Groverat, the land area was probably fine. In fact, the partitioning was designed to appease the Palestinians who had already settled in the area...that's why the border lines actually created so many segments.
Still, Israel didn't strike first. For all we know, they were ready to take what they got, but when they were attacked they used it as an excuse to take the land.
[quote]C'mon, none of this conflict is new. Everyone knows Arabs hated Jews for centuries. Why does everyone have to pretend that they don't.<hr></blockquote>
Incorrect. Jews peacefully lived with Mohammedans for centuries. Indeed, they were often expelled from Christian europe into Moorish/Arab countries
<strong>Slingshots? Oh no! I'm sure the IDF lives in fear while sitting in American-made armor tanks of slingshots and rocks.
And the Palestinians are absolute morons for throwing/sling-shotting rocks at people with automatic weapons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some just don't get it. I think it is sickening that the Palestinians have indoctrinated their children with their rhetoric to the point that now the children want to join the bomber-belt freaks.
The Saudi's are fostering this by sending these simple weapons as a message. That message being, "Little ones, you're not old enough, stay with your younger brothers on the "front lines" and use our "gifts" to disrupt the IDF!" The children think that they'll die and receive the blessing of Allah and also 72 virgins (ironic, they are all virgins themselves) Of course the whole idea is an idiotic and sickening religious joke.
The Saudis have been funding terrorist camps in Lebanon for years. The same ones who join the groups spread out not only in the Middle East, but in Europe, Africa, Asia, Philippines and everywhere else where there is a Saudi funded terrorist camp cloaked as an "Islamic Teaching Center".
Here's and idea. Let the Saudi's, Suddam Hussein, Libya and all the others keep funding the Palestinians. Pretty soon they will blow up all their young women and children...problem solved...
<Artman puts blinders on...gets on with own life...>
[quote] Still, Israel didn't strike first. For all we know, they were ready to take what they got, but when they were attacked they used it as an excuse to take the land. <hr></blockquote>
C'mon Eugene, you just have to read the statements of the isreali leaders at the time to see that they were far from happy, They actually felt betrayed by the british when the didn't get all the land. Their ultimate goal (in the beginning) was to have parts of egypt, jordan, syria and lebanon as well. (It still is for some extreem zionists). At the present the goals of "expansionistic zionist" (but not offical israeli policy), is to control all of the palestinian territories (all of the west bank and gaza). It is worth mentioning that the Likud has abandoned the idea of "greater israel" and that only a small precentage on the "far-right" among israeli political parties are opposed to giving any land to the palestinians...
Imagine how a palstinian feels about seeing maps like this all the time?
I keep hearing this term, Zionistic. Are the jews plotting to take over the world? Oh no! heaven help us all. Seriously what does 'zionist' really mean and why shouldn't i think anyone that uses the term 'zionist' is nothing but an anti-semite just as anyone that uses the term 'towel-head' is an anti-arab?
Zionism is (as an idea) not negative in itself. It is a movement to unite the jewish people and astablish them in a common "homeland".
The movement's name is comes from Zion, the hill on which the Temple of Jerusalem was located. Zionism was first applied to this movement in 1890 by the Jewish philosopher Birnbaum.
you can look it up in any encyclopedia.
What has been done is history, but what you have to ask yourself is how the zionist ideas are consistent with the task of running a modern democratic country today, (with large ethnic minorities)?
C'mon Eugene, you just have to read the statements of the isreali leaders at the time to see that they were far from happy, They actually felt betrayed by the british when the didn't get all the land. Their ultimate goal (in the beginning) was to have parts of egypt, jordan, syria and lebanon as well. (It still is for some extreem zionists). At the present the goals of "expansionistic zionist" (but not offical israeli policy), is to control all of the palestinian territories (all of the west bank and gaza). It is worth mentioning that the Likud has abandoned the idea of "greater israel" and that only a small precentage on the "far-right" among israeli political parties are opposed to giving any land to the palestinians...
Imagine how a palstinian feels about seeing maps like this all the time?
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: New ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you can find quotes from the time period, feel free to link them. The one fact remains: Israel did not strike first (in 20th Century.)
