Hamas ends the Charade [Archive]

lars573

06-10-2006, 07:22

Declaration of war, no. That happened in the 60's. The military wing of Hamas only agreed to a ceasefire (which by all appearances amounted to no suicide bombs against civilian targets in Israel proper). In order to declare war they would have had to be at peace at some point. And militant Hamas isn't an official arm,of the government (so far as I know).

Semantics aside I want to know is how much integration there is between the political branch of Hamas and the military branch. I mean the political branch provides (before being voted into power) education and health care to the people of the west bank and Gaza. This makes Hamas a funny beast. On the one hand you have them provide basic nessities to people who live in poverty and on the other you have a pack of crazies who blow up commuters. My question can/will Hamas-P (for political) seperate itself from Hamas-M.

They Israelis also tried conquering Palestine. That didn't work out either. There isn't much that can be done by Israel. Really the only workable solution is for the PLO to deal with Hamas-M. The Palestinians want to be a state (but some in Hamas don't) then they should start to act like one. They need to bring groups like Hamas-M under control. The elected ruling parties para-military wing renuing war with Israel is not going to help Palestine in the long or short run.

Banquo's Ghost

06-10-2006, 11:05

As such, what would the appropriate Israeli response be?
Conquest of Palestine? Would require a great military effort, whose results I would not know.
Casting off the restrictions, and war on the terrorist leaders of palestine?

I think you'll find that Israel has already conquered and occupied Palestine. That's what all the fuss is about. The results are lots of dead on both sides.

Also note that Israel itself was founded by terrorism. Funny that? :idea2:

Or some other strategy?

Stop shelling children having a day out on the beach and make peace? :inquisitive:

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 11:30

Ser Clegane

06-10-2006, 11:49

crazy, yea, maybe by your standards.
Intentionally blowing up civilians should be called "crazy" (and that is actually quite mild, IMHO) by any standard.
That goes for Palestinians as well as for Israelis - both should be criticized (and more than that) when they target civilians in this conflict.
The atrocities of one group should and can never be the justifications of atrocities of the other group - such justifications do not solve any problems, they are the problem

Or killing the Hamas leader who was 80's+ and on a wheeled chair?
If a person is involved in the planning of and asks for the killing of civilians, he is a valid military target, IMO - age and feebleness of the body should not provide anybody carte blanche to promote terrorism.

Tribesman

06-10-2006, 12:47

Every cloud has a silver lining , while this incident has ended one ceasefire it has created another between Hamas and Fatah .
And anyway it isn't that bad , nearly 5000 artillery rounds have been fired during the recent bombardment , and it is the first time they hit a picnic .

If a person is involved in the planning of and asks for the killing of civilians, he is a valid military target, IMO - age and feebleness of the body should not provide anybody carte blanche to promote terrorism.
Thats fair enough , but there was the little problem that in the repeated attempts to kill the individual they managed to kill a whole heap of innocent people , including bombing whole apartment blocks just in case he happened to be in them . It would have been better to keep the old git in jail instead of releasing him in exchange for those Israeli terrorists who got caught .

Ser Clegane

06-10-2006, 12:53

but there was the little problem that in the repeated attempts to kill the individual they managed to kill a whole heap of innocent people , including bombing whole apartment blocks just in case he happened to be in them .

That is of course an important issue. The loss of lives among civilians is unfortunately very difficult to completely avoid when you try to eliminate terrorists, however, I am not at all convinced that the Israeli army (or secret services) care as much as they could (and should!) when it comes to keeping the death toll among innocent people as low as possible.
You can always claim that you are not intentionally targetting civilians, however as long as you apparently do not care too much about "collateral" damage there is not much of a differnence between "collateral" and "intention".

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 13:15

So, Israel is full of terrorists? (The government is involved in the planning of and asks for the killing of civilians + Before Israel had emerged, when Palestine was under the control of the UK, incoming Israelians used to slaughter the Palestinian public, some Palestinians resisted, some immigrated, but the whole thing comes back to the fact that Israelians attacked innocent people).

And, what is taking other's country? Diplomacy? I think it is really aggravating to call all those Palestinians fighting for their country terrorists, while Israelians get to slaughter people, innocent or not, and being greeted for their deeds.

Ser Clegane

06-10-2006, 13:37

So, Israel is full of terrorists? (The government is involved in the planning of and asks for the killing of civilians

Anybody who intentionally (and the intention is very important here) targets innocent civilians would be a terrorist in my eyes.
I don't think that this criteria is met by enough people in Israel to say that Israel is "full" of terrorists.

I think it is really aggravating to call all those Palestinians fighting for their country terrorists, while Israelians get to slaughter people, innocent or not, and being greeted for their deeds.
I agree to the extent that calling one atrocity terrorism while "greeting" other atrocities is aggravating (and you will not see too many people here who at the same time condemn Palestinian acts of terrorism on one hand and on the other hand support Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians)

However, even if one supports the cause of the Palestinian people, the approach that some Palestianians take (i.e., bombing weddings or buses with school children) is absolutely and completely inacceptable, no matter what you think about the occupation or about attacks by Israeli military.

I think it would be good for both sides in this conflict if they realized that the killing of innocent people is counter-productive to their cause (as long as their cause is to live in peace and not to annihilate the other side)

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 14:37

(and you will not see too many people here who at the same time condemn Palestinian acts of terrorism on one hand and on the other hand support Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians)
However, even if one supports the cause of the Palestinian people, the approach that some Palestianians take (i.e., bombing weddings or buses with school children) is absolutely and completely inacceptable, no matter what you think about the occupation or about attacks by Israeli military.You just did it.. You mentioned how unacceptable is the approach of 'some' of the Palestinians, but didn't mention how bad is the Israelian one.

My whole point stands, and that is most of the people 'do' consider Palestinian fighters terrorists, and the Isaelian ones people who fight for a good cause.

I don't think that this criteria is met by enough people in Israel to say that Israel is "full" of terrorists.I think the fact that Israel foundation was and is based on terror is enough to allow the term 'full' to be used.

Ser Clegane

06-10-2006, 14:57

You just did it.. You mentioned how unacceptable is the approach of 'some' of the Palestinians, but didn't mention how bad is the Israelian one.

Sorry - I am not going to mention atrocities committed by Israelis each time I comment on Palestianian terrorism.
If you interpret the absence of a comment as approval or even "greeting" of Israelis killing civilians I am somewhat surprised, but I will not bend over backwards to convince you otherwise as I can only assume that you are reading into statements what you want to see and not what is actually there

My whole point stands, and that is most of the people 'do' consider Palestinian fighters terrorists,
Those "fighters" who "fight" by murdering innocent people (not much of a "fight", is it?) are indeed considered to be terrorists by most people - you are correct here

and the Isaelian ones people who fight for a good cause.
Now you are mixing up two things:
a) The cause a group is fighting for
and
b) the means a group is using to fight for the cause
You can consider a cause to be good and just (e.g., an independent Palistianian state, protection of Israeli civilians) and still condemn the means (e.g., killing school children, indiscriminately shelling Palestinians)

I think the fact that Israel foundation was and is based on terror is enough to allow the term 'full' to be used.
Does that mean that if a Palestinian state is created that it would be then equally justified that Palestine is full of terrorists - even in 50 years from now?

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 16:12

If you interpret the absence of a comment as approval or even "greeting" of Israelis killing civilians I am somewhat surprised, but I will not bend over backwards to convince you otherwise as I can only assume that you are reading into statements what you want to see and not what is actually there
Since the majority of people I get to talk to do have that thought, why should you be different considering you haven't mentioned a thing about it? Now, maybe I was wrong in that statement, but you can't blame me, can you?
Those "fighters" who "fight" by murdering innocent people (not much of a "fight", is it?) are indeed considered to be terrorists by most people - you are correct here
People consider Hamas terrorists, while the intent of their fights is to kill enemy soldiers, but they sometimes might not be able to do it, since they are no where near to a techonology which they can limit the damage radius (People that get effected by it) through. Now, without generalizing, aren't those 'innocents' guilty of conquering? Or colonizing? Or taking Palestinian lands from Palestinians?

Now you are mixing up two things:
a) The cause a group is fighting for
and
b) the means a group is using to fight for the cause
You can consider a cause to be good and just (e.g., an independent Palistianian state, protection of Israeli civilians) and still condemn the means (e.g., killing school children, indiscriminately shelling Palestinians)
Read my statement well, I said "Most of the people do think so", but I think not, what good cause they're fighting for? You tell me if you know it (And you seem to know it).

Does that mean that if a Palestinian state is created that it would be then equally justified that Palestine is full of terrorists - even in 50 years from now?No it wouldn't, it would be justified with the term 'Freed their lands'.

rory_20_uk

06-10-2006, 16:13

To try to weigh up who is more guilty than the other IMO is not a worthwhile use of time.

Both are as entities guilty of killing civilians. Both use the last atrocity of the other to justify their next one.

If Israel did not have such a good ally in the USA we might hear more condemnation against them. As it is UN motions get vetoed before they can come about.

Israel is useful to the west to have int he region, whilst most states in the region view Palestine as a good cause to get angry about as it is something that they can't alter and focuses people on problems outside the country.

~:smoking:

Ser Clegane

06-10-2006, 16:40

why should you be different considering you haven't mentioned a thing about it?
I haven't?

however, I am not at all convinced that the Israeli army (or secret services) care as much as they could (and should!) when it comes to keeping the death toll among innocent people as low as possible.
You can always claim that you are not intentionally targetting civilians, however as long as you apparently do not care too much about "collateral" damage there is not much of a differnence between "collateral" and "intention".

[...]

That goes for Palestinians as well as for Israelis - both should be criticized (and more than that) when they target civilians in this conflict.
I think I made pretty clear what I think about intentional or semi-intentional attacks on civilians on either side.
I specifically expanded on Palestinian terrorism, when you tried to justify intentional attacks on civilians by Palestinians - if somebody tries to justify intentional Israeli attacks on civilians I will specifically respond to that

]People consider Hamas terrorists, while the intent of their fights is to kill enemy soldiers, but they sometimes might not be able to do it, since they are no where near to a techonology which they can limit the damage radius (People that get effected by it) through.
I have to disagree - I can see absolutely no intent to kill enemy soldiers when somebody is blowing up a wedding party or a schoolbus - this has nothing to do with not being able to limit the damage radius.

Now, without generalizing, aren't those 'innocents' guilty of conquering? Or colonizing? Or taking Palestinian lands from Palestinians?
No they are not - school children cannot be guilty of that by any definition - just as Palestinian children are absolutely not guilty (by association) of blowing up Israeli civilians and therefore should not become victims of Israeli bombardment while being on the beach with their families.

what good cause they're fighting for? You tell me if you know it (And you seem to know it).
Protecting the lives of their people

No it wouldn't, it would be justified with the term 'Freed their lands'.
Justified in the eyes of those who support terrorism - just as in the case of the creation of Israel.

lars573

06-10-2006, 16:43

Yesterday, around 10 people died in Ghazza, and 15-20 hurt. And yesterday is just the story of everyday, while note that Hamas has held their part of the Ceasefire, but as always, Israel soldiers just need targets to practice on, and so they go and kill couple of persons as a routine job. Now, you tell me what would you do?

Typical. Sacrificing your soul for the freedom of your country is crazy, yea, maybe by your standards. Now, don't tell me that he shouldn't blow up civilians, yes he shouldn't, but really, what is the Israelian military doing each day? Killing the Palestinian army? Or killing the Hamas leader who was 80's+ and on a wheeled chair? Or killing that kid who by accident got out of his home through a 'No ... movement (I only know it in Arabic :S )'? Or razing whole camps such as 'Jenin Camp'?
I never said that the Israeli's were the good guys. Just the lesser of 2 evils. And groups like Hamas-M and the Al-Aksa Martyr Brigade are the closest thing that Palestine has to an army (and Israel and Palestine are at war lets not dance around that) so anyone who's a member of their leadership are valid targets for elimination by the Israeli army. And I'm sure if they didn't try hard not too there would be a hell of a lot more dead Palestinian civilians every time they went after one of these guys.

And the irony that Israel was founded on the back of a terrorist bombing campagin (directed against the British but more often than not Arab Palestinians got caught in the middle) and a bloody revolt is not lost on me. It's why it will be so hard for people like Hamas-M to stop using terrorism. It got Israeli's what they wanted.

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 16:57

@Clegane: I simply agree to most of your points, and you seemingly agree to mine, since I agree to yours. But then, what would happen if Israelians had went to a European country, killed it's people and conquered it (Just like what happened in Palestine), what would you do if you lived in that country? Would the resistance be considered terrorism?

I have to disagree - I can see absolutely no intent to kill enemy soldiers when somebody is blowing up a wedding party or a schoolbus - this has nothing to do with not being able to limit the damage radius.Well, if you doesn't see a thing doesn't mean it isn't their. I can assure you that Hamas 'exclusively' is one of the most catious foundations, and they try to harm those who're responsiple and keep the harm away of innocents as hard as possible. Now, you say that it's ok for Hamas to resist against the Israelian military, and ok too for the Israelian army to fight Hamas, right? But that is typical war, and the memory of 50 years will never draft away. I can tell you that less than whole Palestine back wouldn't be a good offer to Palestinians, and I assure you that as long as Israel keeps it's current method, it will never see peace, not close or in the far horizon.

@Lars: How are they the lesser evil?

(directed against the British but more often than not Arab Palestinians got caught in the middle)Yea.. Which's why UK had given Israelians nuclear heads/material..

P.S. An armed resistance is usually aimed at the whole community of the conquering faction, so really their is no innocent in such ocasions, as you're guilty for being with them and not doing a thing about it. It has been so in every armed resistance their were. AFAIK.

Red Peasant

06-10-2006, 17:15

How are they the lesser evil?
Yea.. Which's why UK had given Israelians nuclear heads/material..

