dresden at the end of the war completely and utterly unnecessary? Germany had lost. There was no need to kill 250,000 people.

In anycase, a normal, sane person responds to aggression and especially when dealing with people who have no respect for 'pacificism, and timidity' as you suggest would have been the better response... No, Muslims only respond to strength. The irgun and Lechi acted wisely by paying them their dues.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Agreed, this is great news for the Palestinians though. Israel have been committing a genocide on them for decades.

I actually like this decision from Obama. It actually knocked me out of my chair when I saw it on CNN headline.

It's finallY time to put an end to the Zionist Agenda

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Carseller4
How can land be taken from Jordan, by Israel, and returned to "Palestine", which never existed?

If Palestine never existed, explain the existence of a Palestine dating back to Roman times and the 1947 settlement splitting the land almost equally between Arabs and Jews? If Palestine never existed, who exactly was going to have that land designated for Arabs?

In 70 AD the Romans crushed the Jews and their temple, took away their land, and to add insult to injury renamed it Palestine, in reference to the Philistines whom the Jews conquered centuries earlier.

It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and by the British after World War I. In short.....Palestine never existed on its own.

Originally posted by dontreally
Ah..international law.. Another way of saying "Jews wont ever be dealt with fairly"....

Not at all and quite why you would say that is bizarre. I think your thought process are a little wonky here and you don;t exactly see this situation with an objective view, but instead are emotionally charged, for some reason.

Originally posted by dontreally
Im sorry. Did not america enter the war after they were attacked at pearl harber? Why wasnt that a "whiney school kid exscuse"?

An attack by one state party against another is one thing, but launching a huge military offensive against guys with stones and bottle rockets, then end up killing more civilians is another. The two are not even remotely comparable, which is rich for a guy who accused me of comparing apples and oranges, even when I didn't make the comarison in the first place.

Originally posted by dontreally
Wasnt the British bombing of Dresden at the end of the war completely and utterly unnecessary? Germany had lost. There was no need to kill 250,000 people.

Dresden was bombed in early 1945, the war hadn't been won and the city itself had a massive Military garrison and would have played a major part in the defense of Berlin against the Red Army. It also housed massive amounts of key industries, such as ball bearings, which were critical in the German manufacture of tanks and aircraft.

What was your point? Oh, the USAF also carried out a massive raid on the city during the day, immediately preceeding the RAF attack. Wasn't just us evil, blood-drinking, baby-eating Brits you know.

Originally posted by dontreally
No, Muslims only respond to strength. The irgun and Lechi acted wisely by paying them their dues.

Now we see your true colours. Your a bigot. Far enough.

All I got to say is if Israel doesn't wanna cooperate the hell with them. I don't see why this should be difficult to understand, split the land up evenly and live happily ever after. Simple as that.

reply to post by XRaDiiX


I wouldn't call it a genocide. There are 4 million Palestinians and less than 10,000 have been killed in both Intifadas combined.
Thats hardly a genocide.

Now Darfur or Tibet, a whole other story, hundreds of thousands killed.

The Palestinian Arabs if they do get a deal out of this will not be free. They will be completely tied to who ever props them up financially and possibly to NATO if it occupies the West Bank and Gaza as a security measure. It will only be a matter of time before militants would attack whoever the peacekeeping forces are and we are going to have a mess.

The issues in the Middle East will not be settled until the region has what Europe had 60 years ago, a total war leveling cities and killing millions. Only after the horror of total war, like Europe, will the people finally wake up.