And would you forgive a person who blew up a bus carrying your wife anbd children? No? Great, let's all continue killing each other.
If it were not for people like Fellowship, who at least strive to attain a level of forgiveness that can transend hatred and bigotry, no conflicts would ever really end, until oneside wiped the other out completely.
You on the other hand seem to see forgiveness as an ideal as something to be mocked and ignored.
As usual you miss the point.
The state of Isreal exists because Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes. They are upset over this particular point. That the people in their property are jews may not help the matter but really does not matter. The point is really simple: If someone came into YOUR home and removed you from it and consigned you to the garage would you forgive that person and resign yourself to living in the garage. This is a simple yes or no question. Yes I would live in the garage. No I would not stay in the garage.
It is clear that the palestinians have decided that they will not stay in the garage. The solution is simple, though perhaps not comfortable. All land that belonged to the palestinians, including their property must be returned to the palestinians. this is called Justice. Without Justice there is no peace. If a thief is caught with your property, your property is returned to you and the thief is prosecuted for stealing your property if you choose to press charges.
Once the land and property is returned to the palestinians, they should then work on some kind of government that includes all people in that geographic region who wish to remain there. There would not be a Jewish state nor would thier be a Muslim or Palestinian state. there would be (fill in the blank) state.
This solution provides justice for the palestinians, and provides security and peaceful living for all living there.
I don't think Scott's ever heard of the charter of Omar and I think you are wilfully twisting it to your own bias which is a bit sick when you know what it is.
As you (I suspect) very well know - the Jews were being slaughtered en masse by Christian pogroms over a period of 500 years in the middle ages and sought and achieved safety under Islamic rule in Spain. This was possible because of the charter of Omar. Why not tell us about the property the Jews owned under Islam then and about how that civilization was one of the most advanced until modern times while the rest of Europe was in th dark ages ?
Yes, during the middle ages, Christian Europe was a gleaming example of racism, intolerance and intellectual decline.
Just because jews were allowed to live and own property under Islamic rules, does mean that rules wasn't racist. This thread started discussing Israel's racist policy of specifically targeted laws about who some palestinian's may marry. This law is wrong. Just because the charter of omar allowed jews to live is Spain under islamic rule in order to escape European brutality, doesn't mean it wasn't still a racist law and regime. Laws that specifically applied to how the jews could behave are no more right than laws in israel specifically applied to palestinians rights to marry.
Yes, the charter of omar may have allowed the moors in spain to allow jews to escape and seek shelter there, but it did so in a overtly racist manner. "Yes, you may come in, but here are some special laws that you, and only you must follow."
Tell me, under strict Shari`a law, would the charter of omar still apply?
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Oh and why so self-obsessed with that 'we' - many people were subject to the death penalty at that time regardless of race. That's what happened if you broke certain laws (just like in Texas). Don't try to make it personal to a race because of your own bias.
Well, the 'we' would be obviously appropriate in one was a member of a minority group that was specifically targeted with discriminatory laws. Damn right I would take it personally and be biased about a law that targeted me and my group specifically and exclusively. Yeah, many people were subject to the death penalty at the time. Some were subjected to the death penalty for breaking laws that were only laws for their group. Sorry, but that's racist.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Again, he's never heard of it and nor by the sounds of it have you. Btw, do you speak Arabic ? This one deserves a post of his own - just let me know.
No I don't speak arabic. I have had muslim friends and have enjoyed discussing various issues with some of them. That quote was mentioned by one when we were discussing the historically presence of jews in arabia, their erradication and that some believe that Medina was once a jewish settlement that was wiped out. I found it ironic that he mentioned it because I had read the same quote just a couple days earlier, so it sort of sticks in my head.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Look, this racist word is thrown around too lightly. There ARE racist states such as Saudi which claim to be Islamic but it is obvious that they are not as the Qur'anic attitude to Judaism is one of tolerance. Of course some muslims are racist and ignore that but in that they deviate from the Qu'ran and practice of Muhammud (as you acknowledge above) and therefore imo are no more Muslims than Bush is a Christian.
You are right, the Quranic attitude towards Judaism is one of tolerance. But it is alse one of derision and scorn.
In reference to the Jews:
{Qur'an:Surah 11, v. 96}And thou wilt find them the greediest of mankind...
{Qur'an:Surah V, v. 51} O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends.
At the same time, there are many and numerous occasions where the Quran praise and uplifts the 'Children of Israel'
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Again you've gone all tangenital on me - I DO deny that racism is inherent in Islam as the Qur'an preaches tolerance and equality. I Do Not deny that there are individual racists within the Islamic sphere. That doesn't make Islam or Arabs racists any more than the KKK makes America racist.
