How do you feel about Israel?

[Swift]

You know thats right, especially seeing as your supposed to be a god fearing man.

LOL, ok. Show me in the bible where it says that there aren't supposed to be countries. Or even better, show me where it tells other nations to dissolve their borders. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about nations. The history of the hebrew nation is all through the bible. There is nothing wrong with having nations. It's when nations act stupidly against each other.

BTW, are YOU a God fearing man?

 

[Famine]

The world belongs to all people, not just a collective.

So who owns my house?

 

[KSaiyu]

Wrong way round.

The native Americans are analogous to the "Palestinians" - native peoples with no recognisable legal claim on the land prior to the formation of a new country from an effectively ungoverned region.

Americans are analogous to the "Israelites" - immigrant peoples who claim the country as their own.

Ahhhh, but that goes against all the documentries and things I've read that show people trying to prove to the world that Israel was the Hold Land of Jews before anyone else and they were forced to exile - that was their basis for justifying why they could "return" to the Land seeing as they had no State, therefore no sanctuary after WW2.

Now... imagine that Americans/Israelis had sailed over in 17-umpty-umpt/19-umpty-umpt, set up a new country with the permission of the territory's previous owners (England/England). In one situation - American - they killed every one of the natives they found. In the other - Israeli - they didn't and, instead, gave them 45% of all of the land, without any obligation to do so, and self-rule.

Which of the two "displaced" peoples should be pissed-off on an epic scale and want to slaughter the immigrants until there were none left? Which of the two "displaced" people isn't?

But what right should they have then to be granted permission from England to effectively invade Palestine, and do you believe that if England wasn't governing Palestine that the people of Palestine would have allowed them in?

 

[Famine]

Ahhhh, but that goes against all the documentries and things I've read that show people trying to prove to the world that Israel was the Hold Land of Jews before anyone else and they were forced to exile - that was their basis for justifying why they could "return" to the Land seeing as they had no State, therefore no sanctuary after WW2.

That's probably true. The analogy is that "x" were native peoples until "y" came along and made a country out of it. The question also remains unanswered - no "Palestinian" had land until the state of Israel was formed and they were given 45% of it, and no-one was killed in the process. No "native American" had land until the USA came along, then they had to buy it themselves like everyone else and LOTS of them were killed in the process.

So why are the "Palestinians" the ones blowing up children and the "native Americans" not?

But what right should they have then to be granted permission from England to effectively invade Palestine, and do you believe that if England wasn't governing Palestine that the people of Palestine would have allowed them in?

I don't understand. What is "Palestine"?

 

[ledhed]

That's probably true. The analogy is that "x" were native peoples until "y" came along and made a country out of it. The question also remains unanswered - no "Palestinian" had land until the state of Israel was formed and they were given 45% of it, and no-one was killed in the process. No "native American" had land until the USA came along, then they had to buy it themselves like everyone else and LOTS of them were killed in the process.

So why are the "Palestinians" the ones blowing up children and the "native Americans" not?

We gave them the rights to open caniso's so there all too rich to bother.
and at any rate we killed most of them as it is ...so they... not even being united... are seperate tribes all with a different history of being screwed or killed or both , and are scattered in small gtoups accross the country .

I don't understand. What is "Palestine"?

Palestine is the myth of the Palestinians...who actually are Arabs from syria and Jordan AND area's around israel . The land Israel occupies has always had hebrews living on it..well back more than 6000 years at least...along with Arabs of different flavors of religion and some left over crusaders .

Google away .

 

[Poverty]

LOL, ok. Show me in the bible where it says that there aren't supposed to be countries. Or even better, show me where it tells other nations to dissolve their borders. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about nations. The history of the hebrew nation is all through the bible. There is nothing wrong with having nations. It's when nations act stupidly against each other.

BTW, are YOU a God fearing man?

No im not, but I belive that I should be able to go where I want when I want without restrictions, and setup a home where I want, but its not like that. The world, and its resources belongs to everyone.

