Yo! Believer

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Remember you and me duking it out about Israel vs Palestine?

As of today, after 2 months of cease fire and a commitment from Israel to withdraq unconditionally from Gaza, Palestinian miltants have delivered 2 homicide bombers, and have shelled an out post for two days straight.

Israel HAS DONE NOTHING to any palestinian since this cease fire has been hammered out a few months.

Israel is currently building thier forces for an excursion into Gaza. They haven't moved yet, but Israel's patience is wearing thin.


Tell me again, how Israel is the aggressor and responsible for the homicide bombings that take place within her borders?

[believer]

Simple. These "extremists" probably feel that ONE jew on their land is one too many, even dead. They probably would say (if they had a voice) "this is MY home and I don't recall agreeing to give it away, and no...the war aint over and this swine do not set the terms or call the shots regarding my home."

But then again...it's just a guess. how am I to know?

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I didn't ask you what the extremists were saying.

I was asking you to justify a position you took the last time we did this song and dance, namely that Israel is the primary aggressor, particularly in light of the fact that Israel has been passive almost to the point of insanity these last few months.

What I found hilarious was that the group responsible for the 2nd homicide bombing stated that they were commited to the peace process but reserved the right to take up arms at any time.

So let me ask you this.

Do you think Israel is justified in massing their forces at the border of Gaza, and launching an excursion into Gaza as retaliation for the above violations of the peace treaty?

[Arbiter]

i think that should be one of our rights, blowing someone else up (sarcasm). I could find a few liberals to use that one on and they would have to defend me. :icon_razz
but back on topic
Israel is not the aggressor. Israel is defending the small plot of land that they do have and doing a damn good job at it as well.

[believer]

Compromises will never work between them two. One of them needs to either shit, or get off the pot. (genocide the other completely or leave).

Reason being; both are extremist, hard-headed, able to justify any wrong for sake of continuing this age old hate fest. I don't care who does what for what reason between them. It's all wrong. It's just two brothers with satan between them and satan is the only winner.

When my mother caught me and my sisters fighting, she made us hug each other. Our "hug" sure was a funny sight! I aint pickin' no sides between two undisciplined children. Maybe we can make a killing off of selling them both bombs and guns and stuff, then just sit back a watch.

I was watching an episode of animal cops the other night. They got ahold of some pit bull terrier dogs whose owners had been making them fight one another. The dogs were considered unfit for adoption because all they know is what they had been trained; to kill the other dog, and that's all they wanted. So, the dogs were to be put down. See any parallels here?

If I ever came across as seeming to take "side" with the Palestinian; I regret this. allow me to clarify; I see people blindly taking a side because that side required no effort for them to relate with. I would prefer that we were fair about it, instead, so I played devil's advocate.

[Bumblebee]

believer, you are wrong.
The Israelis have done everything to secure peace, short of committing national suicide.

[FightinDaMan]

While I have a lot of issues with Israel, her withdrawl from the settlements is a good step towards peace. While I understand why those in Hamas and other groups would be upset with the scenario of still being kept out of most of what used to be their country, their tactics are deplorable and, at this point, to kick the Jews out of Israel would be no better than it was to kick the Arabs out of former Palestine.

The term homocide bomber is a rediculous term. Timothy McVeigh was a homocide bomber. ETA and the IRA employ(ed) homocide bombers. All bombers kill people, what differs those in the Middle East from Western bombers, is that they kill themselves as well as other people, which is why the label "suicide bomber" makes sense.

[NewKindOfSoldier]

"All bombers kill people"

a group known as "the weathermen" used to blow up FBI buildings, but at night so they wouldnt kill anyone.

[FightinDaMan]

fine then, MOST bombers kill people.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

fine then, MOST bombers kill people.

Um FDM so what do the few other bombers do with their bombs? Chances are every person that has a bomb plan on doing somthing with it that invovles lives at risk.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

a group known as "the weathermen" used to blow up FBI buildings, but at night so they wouldnt kill anyone.

Ok have you ever thought that they might of been some people or person in there working a double shift trying to solve the case of the morons blowing up the FBI buildings.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

"While I understand why those in Hamas and other groups would be upset with the scenario of still being kept out of most of what used to be their country"

WHAT COUNTRY!!!!