I am not sayig Islam is inherently racist. But, you would have to willfully ignore surahs likes those above to not believe that the quran does teach some less than flatering things, maybe even offensive, about nonbelievers and jews specifically.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Btw this issue is also a point of the Islam/Jewish dichotomy. The Muslims cannot believe that God has a 'chosen people' and believe that this was a twisted form of God's original Mosaic revelation anbd in itslef constitutes a racist ideology.
I agree with them. This thread is about the fruits of that ideology.
You are right, there is a dichotomy, but perhaps it is within the quranic teachings themselves.
You say The Muslims cannot believe that God has a 'chosen people' and believe that this was a twisted form of God's original Mosaic revelation anbd in itslef constitutes a racist ideology., yet the quran itself says: {Qur'an, sura 2:122} O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others nations (for My Message). So, how can your statement that muslims cannnot believe that god has a chosen people jive with actual quranic statements saying as much? You say muslims find this a twisted for of god's origial mosaic, yet there it is, stated repeatedly in the quran.
The belief in jews as a chosen people is not racists. People who don't understand or want to malign the jews, imply that chosen means better, and I suppose that would be racist. The actual belief of the jews being chosen people, actually has to do with a belief that they were singled out for special blessings, being the lnd of Israel and that a messiah would come from them. The belief is not that being 'chosen' makes them better than others, just that they were chosen for certain gifts.
Again, I am not trying to say that Islam is inherently racist. Nor am I trying to get into a debate as to the positive or negative qualities of Islam. I am trying to show that demonizing Israel for an obviously wrong headed policy, done mistakenly in the belief it will enhance security, is biased if one doesn't consider that other groups, especially in the region also practice overt racism and discrimnation. To demonise only israel for it's policy seems to convieniently ignore others actions.
The state of Isreal exists because Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes. They are upset over this particular point. That the people in their property are jews may not help the matter but really does not matter. The point is really simple: If someone came into YOUR home and removed you from it and consigned you to the garage would you forgive that person and resign yourself to living in the garage. This is a simple yes or no question. Yes I would live in the garage. No I would not stay in the garage.
It is clear that the palestinians have decided that they will not stay in the garage. The solution is simple, though perhaps not comfortable. All land that belonged to the palestinians, including their property must be returned to the palestinians. this is called Justice. Without Justice there is no peace. If a thief is caught with your property, your property is returned to you and the thief is prosecuted for stealing your property if you choose to press charges.
Once the land and property is returned to the palestinians, they should then work on some kind of government that includes all people in that geographic region who wish to remain there. There would not be a Jewish state nor would thier be a Muslim or Palestinian state. there would be (fill in the blank) state.
This solution provides justice for the palestinians, and provides security and peaceful living for all living there.
Please be a little specific. When was their land stolen exactly? You seem to be referring to the entire state of Israel as being stolen land.
Please be a little specific. When was their land stolen exactly? You seem to be referring to the entire state of Israel as being stolen land.
yes sir. If you check he record, the current state of Israel was mde by removinbg palestinians from their homes. They were considering places in East Africa first but that was rejected.
stolen land. Unless of course you buy the "god given land" argument.
yes sir. If you check he record, the current state of Israel was mde by removinbg palestinians from their homes. They were considering places in East Africa first but that was rejected.
stolen land. Unless of course you buy the "god given land" argument.
Stolen from whom? Palestinians? The Palesinians in the area were mainly arabs from various areas in the region who lived there at that time. Many observers during the last couple centuries note the desolation and lack of population in the area. Syria claimed the area as a part of greater syria. No other arab nation claimed it, certainly not a nation of Palestinians.
The region known as Palestine in recent history was owned by the Ottomans, then the British. British gave it to Jews to create Israel. Palestine had long Jewish settlements at the time, and Jewish settlements there have existed there for thousands of years. They never left totally.
If the creation of the state of Israel by the powers at the time constitutes theft, then so does the creation of Hashimite TransJordan, since they were not from that area.
Just because the Palestinians started claiming the land was stolen from them to create Israel, doesn't make it so.
The only land that has even a recoqnised status as 'stolen' land are the OT. And much of those were siezed during arab initiated conflicts, somewhat invalidating the claim that they were stolen...property lost by bullies who bit off more than they could chew. But yes, internationally, Israel's claim to the OT is illegal.
Oh, sorry, this is Palestinians killed by Israelis during the ceasefire. I forgot that doesn't count.