And as you say, only extreme Zionists want all the land...so do extreme Palestinians.
1982 isn't even a question, but if you have doubts about 1967, here's a good source:
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982)
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936
<strong>Israel has struk first, in 1967 and 1982...</strong><hr></blockquote>About 1967:
1. Egypt had blockaded Israel, which is considered an act of war.
2. they had been putting troops on the border and making daily statements to the effect of "we will destroy Israel completely," "we will correct the error that is Israel," blah blah.
3. Jordan did attack Israel first, which led to the taking of the West Bank.
4. Syria also had been shelling Israel first, from the Golan heights, which Israel then also took.
5. The Arab countries had sent dozens of terrorists to attack Israel in the previous year or two before the six day war.
Let me ask you New - would you say that Israel "attacked first" in this past month's military action of Israel into the West Bank?
No matter how much you disagree with Israeli military action in the West Bank (and I happen to think that Ariel Sharon is the biggest idiot in Israeli history), it cannot be used to justify Palestinian terrorism. Walking into a Bat Mitzvah reception and blowing yourself up is not justifiable under any circumstances. In my opinion, both sides are equally to blame for the current re-ignition of the Intifadeh. Palestinian suicide bombers are at fault for obvious reasons, and the Orthodox (or should we call them fundamentalist) Jews, who don't pay taxes and don't participate in the army, keep calling on Israel to annihilate the Palestinians and expand the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. While the Orthodox Jews only comprise <20% of the population, they have an inordinate influence in Israeli affairs to the nature of the Israeli electoral system.
So, what are possible solutions? First, a retooling of the Israeli electoral system, away from a proportional system like that which plagued the French 4th republic toward a British/American system of regional elections would minimize the overstated power of the religious extremists in Israel. Recent polls show that upwards of 80% of Israelis, while supporting military action, still support land-for-peace! However, the domination of the religious orthodoxy in the current system prevents any reasonable solution.
Additionally, Arafat must make statements (in Arabic!) condemning violence. I'm of the opinion that Arafat really no longer has any control over Hamas or Islamic Jihad, but until he openly criticizes them, we can't be certain of his true intentions.
This is not a situation that is as simple as weighing the impact American dollars versus Saudi telethons. The Arab states who may actually be supporting the Palestinians are actually the biggest hypocrites. As mentioned by an earlier forum poster, the Palestinians were hung out to dry by the Syrians and Egyptians in 1948 and then massacred by the Jordanians in the 1970s. They have no right to criticize Israeli action. That's my $5.02 .
<strong>So that war went on for 19 years? interesting...
I guess that's why it's still justifiable for them to be settling territory that's not there, since the war is apparently 54 years old now.
"We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia."
Israel is violent and aggressive. They are even settling territory that's not theirs!
It takes a blind/deaf/mentally retarded man to conclude that either side is "right".</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? The point is that they hadn't settled in land that wasn't designated theirs by the UN...until they were attacked...until the Palestinians decided to encroach on Israeli territory. It's common for the winning side to conquer the losing side in war, isn't it? Even if they didn't start it.
And I didn't claim either side was right. Both sides are culpable, but is it possible one side is more guilty than the other?
You hear about one side leveling cities, scouring it for rebels. You hear about the other side stoning children until they are dead and their faces are unrecognizable.
[quote]The point is that they hadn't settled in land that wasn't designated theirs by the UN...until they were attacked...until the Palestinians decided to encroach on Israeli territory. It's common for the winning side to conquer the losing side in war, isn't it? Even if they didn't start it.<hr></blockquote>
1) Not common.
2) Against international law.
You don't settle territory that isn't yours. You can't acquire territory through force. Thems the rules, rules the Israelis have ignored for decades.
[quote]Both sides are culpable, but is it possible one side is more guilty than the other?<hr></blockquote>
It's possible, but not in this case.
[quote]You hear about one side leveling cities, scouring it for rebels. You hear about the other side stoning children until they are dead and their faces are unrecognizable.<hr></blockquote>
Both sides are monstrous. Levelling the cities involves killing women and children. Terrorist attacks involve killing women and children.
