Bernadotte 0 Posted November 27, 2003 (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 26 2003,20:21) said: ...Frankly, the Palestinians should have had the West bank and Gaza Strip. I agree, but what about the 3/4 million Palestinians who lost property within Israel? Â What about the 418 Palestinian villages that Israel destoyed? (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 26 2003,20:21) said: ...the Israelis did own the land before the Palestinians and Muslims. According to what? Â The Bible? Â Property laws and land registries recognised by modern international law and the UN charter didn't arrive in Palestine until ~1858. (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 26 2003,20:21) said: ...But its also like saying if I lived in an apartment for 60 years and then was kicked out, leaving all of my stuff there, then I come back 20 years later, someone else lives there, its like me telling those people to who live there now to get the hell out cause I lived there longer. Â So sadly the Palestinians do have a little bit of an argument to bring up on there side. Sadly? Â Why sadly? Â You sound a bit biased. Â Why would it make you sad that the Palestinians have a little bit of an argument to bring up on there side? Â (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 26 2003,20:21) said: The Palestinians need to understand for peace to happen in there area they need to stop suicide bombings and killing of innocent Israeli's. So then why wasn't there peace before 1992, when the very first suicide bomber attcked Israel? And why don't you consider the Israeli killing of innocent Palestinians to be an equally great threat to peace? Did you know that the first suicide bombing was in response to an Israeli settler entering a West Bank mosque with a machine gun and killing ~30 worshippers (wounding over 100)? Did you know that Israeli settlers turned his West Bank gravesite into a shrine that remained there for 8 years and still has several websites dedicated to it? Did you know that there have been about 3 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli death during the past 2 years? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmgarcangel 0 Posted November 27, 2003 Frankly stop be stubborn asses. I hate it when people can't except historical records. Most aren't from the bible anyhow forgods sake. The jews owned the land of israel for more than 2000 years, thats a simple fact forgods sake. So many things happened there and frankly to believe events that have happened over the past 200 or 1000 years is kind of stubborn. Seriously, u going to take a claim on I owned this land for 300 or 500 years based on modern records compared to the Israeli's living in the land of Israel before the Palestinians were even about. They lived there way back before 2000 BC in case u don't know. The Palestinians came from them. And plus that land is called Palestine. When the Jews were kicked out during the late part of the 1000 years after christ the Palestinians, Islams and Muslims, moved in and claimed the land as theres because they believe fucking Mohummad ascended into heaven from Israel. Frankly he died way way's away from there. Now moses, a real life character, and seen by atheist as just another profit, like jesus some of them say, brought his people into the area known as palestine and they lived there ever since. Who do you think has more claim? i think the Israeli's do. I like the Palestinians and stuff, they are ok, but the Israeli army being in say the west bank and gaza strips and settlements is for security reasons. If they let up on security all hell would break loose, believe me, all hell would break loose. Hamas and other organizations would be free to commit fully on there task at hand. The Destruction of the Jews in the holly land. Do you think thats peaceful talk my friends??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmgarcangel 0 Posted November 27, 2003 (Bernadotte @ Nov. 27 2003,03:00) said: Did you know that there have been about 3 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli death during the past 2 years? Thats the price for massive suicide bombing attacks. Its simple dude. If the palestinians attack with suicide bombers, then we kill three hamas leaders or members ( they I mean ) Its a sad and vicorious reality, but during peace agreements the israeli's shouldn't and won't back out of the west bank or gaza strip until they are done. Security though will still remain extremely tight. Its the way things are, read my last post. all of it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted November 27, 2003 (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 27 2003,04:15) said: Frankly stop be stubborn asses. You've chosen to ignore nearly all of our responses and questions. Â Who is being the stubborn ass? (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 27 2003,04:15) said: Seriously, u going to take a claim on I owned this land for 300 or 500 years based on modern records compared to the Israeli's living in the land of Israel before the Palestinians were even about. Yes. (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 27 2003,04:15) said: ...they believe fucking Mohummad ascended into heaven from Israel. Please try and show a bit more respect for other people's religion, arcangel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted November 27, 2003 Let's all cool down a bit, eh? I know this can be quite an emotional topic, but let's try to keep it nice and civil. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted November 27, 2003 (bmgarcangel @ Nov. 27 2003,04:19) said: (Bernadotte @ Nov. 27 2003,03:00) said: Did you know that there have been about 3 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli death during the past 2 years? Thats the price for massive suicide bombing attacks. Its simple dude. If the palestinians attack with suicide bombers, then we kill three hamas leaders or members ( they I mean ) Are you seriously claiming that all (or even a simple majority) of palestinian victims are leaders/members of hamas? Or are you counting every supporter as a member? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted November 29, 2003 Well ,i'm just going to put my oopinion on the campaign's in the Middle east of the U.S and it's effects.Not that i have readi much of the other posts. It's just a oppinion ,plz don't be offended. On Afhanistan. To make a good representation of the situation of Afhanistan today ,ill state that the constitution as it is made in Afhanistan at this moment will only be in practice in Kabul and the direct neighbourhood.This is the reality ,Afhanistan today really only exists as Kabul ,the rest of the country is controlled by millitia's subject to dozen's of warlord's who fight an everlasting civil war to define bounderies of control within Afhansitan.Due to the fact that America only could control the ground in Afhanistan in the afhanistan war with the direct help of this warlrds ,they have been able to use the political vacuum after the taliban to expand their control on most of the country ,where they hadn't got control before.Let's not forget that the Afhanistan war wasn't directed to Afhanistan in a whole ,rather to Al-quaida and the taliban ,and that the Taliban even before the Afhan war didn't control more than 60% of the total country (mainly Pashtum area ,since Taliban were Pashtum) ,and even this Taliban was a gathering of respective warlords of equal religion ,it was not one centralized entity. However since the exlicit U.S goals of the latest Afhan war were to remove Al-quaida and the explicit terrorists supporting faction that is the Taliban from power ,that particular mission has succeeded according to it's primary objective's.However it has tottaly failed to re-introduce democracy in Afhanistan ,since the power of the warlords has grown to strong for Hamid Karzai to effectively erradicate ,and do not forget that this new Afhan president already experienced 3 failed murder attempt's on his person ,some of wich he barely escaped ,i don't think he is that eager to make enemy's among the warlords ,so effectivly he remaine's the American puppet mayor of Kabul. However ,bringing Democracy to Afhanistan wasn't a priority clearly ,since at the start of the war the coalition exlicitly demanded the Taliban to cooperate with them in erradicatin al-quaida,wich they declined and as thus made them an enemy.However hadn't the Taliban declined that offer ,then the Afhan war would have simply been a matter of erradicating al-quaida from the region and nothing more ,effectivly in that scenario letting the Taliban remain in power. Some lesson's could be clearly made out of the Afhan war.The American war machine is the best offensive force in the world ,however due to it's high opperating costs and it's high technolighy-relativly low manpower ratio they are a relative innefficiant peacekeeping force.To keep a country stable ,you especially need lotsa manpower ,while an offensive war rather require's high technoligy like bomber's and such.It's the easy conclusion that a stealth bomber won't increase youre chances to restore civil order on the ground.In comparison to this ,the E.U can provide many more manpower instead of material ,and has proven in the past to be a more efficiant peace keeping force that America. Another conclusion is that American socialigy is very much effected by war wearyness ,a slight amount of U.S casualties can easily have a hughe effect in public oppinion in the VS.As thus ,using warlord millitia's to do the dirty ground work was almost required to win the ground war by mere reason's of home support and potzential casualties.This conclusion has been made way earlier though ,that is the Vietnam war ,and it's within this fact that the true weakness of the U.S lays. On Iraq. To clearly state the fact's as they exist ,the sole official motivation for this war was to remove the weapons of mass distruction from Iraq ,since they could be used for terrorist attrocity's against the U.S. .In this objective