Despite what happened in the past, the Israelis are more our friends (ie the UK) than the Muslim Palestinians, although we have given considerable enough financial support to the Palestinians which has mostly ended up in the Swiss bank accounts of their corrupt and savage leaders. Conversely, the Palestinians are more our enemies than the Israelis our friends. Why should we support your friends (ie the Palestinians) who want not only an end to Israel, but to the West (ie non-muslims) in general.

It is a shame, and a crime (even the Israelis admit that, what more do you want!) that some poor people were killed on a beach but I refuse to believe that they were targeted deliberately (not like innocent Israeli citizens going about their daily business who are the constant target of suicide psychopaths). It serves no purpose for the Israelis to commit such a PR disaster.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-10-2006, 17:18

x-dANGER - don't be ridiculous.

P.S. An armed resistance is usually aimed at the whole community of the conquering faction, so really their is no innocent in such ocasions, as you're guilty for being with them and not doing a thing about it. It has been so in every armed resistance their were. AFAIK.
What you just posted says that Hamas & Co. is justified in killing civilians. You're really proving here how the Palestinians are the poor, downtrodden heroes, aren't you? ~:rolleyes:

Additionally, I wouldn't say that Israel conquered Palestine. At the very least, it is far more complicated than that. Large populations of Jewish people emigrated to Palestine under British control before, during, and after WW2 (and the Holocaust). If you call that conquest, then the US is beseiged (and we should take military action against the civilians, as you suggest).

As to Israeli terrorism, I am unfamiliar with it, though I thought it mainly targetted British military. Of course, explosive detonations within a populated country will kill civilians, and I am not saying Israel was justified. But that was then, this is now. If the Palestinian people gave up their terrorism now in fifty years I wouldn't hold it against them.

As to Israeli shelling, I was under the impression that it was usually in response either to rocket fire on settlements or suicide bombing somewhere in Israel. Again, that doesn't justify it, but it isn't like the Israelis were like, "OMG let's liek blow up some Palestinians 4 fun lolzers!1!!11"

Going back to the original topic, I don't think we can separate the political wing of Hamas from the military wing. They are the same organization with similar goals - the advancement of the Palestinian people at the expense of Israel. That one wing helps charities and hospitals doesn't really matter; those actions are just as much a tool for them to gain the support of the people. I doubt they are doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts.

And ultimately you can't separate the two because they march under the same banner, as far as I know. They don't view themselves separately, do they?

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 17:30

Dude it is said one hundred times.. Hamas wants Palestine back, and that's about all they want back. Now I want to go back to the root of the problem, Palestine was for Palestinians, it is now for Israelians by force, who has attacked the other's rights?

What you just posted says that Hamas & Co. is justified in killing civilians. You're really proving here how the Palestinians are the poor, downtrodden heroes, aren't you?I made it clear that I don't support that, and that Hamas is not targetting civlians. I wonder why would you believe it if Israel said they didn't, and say go out of here when Hamas says so.

Additionally, I wouldn't say that Israel conquered Palestine. At the very least, it is far more complicated than that. Large populations of Jewish people emigrated to Palestine under British control before, during, and after WW2 (and the Holocaust). If you call that conquest, then the US is beseiged (and we should take military action against the civilians, as you suggest).
Ever heard about Belfor's promise?

who want not only an end to Israel, but to the West (ie non-muslims) in general.I have no idea where you got that from. Just a couple of months ago, one of them stated the following: "We don't have anything against Israelians for being Jewish, but for conquering our lands." I think that indicated that the core of the problem is the land rather than the religion.

As to Israeli terrorism, I am unfamiliar with it, though I thought it mainly targetted British military. Of course, explosive detonations within a populated country will kill civilians, and I am not saying Israel was justified. But that was then, this is now. If the Palestinian people gave up their terrorism now in fifty years I wouldn't hold it against them.But Israel is gaining fruits of it's terrorism, instead of regrits.

As to Israeli shelling, I was under the impression that it was usually in response either to rocket fire on settlements or suicide bombing somewhere in Israel. Again, that doesn't justify it, but it isn't like the Israelis were like, "OMG let's liek blow up some Palestinians 4 fun lolzers!1!!11"
So each day their is a Palestinian operation going on hurting Israel innocent civilians?

Red Peasant

06-10-2006, 17:40

"We don't have anything against Israelians for being Jewish, but for conquering our lands."

And if you believe that is what they believe then you are totally credulous. The bile that is poured out against the Israelis and the existence of the Israeli state is a constant, putrid river of hatred. Not to mention the West. I can only speak of people I knew from university who'd been there, and from a random selection of Middle-Eastern muslim students I've met here in the UK. On the other hand, many of the Palestinians I met, here on MA courses, were very, how can I say, 'Westernised', compared to other Muslims, especially the women.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-10-2006, 17:41

Hamas is not targetting civlians.
Fine, but your quote still says you don't mind it when other Palestinian terrorists attack civilians. That's wrong.

Ever heard about Belfor's promise?
Nope, and neither has Wikipedia. Google found about six sites, just about all of them Arabic message boards. Care to enlighten me?

I think that indicated that the core of the problem is the land rather than the religion.
I don't know - Hamas seems to be good friends to people who are pretty much Muslims against the West, of which Judaism is just one part of the evil West. Religion is certainly a part of it, I think. If it was Muslims who had "invaded" Palestine...

But Israel is gaining fruits of it's terrorism, instead of regrits.
Gained. Past tense. Israel no longer gains from previous anti-British terrorism; it is now probably something they would like to quietly forget.

So each day their is a Palestinian operation going on hurting Israel innocent civilians?
If it's not a bomb on a bus, somebody is trading rocket fire with the IDF or shelling settlements. Maybe not literally every day, but certainly every week, and generally more frequently.

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 17:54

Fine, but your quote still says you don't mind it when other Palestinian terrorists attack civilians. That's wrong.
Quote me please?

Nope, and neither has Wikipedia. Google found about six sites, just about all of them Arabic message boards. Care to enlighten me?
Maybe I got the name in english wrong.. Will try to find an english link about the incident am talking about.

I don't know - Hamas seems to be good friends to people who are pretty much Muslims against the West, of which Judaism is just one part of the evil West. Religion is certainly a part of it, I think. If it was Muslims who had "invaded" Palestine...Is thier any proof, statement or indication that Hamas is against the whole west?! I'm a muslim and I'm a Palestinian and no, I have nothing against the west. Maybe annoyed from their betrayal in WW2, and on the UK for losing me my home.. But no intent to kill you or do anything bad to you, as out of every 10 people from the UK I meet, 9 of them apologize to me about all what happened in WW2.

Gained. Past tense. Israel no longer gains from previous anti-British terrorism; it is now probably something they would like to quietly forget.
With everyday that passes with Israel still living on a ground not theirs, they are gaining.

If it's not a bomb on a bus, somebody is trading rocket fire with the IDF or shelling settlements. Maybe not literally every day, but certainly every week, and generally more frequently.
But it is an everyday incident that a Palestintian gets killed, and so you are showing contrary to your self:

As to Israeli shelling, I was under the impression that it was usually in response either to rocket fire on settlements or suicide bombing somewhere in Israel. Again, that doesn't justify it, but it isn't like the Israelis were like, "OMG let's liek blow up some Palestinians 4 fun lolzers!1!!11"

@Red Peasant: Read my replies to Alexander.

Also, to remind you, wasn't surrounding Yaser Arafat in his own home terrorism?

Red Peasant

06-10-2006, 18:04

Quote me please?
@Red Peasant: Read my replies to Alexander.

Also, to remind you, wasn't surrounding Yaser Arafat in his own home terrorism?

Sorry mate, but I can have no sympathy at all for Arafat, the biggest rip-off merchant of his own people of them all. Please try harder ~;)

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 18:08

Here are a couple of links for Balfour's Promise: (And some history lessons, for those who need it)

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_10.shtml
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_4.shtml
http://www.tasc.ac.uk/shp/Terrorism/Terrorism%20&%20Middle%20East/HAMAS%20view%20of%20History.htm

Just google it..

EDIT:

Sorry mate, but I can have no sympathy at all for Arafat, the biggest rip-off merchant of his own people of them all. Please try harder THe point isn't whether you have sympathy or not, the point is he surely was trying to negotiate paece with Israel, to gain what?

lars573

06-10-2006, 19:00

@Lars: How are they the lesser evil?
Yea.. Which's why UK had given Israelians nuclear heads/material..
Israeli (which is how you say it not Israelian) nukes came from either the US through France or just from France with US permission. And Israel is the lesser of 2 evils because there official policy is to try and avoid civilian deaths when possible. There is a difference between a Hamas agent blowing up a home made bomb on a bus full of commuters and an Israeli shell going off target.

P.S. An armed resistance is usually aimed at the whole community of the conquering faction, so really their is no innocent in such ocasions, as you're guilty for being with them and not doing a thing about it. It has been so in every armed resistance their were. AFAIK.
Well the radical Zionists targets were usually symbols of British control. Which usually mean't that Palestinians who lived/worked along side these symbols got caught in the middle.

Nope, and neither has Wikipedia. Google found about six sites, just about all of them Arabic message boards. Care to enlighten me?
Well it's Balfour. And Wikipedia does, see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_1917).

The first paragraph of the article gives a good summation.

The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated November 2, 1917 from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, to Lord Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation, a private Zionist organization. The letter stated the position, agreed at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there.

At the time, most of the area of Palestine was still under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and the borders of what would become Palestine had been outlined as part of the May 16, 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France.

Language from the Declaration was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine.

Now Wiki doesn't have an article on the Zionist federation, but I've heard of them. They were a group of European Jews that tired of the mistreatment they recieved in Europe used their wealth to buy land in Ottoman Palestine and settle Jewish communities there. They bought and built the first farming community in 1829 IIRC. And it went on in a small trickle of people selling off their wealth in Europe and going to Palestine until after WW2 when thousands let for Palestine.

Now that declaration and the subsequent haggeling over what "national home mean't led to the crazies in the Zionist movements to start bombing the British. Mostly cause the British were making the same promises to the Palestinians as they were the Zionists (before the foundation of Israel in 1948 calling Jewish settlers in Palesintne anything but Zionists is a misnomer).

Red Peasant

06-10-2006, 19:03

THe point isn't whether you have sympathy or not, the point is he surely was trying to negotiate paece with Israel, to gain what?

Rat. Up S**t Creek. Saving skin. Nuff said.

Red Peasant

06-10-2006, 19:04

Now that declaration and the subsequent haggeling over what "national home mean't led to the crazies in the Zionist movements to start bombing the British. Mostly cause the British were making the same promises to the Palestinians as they were the Zionists (before the foundation of Israel in 1948 calling Jewish settlers in Palesintne anything but Zionists is a misnomer).

Yup. If you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-10-2006, 19:27

x-dANGER, what you said is this:

P.S. An armed resistance is usually aimed at the whole community of the conquering faction, so really their is no innocent in such ocasions, as you're guilty for being with them and not doing a thing about it. It has been so in every armed resistance their were. AFAIK.

That's pretty close to saying the Israeli civilians deserve to die when a Palestinian terrorist blows up a bomb in a bus or cafe.

And if Palestinians protested their mistreatment peacefully, non-violently, like Gandhi, they'd win in about two months. But everytime they kill someone the Israelis do. It's a circle of violence that won't end until one side stops. I personally think the Palestinians should first.

Finally, x-dANGER, I am curious. What would you have Israel do? What would satisfy you in this mess?

lars - thanks for the wiki. I was searching for "Balfor" without the "u." :sweatdrop:

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 19:28

And you know what the tragic thing that happened to Palestinians..

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 19:35

x-dANGER, what you said is this:

That's pretty close to saying the Israeli civilians deserve to die when a Palestinian terrorist blows up a bomb in a bus or cafe.

And if Palestinians protested their mistreatment peacefully, non-violently, like Gandhi, they'd win in about two months. But everytime they kill someone the Israelis do. It's a circle of violence that won't end until one side stops. I personally think the Palestinians should first.

Finally, x-dANGER, I am curious. What would you have Israel do? What would satisfy you in this mess?

lars - thanks for the wiki. I was searching for "Balfor" without the "u." :sweatdrop:
But I had already agreed that it is un-accepted above that.

I really can't think of anything good.. The one lonely way to make things fair again, is to give Palestine to Palestinians again, that is fair to Palestine. But then, Israelis.. I can only think that it is sad for those little children to go out of their (AS they know) home.. I lived that experience, and nothing can be worse than that for sure. But, is the grief of a million more expensive than the joy of millions? For me, no. It is expensive for Israelis new generation (The old one.. Nah, they have taken it by force and had homes when they did all what has been done), but then, it brings joy into my soul, and every other muslim's, and is more likely to merge the 2 halves of the world into 1 united one, relieving all the conflicts in the current world, and uniting the focus of all nations to help those in Africa.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-10-2006, 19:42

Where would they go?! :inquisitive:

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 19:48

Back to where they came from? Europe? Their homes?

lars573

06-10-2006, 19:52

You realize that there are some 5th and 6th jewish families in Israel right? They bought land from Arab Palestinians in the 19th century. You gonna kick them out too? No I think that the original partition plan made the most sense, just with continuous territory for both Jewish and Arab states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 20:33

They bought it from? If from Palestinians, keep them in, from UK, UK should take care of them.

@That partition gives more land to Jews than original people, which won't resolve anything, but lead to a civil war in a few months.. Sooner or later. It will be like Iraq, but on worse standards.

Pannonian

06-10-2006, 20:46

Back to where they came from? Europe? Their homes?
Here's an idea. Let's send the Jews and Arabs back where they came from, and give the land back to the Canaanites (Phoenicians). Build a new capital for the returning Phoenicians, and call it New City, or Kart Hadasht in the Canaanite language. Surely you have no quibble with the Right of Return.