Honestly, does organized mass-murder hold any moral weight over disorganized mass-murder?
You don't settle territory that isn't yours. You can't acquire territory through force. Thems the rules, rules the Israelis have ignored for decades.
<hr></blockquote>
Hate to get theoretical on you, but this is my field of study. There really is no international law. Sure, there are treaties, etc, but for it to truly be a rule, there must be enforcement, and there isn't any. The chief rule in the game of international relations is that you do anything that you can do to survive. Israelis felt threatened by neighbors, they took land to ensure survival. Simple as that. Man, Waltz would be proud of me now...
Conquest is very common, especially when you don't feel guilty because you didn't start the tussle. The US occupied Japan after WWII. We still occupy Okinawa. Had we won in Vietnam and Korea, we'd occupy them too.
[quote]Both sides are monstrous. Levelling the cities involves killing women and children. Terrorist attacks involve killing women and children.
Honestly, does organized mass-murder hold any moral weight over disorganized mass-murder?<hr></blockquote>
As in Somalia, many of these people offer themselves as human shields. how do you kill a rebel who is shooting you with his AK-47 between the legs of an 'innocent' woman?
And I would prefer death from mortar fire or a bomb blast to death from being stoned to unrecognizable and beaten into pulp.
And I'm really sorry to have to point things out to you in your own area of expertise, but I'd take a careful look at <a href="http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1981/497e.pdf"; target="_blank">UN Security Council Resolution 497</a> and rethink.
Especially this little tidbit:
Reaffirming that the acquistion of territory by force is inadmissable in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.
There is more to it, of course, it even mentions the fact that the U.S. is partner to Israel's breaking international law. But perhaps having a superpower on your side is justification enough, eh?
------------
Eugene:
[quote]We still occupy Okinawa.<hr></blockquote>
I was completely unaware that we had American citizens living in Okinawa with only American citizenship, that the people in Okinawa are governed by American law and that all of this was enforced by a violent military force.
You learn something new every day, eh?
[quote]As in Somalia, many of these people offer themselves as human shields. how do you kill a rebel who is shooting you with his AK-47 between the legs of an 'innocent' woman?<hr></blockquote>
Well she isn't really innocent if she's offering herself as a human shield. However, this is quite an idiotic response to my post when I explicitly mentionted the use of heavy artillery to destroy populated areas. Or in your mind does the same principle apply?
[quote]And I would prefer death from mortar fire or a bomb blast to death from being stoned to unrecognizable and beaten into pulp.<hr></blockquote>
So it's your contention that Israel is justified because it has more humane killing tactics? Or even past that, that stoning is the general way Palestinians kill people?
If you want to trade stories of horrible deaths at the hands of either side then we could trade all day long. I'm sorry if your story doesn't sway me when discussing a situation that has thousands of horrible stories from both sides.
Comments
You're all invited.
Still, Israel didn't strike first. For all we know, they were ready to take what they got, but when they were attacked they used it as an excuse to take the land.
Incorrect. Jews peacefully lived with Mohammedans for centuries. Indeed, they were often expelled from Christian europe into Moorish/Arab countries
<strong>Slingshots? Oh no! I'm sure the IDF lives in fear while sitting in American-made armor tanks of slingshots and rocks.
And the Palestinians are absolute morons for throwing/sling-shotting rocks at people with automatic weapons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some just don't get it. I think it is sickening that the Palestinians have indoctrinated their children with their rhetoric to the point that now the children want to join the bomber-belt freaks.
The Saudi's are fostering this by sending these simple weapons as a message. That message being, "Little ones, you're not old enough, stay with your younger brothers on the "front lines" and use our "gifts" to disrupt the IDF!" The children think that they'll die and receive the blessing of Allah and also 72 virgins (ironic, they are all virgins themselves) Of course the whole idea is an idiotic and sickening religious joke.
The Saudis have been funding terrorist camps in Lebanon for years. The same ones who join the groups spread out not only in the Middle East, but in Europe, Africa, Asia, Philippines and everywhere else where there is a Saudi funded terrorist camp cloaked as an "Islamic Teaching Center".
