The Middle East part 2

[SPQR 0]

God gave them that land, and they were there 3000 years ago, long before those who is there now...

"Israel" and Judaism is a particular culture which manage to survive despite all the diasporas, fairly unchanged since, and could pretend to be considerated as one of the inheritance of Mankind.

Like Mecca, Athens, Angkhor, North american indian scacred places or whatever you what.

Quote[/b] ]Honestly, those people don't really strenghten Israels right to exist when they point towards a book that nobody can prove is true...

Does one civilization came to life without being fed by mythology and religion in the entire Mankind history ?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

no, but how dare they claim it as a valid reason for being there.  Its just bound to cause trouble, people saying they belong there beauase there religion says they do,   how is thaat going to go down with the native arabs?  What israel seem not to understand that the land they claim is 'theres' is in fact the centre and hot bed for all 3 of the top european religions. (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

[Nemesis6 0]

The Palestinians are fighting to all Jews everywhere and establish another Islamofascist theocracy like they have in Gaza.

yes I see the Gaza fascists...

as always you parrot propagandistic phrases without even caring to validate them...

great discussion style.

Dude, that's what it is. All you have to do is look into the politics of the genocidal terrorist gang who rules Gaza along with the Abu Mazen of the Fatah party.

And by the way, Xawery, I did not imply that he spelled it wrong. And Trevor, Israel is in no way as racist and arrogant as the Arab countries. That's just wrong and I think you know it.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]About my saying "terrorist sympathiser", I would probably write it with a Z instead of an S in the end.

And if your going to spell everything correct, you may think about writing "About me saying..."

On an unrelated note, Nemesis6's "about my saying" construction was correct. Incidentally, Garcia, I don't think Nemesis6 was trying to imply that you spelt 'sympathiser' wrong, only that he would opt for the US spelling.

I didn't even spell it, it was scary

Quote[/b] ]"Israel" and Judaism is a particular culture which manage to survive despite all the diasporas, fairly unchanged since, and could pretend to be considerated as one of the inheritance of Mankind.

Like Mecca, Athens, Angkhor, North american indian scacred places or whatever you what.

I don't see how this in any way changes the fact that the argument of "jews having right to the area around Israel in the middle east because a book says a god gave it to them" is plain stupid.

Quote[/b] ]Does one civilization came to life without being fed by mythology and religion in the entire Mankind history ?

Honestly, I'm not sure what your point with that sentance was, but no matter what it was, it still doesn't change the fact that claiming a countrys right to exist because what's said in a book that most of the world don't consider true is one plain stupid thing to do. Claim the countrys right to exist based on newtons laws, on the lap of Tom Clancy, just not on something that simply can't be proven to be true, nor considered as true by most of the world)... (at least Tom Clancys lap exists, and Newtons laws may not be proven, but they are, for now, accepted as a fact )

[xawery 0]

Newtons laws may not be proven, but they are, for now, accepted as a fact.

On an unrelated note: no scientific theory has ever been "proven" - they simply remain "not rejected". One might say the difference is merely semantic, but it is significant nonetheless. It is a display of science's humbleness and an acknowledgement of the fact that one never may be 100% certain or claim to possess "the truth".

It would be immensly refreshing if all those people who justify their actions with religious arguments would adopt a similar stance.

[Garcia 0]

Newtons laws may not be proven, but they are, for now, accepted as a fact.

On an unrelated note: no scientific theory has ever been "proven" - they simply remain "not rejected". One might say the difference is merely semantic, but it is significant nonetheless. It is a display of science's humbleness and an acknowledgement of the fact that one never may be 100% certain or claim to possess "the truth".

It would be immensly refreshing if all those people who justify their actions with religious arguments would adopt a similar stance.

Indeed. That's why I used Newtons laws. No physics laws/ models/principles/theories have or can be proven, but Newtons laws have been around for ages, and is considered 'true' by most, if not all, scientists That's a big difference between (some) religious people and scientists. A religious guy claim the other one can't know if the science is true, but at the same time tend to claim he knows that all the stuff claimed by his religion is true. The scientist don't claim any of them can know if what's true or not, he just claims science is more trustworthy than the other

How many times don't you hear a religious person say "and how could the big bang just happen?", but at the same time claim that his/her god have been around forever, and was not created by anyone?

[Bernadotte 0]

Actually, according to the White Paper of 1922, Palestine wasn't apart of the promise in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence.

The White Paper of 1922 was incorrect.

It might not be education but many israelis i have debated with often "forget" that there early settelers from europe were terrorists.

Not all Palestinian Arabs were innocent during the Mandate years too. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, hated Jews and actively worked with the Nazis. For example, in 1941, he declared a holy war against the British and he got Hitler to make a statement saying, in effect, that the Nazis would destroy the Jews in Arab lands. Additionally, in 1943, he helped formed the 13. Waffen-Gebirgs-Division der SS Handschar, a Waffen-SS Division comprised of Bosnian Muslims, to fight partisans in the Balkans. According to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, a 1945-1946 commission to review Jewish immigration to Palestine, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was probably the most popular Palestinian Arab leader.