America has clarly failed by the simple fact that these WMD don't exist.Since this war was part of the campaign against terrorism ,where Iraq now clearly hadn't got effective ties with before the war ,we can conclude that their wasn't any clear legal justification whatsoever.I say legal ,so according to bilateral agreement's ,not in a possible debatable moral sence. Due to the reason that theyre wasn't any legal justification for this war ,the objective's have been changed to creating a democracy in Iraq ,this is not a clearl legal justification however it can be accepted by a great number of people as a moral justification ,most importantly by U.S citizin's a.k.a voters.In this however i always predicted that it would fail ,and it is failing ,simply on the bases of what Iraq is ,and the conclusion that purely realisticly Iraq doesn't really exists.in a country of multiple conflicting etnicity's and relegion's ,it's not really a surprize that it's awfully hard to find a patriot or nationalist in that country.Iraq is a mix of Sunni and Shiiti ,Arab's and Kurd's and other etnicity's ,extremists and moderates ,and all those seperate division's are again devided among a countless number of "clan's" almost representing youre standard Afhan warlord's militia.These countless of Iraqi clan's are there in bigger number's that one can find warlords in Afhanistan ,and in Irasq these clan's even have less in common with eachother that warlord's in Afhanistan have.Atleast in Afhanistan most people feel Afhan ,and nationalism still exists there.In Iraq however nationalism is close to death ,the country has albeit been created by an ex-colonial European power ,it's border's have most poorly been drawn ,being a congregation of percentage's of different etnicity's in the global region. By this reason ,it's not hard to conclude that in reality democracy in Iraq is impossible ,even more it is trough this reason that Iraq has always been ruled by dictator's ,as any deomcracy in Iraq would probably lead to a ultimate splitup of the country in multiple country's that in fact even wouldn't be recognized by most of the surround power's and probably would be invaded at creation.Iraq is a prime example of how poorly drawn boundaries by ex-colonial's can haunt many generation's of people between that borders. So by this ,the whole Iraq war will fail ,in all it's objective's.American troops will probably begin to draw back at spring 2004 ,to be home before ellection's late 2004.Effectivly ,the newly formed Iraqi gouverment will loose virtually all countrol over the country ,and will probably only be able to control those region's most vital for it's existance and in cooperation with America those place's in the direct u.S interrests. (being some oil well's and a harbor like Um-qassr ,as well as some pipe-line defense system) Effectivly this will mean that about Bagdad and some smallother part's of Iraq controlled in aid with remaining coalition soldiers will be the actuall influence of power of the new iraqi regime ,add with this Bagdad international airport that will be secured to the bone.Thgat is the effect that we will see under a supposed republic ,that is what the U.S proposes.IMO in this screwed up situation the best one could set to power in iraq would be an enlightend tyrant ,as far as that can exist.Quaggmire really. But plz to all American's on this board don't be allarmed ,don't think that i have anti-american sentiment's.I have great respect for the U.S and it's society ,no society is perfect ,but the American society has embraced and spread many innovative and humane ideal's around the world trough it's history.As concious European ,i am aware of Europe's position in the world ,and admit's hereby that Europe needs America ,however that America also needs Europe. When 11 september happend ,it were not only American's who were shocked and hurt.Europe expressed many sentiment's of compasion then to the U.S ,there was a general sympathy then for the U.S in europe and European's felt genneraly that a U.S war against terrorism was justified. However ,back then America widely refused the aid from Europe ,mostly due to clumsy diplomacy by the Bush ,wich the European's didn't really experience as a token of respect.Still the E.U invested heavily in capital in Afhanistan ,roughly ten times more than the U.S ,however then again the E.U has to it's possesion a higher volume of capital that the U.S due to it's population.In addition the E.U provided for peace keeping force's in Afhanistan ,albeit it was inpossible to provide enough for a country that wasn't really conquered apart from it's capital ,since adding more peace keeping force's would require an offensive force to activly aquire most of the territory under the juristiction of the gouverment and not for ex. warlord millitia's.It's not a surpirze as thus that the warlord's have declared themself's from the invasion onward acted as "peace keeping force" in their respective controlled region's supposedly as allies to the U.S. At the approach of