Show me please, when Palestine EVER existed.

[FightinDaMan]

It existed under the British. The fact that it was not self-governed is irrellevent. Unless you are under the delusion that all of the land now occupied by Israel was vacant until the Jews moved in, you have to recognize that its creation displaced the Arabs who were living there.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

It existed under the British. The fact that it was not self-governed is irrellevent. Unless you are under the delusion that all of the land now occupied by Israel was vacant until the Jews moved in, you have to recognize that its creation displaced the Arabs who were living there.


Irrellevent??? according to whom........YOU!!!

Give me strength.

Do you recognize the existance of Israel before or after 1949???

[FightinDaMan]

Irrellevent??? according to whom........YOU!!!

Give me strength.

Well I guess it depends on your view of ownership. If you think the government owns the land, then sure, it was the British's country, but if you recognize the people as the inhabitants of the land, then you might see it a bit differently. Imagine if, say, the British were to have given half the colonies back to the American Indians at some point before our independence. Would the colonists have a right to feel cheated and kicked off of THEIR land (despite not being independent of the British)?


Do you recognize the existance of Israel before or after 1949???

I recognize the existence of Israel beginning at the UN partition. I believe the official "birthday" was in 1948.

[thumbelina]

The Big LIE (http://www.godsclay.com/lie.htm)

"The West Bank is occupied Palestinian land." This phrase is frequently repeated, as a given, by all the governments of the world and by the entire news media.

This idea that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian land has been accepted by almost everyone. Yet it is, in fact, the greatest lie ever perpetrated on the whole of humanity.

If you think this is an outlandish statement, please read on and decide for yourself.

Palestinians claim that Palestine is their land, and that Jerusalem is their capital, and that Israel is occupying their land. To resist occupation, they assert the right to send suicide bombers into crowded bus stations, pizza parlors, etc., and kill innocent men, women and children. And all Arab and Muslim countries support them in their claims and actions against Israel.

Because of this alleged occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, because of this alleged crime committed against their Palestinian brothers, all Arabs hate Israel and want to destroy it.

To anyone who is familiar with the facts, and has an objective eye, all this must be fascinating. Because never before has a complete lie, on such a large scale, been so successful.

First, if Arab animosity toward Israel is based on their love and support for their Palestinian brothers – and in wanting their Palestinian brothers to have their own state – where was that love and support before the Jewish state existed?
Where were they when the kingdom of Jordan ruled Palestine?
Why were they not accusing Jordan of occupying Palestinian land?
Why did not the Arab world and the United Nations call on Jordan to stop occupying Palestinian land?
Second, where were the Palestinians themselves, with all their grievances and claims, when Jordan occupied the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem?

Did you know that? Did you know that for 19 years, Jordan occupied and ruled the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem? Why didn't they clamor for a Palestinian state then?

All this time, did we hear a word about Palestine being occupied by the kingdom of Jordan? Did we hear anything about a Palestinian state? Or about Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine?

No, we did not.

Why not?

Because there never existed a Palestinian state.

And in the entire history of nations, Jerusalem was never the capital of any country other than that of ancient Israel and modern Israel. So how can there be a claim on Jerusalem as the capital of a state that never existed?

One of the problems here is that so few people know the history of the world. Hence, lies and more lies, repeated often enough, are assumed to be facts.

I have heard many scholars, including an Arab journalist, question the very notion of a Palestinian people. What, they ask, makes a people? Well, there are four elements that define a people: language, religion, culture and cuisine. For example, the Chinese and Japanese are both Oriental. Still, they are two different peoples, because they each have a different language, a different religion, a different culture and a different cuisine.

The Palestinians speak the same language, follow the same religion, manifest the same culture and eat the same cuisine as all other Arabs. They are really Arabs who happen to live in a region called Palestine.

Palestine is not – and never was – the name of a country, or the name of a people.

It is the name of a region – just like Siberia is a region, not a country. There is no Siberian country, nor is there a Siberian people. It is a region. Just like the Sahara is a region, not a country. There is no Saharan country, nor is there a Saharan people. The Arabs living in that region are Libyans, Moroccans, etc. It is a region.