Then there were the riots and other acts of violence that targeted Jews. As well, the Arabs targeted British officials.

Basically, both sides (including myself) of the argument have issues dealing with history of the conflict regarding the Mandate years.

Are you actually claiming that the Palestinians have had trouble acknowledging their violent acts of resistance during the Mandate period the same way Israelis have tended to forget their nation's own terrorist roots?

[Donnervogel 0]

The Palestinians are fighting to all Jews everywhere and establish another Islamofascist theocracy like they have in Gaza.

yes I see the Gaza fascists...

as always you parrot propagandistic phrases without even caring to validate them...

great discussion style.

Dude, that's what it is. All you have to do is look into the politics of the genocidal terrorist gang who rules Gaza along with the Abu Mazen of the Fatah party.

I hate to repeat myself. You need to learn what fascism is. Hey I even gave you a nice clue in my previous postings but it seems to be asked for too much for you to take that into account.

Since when does fascism define by genocide? Fascism is a political and ideological movement. It's not a synonym for "evil".

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

yes, Napolian was faciast to a degree, yet he is a french hero.

[billybob2002 0]

The White Paper of 1922 was incorrect.

What don't you agree with that is in the White Paper of 1922?

Are you actually claiming that the Palestinians have had trouble acknowledging their violent acts of resistance during the Mandate period the same way Israelis have tended to forget their nation's own terrorist roots?

I don't know if the Palestinians have trouble acknowledging their violent acts against Jews and the British during the Mandate years. However, we tend to hear about Jewish terrorism during the Mandate years and nothing about Arab actions. Most people probably don't know a Palestinian Arab helped formed a Waffen SS division and did other things for the Nazis. However, we do hear about the Stern gang trying to make a deal with the Nazis to save some Jews. We hear about King David Hotel bombing but hardly anything about the 1929 Hebron massacre. There are more example of this. Therefore, I think people on both sides of the argument have issues dealing with the Mandate years.

Oh, how is it "resistance"?

[billybob2002 0]

*oops, double post...check previous post*

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

there resisting against british rule  

[Bernadotte 0]

The White Paper of 1922 was incorrect.

What don't you agree with that is in the White Paper of 1922?

There was no agreement that Palestine would be left out of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence promises.

Are you actually claiming that the Palestinians have had trouble acknowledging their violent acts of resistance during the Mandate period the same way Israelis have tended to forget their nation's own terrorist roots?

I don't know if the Palestinians have trouble acknowledging their violent acts against Jews and the British during the Mandate years.

No?  But, didn't you just post that "both sides of the argument have issues dealing with history of the conflict regarding the Mandate years"?  So, what exactly were those Palestinian issues you were referring to?

However, we tend to hear about Jewish terrorism during the Mandate years and nothing about Arab actions.

Oh really?  Who have you been speaking with?  Certainly not an Israeli.  And certainly not the same people that TrevorofCrete has been speaking with.

Oh, how is it "resistance"?

resistance n. group action in opposition to those in power

[billybob2002 0]

There was no agreement that Palestine would be left out of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence promises.

And, according to the Balfour Declaration, the Jews though Palestine would be a Jewish state or there would be a Jewish state in Palestine. The British like to clarify their promises at a later point of time has you know.

No?  But, didn't you just post that "both sides of the argument have issues dealing with history of the conflict regarding the Mandate years"?  So, what exactly were those Palestinian issues you were referring to?

Please stop dicking around with me. You know I'm not just talking about Palestinian or Israeli debators because I included myself has having problems with the history in one of my posts.

Quote[/b] ]Basically, both sides (including myself) of the argument have issues dealing with history of the conflict regarding the Mandate years.

Does that mean every single person on both sides? No.

resistance n. group action in opposition to those in power

Was the King David Hotel bombing a act of resistance or terrorism?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

it can be both. there different things

[Bernadotte 0]

So, what exactly were those Palestinian issues you were referring to?

Please stop dicking around with me. You know I'm not just talking about Palestinian or Israeli debators because I included myself has having problems with the history in one of my posts.

If you are now you are excluding the Palestinians from "both sides" and reducing the two sides to Israelis and billybob2002 who have issues dealing with Mandate history then it's not me who's dicking around.

resistance n. group action in opposition to those in power

Was the King David Hotel bombing a act of resistance or terrorism?

The Jewish authority in Palestine denounced it as an act of terrorism.  I'm inclined to agree with them especially given that the leader of that attack was as much a citizen of Palestine as Osama bin Laden is American. Btw, that same terrorist leader went on to become Israel's prime minister.

And for the record:

Quote[/b] ]Israeli aircraft fired several rockets at a target in a Hezbollah stronghold in eastern Lebanon early this morning, a Lebanese security source said.  It was not immediately clear what the Israeli aircraft were firing at in the village of Bodai. An Israeli Army spokesman said the army was checking the report.

Such an attack would be the <span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>first</span> since a United Nations truce ended 34 days of fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon.

[Supah 0]

So when hezbollah fired rockets at israeli troops in southern lebanon that didnt count? I for one am appalled to see how fast the UN Resolution has been turned into a document that apparently is only binding for Israel. Lebanon is completely shying away from its obligations under it to disarm hezbollah and the sounds from the UN is that they are allowing them to do so. If Lebanon and the UN arent planning to keep up their side of the bargain then I don't see why Israel should. Another chance for lasting peace down the drain.

[Bernadotte 0]

So when hezbollah fired rockets at israeli troops in southern lebanon that didnt count?

What rockets?  Please post a reference.  A few mortars did land near an IDF position shortly after the ceasefire started but nobody was hurt and the Israelis didn't consider it significant.

Did you honestly expect information about the ceasefire to reach every isolated Hezbollah unit in every tunnel after Israel had spent a month trying to destroy their entire communication system?  I'm surprised that word spread as well as it did.

I for one am appalled to see how fast the UN Resolution has been turned into a document that apparently is only binding for Israel.

It has?  ...Reference again, please.

Lebanon is completely shying away from its obligations under it to disarm hezbollah and the sounds from the UN is that they are allowing them to do so.

What is it that you expected Lebanon to do during the first 5 days of the ceasefire?  They haven't even had an opportunity nor the infrastructure to pull all the corpses from the rubble.

[Stealth3 0]

Well right after the cease fire, Israel shot about 12 Hezbollah in two incidents, describing it a self defence. Then Hezbollah fired a few rockets in Sourth Lebanon without casualties. Today Israel sent commandos deep inside Lebanon and ambushed some guerillas. They were claiming to stop the flow of weapons from Syria. So far, one soldier injured and one captain dead from an elite Israeli division. No official reports on the militants death, but some believe about 3 died.

In the meantime Israel bombed the heck out of the place and area around it and witnesses say they even bombed a bridge.

Quote[/b] ]Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_1202

So full scale fighting might continue soon.

[billybob2002 0]

If you are now you are excluding the Palestinians from "both sides" and reducing the two sides to Israelis and billybob2002 who have issues dealing with Mandate history then it's not me who's dicking around.

Do I have to draw a picture for you? I didn't exclude Palestinians. I don't care if the person is a Israeli, Palestinian, left-wing pundit, right-wing pundit, or etc. because I have noticed that people on both sides of the argument, this includes non-Israelis and non-Palestinians, tend to have issues dealing with the Mandate years. For example, somebody posted a video in this thread that ignores Arab actions during the Mandate years but, yet, talks about how the Jews changed and etc.

Does people mean everybody? No.  

I hope that clarifies it.

The Jewish authority in Palestine denounced it as an act of terrorism.  I'm inclined to agree with them especially given that the leader of that attack was as much a citizen of Palestine as Osama bin Laden is American.  Btw, that same terrorist leader went on to become Israel's prime minister.

Do you agree that during the Arab of Revolt 1936-9 there were acts of terrorism committed by Arabs against the British and Jews? Or, do you consider them acts of resistance?

[Bernadotte 0]

Do I have to draw a picture for you? I didn't exclude Palestinians. I don't care if the person is a Israeli, Palestinian, left-wing pundit, right-wing pundit, or etc. because I have noticed that people on both sides of the argument, this includes non-Israelis and non-Palestinians, tend to have issues dealing with the Mandate years.

You still don't get it, do you?  I actually think that you should exclude the Palestinians from those who you believe have "issues" dealing with violent events during the Mandate.  In fact, I think you would have a very difficult time finding a single Palestinian who would not be proud of any actions taken against British efforts to aid Zionism.

Do you agree that during the Arab of Revolt 1936-9 there were acts of terrorism committed by Arabs against the British and Jews? Or, do you consider them acts of resistance?

Since when does resistance and terrorism have to be mutually exclusive?  

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

today israeli special forces made a raid into lebonen, clearly breaking the ceasefire terms. There is no question of them breaking it or not, they have. the question that remains is why? saw loosers? perhaps...

[Nemesis6 0]

today israeli special forces made a raid into lebonen, clearly breaking the ceasefire terms. There is no question of them breaking it or not, they have. the question that remains is why? saw loosers? perhaps...

Stupid. They stopped Syria from rearming HizbAllah, and they are not "saw loosers [sic]". HizbAllah broke the truce before the Israelis.

[Bernadotte 0]

Stupid. They stopped Syria from rearming HizbAllah...

Oh really?  Do you honestly believe that a dozen commandos dressed as Lebanese army soldiers in 2 humvees accomplished in a few hours what the IDF could not do with an army of 30,000 during a month of bombardment?

[mp_phonix 0]

Actually the one who broke it were Hizb-Allah & Lebanopn Goverment by allowing Hizballaha to remain armed in South LEbanon, against the Cease Fire terms - that one alone gives us the probable cause to invade Lebanon again.