the Iraq war however ,most European nations have declined theyre aid to the U.S in the war on Iraq by the reason's of bad justification's.Something wich i think they were reght in to do ,and most European's in general were anti-war in the Iraq crisis.This however doesn't mean their were really anti-American sentiment's ,rather really anti-Bush sentiment's.Most European's just had it with Bush his aprough to diplomacy ,wich was awfully clumsy and at some moment's just plain rediculous ,and that for the goverment of the most powerfull nation isn this world.America has lost a humongous amount of prestige in the world with this aprouch to Iraq ,and one can mostly blaim Bush and his kabinet.In this i support the comman American people ,IMO Bush has cuased a lot of dammage in the Western world ,diplomaticly and economicly.The Euro-U.S relation is in a bad state ,although we are historicly staunch allies commited to the Nato. Most importantly ,this heavily effect's the war against terrorism.By choosing the wrong international priority's Bush has tottaly made impossible a pontentially very wide and strong coalition against terrorism that could have existed.Almost every country and power in the world agreed on the U.S justification in Afhanistan ,and most of them even offered aid.Iraq has alienated that potential coalition though ,cuasing immense loss of credibilety of many international institution's ,many of those fundamental to the strenth and the position of the West in the world.A better U.S president would have used this coalition on the right time to strike with full power at the heat of the Terrorists problem ,and not at quarter strenth on the wrong place ,even providing for more justification for terrorism in fact. And do believe me ,people in Europe are also horriefied by terrorism.They are our enemy's to.Most European's have feeling's of symphaty to the Turkish people now that are terrorized by carbomb attack's.The attack's on Englishmen and Itallian's hurt us to ,most European's feel somewhat European nationalist ,and although we can redicul and frenchmen like a New-Yorker can redicule a texan ,it still doesn't mean that we don't feel kinda connected to eachother as a people. And believe me ,Europe only needs a strong and Able U.S president to show the right way and it joyfully will follow it's path to destroy the evil virus that is Al-quaida. So it is as such that i can only stress to American's ,LET YOURE VOTE COUNT ,the world needs it.Once Bush is out of the way ,Europe and the U.S can grow towards eachother again.Petty squabless about steel import price's can be settled withought consequence's.The Hughe U.S budget deficit caused by Iraq can be filled with European cash.The UN and Nato can regain some credibilety.And the U.S and Europe can beat Al-quaida toghether at their roots ,or atleast can do their best with combined strenth.America can win the war ,and Europe can win hte peace. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted November 29, 2003 On the jewish/Palestenian problem. Fundamental to this problem is the ideoligy of Zionism.Under the Brittish mandate in after WWII the Jews were free to settle land ,or buy it up from brits and arrabs at rediceliosly low price's in the region ,using as justification the aftermath of the holocaost and territorial claim's to the region dating back thousand's of years ,but most importantly a devine conection with God that gave them orriginaly "their" Holy land.Truly Zionism ,the Believe that Israel is the Jewish promissed land ,is the reason why it brought it in direct conflict with it's surrounding neighbour's after the Brittish mandate.In a pure moral sense ,Zionism was wrong.It's not right to push away an entire people to free up land for an other people ,and especially not if it is on the ground of Religious justification's. Now afcourse ,the dammage has been done.But it's just to get this fact in the right perspective.How would American's feel if a bunch of native American's would buy up some U.S state and declare it an idependant nation? Surely ,i hope that one can see that it was the "devinde connection" that the Jews had with their God that attracted them back to the region. then you could always say that in fact in many country's of the world ,the Jews were not appreciated and hence wanted a country of their own.One must try to annylise the bases for this antisemetism.I.M.O ,it's truly due to the fact that trough 3000 years ,virtually no jew ever assimilated in the nation that it lived.In those 3000 years ,virtually hundreds of people and nationality's around the world have been assimilated by conquering nation's etc. ,but then the Jews are truly the people that will almost never assimilate.The base to that is a feeling of religious superiority.Their god is the god of 2 other most important religions ,however the Jews are theoligcly speaking Gods Chosen people.It's thus not a wonder that the Jewish people are overall such a patriotic and nationalist people ,heck from a religious point of view all these people