Hamas ends the Charade

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Tribesman]

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

[lars573]

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]

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?

Or some other strategy?

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

[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?

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'?

[Ser Clegane]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

@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.

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).

[Red Peasant]

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]

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]

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."

[x-dANGEr]

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