Hamas ends the Charade

From http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/09/D8I50R200.html

Hamas Military Wing Calls Off Israel Truce

Seeing as Hamas is the elected representative party of the Palestinian People, this would seem to be a declaration of war against Israel - ending the years of the PLO pretending to be a moderate force and other groups attacking Israel.

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?

Or some other strategy?

Crazed Rabbit

what would the appropriate Israeli response be?

Well the initial response was to deny it , then to say they would investigate it , then to stop the shelling and apologise for killing a bunch of people having a day out at the beach .
You see it was an incident that has been condemned worldwide , including by your own government .

Seeing as Hamas is the elected representative party of the Palestinian People, this would seem to be a declaration of war against Israel - ending the years of the PLO pretending to be a moderate force and other groups attacking Israel.

Hmmmmm.... you don't know much about Palestine/Israel do you :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Or some other strategy?

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars

on the other you have a pack of crazies who blow up commuters.

---

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'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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

Quote:

---

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

(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)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

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'.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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

---

I haven't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

]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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

@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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clegane

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

x-dANGER - don't be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGER

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasent

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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

---

Quote me please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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 ~;)

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/p...ticle_10.shtml
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/p...rticle_4.shtml
http://www.tasc.ac.uk/shp/Terrorism/...%20History.htm

Just google it..

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasent

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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.

The first paragraph of the article gives a good summation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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.

x-dANGER, what you said is this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by You

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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.

Where would they go?! :inquisitive:

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

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:U...stine_1947.png

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

...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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

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 .

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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/D...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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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...

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? 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. Though, that is if the old generations don't plant hate in the new offspring, but rather corporation, happiness and understanding the differences as factors of completion, rather than contrary. But, it simply won't happen, better said, can't happen.

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. 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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/D...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

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.

“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...

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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..

Quote:

---

“... 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.

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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..

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:

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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?

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

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.

anyone see this?

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/hama...l48770611.html

what do you think?

Why?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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'.

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:

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.

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

~:smoking:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.