Before you ask, I'm not a fan of Likudnik policy, but I'm even less of a fan of the arguments you are proposing. There are Israelis who were born there and have lived there all their lives, and who know no home other than Israel. The Israeli repression of Palestine is fundamentally racist, but your proposal of sending them "back where they came from" is even more so. Would you and other Palestinian Arabs (for so I presume from your posts) consider removing to the sands of Arabia where your ancestors came from?

Crazed Rabbit

06-10-2006, 21:08

Give palestine back to the Palestinians? No Palestinian state ever owned it.

The Israelis bought the land, and are, even now, withdrawing from some of the west bank in an effort to get peace.

The faction preventing peace is the Palestinian people, who want to see Israel destroyed. If they stopped trying to murder as many civilians as they could, there would be peace. Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinians for revenge or religion.

Crazed Rabbit

x-dANGEr

06-10-2006, 21:20

Here's an idea. Let's send the Jews and Arabs back where they came from, and give the land back to the Canaanites (Phoenicians). Build a new capital for the returning Phoenicians, and call it New City, or Kart Hadasht in the Canaanite language. Surely you have no quibble with the Right of Return.

Before you ask, I'm not a fan of Likudnik policy, but I'm even less of a fan of the arguments you are proposing. There are Israelis who were born there and have lived there all their lives, and who know no home other than Israel. The Israeli repression of Palestine is fundamentally racist, but your proposal of sending them "back where they came from" is even more so. Would you and other Palestinian Arabs (for so I presume from your posts) consider removing to the sands of Arabia where your ancestors came from?
But as I said, it is a small price for how many conflicts that would solve.

@Crazed Rabbit: Whom did they buy it from..

I can't buy the white house from you, can I?

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-10-2006, 21:29

I don't know how many conflicts it would end - we had plenty of excuses to kill each other before the nation of Israel. :juggle2:

Pannonian

06-10-2006, 22:28

But as I said, it is a small price for how many conflicts that would solve.
If you think sending the Jews back where they came from is a good idea, first bodily move all the Arabs in the region back to Arabia, then we'll move the Jews back to wherever their nomadic ancestors first lived. Give the land we call Israel or Palestine back to the Canaanites who originally lived there before Joshua arrived on the scene around 1200 BC. If you take the right of habitation back more than one generation, then at its furthest point neither Jews nor Arabs belong there. And the Dome of the Rock should be turned into a Temple to Baal, or something similarly indigenous to the Jebusites. Would this be OK with you?

Reenk Roink

06-10-2006, 22:39

As long as Israel has their military stranglehold on the land, than the land is theirs. If the Arabs were able to conquer Israel (or Palestine) again, then it would belong to them.

Redleg

06-10-2006, 22:40

Israeli (which is how you say it not Israelian) nukes came from either the US through France or just from France with US permission. And Israel is the lesser of 2 evils because there official policy is to try and avoid civilian deaths when possible. There is a difference between a Hamas agent blowing up a home made bomb on a bus full of commuters and an Israeli shell going off target.

The FAS site has all the information you could possibily need on just this. But in short its France with America turning the blind eye. No permission given by the US, but no sanctions demanded by the United States either.

Redleg

06-10-2006, 22:48

They bought it from? If from Palestinians, keep them in, from UK, UK should take care of them.

Just brilliant - why don't the two people living on the land in Israel and Palenstine just learn to get along.

That would actually be the best solution to the issue.

Reenk Roink

06-10-2006, 23:10

...why don't the two people living on the land in Israel and Palenstine just learn to get along.

Redleg's solution is ideal, although perhaps too idealistic. Still, I'm an optimist...

lars573

06-10-2006, 23:27

Just brilliant - why don't the two people living on the land in Israel and Palenstine just learn to get along.

That would actually be the best solution to the issue.
The only way that would work is if only Muslims could be elected president. All muslims beleive the have an inalienable right to be ruled by a muslim. It's the reason Pakistan was unwilling to be part of India.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-11-2006, 00:00

Israel was and still is in breach of UN resolutions, they are the best example of a country that should be invaded and have the goverenment removed but won't for political reasons.

They should go back behind the Green Line, the 1948 borders.

This was all done to get Hamas to retaliate, and sadly it has worked, there goes the moral high ground boys.

Still no one listens when the US is in the bully's corner.

Reenk Roink

06-11-2006, 00:00

All muslims beleive the have an inalienable right to be ruled by a muslim. It's the reason Pakistan was unwilling to be part of India.

Hmm.. an absolute statement (a generalization), followed by one anecdote (a questionable one as well)...

Not very convincing... :no:

By the way, there are Muslims in America (they may be in Canada too :shocked:), under a Christian president...

lars573

06-11-2006, 00:49

And in Britain who believe that they should be running things (in Britain). It's in the Qur'an that Muslims have the right to be ruled by fellow Muslims.

Banquo's Ghost

06-11-2006, 09:43

The faction preventing peace is the Palestinian people, who want to see Israel destroyed. If they stopped trying to murder as many civilians as they could, there would be peace. Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinians for revenge or religion.

It's rare that I find myself in agreement with Rabbit, but this is the kernel of the problem. The majority of the Arab states around Israel have threatened its existence more than once, and the political representatives of the Palestinians have done the same - and continue to do so.

Israel has a perfect right to exist. It exists, and has powerful allies. It's not going to go away way. Deal with that first and foremost.

As a democratic country, Israel should be held to a much higher account than it currently is by the international community. They should not be quite so paranoid, because the most powerful country on the earth guarantees their existence. They can afford to be more generous and merciful - and they can afford to end the occupation in line with UN resolutions.

However, until the Arab states and Hamas unconditionally accept the right of existence and guarantee the security of the state, the Israelis will not be able to relax and form a two-state solution of any kind.

The ball has always been in the Palestinian court. If they downed arms and protested the brutalities of the occupation through peaceful, non-violent means, they would have their state within a few years, perhaps months. US public opinion would change overnight if they saw tanks shelling civilians - if there had been no suicide bombings of any sort prior.

Palestine could be won with a flower, but never a bomb.

Tribesman

06-11-2006, 10:16

Slight problem there Banquo , if Israel accepts the UN resolutions and complies with them , then it effectively ceases to exist .
You write about the PA accepting unconditionally , yet surely the resolutions must be a condition .
Right of return and the rights of IDPs must be settled , but there is no solution , Israel has always , despite the very favourable/extremely unfavourble citizenship rights , had a problem with population . It goes all the way back to the alleyah and continues today with the wave of eastern european migration . It is one thing to get people of the Jewish faith to come to their new homeland to become citizens , it is another thing entirely trying to get them to stay once they have citizenship .
One symptom of this is the very pressing problem with the depopulation of areas of Jerusalem which traditionally have had a long standing Jewish majority .

x-dANGEr

06-11-2006, 10:55

Banquo's Ghost

06-11-2006, 11:33

Slight problem there Banquo , if Israel accepts the UN resolutions and complies with them , then it effectively ceases to exist .
You write about the PA accepting unconditionally , yet surely the resolutions must be a condition .

Hmm, that's interesting. I had better go and read the UN resolutions again. Thanks for the heads-up. :smile:

Pannonian

06-11-2006, 12:16

And where goes my rights? And the rights of fellow 3 millions in Jordan alone? What is my fault that my home was stolen and snatched from me? What wrong have I done that I haven't seen my home more than 4 months through my whole life? Try to see the window from both sides, and don't be so biased. (I may be biased myself, but it just can't turn into my head to have an explanation for all this)
If you haven't seen a place more than 4 months through your entire life, it hardly counts as your home. In any case, do you want to speak up for the poor Canaanites who had their home usurped by those nasty Jews and Arabs?

x-dANGEr

06-11-2006, 13:39

Then I have no home? Taken that all my family is back their, and wherever I go I will be treated in a 'less-that-citizen' matter?

Talking about Canaanites is really irrelevant to the whole subject, don't you think?

Pannonian

06-11-2006, 14:28

Then I have no home? Taken that all my family is back their, and wherever I go I will be treated in a 'less-that-citizen' matter?

Where do you live at the moment? I was born elsewhere, and spent the first few years of my life there (rather more time than you spent in Palestine), but I regard Britain as my home as the majority of my life was spent here, and I grew up here. When I go back to my birthplace, where the majority of my extended family is, I am treated as a foreigner, but then my life and theirs have little in common, so I probably am a foreigner.

Talking about Canaanites is really irrelevant to the whole subject, don't you think?
If you want habitation rights to go back beyond a generation, how far back do you go? The Zionists who claimed Israel for themselves had very little moral basis beyond history, but their descendants are there now, and they have more right to the land of Israel/Palestine than you personally do, having lived there all their lives. Sort out some kind of compromise or compensation with the older generation, but your suggestion that your voice has more weight than those of Israelis born and bred there is nonsense, and your suggestion to deport them is racist nonsense.

I'm rather liking my suggestion actually. Deport the Jews and Arabs back to where they came from, and turn Israel into a haven for Canaanites, with New City ("Carthage") as their capital. No more war or strife then, since AFAIK no-one identifies themselves as Phoenicians any more, and hence the resultant country will be empty of people. Perhaps some enterprising modder can base a mod on the New Canaan - Sheep: Total War.

Reenk Roink

06-11-2006, 14:31

And in Britain who believe that they should be running things (in Britain).

I'm afraid this statement has the same flaws as the previous one. Also, most political groups in Britan believe they should be running things; it wouldn't surprise me that Muslim political groups would do the same...

It's in the Qur'an that Muslims have the right to be ruled by fellow Muslims.

Would you first show me this statement in the Quran?

Second, it's also in the Jewish Law that Jews are in exile until God takes them out of it. Therefore, a Jewish state cannot exist. This is the position that ultra-Orthodox Jews take in their opposition to Israel (aside from it being secular). Yet other Jews choose to live in Israel anyway. :shocked:

Also, it is in the Quran (several verses about "not trangessing limits" in war), and further elaborated by Islamic jurists (http://www.mereislam.info/articles/Defending-the-Transgressed_Shaykh-M-A-Al-Akiti.pdf) that civilians are not supposed to be killed in warfare, yet Muslim terrorists do so anyway... :shocked:

Flawed reasoning once again...

Israel has a perfect right to exist...

Yes, because it has secured itself with military prowess. That's the only reason any country has the 'right to exist' though...

If you haven't seen a place more than 4 months through your entire life, it hardly counts as your home.

How are you to be the judge of this? It was also the home of his parents presumably; would it still 'hardly count' as their home then because they lived their for years and not months?

In any case, do you want to speak up for the poor Canaanites who had their home usurped by those nasty Jews and Arabs?

First, your account of the history of the area is very oversimplified, and it's structure can easily be misleading.

We will just start with the Canaanites as the first people in the area. For simplicity, we will ignore the opinion of a few scholars and go with the account of the Israelites conquering Canaan. Then we will have the Neo-Babylonian conquest. Then the Persian conquest. Then the Macedonian conquest. Then the Roman conquest. Then the Arab conquest. Then the brief Crusader conquest followed by an Arab retaking which later gave way to the Ottomans. Then the British taking and Mandate...

Also, you are in a completely different position than him. I would be certain that, had your land been taken from you, you wouldn't really be worried about ancient history as much as the current problems. Did the Jewish settlers speak up for the Palestinians when their land was forcibly taken from them? No, and I wouldn't expect them to, and that in no way takes any sympathy for them from me. Likewise, I also feel sympathy for x-dANGEr and his predicament...

x-dANGEr

06-11-2006, 15:17

Banquo's Ghost

06-11-2006, 16:09

Just one note: Israel hadn't secured itself military-wise, it was secured through the whole west world, which justifies any hate from muslims to the west; if any. If it is all about military, I don't think Israel can't stand against all the Islamic countries, now can it?

Well, Israel has defended itself from massed attack by its neighbours before. And the muslim world does not speak with one voice on the matter - both Egypt and Jordan have recognised Israel's right to exist. Turkey and Indonesia too, IIRC.

The perfect solution is to merge the 2 countries, and all live happily. Though, as said it won't be acceptable by muslims to be rules by a non-muslim, if Jews agree to be ruled by a muslim, then it would be the ideal solution.

There are plenty of Israeli arabs who are muslim and quite happy to be citizens of that country. European muslims appear to be quite happy to be ruled by non-muslim governments. So I don't see your argument.

What I suggested was a bit extreme maybe, but just as extreme as the birth of the whole country Israel, and extreme problems are only handled by extreme solutions.

No, you're wrong. The Palestinian people should not resort to extreme measures - they are heavily outgunned, and can never win militarily. You need to get over it, and protest non-violently. Extreme solutions just cause more deaths.

Tell you what, forget about those who die each day in Palestine. What about all those 'lost'? The army patrol stops, go into the home next door, takes Khalid, Mohammed and Ibraheem, and sets off for a one way journey.. What about that?

You may be surprised, but I am a strong supporter of the justice of the Palestinian cause. I am deeply saddened that Israel, a country that should know more than any about how a dispossessed people feels, resorts to extra-judicial murder, kidnapping and other human rights violations. Nonetheless, they would be put into a far more difficult moral position if Palestinian terrorists stopped attacking their civilians.

rory_20_uk

06-11-2006, 16:27

Are you forgetting the 7 day war? Israel did defeat most of the Arab countries.

And those countries need to remember that if they want any new stuff from the USA or their pet the UK they can't attack israel. Of course Chinese tech is improving, so that threat might decrease.

~:smoking:

lars573

06-11-2006, 16:32

I'm afraid this statement has the same flaws as the previous one. Also, most political groups in Britan believe they should be running things; it wouldn't surprise me that Muslim political groups would do the same...
It was your statement that muslim groups in non-Muslim countries don't think they should be running things.

Would you first show me this statement in the Quran?
If I had one I would. The passage was shown to put muslim political agitation in a certain light.