 

[KSaiyu]

That's probably true. The analogy is that "x" were native peoples until "y" came along and made a country out of it. The question also remains unanswered - no "Palestinian" had land until the state of Israel was formed and they were given 45% of it, and no-one was killed in the process. No "native American" had land until the USA came along, then they had to buy it themselves like everyone else and LOTS of them were killed in the process.

So why are the "Palestinians" the ones blowing up children and the "native Americans" not?

It could be argued that it's for the same reason Israel is bombing civilian as well as military targets at the present moment in Lebanon, except they aren't as villified as the suicide bombers of Palestine. I think maybe it's because Native Americans except their position in America today, whereas the majority of Palestinians would like a better deal (or Israel wiped off the map altogether).

Even if the land wasn't formally belonging to the Palestine people until Israel handed them over that disproportianate amount, they still had settled there for generations, and it's hard to argue to these people that all this time it wasn't really Palestine.

I don't understand. What is "Palestine"?

I guess if you asked a Palestinian "What is Israel" they would give you the same response as if you asked that question to a jewish settler (if that makes sense)

 

[Swift]

No im not, but I belive that I should be able to go where I want when I want without restrictions, and setup a home where I want, but its not like that. The world, and its resources belongs to everyone.

So you should be able to setup a home in my backyard?

 

[Poverty]

no, within reason my friend. We managed way back when, before the evils of religion

 

[Danoff]

no, within reason my friend. We managed way back when, before the evils of religion

So religion created countries? And my land belongs to you and everyone else? You're getting confusing dude.

 

[Famine]

Even if the land wasn't formally belonging to the Palestine people until Israel handed them over that disproportianate amount, they still had settled there for generations, and it's hard to argue to these people that all this time it wasn't really Palestine.

Just as it's hard to argue to Native Americans that their house is now a freeway, or to Aboriginals that their holy tree stump is now the site of a brothel.

But still, they, with no property rights, no recognised governing body and a history of being massacred by the now-ruling powers, don't react in the way that "Palestinians" in Israel do.

Perhaps Israel should kill them all and take their land back from them - as that seems to be the only difference between the peaceful native peoples and the aggressive ones.


(I'll brush aside the "civilian target" issue - I don't believe that Israel targets civilians, but they do target civilian facilities which are strategically important, like airports, bridges and power stations)

I guess if you asked a Palestinian "What is Israel" they would give you the same response as if you asked that question to a jewish settler (if that makes sense)

Except that "Palestine" never existed until Israel was created and Israelis gave the native peoples of the time their own, internationally recognised elected representative body.


Poverty - who owns my house and why?

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Except that "Palestine" never existed until Israel was created and Israelis gave the native peoples of the time their own, internationally recognised elected representative body.

Could you produce a pointer for this statement? ?

My fact; in 1919 the 1st National Congress of Palestine was convened & this convention expressed a dislike for a British parliamentary decision to assuage the nascent Zionist lobby of Lord Rothschild, known as the 'Balfour Declaration'.

Way before Israel existed & when the jewish population of this state was under 10%, Palestine had committed themselves to not making legal a manoevre by the British Government to cede their lands illegally to a group (Zionists), with no elected body but whose WZO (estd.1897) had recently flipped a coin that there homeland should be Argentina (1904, some transport problems) then Palestine (1906,when the state of palestine was still connected to the Ottoman empire)

Lebannon & Syria after WWI were French protectorates, Jordan & Iraq British ones but Palestine was an internationally recogized independant state until subsumed back under British influence. Its brevity as a state may be the confusion, but mostly your statement is in gross error;

1919 independant Palestine

1948 Israel, after much Jewish 'terrorism' against mostly british forces.

 

[Swift]

no, within reason my friend. We managed way back when, before the evils of religion

What Danoff said and...

People had issues over territory before recorded "religion". Also, what do the boundaries of say the USA have to do with religion?

 

[KSaiyu]

Just as it's hard to argue to Native Americans that their house is now a freeway, or to Aboriginals that their holy tree stump is now the site of a brothel.