Does the ceasefire say anything about Israel not arresting bombers? I mean, the story you linked to describes an attempted arrest at a known bomb factory, where the Hamas people started shooting first. An arrest where the terrorists killed a soldier and resulted in some of the terrorists being killed...hmmm.
Hamas seems to think this is a violation by Israel of the ceasefire. Of course, Hamas and Abbas et al also think that prisoner releases and the Wall and part of the road map, which the clearly aren't.
You are right...that story doesn't count for much..in an argument for or against Israel's actions, that one is pretty neutral.
My original question to you actually was a carryover from another thread. One where you claimed that Israel was the threat peace, and the roadmap in particular, because they couldn't restaint themselves. I asked about Israeli deaths, because it sure seems like Israel is restraining herself pretty well, in the face of pretty regular violations of the ceasefire by the palestinians.
Does the ceasefire say anything about Israel not arresting bombers? I mean, the story you linked to describes an attempted arrest at a known bomb factory, where the Hamas people started shooting first. An arrest where the terrorists killed a soldier and resulted in some of the terrorists being killed...hmmm.
....
They use the word 'suspected' a lot, but never known. And the Palestinians did fire first...after Israeli military and tanks approached the building. I guess that's somehow not in self-defence in your eyes.
This article is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
The wall you mention is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
Israel isn't restraining themselves very well if they're attacking Palestinians, as this article shows.
They use the word 'suspected' a lot, but never known. And the Palestinians did fire first...after Israeli military and tanks approached the building. I guess that's somehow not in self-defence in your eyes.
Killing during the comission of a crime is hardly self defense. Even Hamas didn't deny that's exactly what happened. And yeah, tanks could be deemed necessary in an arrest in such a hostile environment.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
This article is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
Try to arrest bomb makers and terrorists is a threat to peace?
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The wall you mention is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
So long as the wall is in disputed territory, yes it is. As Israel has recently begun discussion to redraw the wall so that it is more in line with their legal territory, they are at least attempting to balance a valid security concern, ie human bombs walking into cities, and Palestinian concerns about territorial integrity.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Israel isn't restraining themselves very well if they're attacking Palestinians, as this article shows.
This wasn't a targetted assasination that Hamas and the rest wanted stopped, it was an attempted arrest. Surely, a nation has the right to arrest suspested terrorists...with enough strong evidence to support an arrest. The fact that targetted killings of terrorists have stopped, shows that you are wrong and that Israel is restraining herself. In fact, I think in the last thread you speficially said killings were the Israeli threat to peace. Well, they've stopped.
You forgot to list why the Palestinians are a threat to peace:
Conditional and temporary ceasefire which hasn't been held to very well.
Absolute refusal to take any steps in the Roadmap
Constant moving of the goalposts in terms of getting started on the Roadmap. (well, we'll discuss the road map if you also release prisoners...no, a few hundred won't do, releae all know murders and terrorists , then we'll talk road map, oh and that wall, we have to talk about that first too) The road map was agreed upon as a beginning to future dialogue and eventual peace. The Palestinians have thus far refused to enact any of their responsibilities, preferring instead to demand discussion of issues that were supposed to be discussed once the roadmap was started. That is a threat to peace.
Kidnapping of isreali civilians hasn't been helpful during the ceasefire..another threat to peace.
Both sides have actions that are detrimental to the peace process. But, at least israel is showing a interest is taking steps to settle thing through dialogue via the road map. The palestinian side has done nothing, nada, squat to try and get the road map moving. That is a the real threat to peace.
So long as the wall is in disputed territory, yes it is.
Well, surrounding an entire town of 40-50K Palestinians and having only one gate for all of the inhabitants to come and go is a threat to peace and is creating a ghetto. How ironic.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
As Israel has recently begun discussion to redraw the wall so that it is more in line with their legal territory, they are at least attempting to balance a valid security concern, ie human bombs walking into cities, and Palestinian concerns about territorial integrity.
That's basically crap. Hot air. The wall is a huge issue and for valid reasons. I'm not sure, but I don't think any of it is in Israel proper.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
This wasn't a targetted assasination that Hamas and the rest wanted stopped, it was an attempted arrest. Surely, a nation has the right to arrest suspested terrorists...with enough strong evidence to support an arrest.
Entering the West Bank isn't exactly a 'nation' arresting suspected terrorists. Any time Israel enters the O.T. they're a threat to peace.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
The fact that targetted killings of terrorists have stopped, shows that you are wrong and that Israel is restraining herself. In fact, I think in the last thread you speficially said killings were the Israeli threat to peace. Well, they've stopped.