Also, it is in the Quran (several verses about "not trangessing limits" in war), and further elaborated by Islamic jurists (http://www.mereislam.info/articles/Defending-the-Transgressed_Shaykh-M-A-Al-Akiti.pdf) that civilians are not supposed to be killed in warfare, yet Muslim terrorists do so anyway... :shocked:

Flawed reasoning once again...
And it says in the bible that Christians aren't supposed to eat anyhting but fish on Fridays. Picking and choosing what you follow and how is part and parcel of religion.

Yes, because it has secured itself with military prowess. That's the only reason any country has the 'right to exist' though...
Might makes right. All nations have gone through that sort of foundation phase. The US, Canada, the Uk every nation.

How are you to be the judge of this? It was also the home of his parents presumably; would it still 'hardly count' as their home then because they lived their for years and not months?
Or his home could be where his Grand-parents were forced to flee from in 1948. Something like 4 million Arab Palestinians fled to Gaza and the west bank when the Arab nations attacked Israel during it's independance war.

First, your account of the history of the area is very oversimplified, and it's structure can easily be misleading.

We will just start with the Canaanites as the first people in the area. For simplicity, we will ignore the opinion of a few scholars and go with the account of the Israelites conquering Canaan. Then we will have the Neo-Babylonian conquest. Then the Persian conquest. Then the Macedonian conquest. Then the Roman conquest. Then the Arab conquest. Then the brief Crusader conquest followed by an Arab retaking which later gave way to the Ottomans. Then the British taking and Mandate...

Also, you are in a completely different position than him. I would be certain that, had your land been taken from you, you wouldn't really be worried about ancient history as much as the current problems. Did the Jewish settlers speak up for the Palestinians when their land was forcibly taken from them? No, and I wouldn't expect them to, and that in no way takes any sympathy for them from me. Likewise, I also feel sympathy for x-dANGEr and his predicament...
Actually in all probability the Muslim Palestinians are the Canaanites. In the same fashion that the Egyptians were culturally assimilated into the larger Arab whole so were the inhabitants of Palestine. Just as they had with Roman culture after they conquered the area.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-11-2006, 21:31

Actually its just as likely the Muslim Palastinians, and the Christians (There are a fair few) are Isaelites. After all, the Jews were expelled in the 60s AD, then fifty years later a lot of them had moved back in.

Brenus

06-11-2006, 22:08

“Would you first show me this statement in the Quran”.
Will this do?
“... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. ….They are just the practical conclusions taken from the Islamic recognition of Christians and Jews which come right from the Qu'ran (Qu'ran, 29/45, 2/136, 5/47-49)” Alija Izetbegovic, The Islamic Declaration,

Not good for atheists and other religions, is it? And the status of the 2 others is to be subordinate to Islam...

rory_20_uk

06-11-2006, 22:42

All religions state that they are the best.
Most state somewhere that unbeleivers should be converted or killed.

Like an organism, the strongest ones survive, the weak ones die. To say that you're not the best will mean those that state that they are will end up winning.

~:smoking:

Reenk Roink

06-11-2006, 23:07

It was your statement that muslim groups in non-Muslim countries don't think they should be running things.

Which sadly, does not exist. However, the original statement was made by you to the tune of: "All muslims beleive the have an inalienable right to be ruled by a muslim." I simply was moved to dispel such a inaccurate generalization.

If I had one I would. The passage was shown to put muslim political agitation in a certain light.

You can get translations off the internet. So please do show me the Quranic injunction to support your claim of: "It's in the Qur'an that Muslims have the right to be ruled by fellow Muslims."

And it says in the bible that Christians aren't supposed to eat anyhting but fish on Fridays. Picking and choosing what you follow and how is part and parcel of religion.

Which was my point exactly in citing the contrast between the scripture and the followers of both Judaism and Islam. The reason I made this point was to dispel your initial generalization of: "All muslims beleive the have an inalienable right to be ruled by a muslim." which you went on to support with the statement that: "It's in the Qur'an that Muslims have the right to be ruled by fellow Muslims."

Might makes right. All nations have gone through that sort of foundation phase. The US, Canada, the Uk every nation.

I hold this viewpoint as seen in my earlier statement in this thread: "As long as Israel has their military stranglehold on the land, than the land is theirs."

Or his home could be where his Grand-parents were forced to flee from in 1948. Something like 4 million Arab Palestinians fled to Gaza and the west bank when the Arab nations attacked Israel during it's independance war.

Yes.

Actually in all probability the Muslim Palestinians are the Canaanites. In the same fashion that the Egyptians were culturally assimilated into the larger Arab whole so were the inhabitants of Palestine. Just as they had with Roman culture after they conquered the area.

Perhaps...

Will this do?
“... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. ….They are just the practical conclusions taken from the Islamic recognition of Christians and Jews which come right from the Qu'ran (Qu'ran, 29/45, 2/136, 5/47-49)” Alija Izetbegovic, The Islamic Declaration,

Not good for atheists and other religions, is it? And the status of the 2 others is to be subordinate to Islam...

No, this is not a substitute for an actual Quranic translation stating that "Muslims have the right to be ruled by fellow Muslims."

Besides, I am well aware that an Islamic Government System is in conflict with other government systems.

As for other religions, do recall that Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists among others were given the same second class citizenship in a medieval Islamic State as Jews and Christians.

Of course other religions were subordinate to Islam in a Islamic State, just as all religions are subordinate to the secular law of a secular state...

Kaiser of Arabia

06-11-2006, 23:11

x-dANGEr

06-11-2006, 23:21

I think Israel should stop the charade and kick hamas's bum out of Jewish Land. The UN partion plan kinda gives too much land to a few displaced Arabs. No offense, but there's only sixteen other Arab nations that boarder Israel where they could run off to.
Typical.

Well, Israel has defended itself from massed attack by its neighbours before. And the muslim world does not speak with one voice on the matter - both Egypt and Jordan have recognised Israel's right to exist. Turkey and Indonesia too, IIRC.
Under the intense pressure of the US and the whole world?

There are plenty of Israeli arabs who are muslim and quite happy to be citizens of that country. European muslims appear to be quite happy to be ruled by non-muslim governments. So I don't see your argument.
But those all are minorities, and guests in your own countries.

No, you're wrong. The Palestinian people should not resort to extreme measures - they are heavily outgunned, and can never win militarily. You need to get over it, and protest non-violently. Extreme solutions just cause more deaths.
They can win militarily, just get US to annouce that it has got nothing to do with Israel.

Are you forgetting the 7 day war? Israel did defeat most of the Arab countries.
No I'm not, a disgraceful experience, when the Egyptian army made fatal mistakes losing the war..

“... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. ….They are just the practical conclusions taken from the Islamic recognition of Christians and Jews which come right from the Qu'ran (Qu'ran, 29/45, 2/136, 5/47-49)” Alija Izetbegovic, The Islamic Declaration,
What is that? I didn't care to read what it says, but at all costs, I can get you Omar's Treaty when he 'freed' Palestine from the Romans (Knowing that most Egyptian were considered slaves), and that will show you the justice of Islam.

Or his home could be where his Grand-parents were forced to flee from in 1948. Something like 4 million Arab Palestinians fled to Gaza and the west bank when the Arab nations attacked Israel during it's independance war.
48? You must be kidding! You know people were force immigrated even a long while after that. (Till our on-going days)

I hold this viewpoint as seen in my earlier statement in this thread: "As long as Israel has their military stranglehold on the land, than the land is theirs."So as long as US is in Iraq, Iraq is theirs.. And I thought US was their to free them..

Tribesman

06-11-2006, 23:46

Well done Capo .
I think Israel should stop the charade and kick hamas's bum out of Jewish Land.
They are not on Israeli land .

The UN partion plan kinda gives too much land to a few displaced Arabs.
The UN partition plan disproportionately gave more land to the minority , the minority being the future Israelis .

No offense, but there's only sixteen other Arab nations that boarder Israel where they could run off to.
Wow Israel has really grown hasn't it .:laugh4: How nations border Israel Capo ?:book:

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-12-2006, 02:50

Tribesman

06-12-2006, 08:00

The Jordanian Legion was trained and led by British officers in 1948 when everything went to hell.
Jordan and the Legion had reached an agreement with the emerging State of Israel before the conflict . The Hashemite rulers were out after their own interests , and they still do not have the land that the allies "promised" them .

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 10:54

x-dANGEr - Israel can militarily defeat even a united Palestinian front right now if such a conflict happened without help from anyone.

Militarily, Palestine needs help here, not Israel. And you've got your history wrong if you think the Western world supported Israel in the beginning. The Jordanian Legion was trained and led by British officers in 1948 when everything went to hell. Israel had a terrible time finding weapons and supplies as few if any nations were willing to support it. I don't think the US as a nation supported Israel until after they had won.
Man, am more than sure that the UK had admitted giving Nuclear heads to Israel at that time, and you still say it had no support.. What about Balfour's Promise? Where did Israel get the planes that crashed the Egyptians' while they were on the ground? Or the ammo to make those planes crush Egyptian tanks that were unfortunately without air cover?

Tribesman

06-12-2006, 12:59

Woah there dANGEr , slow down .
That last post cobbles together loads of unrelated incidents over a wide time span .
Would you like to try again with each in the correct time frame ?

InsaneApache

06-12-2006, 13:04

Man, am more than sure that the UK had admitted giving Nuclear heads to Israel at that time, and you still say it had no support.. What about Balfour's Promise? Where did Israel get the planes that crashed the Egyptians' while they were on the ground? Or the ammo to make those planes crush Egyptian tanks that were unfortunately without air cover?

Sorry but the UK did not have nuclear arms until 1952.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-12-2006, 14:02

anyone see this?

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/hamasterrorgazaisrael48770611.html

what do you think?

Why?

rory_20_uk

06-12-2006, 14:23

The first casualty of war is Truth.

It is eminently possible that an arms dump blew up. It's also possible that Israel shelled the area after they saw that rockets were actively bieng launched.

I honestly doubt that evidence that can not be refuted as suspect or tainted can ever be provided on these incidents, barring the charred remains of the dead.

~:smoking:

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 15:10

Sorry but the UK did not have nuclear arms until 1952.
And who said it gave them before that?

Am talking about 67 everyone.

@Tribesman: Unrelated incidents? I'm talking about Israel 'proving itself militarily'.

Tribesman

06-12-2006, 15:13

what do you think?

Why?
Well , a one man blog by someone who proudly calls himself a dedicated zionist .
What can you say about accuracy and perspective ?
I do like his views that anyone shot in the back must have been killed by Paestinians , because an Israeli would never shoot someone in the back:dizzy2:

Red Peasant

06-12-2006, 15:30

Israel defeated the Arabs through superior strategy, organisation and battlefield tactics.

At the time of the Six Day War the Muslim countries (the aggressors who blockaded Israel and moved their forces to her borders in preparation for an assault) had superior equipment to the Israelis, supplied by the Soviet Union. Although the Israeli air force was ok, her land forces relied mainly on WWII cast-offs such as the Sherman tanks that she ingeniously adapted for desert warfare.

I saw an interview where an Egyptian officer of the period said that the Arab armies were parade-ground armies, useful only for over-aweing their own peoples for their tin-pot dictators. The Israeli army was, and is, a real army.

rory_20_uk

06-12-2006, 15:36

Yeah, the airforce was American planes. Without it Israel would have been overrun.

~:smoking:

InsaneApache

06-12-2006, 15:49

Good summarization RP, also the better educated the populace the better the armed forces that draws from them.

Redleg

06-12-2006, 16:09

Yeah, the airforce was American planes. Without it Israel would have been overrun.

~:smoking:

Now come on - its really easy to find what aircraft the Israeli Airforce has had in its inventory.

Its a combination of multiple aircraft depending on what specific time frame one is wanting to discuss.

http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/IAFinventory.html

The United States did not supply that many planes to Israel until after the 1967 war.

InsaneApache

06-12-2006, 16:42

Some favourites of mine from that site.

MiG-15 Fagot
1 31-Oct-56 Captured in Sinai

MiG-23 Flogger
1 11-Oct-89 MLD Defected from Syria

A bit of gay bdsm just to frighten the natives...:laugh4:

Dornier 27Q

Dornier 28B-1

Looks like they forgave the Germans then...:sweatdrop:

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 17:13

Surely I don't know which kind belonged to which country. So, can someone explain to me 'Made in ....' were the planes or the air force that Israel had in 67, please.

Tribesman

06-12-2006, 17:21

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 17:36

anyone see this?

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/hamasterrorgazaisrael48770611.html

what do you think?

Why?
I thought this post was too 'downgraded' that I didn't need to reply to.. But well umm.. I have a few moments to spare.

Needless to say, this post is simply like saying over the internet to a 5 years old kid setting in the UK, London, in his little home near his father: "Hey you, you killed my neighbor!!", while I'm setting right here 80 KMs away of the 'scenes'.

Redleg

06-12-2006, 17:44

Surely I don't know which kind belonged to which country. So, can someone explain to me 'Made in ....' were the planes or the air force that Israel had in 67, please.

There is no need for me to do the research for you. Simply google search the type of aircraft and that will provide you with what you need.

Brenus

06-12-2006, 19:05

“the airforce was American planes”. Nope, French during the 6 days war. Mirage, Ouagans (maker: Dassault), Vautours etc…

“WWII cast-offs such as the Sherman tanks” and new AMX 13.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-12-2006, 19:37

Taffy ,, further to your blog post . The IDF is still unable to account for one of the six shells fired at the beach , the closest one that they have accounted for exploded 200 meters away from the picnic .

fair enough, it's not like it's my blog or that I agree with it or anything. Leave a comment for the guy, I was just entertained to see somebody take a very different stand on the topic.

Red Peasant

06-12-2006, 20:34

“the airforce was American planes”. Nope, French during the 6 days war. Mirage, Ouagans (maker: Dassault), Vautours etc…

“WWII cast-offs such as the Sherman tanks” and new AMX 13.