But still, they, with no property rights, no recognised governing body and a history of being massacred by the now-ruling powers, don't react in the way that "Palestinians" in Israel do.

Perhaps Israel should kill them all and take their land back from them - as that seems to be the only difference between the peaceful native peoples and the aggressive ones.

All I can think of is that different people react in different ways, the Jewish-Islamic hostility is probably a big influence too.

(I'll brush aside the "civilian target" issue - I don't believe that Israel targets civilians, but they do target civilian facilities which are strategically important, like airports, bridges and power stations)

Well they can deny it all they want, but they must have some lousy aim to keep hitting all these civilians, and not just in this current stage of the war.

 

[Famine]

Could you produce a pointer for this statement? ?

My fact; in 1919 the 1st National Congress of Palestine was convened & this convention expressed a dislike for a British parliamentary decision to assuage the nascent Zionist lobby of Lord Rothschild, known as the 'Balfour Declaration'.

Way before Israel existed & when the jewish population of this state was under 10%, Palestine had committed themselves to not making legal a manoevre by the British Government to cede their lands illegally to a group (Zionists), with no elected body but whose WZO (estd.1897) had recently flipped a coin that there homeland should be Argentina (1904, some transport problems) then Palestine (1906,when the state of palestine was still connected to the Ottoman empire)

Lebannon & Syria after WWI were French protectorates, Jordan & Iraq British ones but Palestine was an internationally recogized independant state until subsumed back under British influence. Its brevity as a state may be the confusion, but mostly your statement is in gross error;

1919 independant Palestine

1948 Israel, after much Jewish 'terrorism' against mostly british forces.

I don't actually understand anything you said - as usual you appear to have raided a thesaurus but skipped syntax - but the territory - not state or country - referred to as Palestine was given to Britain to administer, by the League of Nations, following World War I. From 1920 until 1948, the region was known as "The British Mandate of Palestine" - along with a very large section of Jordan (called "Transjordan").

There has never been a country or state by the name of Palestine. It has been the name of administrative regions of various empires - Ottoman, Syrian, Byzantine, Roman, British - but has never existed as an independant state and has never had a voice at international level, until the Israelis gave them one.

So, as a summary, the region was named for the Philistine people who lived in the southern part of it, subsumed into Syria, conquered by the Romans, conquered by the Turks, conquered by the Syrians, conquered again by the Turks, taken by the British during WWI and ceded then to them by the League of Nations - until they gave control back to the United Nations in 1947. An independant Palestine, as you describe, has never existed.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

So, as a summary, the region was named for the Philistine people who lived in the southern part of it, subsumed into Syria, conquered by the Romans, conquered by the Turks, conquered by the Syrians, conquered again by the Turks, taken by the British during WWI and ceded then to them by the League of Nations - until they gave control back to the United Nations in 1947. An independant Palestine, as you describe, has never existed.

It did though, briefly, amidst the British occupation of the ottoman Levant in 1919 it was given an International Mandate of Independance (from the [SIZE=+1]Sykes-Picot Agreement [/SIZE]of 1916). The following year in 1920 was when the British were given a mandate to the territory (well they had the troops in the region) by the San Remo conference.
It was'nt until 1922 before any ratifaction of any jewish state whatsover was given and that by the League of Nations. This did not suit British foreign policy at the time & they continued to fight Zionist aggression in the form of guerilla warfare (which today would be viewed as terrorism).
This means that Israelis were fighting Britain throughout WWII until the UN resolution 181 effectively founded the jewish state in 1947, leaving the British to withdraw by 1948.

I don't actually understand anything you said - as usual you appear to have raided a thesaurus but skipped syntax

If you cannot understand then you cannot make a full reply. Is that clear?
Thesaurus or no please desist in your ad hominem attacks on my posting. No other forum i am a member of has ever decided my english was in contravention of hidden rules.

 

[Famine]

If you cannot understand then you cannot make a full reply. Is that clear?
Thesaurus or no please desist in your ad hominem attacks on my posting. No other forum i am a member of has ever decided my english was in contravention of hidden rules.