Well good that they've stopped. So have the suicide bombings. AMAZING!
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Both sides have actions that are detrimental to the peace process.
Entering the West Bank isn't exactly a 'nation' arresting suspected terrorists. Any time Israel enters the O.T. they're a threat to peace.
So, run and hide in the OT and terrorist get a free ride?
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Well good that they've stopped. So have the suicide bombings. AMAZING!
Obviously the groups haven't stopped preparations for more attacks, as this bomb factory so amply shows. I have read that Israel has arrested 115 terror suspest since the ceasefire, 10 of whom had bomb belts on, ready to find a target. Not exactly stopping.
Israel didn't want a 3 month ceasefire, but a long term cease fire. Palestinians refused, and Israel agreed to the short ceasefire as the only way to achieve even a little peace. Israel's biggest concern about the ceasefire was that it was only going to being used as a ploy by the terror groups, hurt by Israels success against them, to rebuilt and regroup. Seems that is exactly what is happening. Strange that they are demanding the release of known terrorists and murderers...almost like that are looking to fill their ranks again.
They may have curtailed their large scale bombings during the ceasefire, but a criminal group continuing to plan and organise attacks and construct materials for attacks has hardly truly committed to the cease fire. It's almost like they needed the ceasefire to rebuilt and so agreed to it..you think?
They may have curtailed their large scale bombings during the ceasefire, but a criminal group continuing to plan and organise attacks and construct materials for attacks has hardly truly committed to the cease fire. It's almost like they needed the ceasefire to rebuilt and so agreed to it..you think?
Of course. The problem is that Israel is shooting itself in the foot. Why is someone a 'terrorist' if they attack people occupying their land?
Stolen from whom? Palestinians? The Palesinians in the area were mainly arabs from various areas in the region who lived there at that time. Many observers during the last couple centuries note the desolation and lack of population in the area. Syria claimed the area as a part of greater syria. No other arab nation claimed it, certainly not a nation of Palestinians.
The region known as Palestine in recent history was owned by the Ottomans, then the British. British gave it to Jews to create Israel. Palestine had long Jewish settlements at the time, and Jewish settlements there have existed there for thousands of years. They never left totally.
If the creation of the state of Israel by the powers at the time constitutes theft, then so does the creation of Hashimite TransJordan, since they were not from that area.
Just because the Palestinians started claiming the land was stolen from them to create Israel, doesn't make it so.
The only land that has even a recoqnised status as 'stolen' land are the OT. And much of those were siezed during arab initiated conflicts, somewhat invalidating the claim that they were stolen...property lost by bullies who bit off more than they could chew. But yes, internationally, Israel's claim to the OT is illegal.
What part of being forcibly removed from ones home do you not understand?
And since when does "development" denote "ownership? There are plenty of places on earth that are "desolate" and are still "private property."
What part of being forcibly removed from ones home do you not understand?
And since when does "development" denote "ownership? There are plenty of places on earth that are "desolate" and are still "private property."
If you don't own the land, it can't be stolen from you. The desolation of the area was largely due to the very small population. Land ownership was almost feudal, and most of the private property was owned by a few landlords...(some palestinian landlords, lot's of lebanese). In many cases, these landlords did the removing of tenants in order to complete the sale of their land.
Again, just because you say Israel is stolen land, doesn't make it so. Repeating your lie over and over must get tiresome.
Again, just because you say Israel is stolen land, doesn't make it so.
Lie? Wasn't it you that said Israel took land from the Palestinians in '67? Even if you didn't, no one denies it. And that's stolen land. How is that a lie?
Lie? Wasn't it you that said Israel took land from the Palestinians in '67? Even if you didn't, no one denies it. And that's stolen land. How is that a lie?
He is not referring to land taken in '67...he is calling all of Israel stolen land.
Besides, who lost land in '67? Syria, Eygpt and Jordan certainly, since they claimed that land.
Comments
That is all.
Apparently American Blacks are much more intelligent than Israelis.
Originally posted by Tulkas
And would you forgive a person who blew up a bus carrying your wife anbd children? No? Great, let's all continue killing each other.
If it were not for people like Fellowship, who at least strive to attain a level of forgiveness that can transend hatred and bigotry, no conflicts would ever really end, until oneside wiped the other out completely.
You on the other hand seem to see forgiveness as an ideal as something to be mocked and ignored.
As usual you miss the point.
The state of Isreal exists because Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes. They are upset over this particular point. That the people in their property are jews may not help the matter but really does not matter. The point is really simple: If someone came into YOUR home and removed you from it and consigned you to the garage would you forgive that person and resign yourself to living in the garage. This is a simple yes or no question. Yes I would live in the garage. No I would not stay in the garage.
