So why do people hate Israel?

[Yossarian]

I'm neutral about the US Sports results, and if you care to look, you won't find a single comment there from me. So let's be honest for a start. You are obviously not truly neutral, otherwise you wouldn't be here on this thread. If you were neutral you just wouldn't care, which I find stupid, as thousands of your US servicemen are being killed in wars that have arisen from the US political decision to support Israel. If you are not willing to do some honest research and find why these things are happening, you may as well go back to bed, and the last place you should be is making statements in a thread like this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's put it really simply then.

I think that I'd like to live in your house and steal all of your land and possessions because my great great grandfather said it was promised to him by god. So I move in, using a combination of threats and intimidation, I paint the house which I say was run down, then I invite all of my relatives and friends to take whatever they want, turning a blind eye to the fact that they are now following you wherever you settle down and stealing that land too. In the mean time I generally treat you like an animal, regularly beating harassing and murdering any of your relatives and their families, especially those who try to interfere on your behalf.

After 60+ years of this stupidity, you or your descendants take me to court. I lose the case and I'm ordered that everything that was once yours must be returned to you.

Would I hear you asking the judge, "but what about poor old Spike and his relatives, they won't have anywhere to live"?

Hence the American Expansion onto Native American Lands...

My reason for posting in this thread and for several others similiar to this one is not hard to understand, It peaks my attention because before I choose make any agurement and transced from the typical careless American citizen upon this subject, I want to make sure I support the side that rest the best with my moral convinctions.

Reading the arguements here and getting points of evidence to research is why interact with these threads.

Doing so before blindly pointing to one banner without really thinking as of why you choose that particular one is not so insane is it?

As for your responce, I appreciate the constructive material of it's contents, I will surely use this to get a better grasp on the situation there before overly sharing any opinion on this matter,

As for the dialouge of this thread and the others like it, I will surely keep reading,

Regards,

Yo

 

[RayManKiller3]

Let's put it really simply then.

I think that I'd like to live in your house and steal all of your land and possessions because my great great grandfather said it was promised to him by god. So I move in and paint the house which I say was run down, then I invite all of my relatives and friends to move in and take whatever they want, while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are now following you wherever you settle down and stealing that land too. In the mean time I generally treat you like an animal, regularly beating harassing and murdering any of your relatives and their families, especially those who try to interfere on your behalf.

After 60+ years of this stupidity, you or your descendants take me to court. I lose the case and I'm ordered that everything that was once yours must be returned to you.

Would I hear you asking the judge, "but what about poor old Spike and his relatives, they won't have anywhere to live"?

Oversimplified; that is a terrible example. You just demonized one side and made the other seem like complete victims. Do you realize how many countries were for Israel's creation (besides Arab countries)? It was not just U.S that kept Israel alive, though I admit it is one of the main ones.

If you kill in revenge then you are no longer the victim, you are a murderer. I don't care who is making "gains", it is not what influence my decision about Palestine. The Palestinian fight is being lost simply because they choose violence (which they can't win) over peaceful measures. If they never fought with guns they could have won with words, as Israel would be seen as the aggressor.

I do believe Palestine should be given their 1967 borders, but remember, they turned down the chance when they had it (even more land than 1967).

I believe this conflict started over religion rather than actual land like many of you seem to believe.... I think that land was just a disguise, because each time I hear these Arabs, they talk about "Allah" wanting it.

 

[VDKMS]

Just for a minute put your self in the Palestinian camp and ask your self what you would do if you were them.
A group of people are awarded people are awarded by the UN a chunk of your country that has been yours for nearly two thousand years. Now this does not go down well with the people that had been living there for years so there is an uprising and with the help of a powerful friend this is put down and several million of the original people are now pushed off this ground and made stateless with out any compensation. Now there are several other conflicts over this territory by adjoining countries and again with help from a super power they lose out every time. Now the interlopers are so strong that groups of armed civilians will take your land force to build settlements on and if you object you can well be killed along with your family.
When the settlement is built they need roads to travel to and from the settlements so the roads are built across your land and any Palestinian that lives any where near that road will have his house blown up for security reasons.
All goods going in to Palestine have to go threw an Israeli port and are taxed which you have to pay. To over come this the Palestinians built both an air port and a small Port to over come this tax, but the Israelis destroyed these. so that they had complete control over just what went into Palestine and carried on getting the tax.
Now the Israelis were complaining about security to one of there settlements so the Palestinians put four of their police officers there to make sure nothing would happen, but it did they were shot by the Israeli settlers.
Now America broke away from the UK over a tax on imported goods to pay for the forces that protected them from the red Indians. Yet they are happy see a friend kill many helpless people and impose on them conditions that they would never accept.
Do I think the Israelis should be able to live there in peace, well yes I do but this will never happen unless they can treat the other residents with respect.
Can I ask you this question if you were a Palestinian would you take up arms and fight for what little you have left.

If I were a Palestinian I would have accepted the UN partition plan. By doing so I would already have a UN admitted state, which would be bigger than they'll ever get now. The other wars wouldn't have happened because there was a Palestinian state. No refugees either. The Israelis were willing to pay for the voluntarily migration of Palestinan people by paying for the cultivation of land. We could have profit from their financial and economic expertise and prosper. Unfortunately this conflict is not about Arab Palestinians, it is about non-muslims on muslim land and they must be driven away. That palestinian land part is only for media support. Look at the covenants of Fatah (although they changed it under international pressure the changes are not yet ratified) and Hamas. Look what is written in the Quran about muslim land.