supposedly are all from Abraham decendant.If these thought's wouldn't have existed ,this theoligy of being Gods Chosen people ,of being a pure people in blood decending of Abraham ,it's arguable that then the Jews would have assimilated in any country they fled in a matter of century's. Even today we see that Zionism is a key problem to the situation.The fact that there are still so many Jewish settlement's in Palestyinian territory's (wich are slowly surrounded now by the great Jewish wall   ) is one of the key issue's that blocks the peace.These colonist's and settler's ,armed to the bone and then also protected by IDF ,living in colonies only some hundred meter's away from a Palestinian town thus claiming as much land as possible ,fortification's really with a few houses in it.Their justification is Zionism ,and most of them are very redical jews.In addition ,ellectoraly the present a very strong influence ,one that limits it's goverment to improve on peace talks. Now i'm not an antisemite.But then ,it's my Oppinion that the Jews should give in to the territorial demands of the Palestinian's as they are (wich claims arn't that awfull neither) ,and then work toghether in a peacefull coorperation to improve the region for for ex. watter supply infrastructure (wich is very important in the region) etc. Truly ,they should be happy that they albeit got a foothold in Israel.But then that's my opinion.Because any claims the jews really have on Israel are based on religious fanatism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted November 29, 2003 (bn880 @ Nov. 27 2003,00:34) said: They DID stop hostilites during the roadmap This is a blatant lie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted November 29, 2003 (Apollo @ Nov. 29 2003,14:23) said: Because any claims the jews really have on Israel are based on religious fanatism. They're based on plain and simple Judaism. Please start another crusade to rid the world of us, as there's no other solution according to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted November 29, 2003 (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,11:39) said: (bn880 @ Nov. 27 2003,00:34) said: They DID stop hostilites during the roadmap This is a blatant lie. I'm not talking about petty cimes, so anyway, if that's a lie than for about 2 weeks all news media have lied. So I don't know, why would CTV or CBC or BBC or others of the like not report hostilities when they did before and after. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted November 29, 2003 People killed - petty crimes. Mortars fired - petty crimes. Attempted suicide bombings - petty crimes. Sample summary report. Why isn't everything reported. Obviously it doesn't interest you, so why bother. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted November 29, 2003 BTW, a little correction about your assumptions about the Road Map. But I will agree that the Road Map was BS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted November 29, 2003 [b said: Quote[/b] ]They're based on plain and simple Judaism.Please start another crusade to rid the world of us, as there's no other solution according to you. Judaism is the same as Zionism.And i'm not an antisemite ,i don't want to start a crusade against yuore people.But i do not agree on this judaism ideoligy and the effect's it has on the region and on global diplomacy. There is nothing wrong with jews living in that region ,however Israel should never had been declared as an independant state by Jewish colonists essentially.It was this decleration that enraged the muslim world to attack you.If the jews wouldn't have declared a Israeli state and just waited for the Palestinians to declare a Palestinian State where the jews have the right to live in with democratic right's granted that payd taxes ,then this living toghether of these two people might have been achieved. However ,by declaring it's independance the Jewish colonist have annexed a people that was home to region.There is nothing wrong with living in the region as jew ,but there is something wrong with claiming the region for yourself while you don't have legal claims on the region ,only religious ones. Do you understand that? You don't go living in an other person's home and then declaring youre the boss there.The jews should have changed themselfs to the region ,not seperate themself's from it and declare to be boss of it. The jews should have integrated in the region just as many milion's of immigarants in other country's are supposed to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted November 29, 2003 (Apollo @ Nov. 29 2003,19:03) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]They're based on plain and simple Judaism.Please start another crusade to rid the world of us, as there's no other solution according to you. Judaism is the same as Zionism. When you know the basics of both, come back and argue. Herzl, the so-called founder of Zionism, was a totally irreligious Jew. This is not just semantics. You'll also have to explain the