It is clear that the palestinians have decided that they will not stay in the garage. The solution is simple, though perhaps not comfortable. All land that belonged to the palestinians, including their property must be returned to the palestinians. this is called Justice. Without Justice there is no peace. If a thief is caught with your property, your property is returned to you and the thief is prosecuted for stealing your property if you choose to press charges.
Once the land and property is returned to the palestinians, they should then work on some kind of government that includes all people in that geographic region who wish to remain there. There would not be a Jewish state nor would thier be a Muslim or Palestinian state. there would be (fill in the blank) state.
This solution provides justice for the palestinians, and provides security and peaceful living for all living there.
Originally posted by segovius
I don't think Scott's ever heard of the charter of Omar and I think you are wilfully twisting it to your own bias which is a bit sick when you know what it is.
As you (I suspect) very well know - the Jews were being slaughtered en masse by Christian pogroms over a period of 500 years in the middle ages and sought and achieved safety under Islamic rule in Spain. This was possible because of the charter of Omar. Why not tell us about the property the Jews owned under Islam then and about how that civilization was one of the most advanced until modern times while the rest of Europe was in th dark ages ?
Yes, during the middle ages, Christian Europe was a gleaming example of racism, intolerance and intellectual decline.
Just because jews were allowed to live and own property under Islamic rules, does mean that rules wasn't racist. This thread started discussing Israel's racist policy of specifically targeted laws about who some palestinian's may marry. This law is wrong. Just because the charter of omar allowed jews to live is Spain under islamic rule in order to escape European brutality, doesn't mean it wasn't still a racist law and regime. Laws that specifically applied to how the jews could behave are no more right than laws in israel specifically applied to palestinians rights to marry.
Yes, the charter of omar may have allowed the moors in spain to allow jews to escape and seek shelter there, but it did so in a overtly racist manner. "Yes, you may come in, but here are some special laws that you, and only you must follow."
Tell me, under strict Shari`a law, would the charter of omar still apply?
Originally posted by segovius
Oh and why so self-obsessed with that 'we' - many people were subject to the death penalty at that time regardless of race. That's what happened if you broke certain laws (just like in Texas). Don't try to make it personal to a race because of your own bias.
Well, the 'we' would be obviously appropriate in one was a member of a minority group that was specifically targeted with discriminatory laws. Damn right I would take it personally and be biased about a law that targeted me and my group specifically and exclusively. Yeah, many people were subject to the death penalty at the time. Some were subjected to the death penalty for breaking laws that were only laws for their group. Sorry, but that's racist.
Originally posted by segovius
Again, he's never heard of it and nor by the sounds of it have you. Btw, do you speak Arabic ? This one deserves a post of his own - just let me know.
No I don't speak arabic. I have had muslim friends and have enjoyed discussing various issues with some of them. That quote was mentioned by one when we were discussing the historically presence of jews in arabia, their erradication and that some believe that Medina was once a jewish settlement that was wiped out. I found it ironic that he mentioned it because I had read the same quote just a couple days earlier, so it sort of sticks in my head.
Originally posted by segovius
Look, this racist word is thrown around too lightly. There ARE racist states such as Saudi which claim to be Islamic but it is obvious that they are not as the Qur'anic attitude to Judaism is one of tolerance. Of course some muslims are racist and ignore that but in that they deviate from the Qu'ran and practice of Muhammud (as you acknowledge above) and therefore imo are no more Muslims than Bush is a Christian.
You are right, the Quranic attitude towards Judaism is one of tolerance. But it is alse one of derision and scorn.
In reference to the Jews:
{Qur'an:Surah 11, v. 96}And thou wilt find them the greediest of mankind...
{Qur'an:Surah V, v. 51} O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends.
At the same time, there are many and numerous occasions where the Quran praise and uplifts the 'Children of Israel'
Originally posted by segovius
Again you've gone all tangenital on me - I DO deny that racism is inherent in Islam as the Qur'an preaches tolerance and equality. I Do Not deny that there are individual racists within the Islamic sphere. That doesn't make Islam or Arabs racists any more than the KKK makes America racist.
I am not sayig Islam is inherently racist. But, you would have to willfully ignore surahs likes those above to not believe that the quran does teach some less than flatering things, maybe even offensive, about nonbelievers and jews specifically.
Originally posted by segovius
Btw this issue is also a point of the Islam/Jewish dichotomy. The Muslims cannot believe that God has a 'chosen people' and believe that this was a twisted form of God's original Mosaic revelation anbd in itslef constitutes a racist ideology.