Yes, the French planes were good, but matched in quality by the Arab air forces which were superior in numbers. The Israelis had very few AMX's as far as I know and they were outnumbered, outgunned, and outperformed by their Soviet opposition in the Arab ranks. The back-bone of the Israeli forces were 'last generation' WWII.

The Arab problem is that they have never admitted this defeat by a superior military. Therefore, they always underestimate their enemy, and you cannot afford this kind of arrogance in war. This topic came up just recently at an informal discussion at the university here when talking to an intelligent and sophisticated Yemeni arabic lecturer. He surprised me by repeating the mantra that the US/West won the Six Day War for the Israelis and it had nothing to do with any merit on their part. Such ignorance from one otherwise so well informed. The Arabs should study the Israelis intensely if they wish to learn how to win wars as they would be learning from the best, from people who don't need the latest US gadgets, but who can make do with ingenuity, intelligence, preparation, and organisation. Learn from your enemies, don't despise them.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-12-2006, 22:04

And they didn't have neat gadgets in 1948 - they won (or defended) their independence from the Arab nations pretty much unaided and severely outgunned, from my understanding. That's the most telling thing, I think.

x-dANGEr

06-12-2006, 23:21

In 48, their were no Arabs to defend against for Israel. Though, in 67, arrogance was their sadly, and yes, it lose the war. Wherever those planes came from, am sure are either from Europe or the US, so by any cost, they 'were' supported by them, and those nations did win them the war after all.

Tribesman

06-13-2006, 00:08

fair enough, it's not like it's my blog or that I agree with it or anything. Leave a comment for the guy, I was just entertained to see somebody take a very different stand on the topic.
Its not that different , the blogsand even mainstrem papers are full of it , everything from the father transporting explosives using his family for cover , Hamas shelling the beach , Fatah shelling Hamas , anti personel mines to stop Israeli marines launching a beach assault ....you name it , its out there .
But for the moment at least the IDF cannot account for one projectile they fired at the beach , so lets see what turns up .

Anyway , back to post#7 the ceasefire between Hamas/Fatah didn't last very long did it :shrug:

Redleg

06-13-2006, 00:54

In 48, their were no Arabs to defend against for Israel.

Hmm that seem to contradict history on several levels. Did not the Arab league attempt to destroy the fledging state of Israel with an invasion?

From the first source in the google search - to confirm my own statement

When Israel achieved its independence on May 14, 1948, the Haganah became the de facto Israeli army. On that day, the country was invaded by the regular forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. Eleven days later, Israel's provisional government issued an order that provided the legal framework for the country's armed forces. The order established the official name Zvah Haganah Le Yisrael and outlawed the existence of any other military force within Israel.

Though, in 67, arrogance was their sadly, and yes, it lose the war. Wherever those planes came from, am sure are either from Europe or the US, so by any cost, they 'were' supported by them, and those nations did win them the war after all.

Israel won the war - not those other nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

It was not the aircraft that won the war - but the tactics of the Israeli's in using their airforce that enabled the Israeli victory.

All but four of its 197 operational jets left the skies of Israel in a mass attack against Egypt's airfields. [16] Egyptian defensive infrastructure was extremely poor, and no airfields were yet equipped with armoured bunkers capable of protecting Egypt's warplanes in the event of an attack. The Israeli warplanes headed out over the Mediterranean before turning toward Egypt. Meanwhile, the Egyptians hindered their own defense by effectively shutting down their entire air defense system: they were worried that rebel Egyptian forces would shoot down the plane carrying Field Marshal Amer and Lt-Gen. Sidqi Mahmoud, who were en route from al Maza to Bir Tamada in the Sinai to meet the commanders of the troops stationed there. In this event it did not make a great deal of difference as the Israeli pilots came in below Egyptian radar cover and well below the lowest point at which its SA-2 surface-to-air missile batteries could bring down an aircraft. [17] The Israelis employed a mixed attack strategy; bombing and strafing runs against the planes themselves, and tarmac-shredding penetration bombs dropped on the runways that rendered them unusable, leaving any undamaged planes unable to take off and therefore helpless targets for later Israeli waves. The attack was successful beyond its planners' wildest dreams, destroying virtually all of the Egyptian Air Force on the ground with few Israeli casualties. Over 300 aircraft and 100 combat pilots were lost. [18] The Israelis lost 19 of their planes, mostly operational losses (i.e. mechanical failure, accidents, etc). The attack guaranteed Israeli air superiority during the rest of the war.

Before the war, Israeli pilots and ground crews trained extensively in rapid refitting of aircraft returning from sorties, enabling a single aircraft to sortie up to four times a day (as opposed to the norm in Arab air forces of one or two sorties per day). This enabled the IAF to send several attack waves against Egyptian airfields on the first day of the war, overwhelming the Egyptian Air Force. This also has contributed to the Arab belief that the IAF was helped by foreign air forces (see below).

Following the success of the initial attack waves against the major Egyptian airfields, subsequent attacks were made later in the day against secondary Egyptian airfields as well as Jordanian, Syrian and even Iraqi fields. Throughout the war, Israeli aircraft continued strafing airfield runways to prevent their return to usability.

When you catch your enemy napping and complainct - the type of aircraft does not matter.

You seem to be making the same mistake over and over again. Its the west's fault that Israel exists and defeated the Arab league over and over again, this is historically false. It is the Arab League's failures that enabled the Israel Armed Forces to defeat them. The west did not support Israel in many of its fights against the Arab League, most support was minimal at best.

Better training and tactics by Israeli Forces beat the Arab league the equipment is only a combat mulitplier if the tactics of the force are sound.
The Arab League had Israel out gunned and out equiped in every piece of equipment to include manpower

The only combat mulitplier Israel had was of a motiviated and trained force. The West's support of Israel did not factor into the 1967 War to the extend that you are attempting to protray.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

06-13-2006, 02:17

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 09:41

Hmm that seem to contradict history on several levels. Did not the Arab league attempt to destroy the fledging state of Israel with an invasion?

From the first source in the google search - to confirm my own statement

Israel won the war - not those other nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

It was not the aircraft that won the war - but the tactics of the Israeli's in using their airforce that enabled the Israeli victory.

When you catch your enemy napping and complainct - the type of aircraft does not matter.

You seem to be making the same mistake over and over again. Its the west's fault that Israel exists and defeated the Arab league over and over again, this is historically false. It is the Arab League's failures that enabled the Israel Armed Forces to defeat them. The west did not support Israel in many of its fights against the Arab League, most support was minimal at best.

Better training and tactics by Israeli Forces beat the Arab league the equipment is only a combat mulitplier if the tactics of the force are sound.
The Arab League had Israel out gunned and out equiped in every piece of equipment to include manpower

The only combat mulitplier Israel had was of a motiviated and trained force. The West's support of Israel did not factor into the 1967 War to the extend that you are attempting to protray.
One tribe doesn't count as an Arab organised army.

And the point am trying to reach is that Israel 'did' receive the support of west countries to make it's independence a true day.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 13:52

One tribe doesn't count as an Arab organised army.

Nations have armies not Tribess

And the point am trying to reach is that Israel 'did' receive the support of west countries to make it's independence a true day.

The support they recieved was primarily moral support. This statement is different from your earlier ones at blaming the West for Israel's defeating Arab armies several times in several wars.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-13-2006, 13:58

The Israelis were simply better trained, yes American equipment is better than Soviet now but in 67 the difference was negligable, or even on the Soviet side.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 15:27

Nations have armies not Tribess

The support they recieved was primarily moral support. This statement is different from your earlier ones at blaming the West for Israel's defeating Arab armies several times in several wars.
Are you reading my posts?

Who said that the nation has tribes? Who are you discussing? Yourself? I said that a tribe has fought them, simply because they took their lands. Yes a tribe doesn't mean an army, so where you got that statement from?

They received morale support? So, they actually made their planes, then? Right?

Redleg

06-13-2006, 16:51

Are you reading my posts?

Who said that the nation has tribes? Who are you discussing? Yourself? I said that a tribe has fought them, simply because they took their lands. Yes a tribe doesn't mean an army, so where you got that statement from?

Lets see we were discussing the Arab League which consists of multiple nations within the Middle-East. Some are indeed the ethnic group considered to be Arabic, other nations consist of nations with ethnic groups other then arabic.

Your statement was

One tribe doesn't count as an Arab organised army.

So the statement did come from you. If you only meant the Palenstine people you should have clearly stated that.

Since multiple nations were involved in the 1948, 1956 and the 1967 wars, those nations were members of the Arab League. It seems that you failed to consider that these nations all had organized armies.

Israeli War of Independence/ "al-Nakba" (The Disaster) (1948-1949)--Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Jewish Israelis.

The Sinai War (1956) [Also known as the Suez War]--The invasion and temporary conquest of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula by Israel, while France and Great Britain seized the Suez Canal.

The Six-Day War (1967)--In a rapid pre-emptive attack, Israel crushed the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized large amounts of land from each. Iraq also participated in the fighting on the Arab side.

In simple words the Arab League is not a tribe, but consisted of multiple nations that activitily particpated in warfare with Israel. To claim one tribe does not count as an Arab organised army is false - unless your attempting only to claim that the Palenstine people were involved in the conflict. This claim would also be false when one looks into the history of the main conflicts between Israel and the surrounding Arab nations.

They received morale support? So, they actually made their planes, then? Right?[/quote]

That was not was stated - Israel purchased their aircraft from multiple nations. Just as Egypt, Syria, and Jordan purchase their military equipment from other nations.

Do you blame the former Soviet Union for selling these nations their equipement? Now be careful Soviet equipment prior to 1970's was often considered superior to Western equipement in everything but aviation. If your counting military purchases as support - then you must also blame the former Soviet Union for the failure of the Arab nations to defeat Israel.

Or frankly following your course of emotional appeal - Israel being a democratic based nation defeating nations based upon Communist support and for the most part dictatorships demonstrates by action the superiority of the democratic ideal. The Palenstine people instead of attempting to support the Arab league in its invasion and attempted destruction of the new state of Israel - should of embraced the new nation and became active defenders of the nation.

Emotional appeal does not survive contact with history when reviewing past events.

Israel has made multiple mistakes when dealing with the Palenstine people, just as the leadership of the Palenstine people as demonstrated by such organizations as Hammas, Fatah, PLO, and multiple others have made serious mistakes in dealing with Israel.

Distortions of history are just that distortions of history.

If your only arguement is based upon emotional appeal and revision of history to suit your needs, your only demonstrating why both the Israeli people and the Palenstine people can not solve the issues that are facing them in order to achieve peace.

drone

06-13-2006, 17:32

CNN article on the IDF's investigation results:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html

An Israeli commando unit used the beach to enter Gaza for a mission in recent weeks, prompting the militants to place the mines, the sources said.

Intelligence information gathered by Israeli investigators showed that Hamas quickly removed the remaining mines from the beach after the blast, the sources said.

...

Finally, shrapnel removed from three of the injured by doctors at Israeli hospitals was not the from an artillery shell, the sources said.
Of course, who is going to believe the IDF?

Brenus

06-13-2006, 18:01

“What is that? I didn't care to read what it says, but at all costs, I can get you Omar's Treaty when he 'freed' Palestine from the Romans (Knowing that most Egyptian were considered slaves), and that will show you the justice of Islam.”
THAT was written in 1980 AFTER Christ by a so-called Moderate Muslim who became President of Bosnia and Herzegovina after NATO bombed Serb (Christians) and frightened to do so to the Croats (Christians). And I just answered a question.

“The Israelis were simply better trained”. And had a superior motivation: victory or death…

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 18:10

That was not was stated - Israel purchased their aircraft from multiple nations. Just as Egypt, Syria, and Jordan purchase their military equipment from other nations.

Well, history around these parts says that UK had left it's weapons, bases and a lot of other equipment in Israel, in the hands of Israeli gangs upon leaving Palestine. And really, isn't giving Palestine to them enough to be called support? And you tell me now: Let's say 10 million muslims went on and invaded a country, considering that they are well equipped through their countries. They enter the country, and easily kill the military force, and prove themselves militarily. You then would admit that country to them, and say it's their rightful land considering they are able to hold it militarily?

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 18:13

“What is that? I didn't care to read what it says, but at all costs, I can get you Omar's Treaty when he 'freed' Palestine from the Romans (Knowing that most Egyptian were considered slaves), and that will show you the justice of Islam.”
THAT was written in 1980 AFTER Christ by a so-called Moderate Muslim who became President of Bosnia and Herzegovina after NATO bombed Serb (Christians) and frightened to do so to the Croats (Christians). And I just answered a question.

So? If some extremist jumps up and says 'Death to Jews! Death to Christians!', you suppose Islam wants that stand?!

Redleg

06-13-2006, 19:49

Well, history around these parts says that UK had left it's weapons, bases and a lot of other equipment in Israel, in the hands of Israeli gangs upon leaving Palestine.

Abandoning equipement does not equate to active support.

Britian provided Active support in the training of the TransJordan army though however, and was active in supporting the Arabs prior to the 1948 War.

Despite the passage of the UN partition plan, the situation in Palestine in early 1948 did not look auspicious for the Yishuv. When the AHC rejected the plan immediately after its passage and called for a general strike, violence between Arabs and Jews mounted. Many Jewish centers, including Jerusalem, were besieged by the Arabs. In January 1948, President Truman, warned by the United States Department of State that a Jewish state was not viable, reversed himself on the issue of Palestine, agreeing to postpone partition and to transfer the Mandate to a trusteeship council. Moreover, the British forces in Palestine sided with the Arabs and attempted to thwart the Yishuv's attempts to arm itself.

In mid-March the Yishuv's military prospects changed dramatically after receiving the first clandestine shipment of heavy arms from Czechoslovakia. The Haganah went on the offensive and, in a series of operations carried out from early April until mid-May, successfully consolidated and created communications links with those Jewish settlements designated by the UN to become the Jewish state. In the meantime, Weizmann convinced Truman to reverse himself and pledge his support for the proposed Jewish state. In April 1948, the Palestinian Arab community panicked after Begin's Irgun killed 250 Arab civilians at the village of Dayr Yasin near Jerusalem. The news of Dayr Yasin precipitated a flight of the Arab population from areas with large Jewish populations.