Here's and idea. Let the Saudi's, Suddam Hussein, Libya and all the others keep funding the Palestinians. Pretty soon they will blow up all their young women and children...problem solved...
<Artman puts blinders on...gets on with own life...>
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</p>
C'mon Eugene, you just have to read the statements of the isreali leaders at the time to see that they were far from happy, They actually felt betrayed by the british when the didn't get all the land. Their ultimate goal (in the beginning) was to have parts of egypt, jordan, syria and lebanon as well. (It still is for some extreem zionists). At the present the goals of "expansionistic zionist" (but not offical israeli policy), is to control all of the palestinian territories (all of the west bank and gaza). It is worth mentioning that the Likud has abandoned the idea of "greater israel" and that only a small precentage on the "far-right" among israeli political parties are opposed to giving any land to the palestinians...
Imagine how a palstinian feels about seeing maps like this all the time?
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
The movement's name is comes from Zion, the hill on which the Temple of Jerusalem was located. Zionism was first applied to this movement in 1890 by the Jewish philosopher Birnbaum.
you can look it up in any encyclopedia.
What has been done is history, but what you have to ask yourself is how the zionist ideas are consistent with the task of running a modern democratic country today, (with large ethnic minorities)?
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
C'mon Eugene, you just have to read the statements of the isreali leaders at the time to see that they were far from happy, They actually felt betrayed by the british when the didn't get all the land. Their ultimate goal (in the beginning) was to have parts of egypt, jordan, syria and lebanon as well. (It still is for some extreem zionists). At the present the goals of "expansionistic zionist" (but not offical israeli policy), is to control all of the palestinian territories (all of the west bank and gaza). It is worth mentioning that the Likud has abandoned the idea of "greater israel" and that only a small precentage on the "far-right" among israeli political parties are opposed to giving any land to the palestinians...
Imagine how a palstinian feels about seeing maps like this all the time?
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: New ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you can find quotes from the time period, feel free to link them. The one fact remains: Israel did not strike first (in 20th Century.)
And as you say, only extreme Zionists want all the land...so do extreme Palestinians.
1982 isn't even a question, but if you have doubts about 1967, here's a good source:
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982)
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936
<strong>Israel has struk first, in 1967 and 1982...</strong><hr></blockquote>About 1967:
1. Egypt had blockaded Israel, which is considered an act of war.
2. they had been putting troops on the border and making daily statements to the effect of "we will destroy Israel completely," "we will correct the error that is Israel," blah blah.
3. Jordan did attack Israel first, which led to the taking of the West Bank.
4. Syria also had been shelling Israel first, from the Golan heights, which Israel then also took.
5. The Arab countries had sent dozens of terrorists to attack Israel in the previous year or two before the six day war.
Let me ask you New - would you say that Israel "attacked first" in this past month's military action of Israel into the West Bank?
I guess that's why it's still justifiable for them to be settling territory that's not there, since the war is apparently 54 years old now.
"We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia."
Israel is violent and aggressive. They are even settling territory that's not theirs!
It takes a blind/deaf/mentally retarded man to conclude that either side is "right".
So, what are possible solutions? First, a retooling of the Israeli electoral system, away from a proportional system like that which plagued the French 4th republic toward a British/American system of regional elections would minimize the overstated power of the religious extremists in Israel. Recent polls show that upwards of 80% of Israelis, while supporting military action, still support land-for-peace! However, the domination of the religious orthodoxy in the current system prevents any reasonable solution.
Additionally, Arafat must make statements (in Arabic!) condemning violence. I'm of the opinion that Arafat really no longer has any control over Hamas or Islamic Jihad, but until he openly criticizes them, we can't be certain of his true intentions.
This is not a situation that is as simple as weighing the impact American dollars versus Saudi telethons. The Arab states who may actually be supporting the Palestinians are actually the biggest hypocrites. As mentioned by an earlier forum poster, the Palestinians were hung out to dry by the Syrians and Egyptians in 1948 and then massacred by the Jordanians in the 1970s. They have no right to criticize Israeli action. That's my $5.02 .