I agree with them. This thread is about the fruits of that ideology.
You are right, there is a dichotomy, but perhaps it is within the quranic teachings themselves.
You say The Muslims cannot believe that God has a 'chosen people' and believe that this was a twisted form of God's original Mosaic revelation anbd in itslef constitutes a racist ideology., yet the quran itself says: {Qur'an, sura 2:122} O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others nations (for My Message). So, how can your statement that muslims cannnot believe that god has a chosen people jive with actual quranic statements saying as much? You say muslims find this a twisted for of god's origial mosaic, yet there it is, stated repeatedly in the quran.
The belief in jews as a chosen people is not racists. People who don't understand or want to malign the jews, imply that chosen means better, and I suppose that would be racist. The actual belief of the jews being chosen people, actually has to do with a belief that they were singled out for special blessings, being the lnd of Israel and that a messiah would come from them. The belief is not that being 'chosen' makes them better than others, just that they were chosen for certain gifts.
Again, I am not trying to say that Islam is inherently racist. Nor am I trying to get into a debate as to the positive or negative qualities of Islam. I am trying to show that demonizing Israel for an obviously wrong headed policy, done mistakenly in the belief it will enhance security, is biased if one doesn't consider that other groups, especially in the region also practice overt racism and discrimnation. To demonise only israel for it's policy seems to convieniently ignore others actions.
Originally posted by Sondjata
As usual you miss the point.
The state of Isreal exists because Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes. They are upset over this particular point. That the people in their property are jews may not help the matter but really does not matter. The point is really simple: If someone came into YOUR home and removed you from it and consigned you to the garage would you forgive that person and resign yourself to living in the garage. This is a simple yes or no question. Yes I would live in the garage. No I would not stay in the garage.
It is clear that the palestinians have decided that they will not stay in the garage. The solution is simple, though perhaps not comfortable. All land that belonged to the palestinians, including their property must be returned to the palestinians. this is called Justice. Without Justice there is no peace. If a thief is caught with your property, your property is returned to you and the thief is prosecuted for stealing your property if you choose to press charges.
Once the land and property is returned to the palestinians, they should then work on some kind of government that includes all people in that geographic region who wish to remain there. There would not be a Jewish state nor would thier be a Muslim or Palestinian state. there would be (fill in the blank) state.
This solution provides justice for the palestinians, and provides security and peaceful living for all living there.
Please be a little specific. When was their land stolen exactly? You seem to be referring to the entire state of Israel as being stolen land.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Please be a little specific. When was their land stolen exactly? You seem to be referring to the entire state of Israel as being stolen land.
yes sir. If you check he record, the current state of Israel was mde by removinbg palestinians from their homes. They were considering places in East Africa first but that was rejected.
stolen land. Unless of course you buy the "god given land" argument.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Perhaps bunge would like to bring up the number of Israeli's killed during the 'ceasefire'.
O.K.
Oh, sorry, this is Palestinians killed by Israelis during the ceasefire. I forgot that doesn't count.
Originally posted by Sondjata
yes sir. If you check he record, the current state of Israel was mde by removinbg palestinians from their homes. They were considering places in East Africa first but that was rejected.
stolen land. Unless of course you buy the "god given land" argument.
Stolen from whom? Palestinians? The Palesinians in the area were mainly arabs from various areas in the region who lived there at that time. Many observers during the last couple centuries note the desolation and lack of population in the area. Syria claimed the area as a part of greater syria. No other arab nation claimed it, certainly not a nation of Palestinians.
The region known as Palestine in recent history was owned by the Ottomans, then the British. British gave it to Jews to create Israel. Palestine had long Jewish settlements at the time, and Jewish settlements there have existed there for thousands of years. They never left totally.
If the creation of the state of Israel by the powers at the time constitutes theft, then so does the creation of Hashimite TransJordan, since they were not from that area.
Just because the Palestinians started claiming the land was stolen from them to create Israel, doesn't make it so.
The only land that has even a recoqnised status as 'stolen' land are the OT. And much of those were siezed during arab initiated conflicts, somewhat invalidating the claim that they were stolen...property lost by bullies who bit off more than they could chew. But yes, internationally, Israel's claim to the OT is illegal.
Originally posted by bunge
O.K.
Oh, sorry, this is Palestinians killed by Israelis during the ceasefire. I forgot that doesn't count.
Does the ceasefire say anything about Israel not arresting bombers? I mean, the story you linked to describes an attempted arrest at a known bomb factory, where the Hamas people started shooting first. An arrest where the terrorists killed a soldier and resulted in some of the terrorists being killed...hmmm.