Because Palestine is a region, not a country, England was able to carve out half of it and give it to the Arabs living on the other side of the Jordan River and call it the kingdom of Jordan. Because Palestine is a region, the United Nations was able to divide the rest of it between the Jews and the Arabs living there. Had the Arabs accepted the United Nations resolution, there would have been a newly created Arab state called Palestine. Instead, they rejected the United Nations compromise and went to war to destroy Israel. They lost the war. Hence, no Palestinian state.

Here are some cold facts.

King David built the city of Jerusalem, and King Solomon, David's son, built the holy temple. This commonwealth of Israel lasted for a thousand years. There was only one break, when, 400 years after King David, the Babylonian invaders occupied the land for 70 years. Then, with the help of Cyrus the Great of Persia – yes, Persia – Israel came back to the land, rebuilt the temple and ruled for another 600 years.

Then, the Romans came and ruled the land, then the Crusaders ruled the land, then the Ottoman Empire ruled the land, then the British Empire ruled the land, then Israel returned to its homeland and built a modern Jewish state. It was never – repeat, never – a Palestinian state.

So what is all this talk about occupied Palestinian land?

They certainly have a right to live there freely and happily. Nobody wants to move them away from their land. But from where comes the right for a Palestinian state? Is it because they live there?

Imagine if the Mexican-American community in California, whose numbers are greater than the number of Palestinians in the West Bank, decides tomorrow to claim that the United States is occupying their land, because they live there and they want their own Mexican state. Imagine if, when the U.S. government says, "No, you can live here, but you cannot have sovereignty, you cannot have your own state," they start sending suicide bombers, shooters, mortars, etc. into the rest of the country. What do you think would happen?

This is precisely why there was never any suggestion of a Palestinian state – not under the Romans, not under the Crusaders, not under the Turks, not under the English and not under the Arab kingdom of Jordan – until after Israel was again established in its homeland.

I believe it is the big lie of our generation, and we are all buying into it.

Whatever you believe, don't you think these facts deserve to be raised when discussing Middle East policies?

[believer]

that analogy wouldn't have been so effective if you were to have used native american "indians", instead of mexicans, huh? While we're at it, consider french canadians! ha ha. that's actually kinda funny.

[FightinDaMan]

A couple points. I don't think anybody is suggesting that the Arabs in Palestine are somehow different from the Arabs in Jordan, or the Arabs in Saudi Arabia, or the Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. Palestinian is used as a nationality, much like "American" as opposed to a race.

There was no clamoring for independence from Jordan for two reasons. 1) The Jordanians occupied the West Bank in a war against Israel, in order to aid the Arabs living in the area. 2) Being ruled by the Jordanians was essentially self-determination, because the region of Palestine was ruled together with the region known as Transjordan until the British gave it away to the Hashemites.

As for the Palestinians never having an Independent state, this is a non-issue. None of the states in the Middle East existed in their current form until the 20th Century. If the Palestinians are not deserving of an independent state because they were part of a series of Muslim caliphates, then the Ottoman Empire, and finally ruled by the British as UN mandate, then that would disqualify several other states in the area as well (Jordan being one).

Your analogy is false. The Palestinians saying that Israel is their land is not like the Mexican population saying that California is their land. There were Arabs, "Palestinians" living in what is now Israel 50 years ago. They had homes, families, businesses, etc ON THE LAND THAT IS NOW OCCUPIED BY THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL. The United Nations in one of it's lovely fits of power, saw fit to give half of this land to a group of immigrants, so that they could have their own sovereign state, sort of like if the UN decided to give the Mexican population of California their own state, based on the rational that it used to be theirs a long time ago (to to turn your analogy against you).

There was no need to suggest an independent Palestinian the Romans, the Crusaders, the Turks, or the English because the Arabs there were not being displaced by these people. Hordes of Brits, Turks, and Romans were not moving into Palestine and fighting with the locals. When the Jews moved in and the UN decided to give them a state out of land that was not theirs, it displaced the Arabs.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I recognize the existence of Israel beginning at the UN partition. I believe the official "birthday" was in 1948.