fact that historically and to this day, a vast proportion of Zionists are totally secular. You're also totally wrong about your previous statement: "Under the Brittish mandate in after WWII the Jews were free to settle land ,or buy it up from brits and arrabs at rediceliosly low price's in the region" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted November 29, 2003 These point's are really ownly semantics though.Maybe i was wrong in the pure definition ,but my point is that any such ideoligy that justfies claim on israel is and was wrong.Not for just living there ,but it was wrong to declare an independant Jewish state in it for the points i have earlier. [b said: Quote[/b] ]The proclamation of the BALFOUR DECLARATION on November 2, 1917, and the arrival of British troops in Palestine soon after, transformed the political situation. The declaration gave the Zionist movement its long-sought legal status. The qualification that: nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine seemed a relatively insignificant obstacle to the Zionists, especially since it referred only to those communities': civil and religious rights, not to political or national rights. The subsequent British occupation gave Britain the ability to carry out that pledge and provide the protection necessary for the Zionists to realize their aims.In fact, the British had contracted three mutually contradictory promises for the future of Palestine. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 with the French and Russian governments proposed that Palestine be placed under international administration. The HUSAYN-MCMAHON CORRESPONDENCE, 1915-1916, on whose basis the Arab revolt was launched, implied that Palestine would be included in the zone of Arab independence. In contrast, the Balfour Declaration encouraged the colonization of Palestine by Jews, under British protection. British officials recognized the irreconcilability of these pledges but hoped that a modus vivendi could be achieved, both between the competing imperial powers, France and Britain, and between the Palestinians and the Jews. Instead, these contradictions set the stage for the three decades of conflict-ridden British rule in Palestine. [b said: Quote[/b] ]The British umbrella was CRITICALLY important to the growth and consolidation of the yishuv, enabling it to root itself firmly despite Palestinian opposition. Although British support diminished in the late 1930s, the yishuv was strong enough by then to withstand the Palestinians on its own. After World War II, the Zionist movement also was able to turn to the emerging superpower, the UNITED STATES, for diplomatic support and legitimization.The Palestinians' responses to Jewish immigration, land purchases, and political demands were remarkably consistent. They insisted that Palestine remain an Arab country, with the same right of self-determination and independence as Egypt, Transjordan, and Iraq. Britain granted those countries independence without a violent struggle since their claims to self-determination were not contested by European settlers. The Palestinians argued that Palestinian territory COULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT be used to solve the plight of the Jews in Europe, and that Jewish national aspirations should not override their own rights. This is what i mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted November 29, 2003 (Apollo @ Nov. 29 2003,19:03) said: There is nothing wrong with jews living in that region ,however Israel should never had been declared as an independant state by Jewish colonists essentially. So you say, even though the majority of the world said otherwise at the time. [b said: Quote[/b] ]It was this decleration that enraged the muslim world to attack you. The state was established in 1948. The massacre of Jews in Hebron was in 1929 and it started years before. Surely you can juggle your statement with these events. [b said: Quote[/b] ]If the jews wouldn't have declared a Israeli state and just waited for the Palestinians to declare a Palestinian State where the jews have the right to live in with democratic right's granted that payd taxes Of course! Name the numerous democratic Arab countries nearby where Jews have rights. Incidentally, Jews in Israel were called Palestinians back then. [b said: Quote[/b] ]then this living toghether of these two people might have been achieved. Wishful thinking, the kind that suckered Israel into the Oslo Accords. [b said: Quote[/b] ]However ,by declaring it's independance the Jewish colonist have annexed a people that was home to region. What percentage of the population within the original partition borders would have been Arabs? Catch up on some history .here. [b said: Quote[/b] ]There is nothing wrong with living in the region as jew ,but there is something wrong with claiming the region for yourself while you don't have legal claims on the region ,only religious ones. The declaration of the State was fully based on international law. Claim the "region"? You