Hamas seems to think this is a violation by Israel of the ceasefire. Of course, Hamas and Abbas et al also think that prisoner releases and the Wall and part of the road map, which the clearly aren't.
You are right...that story doesn't count for much..in an argument for or against Israel's actions, that one is pretty neutral.
My original question to you actually was a carryover from another thread. One where you claimed that Israel was the threat peace, and the roadmap in particular, because they couldn't restaint themselves. I asked about Israeli deaths, because it sure seems like Israel is restraining herself pretty well, in the face of pretty regular violations of the ceasefire by the palestinians.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Does the ceasefire say anything about Israel not arresting bombers? I mean, the story you linked to describes an attempted arrest at a known bomb factory, where the Hamas people started shooting first. An arrest where the terrorists killed a soldier and resulted in some of the terrorists being killed...hmmm.
....
They use the word 'suspected' a lot, but never known. And the Palestinians did fire first...after Israeli military and tanks approached the building. I guess that's somehow not in self-defence in your eyes.
This article is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
The wall you mention is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
Israel isn't restraining themselves very well if they're attacking Palestinians, as this article shows.
Originally posted by bunge
They use the word 'suspected' a lot, but never known. And the Palestinians did fire first...after Israeli military and tanks approached the building. I guess that's somehow not in self-defence in your eyes.
Killing during the comission of a crime is hardly self defense. Even Hamas didn't deny that's exactly what happened. And yeah, tanks could be deemed necessary in an arrest in such a hostile environment.
Originally posted by bunge
This article is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
Try to arrest bomb makers and terrorists is a threat to peace?
Originally posted by bunge
The wall you mention is a great example of why Israel is a threat to peace.
So long as the wall is in disputed territory, yes it is. As Israel has recently begun discussion to redraw the wall so that it is more in line with their legal territory, they are at least attempting to balance a valid security concern, ie human bombs walking into cities, and Palestinian concerns about territorial integrity.
Originally posted by bunge
Israel isn't restraining themselves very well if they're attacking Palestinians, as this article shows.
This wasn't a targetted assasination that Hamas and the rest wanted stopped, it was an attempted arrest. Surely, a nation has the right to arrest suspested terrorists...with enough strong evidence to support an arrest. The fact that targetted killings of terrorists have stopped, shows that you are wrong and that Israel is restraining herself. In fact, I think in the last thread you speficially said killings were the Israeli threat to peace. Well, they've stopped.
You forgot to list why the Palestinians are a threat to peace:
Conditional and temporary ceasefire which hasn't been held to very well.
Absolute refusal to take any steps in the Roadmap
Constant moving of the goalposts in terms of getting started on the Roadmap. (well, we'll discuss the road map if you also release prisoners...no, a few hundred won't do, releae all know murders and terrorists , then we'll talk road map, oh and that wall, we have to talk about that first too) The road map was agreed upon as a beginning to future dialogue and eventual peace. The Palestinians have thus far refused to enact any of their responsibilities, preferring instead to demand discussion of issues that were supposed to be discussed once the roadmap was started. That is a threat to peace.
Kidnapping of isreali civilians hasn't been helpful during the ceasefire..another threat to peace.
Both sides have actions that are detrimental to the peace process. But, at least israel is showing a interest is taking steps to settle thing through dialogue via the road map. The palestinian side has done nothing, nada, squat to try and get the road map moving. That is a the real threat to peace.
Originally posted by Tulkas
So long as the wall is in disputed territory, yes it is.
Well, surrounding an entire town of 40-50K Palestinians and having only one gate for all of the inhabitants to come and go is a threat to peace and is creating a ghetto. How ironic.
Originally posted by Tulkas
As Israel has recently begun discussion to redraw the wall so that it is more in line with their legal territory, they are at least attempting to balance a valid security concern, ie human bombs walking into cities, and Palestinian concerns about territorial integrity.
That's basically crap. Hot air. The wall is a huge issue and for valid reasons. I'm not sure, but I don't think any of it is in Israel proper.
Originally posted by Tulkas
This wasn't a targetted assasination that Hamas and the rest wanted stopped, it was an attempted arrest. Surely, a nation has the right to arrest suspested terrorists...with enough strong evidence to support an arrest.
Entering the West Bank isn't exactly a 'nation' arresting suspected terrorists. Any time Israel enters the O.T. they're a threat to peace.
Originally posted by Tulkas
The fact that targetted killings of terrorists have stopped, shows that you are wrong and that Israel is restraining herself. In fact, I think in the last thread you speficially said killings were the Israeli threat to peace. Well, they've stopped.