On May 14, 1948, Ben-Gurion and his associates proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. On the following day Britain relinquished the Mandate at 6:00 P.M. and the United States announced de facto recognition of Israel. Soviet recognition was accorded on May 18; by April 1949, fifty-three nations, including Britain, had extended recognition. In May 1949, the UN General Assembly, on recommendation of the Security Council, admitted Israel to the UN.

Meanwhile, Arab military forces began their invasion of Israel on May 15. Initially these forces consisted of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 Egyptians, 2,000 to 4,000 Iraqis, 4,000 to 5,000 Transjordanians, 3,000 to 4,000 Syrians, 1,000 to 2,000 Lebanese, and smaller numbers of Saudi Arabian and Yemeni troops, about 25,000 in all. Israeli forces composed of the Haganah, such irregular units as the Irgun and the Stern Gang, and women's auxiliaries numbered 35,000 or more. By October 14, Arab forces deployed in the war zones had increased to about 55,000, including not more than 5,000 irregulars of Hajj Amin al Husayni's Palestine Liberation Force. The Israeli military forces had increased to approximately 100,000. Except for the British-trained Arab Legion of Transjordan, Arab units were largely ill-trained and inexperienced. Israeli forces, usually operating with interior lines of communication, included an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 European World War II veterans.

This paints a different picture then what you are attempting.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/israel-inde.htm

So which is it - its Britian's fault because they helped the Jews, or is it Britians fault because they helped the Arabs?

And really, isn't giving Palestine to them enough to be called support?

Well since Britian controled it as the ruling authority it was their's to do with what they will. Remember in the orginal mandate that the Palenstine people also got land.

And you tell me now: Let's say 10 million muslims went on and invaded a country, considering that they are well equipped through their countries.
Wrong comparision. Not even valid. In 1948 the Israeli Jews were buying their weapons primarily on the black market.

They enter the country, and easily kill the military force, and prove themselves militarily. You then would admit that country to them, and say it's their rightful land considering they are able to hold it militarily?

Again wrong comparison.

The UNSCOP reported on August 31 that a majority of its members supported a geographically complex system of partition into separate Arab and Jewish states, a special international status for Jerusalem, and an economic union linking the three members. Backed by both the United States and the Soviet Union, the plan was adopted after two months of intense deliberations as the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947. Although considering the plan defective in terms of their expectations from the League of Nations Mandate twenty-five years earlier, the Zionist General Council stated willingness in principle to accept partition. The League of Arab States (Arab League) Council, meeting in December 1947, said it would take whatever measures were required to prevent implementation of the resolution.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 19:52

And you tell me now: Let's say 10 million muslims went on and invaded a country, considering that they are well equipped through their countries. They enter the country, and easily kill the military force, and prove themselves militarily. You then would admit that country to them, and say it's their rightful land considering they are able to hold it militarily?

Just because I forgot. One of the real life situations that the game this forum is dedicated to - Medevil Total War - demonstrated just that scenerio. The Legacy of this invasion can be seen in places like Bosnia and Kosovo..

:oops:

Tribesman

06-13-2006, 19:59

Redleg

06-13-2006, 20:10

Of course, who is going to believe the IDF?

Well not the former Pentagon battlefield damage assessor , who says the crater is identical to the other five and the shrapnel is from a 155mm howitzer shell .:shrug:

Did the former Pentagon Battlefield damage assessor provide a photo in his commentary - if so could you provide a link.

It really is rather easy to tell if the crater is a 155mm howitzer shell (5" inch naval gun) versus a land mine explosion. The size and shape of the crater tells all.

(I went looking for a photo of the craters but have yet to find one.)

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 20:54

Am not trying to compare. You say that as long as Israel can hold itself militarily, then Palestine is it's rightful land. What would be different in my example? (And really, if Britain had the intent to help the Arabs, wouldn't they:
1) Give Palestine to them in the first place.
2) Not offer 'free' equipment for Israel through leaving most of it their and withdrawing off the country..)

Well since Britian controled it as the ruling authority it was their's to do with what they will.Is that not considered support? That's the question.

Reenk Roink

06-13-2006, 21:01

Let's say 10 million muslims went on and invaded a country, considering that they are well equipped through their countries. They enter the country, and easily kill the military force, and prove themselves militarily. You then would admit that country to them, and say it's their rightful land considering they are able to hold it militarily?

Well, I know this was not addressed to me, but since I also have stated my opinion on this, let me answer.

Yes.

I personally have no problem with a war of conquest. It's been the way of the world since recorded history began, and it's not really going to stop now.

This is why I have no moral qualms with the US invasion of Iraq.

Now, I have huge moral qualms with some of the conduct. For example, I completely reject the doctrine of 'collateral damage' and classify it as condone civilian deaths but this is for another topic.

Anyway, that's just how I feel; I'm sure that others would say 'might is right' for one group but not the other. That's not me though.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 21:08

Am not trying to compare.

Then why the continued attempts.

You say that as long as Israel can hold itself militarily, then Palestine is it's rightful land.

That is not what was stated. Israel defended itself in 1948 from the Arab Leagues attack. If your now going to switch to attempting to claim I stated something I did not - it demonstrates a futher erosion in your arguement.

What would be different in my example? (And really, if Britain had the intent to help the Arabs, wouldn't they:

Review your history - Britian aided the Arabs in Palenstine several times prior to the Israeli War of 1948.

1) Give Palestine to them in the first place.

They did - the Arabs rejected the Mandate. And attempted to use force to remove the jews. When that didn't work they tried again later on several different times. In that fighting the Mandate and the partion has become clouded beyond reason. Who's to blame - both sides. The Palenstin people, the Arab League and yes even Israel.

2) Not offer 'free' equipment for Israel through leaving most of it their and withdrawing off the country..)

If you were a british soldier would you want to be caught between two warring fractions that had absolutely no respect for your presence or your life?

Is that not considered support? That's the question.
Again nope - its called abandoning military equipment.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-13-2006, 21:10

Folks:

I think many of the Israeli apologists on this thread are missing a key element running through x-dANGEr 's posts.

He has indirectly labeled himself a Palestinian (obviously I do not know if this is truth or an adopted stance, but I will accept it as fact).

He has asserted that Balfour's promise that extent communities in the region would not be harmed by the creation of an "Israel" was broken.

He suggests that it is taught as a commonplace that Britain de facto handed over their bases and munitions to the kibbutzim and zionist gangs upon their withdrawal from Palestine.

He has argued vociferously that Israel would have been defeated, and still might be, if the US and other Western backers of Israel did not fund, supply, provide aid and comfort, etc. to the state of Israel.

The theme underlying this is rather simple. Israel is, from his perspective, an immoral and illegal entity foisted off on the native population by the United States and other Western powers and maintained, at least in good measure, by the continuing support of those same powers and at the direct and continuing expense of the native population. His stated solution is a Muslim state wherein the Israelis would be citizens but lack access to executive power.

So why are you arguing with his points? Do you see anything in his stance that would lead you to believe that the continuance of Israel as a Jewish state is an acceptable solution? Wasted efforts at persuasion.

**** Warning: Engage Sarcasm Mode to view this last paragraph. ****

After all, isn't it obvious to everyone that Israel is merely the West's re-constitution of the Crusader Kingdom under a different name and using its cast-off jews as a proxy occupation force so that none of its own need die in order to keep a boot on the neck of the muslims? It's just using one batch of heretics to keep another batch in check.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 21:54

That is not what was stated. Israel defended itself in 1948 from the Arab Leagues attack. If your now going to switch to attempting to claim I stated something I did not - it demonstrates a futher erosion in your arguement.
Then, what is it you state and argue?

Review your history - Britian aided the Arabs in Palenstine several times prior to the Israeli War of 1948.
But again it gave Isralies Palestine and gave up their weapons to them.

They did - the Arabs rejected the Mandate. And attempted to use force to remove the jews. When that didn't work they tried again later on several different times. In that fighting the Mandate and the partion has become clouded beyond reason. Who's to blame - both sides. The Palenstin people, the Arab League and yes even Israel.
I think it might be the Arabs at most, because we didn't accept the Mandate, and still don't.

If you were a british soldier would you want to be caught between two warring fractions that had absolutely no respect for your presence or your life?
I wouldn't leave (Give) one of them my weapons.

Again nope - its called abandoning military equipment.Again, read my posts calmly mate. This is what I wrote:

And really, isn't giving Palestine to them enough to be called support?

Well since Britian controled it as the ruling authority it was their's to do with what they will. Remember in the orginal mandate that the Palenstine people also got land.

Is that not considered support? That's the question.

Again nope - its called abandoning military equipment.

Folks:

I think many of the Israeli apologists on this thread are missing a key element running through x-dANGEr 's posts.

He has indirectly labeled himself a Palestinian (obviously I do not know if this is truth or an adopted stance, but I will accept it as fact).

He has asserted that Balfour's promise that extent communities in the region would not be harmed by the creation of an "Israel" was broken.

He suggests that it is taught as a commonplace that Britain de facto handed over their bases and munitions to the kibbutzim and zionist gangs upon their withdrawal from Palestine.

He has argued vociferously that Israel would have been defeated, and still might be, if the US and other Western backers of Israel did not fund, supply, provide aid and comfort, etc. to the state of Israel.

The theme underlying this is rather simple. Israel is, from his perspective, an immoral and illegal entity foisted off on the native population by the United States and other Western powers and maintained, at least in good measure, by the continuing support of those same powers and at the direct and continuing expense of the native population. His stated solution is a Muslim state wherein the Israelis would be citizens but lack access to executive power.

So why are you arguing with his points? Do you see anything in his stance that would lead you to believe that the continuance of Israel as a Jewish state is an acceptable solution? Wasted efforts at persuasion.

**** Warning: Engage Sarcasm Mode to view this last paragraph. ****

After all, isn't it obvious to everyone that Israel is merely the West's re-constitution of the Crusader Kingdom under a different name and using its cast-off jews as a proxy occupation force so that none of its own need die in order to keep a boot on the neck of the muslims? It's just using one batch of heretics to keep another batch in check.
Another 'typical' situation.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-13-2006, 22:18

An excellent summary, Seamus. A lot less confusing than the actual thread. :idea2:

Kralizec

06-13-2006, 22:32

And the Arab countries got weapons from the Soviets.
Israels behaviour has been far from nice, but I'll cut them some slack because they've been between a rock and a hard place from the start. It's been one big game of power, and they've come out on top. Now that Israel doesn't really have to fear of her existence because of her direct neighbours (Iran is a different story), she should put more effort in achieving a 2 state solution. The majority of Palestinians would support one anyway if it would be based on the 1967 borders. I think the next few months will be critical, if Abbas will succeed in giving the population a referendum we might see some big changes.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 22:40

I think the next years will follow with nothing but more destruction and wars.. So don't get your hopes up too much. The world is just far from stable, and that is everywhere.

Redleg

06-13-2006, 22:57

Then, what is it you state and argue?
That history shows that the Arab League attacked Israel because it did not want to abide by the Mandate. Israel beat the Arab League not because of military aid from foreign nations but because of moral, desire and military experience greater then that of the Arab League Nations that attack Israel in 1948, and 1967. The Military equipment in 1948 was below that of the Arab League, and in 1967 it was at best equal to, but in many instances just below that of the Arab League Nations. Notice I do not mention the 1956 conflict in this because - one can safely state both Britian and France did indeed aid the Israeli Forces by their actions in seizing the Suez Channel preventing Eygpt from reinforcing critical areas.

Eygpt by the way learned some critical lessons from Israel in all three of these earlier wars that almost enabled them to defeat the Israeli Army in the 1973 War. But that is a slightly different subject then the current discussion.

But again it gave Isralies Palestine and gave up their weapons to them.

Again the Mandate gave land to both the Israeli's and the Palestine people.
British forces abandon their weapons their bases and the Israeli's seized them, that sir is a big difference then giving them away.

I think it might be the Arabs at most, because we didn't accept the Mandate, and still don't.

That is the problem - Arabs are refusing the two state solution that has been the mandate since the beginning. Attempting to blame the Israel state for this failure is the down fall of the palenstine cause because it does not ring true to an outsider who reviews history and the facts.

I wouldn't leave (Give) one of them my weapons.

Then you would be dead just like the British soldiers would of been caught in a war where neither respects the presence of the british soldier.

Again, read my posts calmly mate. This is what I wrote:

Was never not calm - so the point remains the Palenstine people were given lands in the Mandate, the Arab League refused the Mandate and attacked the fledging state.

The British provide support to the Arabs prior to their departing the terrority leaving their equipment behind for any of the warring parties to grab up.

So if your willing to accept that the Arabs, the Palenstine people and the Zionists all got support from Britian in the partition of land to the groups then you can convince me that the giving of land was supporting all groups. But claiming that Britian only supported the Israeli postion does not fly in the face of facts.

THe British were providing support to the Arab cause primarily up to their departure from the area. History clearly states that in every reference that one reviews the conflict from the outside.

x-dANGEr

06-13-2006, 23:36

But those lands were Palestinian, would you accept it for let's say China to come in the USA, conquer your state, then divide it between you and a new country? No, you wouldn't. And you would spend your whole life trying to regain your lost land, even if you lose the first time, second time, third time and forth time, wouldn't you? I think it all comes back to be Britain's fault. They agreed with Al-Sherif Hussein bin Ali that the whole region would be given to him to make an independent arabic Islamic country, but no, Britain had to betray the 'treaty' (Which by violating, it did only harm to the world on all aspects).