*yawn*

Substance >> style.

The gist of your post, once stripped of florid fol-de-rol, was that a country called "Palestine" once existed. It didn't.

It did though, briefly, amidst the British occupation of the ottoman Levant in 1919 it was given an International Mandate of Independance (from the [SIZE=+1]Sykes-Picot Agreement [/SIZE]of 1916).

No, it didn't.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a clandestine treaty between Britain and France with regards to who controlled what part of the Middle East. Under the agreement, Britain was allocated southern Iraq, France was allocated eastern Turkey. Between these parts and a then-imaginary line halfway - which now comprises the border of Syria and Iraq - the two parties had no direct control, rather "spheres of influence". "Palestine" - rather the Palestinian half of what came to be the British Mandate - was excluded from the Agreement, pending consultation with other Allied powers.

The Agreement further included Russia and Italy. Though the October Revolution put paid to the Russian claims to the region, Italy's administration of parts of the region was formally ratified in 1922.

Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed by Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control.

The British captured the region from the Turks in 1918. They controlled the region informally until 1920, when it was decided that they should administer it formally - though the exact boundaries were not defined until the second San Remo conference in 1922, coming into effect in 1923.

At NO point was Palestine given international recognition, self-rule, autonomy or mandate by any international body or agreement. The British and French agreed in 1916 that they'd let everyone else decide once the Turks were expelled, which occurred in 1918 and everyone else decided in 1922 to give it to the British.



And I'd still like to know who owns my house.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

*yawn*

...

No, it didn't.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a clandestine treaty between Britain and France with regards to who controlled what part of the Middle East. Under the agreement, Britain was allocated southern Iraq, France was allocated eastern Turkey. Between these parts and a then-imaginary line halfway - which now comprises the border of Syria and Iraq - the two parties had no direct control, rather "spheres of influence". "Palestine" - rather the Palestinian half of what came to be the British Mandate - was excluded from the Agreement, pending consultation with other Allied powers.

...

At NO point was Palestine given international recognition, self-rule, autonomy or mandate by any international body or agreement. The British and French agreed in 1916 that they'd let everyone else decide once the Turks were expelled, which occurred in 1918 and everyone else decided in 1922 to give it to the British.

Yes, Palestine was excluded from a direct Mandate, but the Palestinians convened a National Congress, the Second of which the British negated ( in 1920), this was an Authority of a region, by even your admission Unadministrated by an Imperial Power. To say the British controled the entire region at that time is'nt entirely clear, they had Forces there & the First San Remo allowed some of these forces to become the power to administrate what was termed Palestine.

This Congress, before British administration, in 1919 communicated w/ the Paris Peace Conference which ratified the region's move away from the Ottoman Empire. Thusly, a National administrating body, w/ International registration, if not recognition ( in the communication to Paris they asserted their right to Independance ) did exist and most day to day activities of 1919 were under no mandate except this conference . A Palestinian state. Not given by Israel, as you have intimated, because Israel did not exist for 29 years !

 

[Famine]

Yes, Palestine was excluded from a direct Mandate, but the Palestinians convened a National Congress

in the communication to Paris they asserted their right to Independance

Bing!

No international mandate was given which allowed Palestinian self-rule. The region - and I should add that until the British started referring to the area in the British Mandate west of the Jordan as "Palestine", there wasn't even a geographical region of Palestine - never had international recognition as an independant state or country.


If I wrote to Tony Blair asserting my right to independance, would I be an independant state?

 

[Jedi2016]

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that Isreal is indeed a peaceful nation... so long as they're left alone.

Their actions against Gaza and Lebanon are in direct retaliation.. Isreal did not throw the first punch. These people are just too stupid to realize who it is they're dealing with.

