reply to post by MrInquisitive
When I started looking for source material, most of what came up was Jewish or Israeli centered, and figured immediately anyone not of that view would
find that suspect. I understand that. there were several other sites, including some with demographic data from the time, but I did not have time to
go through it. However; one could easily make the argument that the PLO and Arabs have successfully "pushed" their version of the story enough that
Israeli's points fall to the way side. BOTH sides have engaged in actions that could be called "terrorism" or are underhanded at best, to get "their"
point across. Both groups trying to pass their veiw of the situation as "right". Both probably have put forward positions of truth, and both have
probably put forward positions that were false, in their fervor to present their "case" to the world.
I'll be the first to admit, there is alot about the founding of Israel that is suspect and/or underhanded. However; the lines of the rest of the
Middle East were also pretty much drawn by the UK. No one really disputes the other borders. Only the founding of Israel get's such dispute.
For example, "Kurdistan" got left out all together, being thrown in all together with the hodgepodge that is Iraq. It's been a headache for the US
forces their, but you never heard much about it, even though the Kurds and Arab Iraqi's waged combat over it off and on for 30 years, including the
use of chemical weapons (thats when most people heard about it, in the run up to the gulf wars, "Saddam gassed the Kurds"). TransJordan became Jordan,
but portions of territory were left out (and includes the West Bank...most of the "Palestinian's" of the West bank are displaced Jordanian's. Kuwait
and Iraq's borders have always been disputed by the two. Lebanon was relatively Christian until the Arabs had enough of that. On top of that, Sharon
and Clinton offered a 2 state solution for Israel/Palestine Again, Arafat walked out. Same thing essentially happend in 1947-8, and the Arabs walked
away, chosing war instead of a settlement. Who's "right" in these situations.
Yet only Israel seems to be of real dispute in so far of the "rightness" of the situation. Of course, could it be the other disputes are "Muslim to
Muslim" and not "Jewish to Muslim"???? OR could it be the founding of Israel as a state discredits the Koran??? I mean Hebrew Israel/Judah pretty
much ceased to exist in 70AD. The rise of Mohammad and writings of the Koran, spread of Islam was in the 600-800AD time frame, yet the Koran still
rails about "the Jew".....a people that were mostly scattered from the area almost 500 years before?!?. Does not the reestablishment of a Jewish
state not rock Islam to it's very core. Since it was prophesied in the Bible/Old Testement, before Islam was founded, and then actually
happened..........well, let's just say that's an awfully large coincidence, but that gets more into the religous points of this and not the political.
Which are relevant, but go deeper than I can get into now.
In fact, I would like to go into this more, but have little time today, employment duties call............
edit on 28-9-2012 by SrWingCommander because: clarification