<strong>So that war went on for 19 years? interesting...
I guess that's why it's still justifiable for them to be settling territory that's not there, since the war is apparently 54 years old now.
"We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia."
Israel is violent and aggressive. They are even settling territory that's not theirs!
It takes a blind/deaf/mentally retarded man to conclude that either side is "right".</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? The point is that they hadn't settled in land that wasn't designated theirs by the UN...until they were attacked...until the Palestinians decided to encroach on Israeli territory. It's common for the winning side to conquer the losing side in war, isn't it? Even if they didn't start it.
And I didn't claim either side was right. Both sides are culpable, but is it possible one side is more guilty than the other?
You hear about one side leveling cities, scouring it for rebels. You hear about the other side stoning children until they are dead and their faces are unrecognizable.
1) Not common.
2) Against international law.
You don't settle territory that isn't yours. You can't acquire territory through force. Thems the rules, rules the Israelis have ignored for decades.
[quote]Both sides are culpable, but is it possible one side is more guilty than the other?<hr></blockquote>
It's possible, but not in this case.
[quote]You hear about one side leveling cities, scouring it for rebels. You hear about the other side stoning children until they are dead and their faces are unrecognizable.<hr></blockquote>
Both sides are monstrous. Levelling the cities involves killing women and children. Terrorist attacks involve killing women and children.
Honestly, does organized mass-murder hold any moral weight over disorganized mass-murder?
1) Not common.
2) Against international law.
You don't settle territory that isn't yours. You can't acquire territory through force. Thems the rules, rules the Israelis have ignored for decades.
<hr></blockquote>
Hate to get theoretical on you, but this is my field of study. There really is no international law. Sure, there are treaties, etc, but for it to truly be a rule, there must be enforcement, and there isn't any. The chief rule in the game of international relations is that you do anything that you can do to survive. Israelis felt threatened by neighbors, they took land to ensure survival. Simple as that. Man, Waltz would be proud of me now...
[quote]Both sides are monstrous. Levelling the cities involves killing women and children. Terrorist attacks involve killing women and children.
Honestly, does organized mass-murder hold any moral weight over disorganized mass-murder?<hr></blockquote>
As in Somalia, many of these people offer themselves as human shields. how do you kill a rebel who is shooting you with his AK-47 between the legs of an 'innocent' woman?
And I would prefer death from mortar fire or a bomb blast to death from being stoned to unrecognizable and beaten into pulp.
And I'm really sorry to have to point things out to you in your own area of expertise, but I'd take a careful look at <a href="http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1981/497e.pdf"; target="_blank">UN Security Council Resolution 497</a> and rethink.
Especially this little tidbit:
Reaffirming that the acquistion of territory by force is inadmissable in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.
There is more to it, of course, it even mentions the fact that the U.S. is partner to Israel's breaking international law. But perhaps having a superpower on your side is justification enough, eh?
------------
Eugene:
[quote]We still occupy Okinawa.<hr></blockquote>
I was completely unaware that we had American citizens living in Okinawa with only American citizenship, that the people in Okinawa are governed by American law and that all of this was enforced by a violent military force.
You learn something new every day, eh?
[quote]As in Somalia, many of these people offer themselves as human shields. how do you kill a rebel who is shooting you with his AK-47 between the legs of an 'innocent' woman?<hr></blockquote>
Well she isn't really innocent if she's offering herself as a human shield. However, this is quite an idiotic response to my post when I explicitly mentionted the use of heavy artillery to destroy populated areas. Or in your mind does the same principle apply?
[quote]And I would prefer death from mortar fire or a bomb blast to death from being stoned to unrecognizable and beaten into pulp.<hr></blockquote>
So it's your contention that Israel is justified because it has more humane killing tactics? Or even past that, that stoning is the general way Palestinians kill people?
If you want to trade stories of horrible deaths at the hands of either side then we could trade all day long. I'm sorry if your story doesn't sway me when discussing a situation that has thousands of horrible stories from both sides.