The Jewish people have been through a lot of crap over the last few millenia. Now they've got their country back (and yes, it's theirs.. God Himself gave it to them), and yet people keep trying to mess with them, keep trying to kill them. The Palestinians and the Arab world in general wants nothing more or less than to wipe the Isrealites off the face of the Earth. But they seem ignorant to the fact that Isreal has grown incredibly powerful of late. And unlike the U.S., they're not afraid to use that power when threatened. They will strike back, and they will strike back hard. And they will win.

Isreal cannot be defeated in open war. They are incredibly powerful, far more powerful than their enemies give them credit for. But, they're content in their own land, so long as they're left alone. Which no one seems willing to do. That's why they're always fighting people.. not because they're a warlike nation, but because people keep ****ing with them.

Imagine them as the little kid that used to get picked on in the playground. The teacher said he could have his very own swing, but the bullies wouldn't let him use it. Finally, the kid got his swing. Then he got an Uzi and a bazooka. He's happy to sit and swing all day long, but the bullies keep trying to get him off his swing. Then they act surprised when the kid fights back.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Bing!

No international mandate was given which allowed Palestinian self-rule. The region - and I should add that until the British started referring to the area in the British Mandate west of the Jordan as "Palestine", there wasn't even a geographical region of Palestine - never had international recognition as an independant state or country.


If I wrote to Tony Blair asserting my right to independance, would I be an independant state?

Fair enough, some persons felt the need to call themselves a state but not until an imperial power uses that exact name does it become anything with borders.

I folderol'd another point though; that this influx of jewish settlers into what London termed Palestine throughout the 20s 30s 40s of the 20th century was meeting resistance from not only the house-owners (an erstwhile native people) but also, heavily, from the administration. Up to 1948 British garrisons were getting bombed by Zionists who, w/ international funding (& only partial international ratification) were buying Property. How many purely British Land transactions were occuring in these decades? No-one who wanted to be British would confuse what it means to want to be Israeli. Interests conflicted bloodily, but the British administration would not consider it 'home' whereas the Israelis considered it a promised 'home' & the Arabs defaulted at it being too hard on the feet to move far from 'home'.

That's TWO home-prospecting demographics & ONE administration representing neither & conflicting w/ only one of the other parties. Complex, unusual, but thats the gestation of Israel.

 

[ledhed]

I am in the independent state of toast . have a nice evening .

 

[a6m5]

I myself hope Israel lose. And people wonder why the countries who arent allies with the US etc want to make nukes.

That will never happen. Israel is arguably the most important ally to the U.S. And to those who talks about how tough Israelis are in the region, it is all because of the help from Americans. If Israelis were on their own, that country wouldn't be here today. Bottomline: Fighting Israel is fighting the U.S.

On the nukes: We don't wonder about countries like Iran's intention with the nukes. It is very clear what they intend with a technology like that. Whether they fire it or not, they will use it.

I'm not native American and I'm not OK with it.

No kidding. I still think the "Thanksgiving" is just sick and cruel. I just read up on that a little bit, I guess American Indian population at one time went down to 200,000 -250,000. Oh, by the way, we will have a holiday in the honor of the friendship and help your people gave us. Thanks a lot!

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that Isreal is indeed a peaceful nation... so long as they're left alone.

Their actions against Gaza and Lebanon are in direct retaliation.. Isreal did not throw the first punch. These people are just too stupid to realize who it is they're dealing with.

I'll go with this. While Israel will blow up the terrorist, his wife, kids, dog and all the neighbors, their priority is that terrorist. Terrorists on the other hand, they will target the civilians. Which is unforgivable.

 

[KSaiyu]

The Jewish people have been through a lot of crap over the last few millenia. Now they've got their country back (and yes, it's theirs.. God Himself gave it to them), and yet people keep trying to mess with them, keep trying to kill them.

Interesting, I guess Native Americans believe that God gave them their Country and it's about time they get it back.

The Palestinians and the Arab world in general wants nothing more or less than to wipe the Isrealites off the face of the Earth. But they seem ignorant to the fact that Isreal has grown incredibly powerful of late. And unlike the U.S., they're not afraid to use that power when threatened. They will strike back, and they will strike back hard. And they will win.

Which is exactly why Palestinians voted for a military governmernt, except they want to strike back at the Israelis and think THEY will win.

Isreal cannot be defeated in open war. They are incredibly powerful, far more powerful than their enemies give them credit for. But, they're content in their own land, so long as they're left alone. Which no one seems willing to do. That's why they're always fighting people.. not because they're a warlike nation, but because people keep ****ing with them.

Without America they'd be nothing, and there are ways in which they could be defeated in open war.

 

[a6m5]

Without America they'd be nothing, and there are ways in which they could be defeated in open war.

I wouldn't say "nothing". They'd probably still have average to above average military capabilities in the Middle East, even without the U.S. connection.

But Israel has the U.S. support, and as long as that alliance is there, I don't believe Israel can be defeated even if rest of the Middle East got together.

 

[Jedi2016]

Interesting, I guess Native Americans believe that God gave them their Country and it's about time they get it back.

Hmm.. lemme check. Nope, nothing in the Bible about Native Americans, sorry.

Which is exactly why Palestinians voted for a military governmernt, except they want to strike back at the Israelis and think THEY will win.

Yeah, that's worked out quite well for them so far.

Without America they'd be nothing, and there are ways in which they could be defeated in open war.

Where they got it is irrelevant. They have it.

As for them being defated.. Even if the entire Arab world united in an effort to take Isreal, all Isreal would have to do is ask for help, assuming it was even needed. It's one thing for the UN to step in where it's not wanted.. controversy and all that. It's quite different if a nation actually asks the UN for help. There would be a military force there in no time at all that could repel any incoming invasion. Nothing short of a nuclear attack would do it. And that's not going to happen, for several reasons. First, the missle would probably never reach it's destination. Second, whoever launched it would be subsequently destroyed themselves, probably by the Isreali counterattack, if not by their allies. You ARE aware that Isreal is a nuclear power, yes? And thirdly, the Arabs also consider Jerusalem to be a holy city.. they wouldn't destroy it any sooner than they'd destroy Mecca. Damage it, yes, that's already been done.. but destroy it? I don't think so.

Bear in mind that my belief about Isreal's abilities aren't soley based on military knowledge. They're also religious. These are God's people, in God's land, put there by God Himself, and given what they need to defend themselves and keep it. That's the main reason that I believe they would win against any aggressor. God truly is on their side.

 

[ledhed]

Hmm.. lemme check. Nope, nothing in the Bible about Native Americans, sorry.



Yeah, that's worked out quite well for them so far.



Where they got it is irrelevant. They have it.

As for them being defated.. Even if the entire Arab world united in an effort to take Isreal, all Isreal would have to do is ask for help, assuming it was even needed. It's one thing for the UN to step in where it's not wanted.. controversy and all that. It's quite different if a nation actually asks the UN for help. There would be a military force there in no time at all that could repel any incoming invasion. Nothing short of a nuclear attack would do it. And that's not going to happen, for several reasons. First, the missle would probably never reach it's destination. Second, whoever launched it would be subsequently destroyed themselves, probably by the Isreali counterattack, if not by their allies. You ARE aware that Isreal is a nuclear power, yes? And thirdly, the Arabs also consider Jerusalem to be a holy city.. they wouldn't destroy it any sooner than they'd destroy Mecca. Damage it, yes, that's already been done.. but destroy it? I don't think so.

Bear in mind that my belief about Isreal's abilities aren't soley based on military knowledge. They're also religious. These are God's people, in God's land, put there by God Himself, and given what they need to defend themselves and keep it. That's the main reason that I believe they would win against any aggressor. God truly is on their side.

how many divisions does God have ? do they come with tanks and artillery ?

 

[Fonce Diablo]

The whole region is beginning to piss me off.

Dear Middle East:

Stop fighting over dirt and start taking care of your children.

Signed, Logic.

 

[dbartucci]

how many divisions does God have ? do they come with tanks and artillery ?

They come with pestilence, famine and disease.

 

[Famine]

No way, man - I'm a consciencious objector.