Alrighty then.

Obviously you don't believe or accept history then?

I guess Ann Coulter is right, to a liberal, History began yesterday


Like I said folks, nothing to see here, move along

[FightinDaMan]

Bullshit. Biblical Israel was completely different from modern Israel, not to mention the span of several thousand years between their existence. They cannot be treated as the same state.

Biblical Israel was defeated and disappeared from the map. In 1948 the UN created a new state, with a different form of government in the same place with the same name.


Funny how you pick that one statement, and ignore all of my property arguments.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Bullshit. Biblical Israel was completely different from modern Israel, not to mention the span of several thousand years between their existence. They cannot be treated as the same state.

Funny, that Palestine has never existed either.


Biblical Israel was defeated and disappeared from the map. In 1948 the UN created a new state, with a different form of government in the same place with the same name.

While Palestine has been the tower of Babylon since time immemorial.

You're running 2 for ZERO, hope your next comment is better.



Funny how you pick that one statement, and ignore all of my property arguments.

Your property arguments have just been made moot by this latest brain fart of yours.

Why do you think I asked the question I did? I knew you were going to say something along these lines.

You're quite happy to argue in favor of Palestine using these 'Property Arguements' DESPITE the fact that there has never been a country of Palestine since Antiquity, yet in the same breath you dismiss Israel.

Once again intellectually bankrupt

[FightinDaMan]

There's nothing intellectually bankrupt. Nothing at all. I fail to see how suggesting that people who live on the land have a right to it before people who don't is intellectually bankrupt. My issue with Palestine, and most people's issue with Palestine, is not that they somehow NEED to be independent from every other Arab Muslim state. You can thank the British for creating "Palestine" by seperating it from Trans-Jordan. But to say that, in the 1940s, before the creation of Israel, that the Jews had as much a right to a state in the their former Holy Land as did the Arabs who lived there is intellectually bankrupt. To suggest, for one second, that conquest by immigration was a perfectly legitimate action based on the fact that they used to live there 2000 years ago is total nonsense. You are twisting the situation here to try to make my arguments null, when if you listened to my arguments, instead of simply deciding from the outset that I was wrong, you might realize something.

I assume, since I have seen nothing in your posts to indicate to the contrary, that you are a supporter of self-determination, as opposed to colonial rule. If this is the case, then obviously you would say that while Britain was occupying the Middle East, the Arabs there had a right to self-determination (aka their own state). Because of the seperation of Palestine from Trans-Jordan, this would mean that the occupants of the Palestinian region, specifically, had a right to their own state. They had a claim to statehood by virtue of a) a human right to self-determination and b) the British division of its holdings.

The only claim the Jews had to a state was residence in that location in ancient history, and the sanction of an IGO which decided it had the authority to split up the region into Arab-Muslim and Jewish halves. In giving half of the Palestinian region to the newly-created/revived state of Israel, they evicted the Arabs already living there from their homes: they could not have been ignorant of the consequences of their actions, because there was already violence between the two groups.

Your argument, that Palestine has no claim to statehood because it hasn't been a state for as long as Israel, is nonsense, because Palestine's claim for statehood is not rooted in antiquity, but in modernity, which is why it's claim was infinitely stronger than Israels, at least in the 1940s. As it stands now, the situation is much more difficult, because to expel the Jews from Israel would be no better than it was to expel the Arabs from the same area in the 1940s. They should be allowed sovereignty over the land they now occupy, and the refugees should receive some compensation for what they lost after the partition so that they can resume their lives, either in Gaza/West Bank or in another country that will take them.

[fumalicious]

I'm curious what you all think about this.

Is this a good thing that Israel is getting out of Gaza? Or is it succumbing to terrorists? Is it making Israel safer or is it encouraging the terrorists to do more damage?

[Miro Satan Fan]

The Palestinians never really owned the land (http://www.godsclay.com/lie.htm) and I don't know why Israel would decided to hand it over. Two things might happen 1) It will be a hot bed for terrerists or 2) Israel is just getting there enemies line up for a major attack.

[The anti liberal]

Miro satan fan, I hope it's the latter.