call 5,500 square miles, chopped into 3 sections a "region"?! Even if Israel officially encompassed Judea and Samaria, you're using big words to describe one of the smallest countries in the world. [b said: Quote[/b] ]Do you understand that? You don't go living in an other person's home and then declaring youre the boss there. They happily sold us numerous parcels of land, sometimes cheap and sometimes very expensive but always to their own desires and profits without coersion. [b said: Quote[/b] ]The jews should have changed themselfs to the region Try our felafel and humous - can't tell the difference. [b said: Quote[/b] ]The jews should have integrated in the region just as many milion's of immigarants in other country's are supposed to do There was no particular independent country here - not Israel, not Jordan, not Syria, not Arabia, not Iraq - during most of the British Mandate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted November 29, 2003 (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,11:55) said: People killed - petty crimes.Mortars fired - petty crimes. Attempted suicide bombings - petty crimes. Sample summary report. Why isn't everything reported. Obviously it doesn't interest you, so why bother. I see nothing relevant there... I would be VERY surprized if mortars fired and attempted suicide mombings were not reported here amazingly juring the cease fire. They are otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted November 29, 2003 Must go. Nice chatting with you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted November 29, 2003 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Catch up on some history .here. Copyright; the american-israeli association. [b said: Quote[/b] ]There was no particular independent country here - not Israel, not Jordan, not Syria, not Arabia, not Iraq - during most of the British Mandate. Indeed ,The zionist actually used that mandate to get majority's of of their people in certain region's.they colonized it ,but then that colonization happened under very contradicting agreement's that one can question the legality of it. but then what i also wanted to say was that it was really really exceptional that after living 3000 years as people scathered around the world that the Jewish people still didn't assimilated in their host country's.There essentially something wrong with the Jewish culture in the sense that it just can't change and adopt itself to other people.That has much to do with the fanatical belief's in Judaism of being gods people etc. [b said: Quote[/b] ]The Palestinians had assumed that they would gain some form of independence when Ottoman rule disintegrated, whether through a separate state or integration with neighboring Arab lands. These hopes were bolstered by the Arab revolt, the entry of Faysal Ibn Husayn into Damascus in 1918, and the proclamation of Syrian independence in 1920. Their hopes were dashed, however, when Britain imposed direct colonial rule and elevated the yishuv to a special status. Moreover, the French ousted Faysal from Damascus in July 1920, and British compensation-in the form of thrones in Transjordan and Iraq for Abdullah and Faysal, respectively-had no positive impact on the Arabs in Palestine. In fact, the action underlined the different treatment accorded Palestine and its disadvantageous political situation. These concerns were exacerbated by Jewish immigration: the yishuv comprised 28 percent of the population by 1936 and reached 32 percent by 1947 (click here for Palestine's population distribution per district in 1946). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted November 29, 2003 Lets see, there was this: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet....667_356 and a day before this: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1061374337815_64// and as you can see we are talking about different times. By the time the article you posted Avon was made all hell already broke loose because of dumb Israeli agression and usual Palestinian response. It's very nice to mention the week before and then skip over to month before, skipping right over the cease fire from Palestinian groups. EDIT: Maybe even the time of the truce I have is too late, have a look at a counter article to yours... http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030812225602573 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted November 30, 2003 (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,17:41) said: Please start another crusade to rid the world of us, as there's no other solution according to you. That is a blatant lie.  Apollo did not say that. (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,18:23) said: (Apollo @ Nov. 29 2003,19:03) said: There is nothing wrong with jews living in that region ,however Israel should never had been declared as an independant state by Jewish colonists essentially. So you say, even though the majority of the world said otherwise at the time. LOL... Everybody please remember this unique moment when an Israeli actually stated that the rest of the world's opinion mattered.  (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,18:23) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]If the jews wouldn't have declared a Israeli state and just waited for the Palestinians to declare a Palestinian State where the jews have the right to live in with democratic right's granted that payd taxes Of course! Name the numerous democratic Arab countries nearby where Jews have rights. Saying that Jews in the Middle East had no rights before 1948 is a blatant lie. (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,18:23) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]However ,by declaring it's independance the Jewish colonist have annexed a people that was home to region. What percentage of the population within the original partition borders would have been Arabs?  Catch up on some history .here. How many hours did Israel remain within those borders?  Or was it minutes? And regarding your ridiculous link, it offers a fine lesson in Israeli double-speak: [b said: Quote[/b] ]MYTH“The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.†FACT At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.  But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem. So, it's a blatant lie to call it a myth because the statement does not refer only to the portion allotted to the Jews. (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,18:23) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]There is nothing wrong with living in the region as jew ,but there is something wrong with claiming the region for yourself while you don't have legal claims on the region ,only religious ones. The declaration of the State was fully based on international law. Another blatant lie.  Please tell us what international law allowed a minority of a country's population owning a few percent of the land area to declare statehood without the consent of the rest of the inhabitants. (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,18:23) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]Do you understand that? You don't go living in an other person's home and then declaring youre the boss there. They happily sold us numerous parcels of land, sometimes cheap and sometimes very expensive but always to their own desires and profits without coersion. You may have paid for 6%, but declaring statehood got you the other 94% for free. Did you pay a cent for the hundreds of villages that you destroyed? And what did the 3/4 million refugees ever receive for the property you stole from them? (theavonlady @ Nov. 29 2003,18:23) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]The jews should have integrated in the region just as many milion's of immigarants in other country's are supposed to do There was no particular independent country here - not Israel, not Jordan, not Syria, not Arabia, not Iraq - during most of the British Mandate. It is a blatant lie to say that Palestine was not a country with its own borders, currency, etc.  Of course it wasn't any more independent under mandate admin than Iraq is today under US admin,  but that doesn't allow a portion of the population to declare statehood on half the country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted November 30, 2003 [b said: Quote[/b] ]It is a blatant lie to say that Palestine was not a country with its own borders, currency, etc. Of course it wasn't any more independent under mandate admin than Iraq is today under US admin, but that doesn't allow a portion of the population to declare statehood on half the country. Indeed ,that's just the point.Before the Jewish influx ,it was majority of Palestinians living there.And in fact the Palestinian's were dreaming of a Palestinian state long before 48 ,even from 1920 onward ,however many thing's happened to prevent that ,ow wich doubly Jewish influence was one of the reason's. So it was simply a mater of pushing asside a whole people and claiming it as soon as possible ,why the Palestinian's were unable to do it. To me ,these rediculous claim's on territory dating back to a old jewish country defeated over 3000 years in one of the most multi-etchnical region's of the world is jsut rediculous.Heck by this sort of claims Some decendant to the French noble house of Anjou would have actually better claims to the region. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PAPABEAR_1985 0 Posted December 1, 2003 lande for peace idont thinke so the bothe sides love blood much than wine Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PAPABEAR_1985 0 Posted December 1, 2003 i feel that thies area will cause abig proplems in the future specialy that israel want more areas to rule because they thinke that their israel is from iraq to the nile and i feel that they will cause another unindlees flashpoint in that area and idont thinke thay need it the bothe sides love blood moore than wine and untill they change that the will have peace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites