Israeli's

Limey

That's because they have already ethnically cleansed Palestinians from many parts of "Israel", if they murdered 10,000 civilians tomorrow they would get away with it as "Israel has a right to defend itself"

Rev Hellfire

I think he's trying to communicate with us.

That's because they have already ethnically cleansed Palestinians from many parts of "Israel",

Israel, while i don't agree with this policy, has forcebly moved sections of Palestinians. No ethnic clensing has occured. Perhaps you could supply some links that prove that Israel has, without a doubt, performed ethnic cleansing?

Note: I'm not talking about their actions towads Palestinian resistance. Thats alot different to your claim of ethnic cleansing.

if they murdered 10,000 civilians tomorrow they would get away with it as "Israel has a right to defend itself"

I doubt it. At the moment, Israel can get away with what they do, because the US backs them. However, if Israel started killing civilians on such a scale as you suggest, no nation would back them. Israel, while, performing extreme acts has not yet systematically tried to wipe the Palestinian people off the planet.

If you're going to make statements abt Israel at least start listing the actions that they have actually done. God knows, they've done despictable acts, but your claims are ridiculous.

Besides I thought it was against the rules of these forums to make a two line statement like this without any form of supporting links.

Memnoch

klaz ...

A US-financed assessment of the overall malnutrition level among Palestinian children, released this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), found that one in five Palestinian children under the age of five now suffers from chronic or acute malnutrition. This astonishing statistic is on par with impoverished nations such as Chad and Nigeria, and actually surpasses rates of child malnutrition in Somalia and Bangladesh. Such figures, the report noted, are "considered an emergency by most humanitarians and public health officials." The report points to Israeli-imposed closures and sieges of major civilian centers as the direct and primary cause......

Today, Israeli military sieges are literally imprisoning families within their homes for days at a time. People cannot leave their homes to work, buy food, go to the doctor, or send their children to school. Military checkpoints and roadblocks are restricting commerce and the transport of food supplies. Workers cannot travel between Palestinian towns, and farmers and manufacturers are unable to deliver their goods to shops and markets. People have exhausted the money they can draw on from relatives and connections on the outside. ........

The USAID report also revealed that about one quarter of West Bank Palestinians have had to sell personal possessions to put food on the table. The World Bank recently determined that as many as 62 percent of Palestinian families are now living on less than two dollars a day. As a result of these obstacles, increasing numbers of families are skipping meals or reducing their food intake because eventually they run out of money and assets to sell. .......

But how can the slow starvation of a whole population be stopped when that very starvation is being altogether denied by the Israeli government and ignored by the US Administration? Major General Amos Gilad, Israel's coordinator of government affairs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was hardly ruffled by the USAID findings. In fact, he asserted that "hunger is when people have swollen bellies and fall over dead. There is no hunger yet."

A member of the Likud party has proposed "massive ethnic cleansing" of non-Jews in Palestine-Israel as a "final solution" of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Uzi Cohen, a member of Ariel Sharon's right-wing party and a deputy mayor of the town of Raanana, told Israeli public radio on Sunday there was widespread support in Israel for "the idea of ethnic cleansing".

"Many people support the idea but few are willing to speak about it publicly."

Cohen, an influential figure in Likud, proposed that Israel, the United States, the European Union as well as oil-rich Arab states make concerted efforts to create a Palestinian state in northern Jordan.

also take a look at the current situation and Sharon's new "peace plan" endorsed by "Bush".

Sharon illegally puts Settlers on palestinian to force the palestinian people off it. Then later claims "realistic situation on the ground." A situation that was created by HIM.

In 1978, when the Camp David accords were midwifed with the help of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, there were only about 4,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied lands. With subsidies now exceeding $1 billion a year, the number of settlers has reached some 230,000.

So lets review the facts of just this one incident?

1) Israel puts "settlers" into occupied lands, displacing palestinians
2) Israel then claims that since these settlers are living there, the land now belongs to Israel.

vorbis

memnoch one could just as easily argue that due to palestinian terror groups the israelis have a valid excuse for keeping all those roadblocks and checkpoints in place. Also one nutter in the likud party is hardly evidence of Israeli intentions as a whole. On that basis, I could claim all Palestinians are murderous savages based on comments made by the late Rantissi. Also there are no actual accepted borders in Israel yet with regard to the Palestinians. There are the UN lines which were rejected out of hand by the Palestinians. When the Palestinians finally come up with a leader that will have the power to negotiate then the future of those settlements can be decided once and for all.

[DF]Lenny

Irrespective of who is the 'leader' of Palestine the fact remains that any negotiation done with Israel and US is quite obviously open to a different interpretation and re-appraisal by powerful elements in both states.The benevolent oppressor's views can change as quickly as US foreign/domestic policy dictates.

vorbis

Possibly [DF]Lenny but for instance if an settlement was ratified by the Israeli parliament and passed by referendum (do they have these?) then the settlement would stand a good chance of being implemented in Israel. On the other hand, if Arafat (currently the main Palestinian political leader) negotiated a settlement, there are additional problems. If Hamas didn't like it, they would simply ignore it. The issue regards making the settlement stick. Currently no settlement made with Arafat is worth the paper it is written on as he does not have control of the major terrorist organisations.

Hellrazer

Quoted by Memnoch;



quote:

---

A US-financed assessment of the overall malnutrition level among Palestinian children, released this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), found that one in five Palestinian children under the age of five now suffers from chronic or acute malnutrition. This astonishing statistic is on par with impoverished nations such as Chad and Nigeria, and actually surpasses rates of child malnutrition in Somalia and Bangladesh. Such figures, the report noted, are "considered an emergency by most humanitarians and public health officials." The report points to Israeli-imposed closures and sieges of major civilian centers as the direct and primary cause......

Today, Israeli military sieges are literally imprisoning families within their homes for days at a time. People cannot leave their homes to work, buy food, go to the doctor, or send their children to school. Military checkpoints and roadblocks are restricting commerce and the transport of food supplies. Workers cannot travel between Palestinian towns, and farmers and manufacturers are unable to deliver their goods to shops and markets. People have exhausted the money they can draw on from relatives and connections on the outside. ........

The USAID report also revealed that about one quarter of West Bank Palestinians have had to sell personal possessions to put food on the table. The World Bank recently determined that as many as 62 percent of Palestinian families are now living on less than two dollars a day. As a result of these obstacles, increasing numbers of families are skipping meals or reducing their food intake because eventually they run out of money and assets to sell. .......

But how can the slow starvation of a whole population be stopped when that very starvation is being altogether denied by the Israeli government and ignored by the US Administration? Major General Amos Gilad, Israel's coordinator of government affairs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was hardly ruffled by the USAID findings. In fact, he asserted that "hunger is when people have swollen bellies and fall over dead. There is no hunger yet."

---

quote:

---

A member of the Likud party has proposed "massive ethnic cleansing" of non-Jews in Palestine-Israel as a "final solution" of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Uzi Cohen, a member of Ariel Sharon's right-wing party and a deputy mayor of the town of Raanana, told Israeli public radio on Sunday there was widespread support in Israel for "the idea of ethnic cleansing".

"Many people support the idea but few are willing to speak about it publicly."

Cohen, an influential figure in Likud, proposed that Israel, the United States, the European Union as well as oil-rich Arab states make concerted efforts to create a Palestinian state in northern Jordan.

---

also take a look at the current situation and Sharon's new "peace plan" endorsed by "Bush".

Sharon illegally puts Settlers on palestinian to force the palestinian people off it. Then later claims "realistic situation on the ground." A situation that was created by HIM.


quote:

---

In 1978, when the Camp David accords were midwifed with the help of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, there were only about 4,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied lands. With subsidies now exceeding $1 billion a year, the number of settlers has reached some 230,000.

---

So lets review the facts of just this one incident?

1) Israel puts "settlers" into occupied lands, displacing palestinians
2) Israel then claims that since these settlers are living there, the land now belongs to Israel.


Israel also turns off the water/electricty supplies to Palestine whenever the Palestinians do anything that disagrees with Israels thinking.
The "refugee" camps are like something out of Nazi Germany.
Ive witnessed first hand the situation in Palestine and to be honest its a disgrace that the US can back a racist country like Israel.
Israelis by their own nature are paranoid--every country is against them according to themselves.
Any time something happens in Israel or against Israel all you can hear is the cries of "we were oppressed--remember the holocaust".
This excuse seems to make everything that Israel are doing alright.

Its about time they forgot about the past and stopped blaming everything that happens on the holocaust--They werent the only race in History to lose so many people in one atrocity but we dont hear every other race blaming everything on their past.

Dont get me wrong here the Palestinians are to blame for a lot of whats going on in Israel but after seeing the effects that Israels suppression of Palestinian people has on them I have to come down on the side of the Palestinians and if I was in their situation Id probably turn into a suicide bomber myself.Thats the reason Hamas has such a huge following--the people have to vent their anger somewhere and Hamas are there to fill the gap because their own "government"(Arafat)doesnt have enough power to end the conflict or unite their people under a banner of peace.

vorbis

Hellrazer, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the Palestinians are living in appalling conditions. However, you must look at what can help change that. The israelis aren't going anywhere. The US supports them because Israeli beliefs and system of government is a lot closer to their own than the other countries in the region. The current inifada is imo one of the major factors for the palestinian living conditions in Israel. Once again, the living conditions for the Palestinians won't improve until their leaders can demonstrate a willingness to negotiate with the Israelis. I think most people would agree that stating your main aim as the destruction of Israel is hardly going to lead to negotiations.

---- Hellrazer,

Israel also turns off the water/electricty supplies to Palestine whenever the Palestinians do anything that disagrees with Israels thinking.

Don't you think it'd be off 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week then? Its a punishment for attacks. Its actually falls in with some theories to treat prisoners of violent tendacies.

The "refugee" camps are like something out of Nazi Germany.

Are you really drawing a comparison? since other nations have provided such camps that have been just as bad, and these comparisons have not been made. I agree that these camps, are not decently organised but, they're nowhere comparable to SS or SA camps.

Ive witnessed first hand the situation in Palestine and to be honest its a disgrace that the US can back a racist country like Israel.

Who would they back? Palestine? They're just as racist against the Israeli's as israeli's are against Palestinians. Besides I doubt it racism when you hate the enemy you've been at war with for 60 years.

Israelis by their own nature are paranoid--every country is against them according to themselves.

oddly enough, just about every nation with the possible exception of the US has proved them to be right. that is any nations that have involved them in the situation.

Any time something happens in Israel or against Israel all you can hear is the cries of "we were oppressed--remember the holocaust".

Really? Everytime? But i agree, its used too often. I'd say let the dead rest, but both the Israeli's and the Palestinians have alot of trouble doing just that.

if I was in their situation Id probably turn into a suicide bomber myself.

Despite, numerous posts here on boards, i just cannot understand this reasoning. How can you justify the purposeful targeting of civilians by using human terror weapons? A weapon whos main purpose is to highlight itself to the media.

And this is after you say that part of the fault for the situation lies with the palestinians?

Thats the reason Hamas has such a huge following--the people have to vent their anger somewhere and Hamas are there to fill the gap because their own "government"(Arafat)doesnt have enough power to end the conflict or unite their people under a banner of peace.

Vent their anger against field mice. Don't turn to attacks against civilian targets. I don't condone Israel doing the same, but turning to a terrorist organisation because they don't trust their own government hardly is the answer. If Arafat and his group has no power, then get someone in that does, and thats willing to walk the "middle" road.

And I say the same for Sharon.

---- Memnoch,

Sure the Israeli's are not providing adequate treatment of the Palestinians, but i don't see it as being actual ethnic cleansing. Are you really going to tell me that you do? I might believe that they're indifferent to Palestinians living or dying, but deliberately trying to starve them to death?

I've seen polls, threads and such that say that the Israeli people, would be for the concept of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. And i've seen the same held by Palestinians against the Israeli people. To be perfectly honest, I doubt the Israeli population would actually do this, nor would the Jewish population worldwide allow it. Palestinians on the other hand would more than welcome such an act. Hell, Hamas have been very outspoken in the genocide of all Jews in the middle east. I don't know if they'd actually do it, though. Its pure speculation.

1) Israel puts "settlers" into occupied lands, displacing palestinians
2) Israel then claims that since these settlers are living there, the land now belongs to Israel.

I didn't say that they weren't resettling Palestinians. I actually said that they were. I'm not going to defend it because i believe them to be wrong.

Lemming

The idea I'm getting is that some people here seem to think that ethnic cleansing requires a people to be systematically slaughtered. It doesn't. Systematic "removal" (however you wish to interpret that) of an indigenous people from an area is ethnic cleansing.

Victor

Originally posted by vorbis
The current inifada is imo one of the major factors for the palestinian living conditions in Israel.

I think the major concern if for Palestinians in the occupied territories, not in Israel.

Originally posted by vorbis
Once again, the living conditions for the Palestinians won't improve until their leaders can demonstrate a willingness to negotiate with the Israelis.

Would that be a threat?

Memnoch

Originally posted by klaz
I didn't say that they weren't resettling Palestinians. I actually said that they were. I'm not going to defend it because i believe them to be wrong.

This is ethnic cleansing my friend.. as Lemming quite clearly and succinctly pointed out....

The idea I'm getting is that some people here seem to think that ethnic cleansing requires a people to be systematically slaughtered. It doesn't. Systematic "removal" (however you wish to interpret that) of an indigenous people from an area is ethnic cleansing.

from www.dictionary.com

ethnic cleansing
n.
The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.

vorbis

Would that be a threat?

yes Victor I represent the Israeli government :rolleyes:
What I mean is that the current situation won't improve unless peace talks are restarted. Palestine is going to remain a very poor place until a proper peace agreement is made. This is not going to happen if Palestinian leaders are not capable of brokering such a deal with Israel. Its hardly a threat more an indication of the current state of affairs in Israel.

Fionnan

And don't forget the 200,000 Palestinians that didn't flee from the Israelis in 1948. They were not murdered, they are full citizens of Israel. They have lected members of parliament in Israel. The bedouin and Druze Arabs that serve fully in the Israeli army particularly in special forces and military Intellgence. Some ethnic cleansing! Now Arabs of Israel proper make up 1million of a population of 6 million, after just 50 years!. How could this have happened if they were systematically ethnically cleansed. Sure they have more rights than Arabs in any other Arab country.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by klaz


Despite, numerous posts here on boards, i just cannot understand this reasoning. How can you justify the purposeful targeting of civilians by using human terror weapons? A weapon whos main purpose is to highlight itself to the media.

But isnt that the whole reason for suicide bombings---To make the the plight of the Palestinians known to the rest of the world who only see Israels side through the media.

And dont tell me that the media reports are not biased towards Israel.

Fox,Cnn etc all have Jewish people or people who are totally anti-arab in some of their executive positions.
All you have to look at is the reporting of the current Iraqi crisis whereby 100s of Iraqi civilians are dying on a daily basis yet if one US soldier dies its reported for hours on some channels--Some channels even report the time of the dead soldiers last pi$$(Sarcasim!!!But not far off) yet when 100 Iraqis/20 Palestinian kids die(due to starvation/thirst/lack of medicines)its not worth reporting.Are their lives worth less than one US soldier???
Not one bit.

Memnoch, In all honesty i may be blindsighted in this, but i don't believe that Israel is trying to commit ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians with or without the consent of the Jewish population. Sure they're being very heavy handed in Palestine, but ethnic cleansing by them is a bit much for me.

At least until i see more evidence supporting it.

But isnt that the whole reason for suicide bombings---To make the the plight of the Palestinians known to the rest of the world who only see Israels side through the media.

Hellrazer, look. Most people don't support Israeli actions, its only the US that have actively supported them publicly. The majority of posters here, myself included, who support Israel's right to exist, acknowledge and disagree with many of their policies. There's no need to keep beating the drum that Palestinians are the complete victims in this.

They're not. Israeli actions towards non-combatents is terrible and should be highlighted, however theres alot of Palestinians that actively support attacks on Israeli populations that lean heavily towards terrorist strikes. Their targeting of civilian areas purposely is supported completely by Hamas, the most popular front in Palestine.

Suicide bombing does not generate support. All it does is create sympathy for Israeli's.

And dont tell me that the media reports are not biased towards Israel.

I'm not. And don't tell me that Irish people (generally) are not biased towards Palestine.

This is not going to happen if Palestinian leaders are not capable of brokering such a deal with Israel.

The fact that neither side is really willing to particpate or support such an move, shows that both sides are just as stupid as each other. Perhaps the removal of the leadership of both governments is the only real answer?

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
And don't tell me that Irish people (generally) are not biased towards Palestine.

But 15 years ago it was the opposite - they were generally biased agaisnt Israel - why the change? Can I suggest it is because Israel has been much harsher on Palestinians than vice versa?

halkar

Makes me wonder if Palestinians settles on those lands that are under dispute what would be the Israelis action? They have every right to settle those lands as Israelis, infact they have more right as the land is legaly theirs under UN rules.
I leave it up to your judgment what the reaction of Israel be.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by klaz

Hellrazer, look. Most people don't support Israeli actions, its only the US that have actively supported them publicly. The majority of posters here, myself included, who support Israel's right to exist, acknowledge and disagree with many of their policies. There's no need to keep beating the drum that Palestinians are the complete victims in this.


Suicide bombing does not generate support. All it does is create sympathy for Israeli's.



I'm not. And don't tell me that Irish people (generally) are not biased towards Palestine.



The fact that neither side is really willing to particpate or support such an move, shows that both sides are just as stupid as each other. Perhaps the removal of the leadership of both governments is the only real answer?

Ok Klaz---You may support Israels right to exist but I dont.The only reason that the State Of Israel exists is due to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land back in 1948 after the British mandate ended and after a so called "war of independance".Before which the UN ruled that Palestine be split into 2 separate states of which 87% was Arab and 13% Jewish.The Arabs never wanted partition of land which was already theirs and so started a campaign to destroy the Jewish state.In 1948 the state of Israel was attacked by 6 Arab nations and basically won the war in which Israel captured territory form all 6 states.
So whether you support Israels right to exist it was all illegal from the beginning anyway.

Im sorry but Palestinians are the victims here---You go and visit Israel and see what way Palestinians are being treated and before you go on about bombings etc I was there 5 1/2 years ago when there was a "peace" and the Israelis still treated Arabs like dirt even though there had been no "attacks" on Israel for something like 30 months previously.I can only imagine what way they are being treated now that there are attacks going on.
Its like apartheid over there--separate buses,not being served in Jewish shops,the Jews can legally carry m16s for "protection" yet an Arab with a gun is shot on sight and even if you are a foreigner but not an arab the Israelis look down their nose at you and in some instances wont serve you in a shop if you cant ask for what you want in Hebrew even though the shop owner can speak fluent English.

And yes maybe the leadership of both sides does need a change because this conflict cant go on for much longer.Either one will wipe out the other or the whole region will become a warzone with Arab nations siding with Palestine and the US siding with Israel--Its WW3 waiting to happen.
Richie

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Its a punishment for attacks. Its actually falls in with some theories to treat prisoners of violent tendacies.

So do you believe all Palestinians are guilty, then? Or that its ok to treat all of them like prisoners?

Or how do you justify the denial of basic human rights from the innocent population because of the acts of a violent minority.

Despite, numerous posts here on boards, i just cannot understand this reasoning. How can you justify the purposeful targeting of civilians by using human terror weapons?

Well, at the very start of this post, you appeared to justify the denial of basic human rights of civilians as a "retaliatory" measure for the acts that others have carried out.

All you have to do is make the step from "we have the might, and can deny you in this way", to "we have no might, so what can we do to deny you", and you'll have most probably figured it out. It seems to be the only step you're actually missing.

Don't turn to attacks against civilian targets.
I don't condone Israel doing the same,

Allow me to repeat yourself : Its actually falls in with some theories to treat prisoners of violent tendacies.

It appears you do condone Israel doing the same....as long as they don't actually kill the people.

jc

So do you believe all Palestinians are guilty, then? Or that its ok to treat all of them like prisoners?

No i said that it falls in line with many methods of dealing with people who have violent tendacies. I didn't say that i agree with it or not.

Bonkey, I'm not going to make excuses for Israeli actions towards to the Palestinian population. However, I will make justifications for Israeli actions towards followers of Hamas and other organisations like them.

The only reason that the State Of Israel exists is due to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land back in 1948 after the British mandate ended and after a so called "war of independance".

People seem to support UN rulings when it suits them. The UN recognised the states of both Israel and Palestine at the same time. Before then neither state existed.

The Arabs never wanted partition of land which was already theirs and so started a campaign to destroy the Jewish state.In 1948 the state of Israel was attacked by 6 Arab nations and basically won the war in which Israel captured territory form all 6 states.

Which is partially the reason why Palestine is occupied to this day, and the reason why I'm not going to feel too much sympathy for the state of Palestine. They started a war along with other Arab nations, with the intent of wiping the Israeli's off the face of the Middle East. They failed and were occupied.

Im sorry but Palestinians are the victims here

Those palestinians that do not partake in activities against Israel are victims of both Israel and their own government and their own "resistence" organisations. Those people I count as being victims. The others deserve no sympathy.

But 15 years ago it was the opposite - they were generally biased agaisnt Israel - why the change? Can I suggest it is because Israel has been much harsher on Palestinians than vice versa?

I don't think you understood what i said. Irish people are generally biased in their sympathy towards Palestine. Even attacks happen that target Israeli civilians are thrown off as being ok, since Palestinians have the right to their freedom.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by klaz


People seem to support UN rulings when it suits them. The UN recognised the states of both Israel and Palestine at the same time. Before then neither state existed.

Actually the state of Palestine did exist back then(Under the British mandate-- Palestine was a state)---the problem was when an official UN mandate decided that the best solution was to split the country into a Jewish(Israel) and Arab(Palestine)

Palestine existed as part of the British Empire. It did not exist as an independent nation in any form.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
However, I will make justifications for Israeli actions towards followers of Hamas and other organisations like them.

If and when they make those actions with due regard for the Palestinian civilian population shown at the same time, could you let me know....because I'd like to support such actions too.

jc

tall_freak

To the people who say palestine never existed

your right... palestine as a country never existed...
but then neither did jordan... lebanon... UAE.... kuwait.... non of these existed before the league of nations

HOWEVER

arabs lived on that land... they were muslim arabs, christian arabs and jewish arab... becasue in the end arabic is only a language. Not a political or religiuos movement.... arabs lived there for more than 1400 years....

the jews in europe wanted a homeland... and they hoped to establish it on biblical israel which existed more than 2000 years ago

They went about it in 2 ways... initially they used to purchase vast amounts of land. However this was never going to push them from being a minority to a majority in palestine.

the 2nd way was by mass expullsion supplemented by mass emigration of jews....

my grandmother used to live in safad... now called Zafed by the israelis... one day in 48 the israelis came to there village and night... rounded up all the arab inhabitants ... and forced them to leave with nothing... under threat of death... were they had to walk toward the nearest country... at that time lebanon

This is a fact... the refugees living in palestine, lebanon, syria. jordan and in alot of places are a fact... they came from somewhere... they are not an illusion... and most of them still have the deeds to there land...and the keys to there house...

palestine never existed as a country... but jerusalem existed, yaffa existed, haifa existed, ramalla, bethlehem, gaza, hebron, safad, khan yunis... all existed... and 420 cities villages and towns whos people were expelled and the whole place bulldozed to the ground to erase what used to be all existed

So please... when u say palestine never existed... dont say it as if it was a barren piece of land where no one lived on... cause it wasnt... people lived on that land... and they were forced out for reasons like: god promised us this land 2000 years ago.... palestine never existed... more than 50 years ago a war was fought which was totally unrelated to u and were 6 million jews died... so thats the reason i have to evicting u from ur country

and thats why the people fight back... there only crime was to be born palestinien

Tall_freak. - Palestine did exist. It existed in two ways. As a province within the British Empire and also as part of a biblical reference. Modern Palestine, however did not exist until it received UN recognition. It's similiar to theway that after the napoleonic wars borders of Germany, Holland, Belgium and France were moved. They never moved back to the way they were.

Prior to the Israeli's victory against Arab forces, Palestine existed with its own borders. It had its own nation and the nationality that is Palestinian was truely born. Before that they were British Citizens. Before that again they were Arabic. That is what I mean when i say that references to Palestine prior to UN mandates doesn't apply. Same goes for Israel.

If and when they make those actions with due regard for the Palestinian civilian population shown at the same time, could you let me know....because I'd like to support such actions too.

Will do.

tall_freak

What i mean is forget for a second the word palestine....

you had the ottoman empire prior to world war one.... and that included all of what is today syria, lebanon, jordan and palestine... known collectively as the greater sham

when the european powers came in after the defeat of the ottoman empire they divided the region into lebanon, jordon, syria and palestine

lebanon takes its name from the highest mountain in the region... known as mount lebanon

jordan from the jordan river

palestine was simply the region between eygpt, the jordan river and the south of the lebanese mountains....

The people who lived there were arabic... among the higher educated class im sure english was a language

but my point was people lived there... and prior to the establishment to the state of israel these people were evicted from there homes to establish that state... simply because they werent jewish

for these people they dont care about a thing called the UN mandate.... they lived in there land for centuries then were thrown out...

Ok, by following that reasoning;

Russia as it stands today shouldn't exist, since at one stage it conquered and dominated areas in Asia minor and in Eastern Europe. France should never have had any colonies in Africa, South Africa should not contain any white people, Nor should South America contain any Portugese, or Spanish. Mexico should not have any spanish, the US should be completely occupied by Indian tribes, and Denmark should still control Norway.

This is what gets me. People point to 100 years ago and say Arabs populated that region, and they were forcebly removed. So what? The British did the same to the Boers, but I don't see you shouting for the Boers to receive that land back from whoever owns it now. It has no meaning. Borders change, and people are moved out of their homes. Its only in the last 60 years that this has become somewhat of an issue.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by klaz

This is what gets me. People point to 100 years ago and say Arabs populated that region, and they were forcebly removed. So what? ..... Borders change, and people are moved out of their homes. Its only in the last 60 years that this has become somewhat of an issue.

No. I think it's been a big issue for a long time and not just in Israel.

And the argument 'so they were forcibly moved from their homes, so what?' is an argument in favour of what they called 'ethnic cleansing' in Yugoslavia.

It's when a bunch of armed savages say to you: 'You don't belong here, get out here or die'

Are you Irish?

Are you familiar with the phrase: 'To hell or to Connacht'?

Dates from the mid 17th century. Ethnic cleansing Cromwellian style. And I'm sure that wasn't the world's first example either.

Are you familiar with the phrase: 'To hell or to Connacht'?

Oh I am. But what you don't seem to be aware is that at that time, the only people that were concerned about it were the Irish catholics (and the Irish people already living there). No other nation could give a damn.

Dates from the mid 17th century. Ethnic cleansing Cromwellian style. And I'm sure that wasn't the world's first example either.

No it wasn't, but so what? They were different times. Sure, we're civilised now. We can look back and judge by our own standards. For example what about the US army's attempted genocide of certain Indian tribes?

But what you're not understanding is that those people lived under different rules. It was a much harsher world, with no-one shouting out about human rights (with the possible exception of the Catholic church - some sections did, others were more than willing to kill off a few nationalities)

No. I think it's been a big issue for a long time and not just in Israel.

Depends what you mean by a long time. 60 years perhaps? Nobody was too interested when the Japanese tried exterminating Chinese populations in the 1930's. Or when the Russians did the same to german POW's or Jewish prisoners during WW2. Or the Spanish attitude to South American population on discovery. etc etc etc.
Its only recently with modern civilisation that genocide has become a human concern for the world. We've become civilised now. Apparently. In the last 60 years.

It's when a bunch of armed savages say to you: 'You don't belong here, get out here or die'

Ahh but its normally civilised nations that do this. Russia, Great Britain, USA, France, Japan the list goes on, and on and on. But then for the most part these nations skipped letting the people leave, and decided to kill them on the spot.

chabsey

It's funny how the world seems to jump at the mention of the word 'fundamentalism' when connected with religion. The justification for Israel's existance is pure fundamentalism, 'god promised us this land'. As an a-religious person I find it hilarious that a seemingly intelligent bunch of people can, as their last line of defence in terms of justifiying their occupation of a land, say that they're actions are perfectly acceptable because 'god promised us the land'.

I also find it very hard to sympathise with Israel's plight simply because I don't believe their reasons for being there and also cause at the slightest (and I do mean slightest) criticism they're ready with one of two accusations:

1. You're and anti-Semite!
2. Please, remember the holocaust!

Just because I dislike Israel's attitude doesn't mean I dislike Jewish people, and what about the Jews who also disagree with Israel. Isn't labelling them anti-semitic some sort of paradox that could destablise the entire universe?

The holocaust happened years before I was born, in a different country, perpretrated by a now-dead madman who had a personal dislike for jews. It has nothing to do with me and so again I've no time for people who are quick to throw that out as some sort of justification/defence.

There is no essential conflict between the Jewish and Arab ethnic groups, they live together peacefully in many places in the world. The problems that are now exploding in mass murder can be traced to events earlier in the 20th Century, notably the rise of the Zionist movement, which was a separatist movement based on the principle that Jews must give up trying to assimilate in the countries of the world where they have lived for centuries and must instead live in a state established only for Jews.

Was it not Zionists that made it more difficult for displaced jews to get into the US after WW2, knowing that no one would choose Israel over the US and they needed Israel populated?

Unfortunately, to establish Israel as envisioned required space. The space chosen was Palestine, where other people were already living. These people were pushed out of their homes and in the case of thousands massacred. Today they live under intolerable oppression just for being in the way of this grand idea of Jewish separatism.

Of course they have fought back, and as a result, more innocent people have died, about one Israeli for every 10 murdered Palestinian. But don't mention their nukes....they'll lock you up if you do!

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Ahh but its normally civilised nations that do this. Russia, Great Britain, USA, France, Japan the list goes on, and on and on. But then for the most part these nations skipped letting the people leave, and decided to kill them on the spot.

But what would the use for [strike]slaves[/strike] manual labour then?

I hold to Israel's place there for two reasons: 1) theres no way they're going to leave, and 2) its UN approved.

As for the rest, I get tired of repeating myself.

But don't mention their nukes....they'll lock you up if you do!

Only if you're an Israeli, and have commited Treason. Its hard to tell if this was a joke, since everyone is very serious abt this subject.

But what would the use for slaves manual labour then?

I'm assuming you're trying to say that not all were killed and some were used as slave labour? You're quite right. In some cases. In others, determined efforts were made to wipe them off the face of the planet.

chabsey

Originally posted by klaz
I hold to Israel's place there for two reasons: 1) theres no way they're going to leave, and 2) its UN approved.

As for the rest, I get tired of repeating myself.



Only if you're an Israeli, and have commited Treason. Its hard to tell if this was a joke, since everyone is very serious abt this subject.

Yeah it was a sort-of joke. I found it funny that for a lot of their history Israel has promoted the myth that they've won the wars they've fought while being massively out-numbered.

"Look, there's six arab nations about to jump on us with their amazing armies of super-weapons with extra explosion power. All we have is 6 twigs and some feathers....if we win this then surely it's proof that god is on our side!"

Basic fact is (and I think official documents support this) that Israel has always had an amazing army, one of the best in the world and for them to lose any of the wars they've fought would have been conclusive proof god was against them!

Meanwhile they're a nuclear power, someone tells the world this and the whole 'we're so weak yet justified' arguement takes a battering. Or maybe they're just got upset with him for the 'treason' reason. Who knows, probably a bit of both.

halkar

Originally posted by klaz
I hold to Israel's place there for two reasons: 1) theres no way they're going to leave, and 2) its UN approved....

1. Nope, they will not leave those places after all as said before its god given and when they wipe out Palestinians I wonder where else is next.
2. show me where UN approved? UN does not approve any land Israel is occupying, Not from Palestine nor from Syria or Lebanon. You can do google around and see how many towns villages have been occupied and people of those lands have been put in camps of today. Israel does not want peace, they just want to lock these people behind walls and control all aspect their life. How do you expect Palestinians to form a nation on their own while Israel trying to take control over them.

SeeYouJimmy

i think im gonna create an army of neo-christian fundamentalists and march on jerusalem. To hell with the israelis and the palesitinans, well seeing as its the centre of our religion dont we have as much right to be there too?

just a thought

halkar

They did that twice jimmy, ooops three times with Bush's crusade but not counting that as they got the locations wrong:D

SeeYouJimmy

heh heh heh

Hellrazer

Originally posted by klaz
I hold to Israel's place there for two reasons: 1) theres no way they're going to leave, and 2) its UN approved.

No there isnt any way the Israelis are going to leave--They occupy the most fertile land in that area--leaving the Palestinians with desert to try and make a living from,they buy up as much property in Jeruasalem that they can find even if it means forcing Arabs out with violence.Of course they`re not going to leave---They have it too handy.


Then theres the side of things that will affect us as Christians.In the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem there are shops with pictures/sculptures depicting the "New Temple"

The Jews want to knock down the Muslims second holiest Mosque and knock down the huge Christian church where all of Jesus`last few hours happened and have some Second Temple or something.Now Im not the most religious person in the world but there is definately some wierd sense when you walk into that church.You can put your hands down into the hole where the cross was,see the cave where he rose from etc etc.

As for UN recognised--The state os Israel in its current for is not recognised by any other country than the US.The UN considers the occupation of Palestinian land to be illegal and will only recognise Israel if and when they return to the way the borders were back in 1947.

SeeYouJimmy

i hanve nothing againts jews, and i cant stand the fact that every time myself (or any other person for that matter) voice my opinions on the palestine conlfict it appears that you are branded either

a) anti semetic, or

b) that you support the terrorist atrocites that the minority of palestinians have nothing to do with

in having met israelis on a number of occasions, i can safley say that as a whole i find them arrogant and paranoid.
yes its terrible what happenend to the jewish people in the second world war, but does this give the israelis a right to force innocent people off their lands, round them into camps, and subject them to hell every day of their lives?

it wasnt the palestininans fault that hitler hated jews,
and it definetly isnt their fault that the U.S have double bloody standards

makes me ****ing angry just talking about it

chabsey

Have to agree about the angry/paranoid thing...especially the younger ones who head to Asia after military service to 'relax' and 'let off steam'.

For 'relax' and 'let off steam' read 'act ignorantly' and 'be abusive'.

Not all, I've met some perfectly normal Israelis but the country seems to produce a pent-up anger-filled paranoid populace. Understandable I suppose but not nice to be around.

As for UN recognised--The state os Israel in its current for is not recognised by any other country than the US.The UN considers the occupation of Palestinian land to be illegal and will only recognise Israel if and when they return to the way the borders were back in 1947.

Hellraiser, I agree. In its current form, with the inclusions of areas taken, its not part of what the UN approved. And I do believe that Israel should move back to its original borders. However, alot of posters here wont even agree with that.

"Look, there's six arab nations about to jump on us with their amazing armies of super-weapons with extra explosion power. All we have is 6 twigs and some feathers....if we win this then surely it's proof that god is on our side!"

Chabsey, Again i find myself agreeing. They had a well trained army with experience troops. But don't forget that they were facing 6 Arab nations each of which had top of the line weaponry. So in a small way they did still have a victory against all odds. Most military analysts of teh time, belived that Israel would lose a war should they be attacked. Both them and the Arabs were wrong.

Nope, they will not leave those places after all as said before its god given and when they wipe out Palestinians I wonder where else is next.

And they wont leave the area that is Israel. And within the original borders they shouldn't have to. And before you get your back up, think carefully, about the reason why those 6 arab nations wanted to invade Israel. Peaceful relations? Perhaps to wipe all Jews off the face of the middle east?

Regardless, I don't believe theres a plan to wipe out all palestinians. Otherwise they would have done it by now. God knows they have the ability if they really needed to.

halkar

Klaz, do you really think all their army and high tech weapons would mean anything in the eyes of surrounding Arab countries? Arabs doesn't have to go war with Israel, they can close their borders and air-sea and let the Israel on their own without use of anything and have the same feeling as Palestinians. Of course this can lead a lot of troubles in the region but as long as Israel does not show the world that they really want peace and stop hiding behind US and not p!!ss of the region.
Can you imagine Israel surviving with no link to rest of the world if their air-land-and sea links closed. And to me that is what I am seeing as coming. And this can and will make Israel aggressive to the other nations. Unless UN start putting some serious sanctions to Israel as they do to other countries without US interference they will not do anything to have peace with Palestinians.
After all they do have nukes, remember? As long as they have nukes , no nation in middle east will feel safe with Israel and look what happens when others try to build up Nuclear arsenal? Again to me they are clearly a threat to the region and the world. And don't forget with their old minds they probably have more hate to Christians then to Muslims. What goes around comes around, do you feel safe sitting at home that Israel has uncontrolled nuclear activity?

Fionnan

Halkar,
The 1967 war was sparked ( among other causes) byt the Arabs closing off the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, ie a blockade. This action led to the defeat of almost the entire Arab world (Egypt, Syria Jordan) in 7 days and the loss of territory. The Arab countries have tried to blockade Israel, but they have always failed and ISrael has survived. Anyway Israel is self-sufficient in food and hi-tech industries(weapons), so a blockade alone would not lead to the destruction of Israel. Any blockade mounted would be smashed as it was before.

Fionnan

Nukes,
If Israel is ever facing military defeat( which means the extermination of its people), plenty of nukes, some on submarines, is a very good deterent for an invading army to push for the total defeat of Israel. Also last year the Israelis put a payload(a satellite) into geosynchronus orbit, which means any point on the globe can be hit with an Israeli nuke, which will certainly discourage any backers of the Arab countries from supplying to many weapons, ie the defeat of Israel would result in their destruction.
A previous example would be in 1973 when the Soviet Union pulled back its armies from entering Syria to help the Arabs after recieving a threat that the Israelis would send a 1 way airborne mission to nuke Moscow.

tall_freak

This is what gets me. People point to 100 years ago and say Arabs populated that region, and they were forcebly removed. So what? The British did the same to the Boers, but I don't see you shouting for the Boers to receive that land back from whoever owns it now. It has no meaning. Borders change, and people are moved out of their homes. Its only in the last 60 years that this has become somewhat of an issue

Klaz... arabs (jewish, muslim, christian, armenians, turks, greek etc etc,,,)... lived there (what is known as israel proper) up to 50 years ago,... not 100

The problem is ... 1)people dont acknowledge that this was a crime committed against the indeginous palestinian population
2) If they do admit it they do nothing..... this is still happening today as we speak... by denying the refugees the right to return... by imposing 24 hour curfews on months on end... and building a great wall on illegally occupied land (which no international body recognises) etc etc(the list of human right crimes commited by israel is too long to mention here)

The thing is that israel does not wish or push forward for peace

in march 2002 the arab league headed by the saudi government and fully backed by all arabic governments including palestiniens put forward a proposal to israel

withdraw to the 1967 boarders... allow the palestiniens a fully recognisable state with boarders, air and sea control... the refugees would have been delt with in an appropriate manner... those who wanted to remain in the country theyre in would recieve compensation and citizenship... and a solution would be found to those who insisted on returning

this was fully in line to past UN resolutions and i really cant see what else the israelis want at this point if they genuinely wanted peace

unfrortunately israels reply was storming into jenin and demolishing half the city center (at that time it recieved a lot of publicity cause it was called 'the jenin massacre'... if that actualy happened is debatable)....

as to israel military strenght... this is undisputed... but everyone knows that this is only because of the full amercian backing in forms of equipment and financial aid... its a sad fact but if tw the states withdraws its backing israel as a country cant last for long... and thats how it won all the past wars...

all its heavy equipment it uses are american... F16, apache helicopters... even its merkeva tanks are american tanks slightly modified

halkar

Fionnan, I don't beleive Israel can survive any blockage again. Of course they will use US and try to convince other nations but with the reputation US gaining in Middle East and their so called one sided Big Middle East project I doubt these people will take much. US and Israel clearly destroying ME. In 1967 with the blockage of Arab nations to Israel and among other reasons as you call, Israel was the first offensive. Of course they seen the threat maybe but they were not attacked first and that is what I said in my earlier post that it will be Israel that attacking those nations if they face a blocakage. Also I don't think Israel is self-sufficient in food as most of the shops are filled by products of other countries, what will they live on, bananas? Their hi-tech industries means nothing when they can't export their weapons to more corrupt countries and most of all they, like many nations in ME are dependant on the water that comes from abroad.
As for the nukes, I see no reason why Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other nations in ME to have nukes as long as Israel have them because Israel is clearly threating the region. So tell me why not sanction them too and control their capabilities like others in the region? Israel ignores the organization (so called UN ) that recognised her as country and violates more rules than anyother country in the world as yet they were allowed do so. And people wonders why the people of ME hates US and Israel so much.

What goes around comes around, do you feel safe sitting at home that Israel has uncontrolled nuclear activity?

Actually I don't feel safe with any nation having Nukes. That includes France, the US, Britain etc. And they're all uncontrolled.

Re Halkar:

Again to me they are clearly a threat to the region and the world.

I, on the other hand, don't see them as a threat to the world. To the region? Thats between them and the other Arab nations.
It takes two to tango, and the Arab nations have shown no restraint in the past, in this respect. And yet you don't see them as a
threat?

Klaz, do you really think all their army and high tech weapons would mean anything in the eyes of surrounding Arab countries?

Huh? Actually I think it was getting beaten on a number of occasions that helped hold back Arab invasions. Military might has only really hit Israel in the last 40 years.

Arabs doesn't have to go war with Israel, they can close their borders and air-sea and let the Israel on their own without use of anything
and have the same feeling as Palestinians.

Arabs never HAD to go to war with them in the first place. They just did. And Israel has shown itself quite capable of defeating blockades in the past.

Unless UN start putting some serious sanctions to Israel as they do to other countries without US
interference they will not do anything to have peace with Palestinians.

UN Sanctions only ever stick with US approval. At least i can't remember the US ever being over-ruled abt a nation.

Re: Tall_Freak

Klaz... arabs (jewish, muslim, christian, armenians, turks, greek etc etc,,,)... lived there (what is known as israel proper) up to 50 years ago,... not 100

Yes. Arabs. Not Palestinians. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem. On May 14, 1948,
the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the new State of Israel. So they weren't Arabs any longer, they were Israeli's. On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response
statement and Arab armies invaded Israel and the first Arab-Israeli war began.

1)people dont acknowledge that this was a crime committed against the indeginous palestinian population

At least stick to your original points. They were Arabic, not Palestinian. So it was a crime to those Arabic tribes.

withdraw to the 1967 boarders... allow the palestiniens a fully recognisable state with boarders, air and sea control... the refugees would have been delt with in an appropriate manner... those who wanted to remain in the country theyre in would recieve compensation and citizenship... and a solution would be found to those who insisted on returning

Part of the reason why this isn't happening is fear. The thing is that Palestine, attacked Israel once already as a complete nation. Whats to stop them doing so again? Israel is stuck in a catch-22 situation.

as to israel military strenght... this is undisputed... but everyone knows that this is only because of the full amercian backing in forms of equipment and financial aid... its a sad fact but if tw the states withdraws its backing israel as a country cant last for long... and thats how it won all the past wars...

You might want to check this out before stating such things. Its tactics and skill thats the difference.

For example: It was only in 1964 that the US decided to start selling weapons to Israel. Before that, they refused to. In fact most countries refused to.

While the Arab nations were stocking up with modern weapons coming in predominately from the Soviets, Israel was buying its weapons from the Czech Ams trade. Nice comparison between WW2 weaponry and modern tanks.

all its heavy equipment it uses are american... F16, apache helicopters... even its merkeva tanks are american tanks slightly modified

Oh i agree. Nowadays the Israeli army uses mostly US equipment. However, israel does produce alot of its own equipment. hence the ability to survive a blockade of arms.

halkar

Thats between them and the other Arab nations? Since when US is an Arab nation and Israelis goes and sits on the table on behind Palestinians?

Tell me what would be the action of your peacefull Israel be if Palestinians or whoever you think they are just walked back in the lands that was taken by your so peaceful Israelis? Watch carefull what they want to do with their latest plan. They will leave some settlements and keep what they stole from Palestinians and they will not let Palestinians to return to these lands from their prison camps. And only few months ago when US put in place the Iraqi laws, it was there that Jews that was expelled could return back to Iraq and carry two passports. Of course this is probably for another topic what their intensions in Iraq are but the fact is if they can send their people to Iraq why can they not let palestinians to their homes.
How would they feel like if Iraqis told them nope you are not coming here stay where you are? Not only for Iraq for other countries too.

Since we will see more eastern Europe countries joining EU some Israelis already started looking for their roots in those countries in order to get their passports and leave. Should we tell them the same thing Sharon suggesting? After all he and Bush thinks that is peacefull.