Well good that they've stopped. So have the suicide bombings. AMAZING!
Originally posted by Tulkas
Both sides have actions that are detrimental to the peace process.
Naturally.
Originally posted by bunge
Entering the West Bank isn't exactly a 'nation' arresting suspected terrorists. Any time Israel enters the O.T. they're a threat to peace.
So, run and hide in the OT and terrorist get a free ride?
Originally posted by bunge
Well good that they've stopped. So have the suicide bombings. AMAZING!
Obviously the groups haven't stopped preparations for more attacks, as this bomb factory so amply shows. I have read that Israel has arrested 115 terror suspest since the ceasefire, 10 of whom had bomb belts on, ready to find a target. Not exactly stopping.
Israel didn't want a 3 month ceasefire, but a long term cease fire. Palestinians refused, and Israel agreed to the short ceasefire as the only way to achieve even a little peace. Israel's biggest concern about the ceasefire was that it was only going to being used as a ploy by the terror groups, hurt by Israels success against them, to rebuilt and regroup. Seems that is exactly what is happening. Strange that they are demanding the release of known terrorists and murderers...almost like that are looking to fill their ranks again.
They may have curtailed their large scale bombings during the ceasefire, but a criminal group continuing to plan and organise attacks and construct materials for attacks has hardly truly committed to the cease fire. It's almost like they needed the ceasefire to rebuilt and so agreed to it..you think?
Originally posted by Tulkas
They may have curtailed their large scale bombings during the ceasefire, but a criminal group continuing to plan and organise attacks and construct materials for attacks has hardly truly committed to the cease fire. It's almost like they needed the ceasefire to rebuilt and so agreed to it..you think?
Of course. The problem is that Israel is shooting itself in the foot. Why is someone a 'terrorist' if they attack people occupying their land?
Sorry we got off topic everyone (anyone?.)
Originally posted by Tulkas
Stolen from whom? Palestinians? The Palesinians in the area were mainly arabs from various areas in the region who lived there at that time. Many observers during the last couple centuries note the desolation and lack of population in the area. Syria claimed the area as a part of greater syria. No other arab nation claimed it, certainly not a nation of Palestinians.
The region known as Palestine in recent history was owned by the Ottomans, then the British. British gave it to Jews to create Israel. Palestine had long Jewish settlements at the time, and Jewish settlements there have existed there for thousands of years. They never left totally.
If the creation of the state of Israel by the powers at the time constitutes theft, then so does the creation of Hashimite TransJordan, since they were not from that area.
Just because the Palestinians started claiming the land was stolen from them to create Israel, doesn't make it so.
The only land that has even a recoqnised status as 'stolen' land are the OT. And much of those were siezed during arab initiated conflicts, somewhat invalidating the claim that they were stolen...property lost by bullies who bit off more than they could chew. But yes, internationally, Israel's claim to the OT is illegal.
What part of being forcibly removed from ones home do you not understand?
And since when does "development" denote "ownership? There are plenty of places on earth that are "desolate" and are still "private property."
Originally posted by Sondjata
What part of being forcibly removed from ones home do you not understand?
And since when does "development" denote "ownership? There are plenty of places on earth that are "desolate" and are still "private property."
If you don't own the land, it can't be stolen from you. The desolation of the area was largely due to the very small population. Land ownership was almost feudal, and most of the private property was owned by a few landlords...(some palestinian landlords, lot's of lebanese). In many cases, these landlords did the removing of tenants in order to complete the sale of their land.
Again, just because you say Israel is stolen land, doesn't make it so. Repeating your lie over and over must get tiresome.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Again, just because you say Israel is stolen land, doesn't make it so.
Lie? Wasn't it you that said Israel took land from the Palestinians in '67? Even if you didn't, no one denies it. And that's stolen land. How is that a lie?
Originally posted by bunge
Lie? Wasn't it you that said Israel took land from the Palestinians in '67? Even if you didn't, no one denies it. And that's stolen land. How is that a lie?
He is not referring to land taken in '67...he is calling all of Israel stolen land.
Besides, who lost land in '67? Syria, Eygpt and Jordan certainly, since they claimed that land.
Originally posted by segovius
The part about the human rights abuses, racial discrimination and institutionalised violence and oppression then.......
Make up your mind. Just keep throwing shit out and maybe something you say will jive with reality.
Originally posted by Tulkas
He is not referring to land taken in '67...he is calling all of Israel stolen land.
OK. I go by the 1945 borders as being legit.