Kralizec

06-13-2006, 23:45

But those lands were Palestinian

Only in a geographical sense. Before Israel, the Palestinians were not a nation. The Arab countries defied Israel because A) the found the idea of jews occupying the Holy Land insulting and B) because they certainly didn't want to take the 'Palestinians' in their own land and provide for them and in the last place (if at all) because of C) solidarity with the 'Palestinians'.
Of course they deserve their own state. But to imply that jews invaded a 'nation' and built their own on top of it is ridiculous.

Redleg

06-14-2006, 00:03

But those lands were Palestinian, would you accept it for let's say China to come in the USA, conquer your state, then divide it between you and a new country? No, you wouldn't.

I have several relatives on both sides of my family that are Native Americans of the Cherokee and Najavo people. So in essence this has alreadly been done in the United States.

Now in the reference your trying to state here - where in history was there ever a nation of Palestine. There were different tribial and ethnic groups that can claim the land that is the present geographical boundry of Israel - to include the jews.

And you would spend your whole life trying to regain your lost land, even if you lose the first time, second time, third time and forth time, wouldn't you?

It seems your still wanting to deny that their was a partion of land given to the Palenstine people in the orginial mandate.

I think it all comes back to be Britain's fault. They agreed with Al-Sherif Hussein bin Ali that the whole region would be given to him to make an independent arabic Islamic country, but no, Britain had to betray the 'treaty' (Which by violating, it did only harm to the world on all aspects).

Britian did the best that it could do facing the situation that it was in concerning the Jewish mandate. There was a lot of pressure applied by both the United States and the Soviet Union on Britian to provide a homeland for the Jewish refugees of the war.

Is it Britians fault that the Arab League decided to refuse the Mandate? Was it Britians fault that Arab League decided to invade Israel to prevent the formation of the Israeli state? Is the fault of Britian that the Palenstine people instead of welcoming the fledging state with open arms turned their back on it? (The Israeli Massacre of I believe two Palenstine villages during this time frame did not help matters at all either?)

Is it Britians fault that they decided not to turn over the whole region to a single man so that he could become a despot?

Oh there is a whole lot of blame that can be cast about on the issue, all one has to do is begin to line up those who should be blamed. One first must start with those who were activitily pursueing violence to create and end the Israeli state at roughly the same time. (give a few years to the Zionist movement who were conducting Terror attacks on British forces, but there were a few active Arabic groups out to create havoc also.

From globalsecurity.com once again

In May 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry unanimously declared its opposition to the White Paper of 1939 and proposed, among other recommendations, that the immigration to Palestine of 100,000 European Jews be authorized at once. The British Mandate Authority rejected the proposal, stating that such immigration was impossible while armed organizations in Palestine-- both Arab and Jewish--were fighting the authority and disrupting public order.

x-dANGEr

06-14-2006, 11:00

Redleg

06-14-2006, 13:55

The mandate wasn't fair to be accepted, sorry. It is Britain's fault that a need for the mandate arose. I don't deny their was a portion (?) of land given to Palestine, but a portion is not enough. I won't take the cake from you after it's all yours and give you back it's half. That just isn't allowed, it isn't my right.

Oh how history is forgottten, in order to justify a continued circle of violence.

The Mandate of Palestine was a territory in the Middle East including the modern territories of Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire, which the League of Nations entrusted to the United Kingdom to administer in the aftermath of World War I as a Mandate Territory.

If you want to cast blame on only one nation - you should be blaming the Ottoman Empire for entering into WW1. Their failure on the Battlefield lead to the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Or maybe you should be looking at all of Europe

Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab resentment.

Or maybe look a little closer at the start of the violence

There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population. In some cases, land purchases by the Jewish agencies from absentee landlords led to the eviction of the Palestinian Arab tenants, who were replaced by the Jews of the kibbutzim. The Arabic speakers before World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. When Jews, who grew up with European laws, purchased land they did not always realise that the villagers on that land owned the trees. This was often a source of misunderstanding and conflict. The olive tree is particularly important as it can remain productive for more than one thousand years.

Maybe its not the British but both the Jewish immigrants into Palestine and the Arabs who lived in the Palestine Mandate that are the cause of the problem

The British government placed limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. These quotas were controversial, particularly in the latter years of British rule, and both Arabs and Jews disliked the policy, each side for its own reasons. In response to numerous Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary organization, was formed on June 15, 1920. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1921, 1929 (primarily violent attacks by Arabs on Jews — see Hebron) and 1936-1939. Beginning in 1936, several Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted their own campaigns of violence against British and Arab targets. This prompted the British government to label them both as terrorist organizations.

And then to claim the partion was unfair demonstrates and justifies violence seems to fall flat on its face when one looks at the map of what was the British Mandate of Palestine

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg

The belief that the Mandate wasn't fair is not an acceptable reason for violence, nor is an acceptable reason to continue violence.

Pannonian

06-14-2006, 13:55

lars573

06-14-2006, 14:46

Oh how history is forgottten, in order to justify a continued circle of violence.

If you want to cast blame on only one nation - you should be blaming the Ottoman Empire for entering into WW1. Their failure on the Battlefield lead to the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Or maybe you should be looking at all of Europe

Or maybe look a little closer at the start of the violence

Maybe its not the British but both the Jewish immigrants into Palestine and the Arabs who lived in the Palestine Mandate that are the cause of the problem

And then to claim the partion was unfair demonstrates and justifies violence seems to fall flat on its face when one looks at the map of what was the British Mandate of Palestine

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg

The belief that the Mandate wasn't fair is not an acceptable reason for violence, nor is an acceptable reason to continue violence.
I'd also add that the whole reason the Arabs in that area call themselfs Palestinians is because of the mandate. The Ottomans never called the area Palestine at all, and Palestine is a Roman word in the first place. The Ottomans had like 5 Sanjaks (something like a county IIRC) in the area that became Mandate Palestine.

x-dANGEr

06-14-2006, 21:46

You keep repeating yourself Redleg, as if you're reading nothing. Was it the Ottomans or the Palestinians who allowed and actually forced the Jewish immigrations?

Brenus

06-14-2006, 22:18

“Was it the Ottomans or the Palestinians who allowed and actually forced the Jewish immigrations?”
You are right, it wasn’t them. However, where does that lead you? Israel do exist, Arab State didn’t accepted the partition and lost. Some Arab countries even played on the misery of the Palestinians in order to keep pressure on Israel and to get popular support for their dictatorship. The best know terrorist movement was Black September, and it is NOT a reference to an Israeli’s action…
I belong to a generation to whom Lodds, Munich, Entebbe and countless planes hijacked and explosion in the desert, hostages coldly executed are the “lettre de marque” of the Palestinian movement.
I was a real great supporter of Israel, and I admit I change my opinion because the treatment the Israelis gave and still give to the Palestinians. I can understand you have to kill your enemy, but the daily humiliation suffered by the Palestinians is too much. Until the Palestinian Movement was more or less a-religious (most of the heads of the PLO were Christians), and the change in the means to achieve what the Palestinians deserve (a State) without the destruction of Israel, I was more in favour of the Palestinians. However, the election of HAMAS resolved nothing. More, it gives Israel all good reasons to do what she wants. I have no sympathy for people who have sympathy for the killers and suicide bombers. They want to kill me, so why should I cry? Two times in my life I was confronted to the Muslim Terrorism, in France with the G.I.A and in England with the Al Qaeda supporters.
More, HAMAS can’t win, it just condemned the Palestinians to more sufferings, more pains. HAMAS has the moral duty to protect the populations which elected them. But I am not convinced that the main goal of HAMAS is the good of the Palestinians…

Redleg

06-14-2006, 22:51

You keep repeating yourself Redleg, as if you're reading nothing. Was it the Ottomans or the Palestinians who allowed and actually forced the Jewish immigrations?

If you recongize that in what I am writing - maybe you should also recongize it in your own. The individual who is not reading - would be yourself - it seems your stuck on attempting to blame others for the problems of the Palenstine Arabs and the esclation of violence that continues in a vicous little circle over and over again.

There is a point to why I wrote the comments in the way I did.

Have you thought through your responses to realize exactly why the Israeli-Palanstine issue continues to escalate into violence? Do you activitily ignore history and revise it to justify violence?

You should follow your own advice here and actually read the comment. Here try it again

If you want to cast blame on only one nation - you should be blaming the Ottoman Empire for entering into WW1. Their failure on the Battlefield lead to the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine.

Now did I state the Ottaman empire allowed immigrantion, or did I state that they should of either not entered the war - or have won, ( oh by the way The Ottoman Empire did allow some immigration - just a limited amount.) Remember my fine Palenstine friend that the immigrantion and zionist movement to reclaim Israel for the Jewish people started back in the late 1800's.

From Wikipedia which cites a 1905 population survey by an Ottoman official.

Whether there was significant Arab immigration into Palestine after the beginning of Jewish settlement there has been a matter of some controversy. Demographer Uziel Schmelz, in his analysis of Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron kazas, found that most Ottoman citizens living in these areas, comprising about one quarter of the population of Palestine, were living at the place where they were born. Specifically, of Muslims, 93.1% were born in their current locality of residence, 5.2% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 1.6% were born outside Palestine. Of Christians, 93.4% were born in their current locality, 3.0% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 3.6% were born outside Palestine. Of Jews (excluding the large fraction who were not Ottoman citizens), 59.0% were born in their current locality, 1.9% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 39.0% were born outside Palestine. [18]

Your answers demonstrate another point - it reads exactly the counter to the far right Zionist web-sites that I have come across while researching and reading up on different aspects of the problem.

Blaming the British for the partition and the violence is nothing more then a cop-out - a crux if you will - for the inablity of the Palenstine Arabs to live in peace with the Israeli jews. I have seen the same exact type of write-up from Zionists who blame the British for thier misery and having to use violence.

Both sides have a bunch of extreme knuckleheads that rather kill each other off, versus live in peace, who will distort history to justify their use of violence - not because it is the truth but to bring other naive and disenchanted individuals who believe that the root cause of all their problems is always someone or something else to assist them in using violence and terror to kill people who are not even involved in the conflict. As Brenus mention I to remember the killing of civilians in Munich by those claiming to be fighting for Palenstine. Yea right...

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 01:42

Just one note, did those get the support of the nation? Did I jump up and down when I knew that? Was I happy when those bombings happened in London, or about 11/9? Really?

Though, you guys are all arguing different points. From a side, Pannonian says that Israel having proved itself through the force of arms, has the right to keep it's land.

While you Redleg, Brenus say?

Well since Britian controled it as the ruling authority it was their's to do with what they will. Remember in the orginal mandate that the Palenstine people also got land.
I don't understand how they got the ruling authority, care to explain?

Husar

06-15-2006, 01:58

I don't understand how they got the ruling authority, care to explain?
By the force of arms, arms can give you a ruling authority.

Redleg

06-15-2006, 03:37

Just one note, did those get the support of the nation? Did I jump up and down when I knew that? Was I happy when those bombings happened in London, or about 11/9? Really?

Never said you were....

Though, you guys are all arguing different points. From a side, Pannonian says that Israel having proved itself through the force of arms, has the right to keep it's land.

I am only arguing one position - that its foolish to blame the British for the current violence. The blame for the violence lies with those that are committing the violence - the extremists of both sides.

While you Redleg, Brenus say?

I don't understand how they got the ruling authority, care to explain?

Its the exact same method in which the Ottoman Empire gained the terrority. Its the same exact method in which Rome gained the Terrority. Its the exact same method which every nation uses to establish their terrority and to expand their borders.

History is full of exambles of how nations grow.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 07:29

And it is?

Pannonian

06-15-2006, 11:09

Though, you guys are all arguing different points.

That's usually the case when we're all different guys.

From a side, Pannonian says that Israel having proved itself through the force of arms, has the right to keep it's land.

I mean that Israel won its land through force of arms, and force of arms means you don't have a chance of winning back that land by military means. If you want the land back, you had better make a damn good argument convincing people with the neessary leverage to force Israel to give the land back. People have been advising you that the best argument you can hope for in your predicament is to advocate compromise and a share of the land. By denying even this, you lose the best argument you have, and expose yourself to radicals on the other side who want to incorporate Palestine into Israel.

If Israel wants to, it can easily expel the Palestinians from the remaining land and take over the now Arab-free West Bank and Gaza. Thank your lucky stars they don't want to, and look at the situation through realistic eyes. Listen to your European friends and compromise, before we tire of you and turn our backs on your idiotic obstinacy.

While you Redleg, Brenus say?

I don't understand how they got the ruling authority, care to explain?

They got their authority in the same way that all other governments (including Mohammed's) got their authority - they say they're the ruling authority, and no-one is in a position to deny them. If Mohammed did not have the backing of a big military, his words would not have carried any authority. If you think you have this authority, start another big war and live with the consequences.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 11:16

Mohammed had the authority through people's souls, not through swords. And by your ways, if I decalry myself the ruler and no one comes to me and says no you aren't, I have the ruling authority?

Pannonian

06-15-2006, 11:32

Mohammed had the authority through people's souls, not through swords. And by your ways, if I decalry myself the ruler and no one comes to me and says no you aren't, I have the ruling authority?
If Mohammed said he had God on his side, and someone cut his head off and the heads of all those who followed him, would he have any authority left?

We British had a similar problem in the 17th century, which we eventually solved by disposing of the King. We let his sons back in on the understanding that they did not make the same mistake. When one of them did, we kicked him out again. The current monarch knows what the role of an English monarch is, to wear a crown and sign papers. The current Church also knows what the role of an English Church is, to look pretty and provide shelter. If either of them seeks to overstep their given authority, we will refer them to the history books to show them who carries the big stick.

Once again, if you reckon Palestine is the rightful authority in the land, start a big war and live with the consequences. I certainly wouldn't mind if you stopped whining about rights and similar BS as a result. You fought a war in 1948. You lost it. Deal with it.

Aside: Germany managed to deal with the displacement of millions of Germans from East Prussia without whinging. Why are the Palestinians still going on about a fraction of that number? If nothing else, the drone is tiresome.

Red Peasant

06-15-2006, 12:08

Its the exact same method in which the Ottoman Empire gained the terrority. Its the same exact method in which Rome gained the Terrority. Its the exact same method which every nation uses to establish their terrority and to expand their borders.

History is full of exambles of how nations grow.

So true, but the difference is that the 1922 Mandate was not envisioned as a permanent arrangement. It was exercised under the aegis of the League of Nations in order to police a region where the defeat of the imperial Ottomans had created a power vacuum. Ergo, the British authority was given to them by the League of Nations, the UN of its day.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 12:47

If Mohammed said he had God on his side, and someone cut his head off and the heads of all those who followed him, would he have any authority left?

We British had a similar problem in the 17th century, which we eventually solved by disposing of the King. We let his sons back in on the understanding that they did not make the same mistake. When one of them did, we kicked him out again. The current monarch knows what the role of an English monarch is, to wear a crown and sign papers. The current Church also knows what the role of an English Church is, to look pretty and provide shelter. If either of them seeks to overstep their given authority, we will refer them to the history books to show them who carries the big stick.

Once again, if you reckon Palestine is the rightful authority in the land, start a big war and live with the consequences. I certainly wouldn't mind if you stopped whining about rights and similar BS as a result. You fought a war in 1948. You lost it. Deal with it.

Aside: Germany managed to deal with the displacement of millions of Germans from East Prussia without whinging. Why are the Palestinians still going on about a fraction of that number? If nothing else, the drone is tiresome.
I'd be happy with that too. Let Europe and the US get their hands out of it and I will be more than happy, in fact, you will make my day.

Redleg

06-15-2006, 12:51

Mohammed had the authority through people's souls, not through swords. And by your ways, if I decalry myself the ruler and no one comes to me and says no you aren't, I have the ruling authority?

Religious leadership does not necessarily equate to ruling authority over the terrority. If that was the case the pope would rule over all of Christiandom that followed the Catholic Relgion.

@Red Peasant. You are indeed corrrect - the League of Nations did indeed give them legal authority with the Mandate.

And it is?

The continued cycle of violence is not the fault of the British but the two parties involved. The Israeli state and the Palenstine terror organizations. The innocent people who only want peace are caught in the cross-fire. When they scream they have had enough and drive the extremists out the violence will stop.

The question is are you willing to co-exist with the Jewish State or do you believe that violence is justified against jewish people because they happen to now live in Israel.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 13:00

Why do you answer the question with a question! The League of Nations was formed of? Their was no voice to the people who lived in Palestine, so The League of Nations supposedly had no authority on that area. So the UK got the authority through?

Religious leadership does not necessarily equate to ruling authority over the terrority. If that was the case the pope would rule over all of Christiandom that followed the Catholic Relgion.
If the Pope would say something and it would be followed and done, I think he would rule over all the Christians who are in Catholic branch, but I don't think that is the case. Prophet Mohammed was the ultimate ruler, if he said something, people would race to get it done.

InsaneApache

06-15-2006, 13:32

Why do you answer the question with a question! The League of Nations was formed of? Their was no voice to the people who lived in Palestine, so The League of Nations supposedly had no authority on that area. So the UK got the authority through?
If the Pope would say something and it would be followed and done, I think he would rule over all the Christians who are in Catholic branch, but I don't think that is the case. Prophet Mohammed was the ultimate ruler, if he said something, people would race to get it done.

The clues in the name. Palestine has never been a nation. It was a province of the Ottman Empire, which collapsed after their defeat in WWI. To fill the vacuum created in large parts of the middle east, the LoN asked the great powers of the day, IE: Great Britain and France to administer the areas left without government, until someone thought of something better.

Pannonian

06-15-2006, 13:51

I'd be happy with that too. Let Europe and the US get their hands out of it and I will be more than happy, in fact, you will make my day.
As I'm not a US citizen, it is not my place to dictate to the US what it should do in the middle east. As a UK and EU citizen, I would be happy to unilaterally get our paws out of the area, and let Israel, Palestine, the US and whoever else wants to get involved do whatever they like. Be aware this in practice will mean no-one speaking up for the Palestinians when the Israelis and Americans sit together. Successive British PMs in particular have tended to moderate the American position on the matter. Since this is unappreciated, it wouldn't hurt me if we stopped bothering.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 14:35

That would be of no use. As currently, UK and France aren't really the big devil who's supporting one side completely and forgetting about the other.

The clues in the name. Palestine has never been a nation. It was a province of the Ottman Empire, which collapsed after their defeat in WWI. To fill the vacuum created in large parts of the middle east, the LoN asked the great powers of the day, IE: Great Britain and France to administer the areas left without government, until someone thought of something better.
I'm not talking about only Palestine/Palestinians. No one in the region accepted that except who? Britain and France?
Now let me ask you this, what is the difference between what's going on now in Palestine and what was going on in Libya and Algeria before they both got their independence?

Ironside

06-15-2006, 15:04

That would be of no use. As currently, UK and France aren't really the big devil who's supporting one side completely and forgetting about the other.

I'm not talking about only Palestine/Palestinians. No one in the region accepted that except who? Britain and France?
Now let me ask you this, what is the difference between what's going on now in Palestine and what was going on in Libya and Algeria before they both got their independence?

They didn't have an official stance of the destruction of Britain and France.

Redleg

06-15-2006, 15:31

Why do you answer the question with a question!

It should be the first clue to the relative nature of your question.

The League of Nations was formed of? Their was no voice to the people who lived in Palestine, so The League of Nations supposedly had no authority on that area. So the UK got the authority through?

Conquest - and then validated by the legal authority of the League of Nations. The first is the age old method of establishing authority - the second is the international acceptance of that authority.

If the Pope would say something and it would be followed and done, I think he would rule over all the Christians who are in Catholic branch, but I don't think that is the case. Prophet Mohammed was the ultimate ruler, if he said something, people would race to get it done.

And it proves my point - Religious authority is different then the legal authority of the nation state

Red Peasant

06-15-2006, 15:50

Their was no voice to the people who lived in Palestine, so The League of Nations supposedly had no authority on that area [who says?]. So the UK got the authority through?

We do keep on and on answering your question but you obtusely and purposely refuse to accept the answer. Presumably, if you don't recognise the LoN, then you don't recognise its successor either, the UN. Am I right? If so, then you place yourselves outside of its international jurisdiction and the family of nations. Why then should we help you, or continue helping you (I don't forget the many millions of UK taxpayers money alone that you have received)? Go it alone my friend and take your armed struggle with Israel to its ultimate conclusion, bitter defeat. Vae Victis.

Why should we help? You dish out a lot of blame, but nothing constructive.

PS there was no voice to the people who lived in the area because they had no govt representing them, the Ottomans had gone.

rory_20_uk

06-15-2006, 15:53

Palestine did cease to functions after teh free money stopped rolling in from (mainly) the EU and the USA. You want them out, yet still need their money :wall:

~:smoking:

Redleg

06-15-2006, 18:13

Why do you answer the question with a question! The League of Nations was formed of? Their was no voice to the people who lived in Palestine, so The League of Nations supposedly had no authority on that area. So the UK got the authority through?

A follow-up I see that you refused to answer the question asked though however. Lets try it again -

The question is are you willing to co-exist with the Jewish State or do you believe that violence is justified against jewish people because they happen to now live in Israel?

If the Pope would say something and it would be followed and done, I think he would rule over all the Christians who are in Catholic branch, but I don't think that is the case. Prophet Mohammed was the ultimate ruler, if he said something, people would race to get it done.

Another follow-up response.

Here is where the extremist fails to learn from history. The Religious Authority of the Prophet Mohammed remains through the teaching of the Quran. The Prophet Mohammed's legal authority to rule the land ceased to exist not long after his death.

Just because muslims once ruled over what is now Israel - does not give them the legal authority to rule over it now. If I was to follow your arguement here - the Aztec people should regain control over the current country of Mexico. The Navajo Tribe should have their own nation that consists of what is now northern New Mexico and Arizona. (Oh wait they do - a tribal nation within the United States).

The arguement that because a religion once ruled over the land does not work in this case - because if that is your arguement the Jewish people have an even older claim to the same land based solely off of the religious history of the area.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-15-2006, 20:05

Why do you answer the question with a question! The League of Nations was formed of? Their was no voice to the people who lived in Palestine, so The League of Nations supposedly had no authority on that area. So the UK got the authority through?

You have an excellent theme here, but are weak in developing it. I assume you are arguing, at least implicitly that:

Native residents of the region labeled Palestine were accorded no representation under the League of Nations, since Palestine was occupied during the First World War by Great Britain and subsequently made over to effective control of that nation by a LoN Mandate all without the assent -- tacit or explicit -- of the Palestinians themselves. It is not baseless to argue that any division, re-distribution, or re-districting effort resulting from that Mandate are invalid, at least in your view, because the Mandate itself was incorrect and failed to secure the assent of those people it supposedly represented. But if that's your take, you need to be clear on it.

This mandate occurred, of course, because the British conquered the territory pursuant to their efforts against the Ottoman empire. Many will argue that claiming the madate to be invalid is pointless, since conquest was -- at least prior to Kellogg-Briand -- and accepted element of international interaction.

Prophet Mohammed was the ultimate ruler, if he said something, people would race to get it done.

I think you're off track here, as the events of the Hegira would suggest. Prophet Mohammed was forced to leave Mecca, took time to build his temporal power-base in Medina, and conquered Mecca and took control less than 3 years prior to his death. His period as an "ultimate" ruler (at least temporally, I'm not qualified to judge him as a spiritual leader) was brief at best. The growth of Islam and its impact on history subsequent to this have been profound, of course, but the Prophet never wielded anything like the temporal power available to subsequent caliphs.

Brenus

06-15-2006, 21:09

“in Libya”: WAS under Italian…
“Algeria”: That is right, was under French control. But link with the situation with Palestine, except the ethnic cleansing of all the Algerian from European Origin, I mean?

x-danger, what do you do with the Jews who lived in the Ottoman Empire, some if not most in Palestine, who wanted their State? Your problem is you mixed Palestinians and Muslim, Jews and Israeli. They are NOT the same. Religion and nationality aren’t the same. So according to you, the English and the French are guilty because they share a land they conquered on the Ottoman Empire (which had kept the Palestinians f all religions under their rules) and tried to give to each a part of land where they could lived. I notice you forget the creation of Lebanon, to give a land to the Christian. But, anyway, you are locked in your self built contradictions and in the past. You have the choice to cry on the past and on the victories you (or your ancestors/parents/relatives) would have won if, or to stop and try to find a solution, knowing:
Israel can’t be defeated. They have the nuclear power. They have better equipment. They had no alternative solutions. The West will never let them down thank to people like HAMAS and the President of Iran. With allies like this one, you don’t need enemies.
The choice is either the Palestinians will choose a democratic representation (if possible not corrupted) and some hopes will be allowed, either the go for a war they can’t win. Because even if they win, they loose all in a mushroom.

x-dANGEr

06-16-2006, 18:59

I can argue all these points, but then you will re-post the ones I just argued. So I'm not taking this discussion any further, it has evolved into 'This is a cow, now this is a cat' thread.

Cya!

Red Peasant

06-16-2006, 19:07

I can argue all these points, but then you will re-post the ones I just argued. So I'm not taking this discussion any further, it has evolved into 'This is a cow, now this is a cat' thread.

Cya!

At last, self-awareness. ~;)

rory_20_uk

06-16-2006, 19:09

So whilst the argment against the evidence is obvious, we are too stubborn to understand how wrong we are...

As long as we know that everyone is at fault except the Palestinians...

~:smoking:

Redleg

06-16-2006, 20:16

So whilst the argment against the evidence is obvious, we are too stubborn to understand how wrong we are...

Well I am to stubborn to accept the conclusion that the current cycle of violence between the Israeli State and the Palenstine Terrorist organizations is the fault of the British and the Americans.

It normally is the fault of the two parties committing the violence.

As long as we know that everyone is at fault except the Palestinians...

~:smoking:

Yep -

I can argue all these points, but then you will re-post the ones I just argued. So I'm not taking this discussion any further, it has evolved into 'This is a cow, now this is a cat' thread.

Cya!

I must agree wth Red Peasant you have finally begun to exercise self awareness about your arguement.

solypsist

06-22-2006, 04:22

looks like the only "charade" going on here is one by the Israelis:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Human Rights Watch accused an Israeli army investigation on Wednesday of ignoring evidence that challenges its decision to clear the military of blame for a blast that killed seven Palestinians on a Gaza beach.

The deaths on June 9, a day of heavy Israeli shelling designed to stop militants firing rockets from Gaza, drew international condemnation and prompted the ruling Palestinian Islamist group Hamas to call off a 16-month-old truce.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060621/wl_nm/mideast_investigation_dc

Pannonian

06-22-2006, 18:32

Hamas are on the verge of recognising Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1803008,00.html

Hamas has made a major political climbdown by agreeing to sections of a document that recognise Israel's right to exist and a negotiated two-state solution, according to Palestinian leaders.

In a bitter struggle for power, Hamas is bowing to an ultimatum from the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to endorse the document drawn up by Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli jails, or face a national referendum on the issue that could see the Islamist group stripped of power if it loses.

But final agreement on the paper, designed to end international sanctions against the Hamas government that have crippled the Palestinian economy, has been slowed by wrangling over a national unity administration and the question of who speaks for the Palestinians.

Abdullah Abdullah, a Fatah MP and chairman of the parliamentary political committee, said other differences remained over the document, including Fatah's insistence that the PLO continues to be recognised as the sole representative of the Palestinian people in negotiations with Israel, and that all existing agreements between the PLO and Israel be recognised.

Israel has dismissed the prisoners' document as changing little because, among other things, it advocates continued resistance. But a complete renunciation of violence is unlikely to come while Israeli attacks continue to claim the lives of innocent Palestinians.