Palestinians don't live there for 2000 years, they only live there for about 100 years. Before that they called themselves Arabs or Syrians. They never tried to have an independent Palestine. In 1834 they revolted against the....Egyptians! Fellow Arabs! Because they had to enlist in the Egyptian Army. (Do you know what the Egyptians did with the Arab Palestinans? Look here). They didn't revolt against the Turks when they wanted them to enlist in the Ottoman army, and Turks are no Arabs. They even fought with them against the allies and the Arab armies. Jews did fight against the Turks together with the Arabs and allies. Arab Palestinians were mostly concerned about their own town. Sometimes they fought against each other. Each town had its own armed militia.

 

[senojekips]

Oversimplified; that is a terrible example.

It's the truth, and the only reason you say what you do, is because it shows your argument for what it is. A complete whitewash and deliberate ignoring of the facts.

I believe this conflict started over religion rather than actual land like many of you seem to believe.... I think that land was just a disguise, because each time I hear these Arabs, they talk about "Allah" wanting it.

That's rubbish and I think I've posted this before, here's what Jews For Justice In Palestine say:

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)
In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

 

[LeEnfield]

When you say that Israel offered the Palestine more ground than they have had taken from them back in the 1960's, yes this is correct, but it did not include any major city or port.
It was rather like the Americans plains Indians being put in a middle of desert and being told we have given more ground than we have taken, then wonder why that they are unhappy.

 

[VDKMS]

It's the truth, and the only reason you say what you do, is because it shows your argument for what it is. A complete whitewash and deliberate ignoring of the facts.

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

That's rubbish and I think I've posted this before, here's what Jews For Justice In Palestine say:

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

That's, again, a distortion of the truth. The JNF only controls 13% of the land.

Legally and practically, Israeli Arabs have equal access to state-owned land (80.4 percent of all land in the entire country). About half of the land Israeli Arabs cultivate is directly leased to them by the Israeli government through the Israel Land Administration (ILA) (“Rural-Urban Land Use Equilibrium,” Tel Aviv: Ministry of Agriculture, 1979), as cited by David Kretzmer, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Westview Press, 1990, pp. 60-61).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)
In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

It had nothing to do with the backing of the British nor with the Arabs living there for over 1200 years. It all has to do with rule of law. No matter how long or short you lived there if you want to buy or sell a home the rule of law is the most important thing. So according to your logic, an Arab who's family owns a property for 1200 years cannot sell it to a Jew? Thtat's BS. Both during the Ottoman empire and the British mandate anyone could sell or buy a property to or from anyone.

So, again according to your logic, the Arab's sold their properties to the Jews and then complained the Jews were buying up their land?

 

[MontyB]

It had nothing to do with the backing of the British nor with the Arabs living there for over 1200 years. It all has to do with rule of law. No matter how long or short you lived there if you want to buy or sell a home the rule of law is the most important thing. So according to your logic, an Arab who's family owns a property for 1200 years cannot sell it to a Jew? Thtat's BS. Both during the Ottoman empire and the British mandate anyone could sell or buy a property to or from anyone.

So, again according to your logic, the Arab's sold their properties to the Jews and then complained the Jews were buying up their land?

Ok lets assume you are correct in everything you have said about Israel up until now (2011) explain to me why the land grab continues on land that isn't theirs?

The one thing that really torpedo's your argument is that the dispossession of Palestinians/Arabs/Syrians perhaps a better term would be indigenous inhabitants continues today with the expansion of settlements, I accept it is easy to copy and paste pro/anti Israeli websites and pretend they are accurate but as long as Israel's expansion continues your argument lacks a reality check.

 

[VDKMS]

Ok lets assume you are correct in everything you have said about Israel up until now (2011) explain to me why the land grab continues on land that isn't theirs?

The one thing that really torpedo's your argument is that the dispossession of Palestinians/Arabs/Syrians perhaps a better term would be indigenous inhabitants continues today with the expansion of settlements, I accept it is easy to copy and paste pro/anti Israeli websites and pretend they are accurate but as long as Israel's expansion continues your argument lacks a reality check.

I never approved what they are doing today (expanding settlements), although I have said that it can be disputed (legality). I still beleive that the 1967 borders and a 2 nation solution are the best ways to bring peace.
I have also said that the Palestinians shouldn't be to worried about those settlements. Almost the whole international community sticks with the 1967 borders, so in case of a solution they'll become Palestinian land. The Israelis have dismantled settlements before if they can get a good peace accord. I think the Palestinians are to focused on the wrong things (destruction of Israel) and by doing so have lost a number of occasions to get a peace deal and a nation. They are very good with the media but losers in politics. What are they going to do if Gingrich becomes the new president next year? They can forget everything for at least the next 4 years or are they hoping that Egyptian and Turkish muslims will come to their aid?

 

[senojekips]

That's, again, a distortion of the truth. The JNF only controls 13% of the land.

Legally and practically, Israeli Arabs have equal access to state-owned land (80.4 percent of all land in the entire country). About half of the land Israeli Arabs cultivate is directly leased to them by the Israeli government through the Israel Land Administration (ILA) (“Rural-Urban Land Use Equilibrium,” Tel Aviv: Ministry of Agriculture, 1979), as cited by David Kretzmer, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Westview Press, 1990, pp. 60-61).

Yeah, that's why the israeli government turn a blind eye to forced evictions, destruction of olive groves, burning of pasture and crops and intimidation of farmers by armed settlers, not to mention the army who quite regularly shoot farmers and their animals on their own land (not leased). Your quote above would be laughable if it were not such a blatant piece of zionist propaganda. Again, the facts on the ground prove to be diametrically opposed to what what you would have us believe.

It had nothing to do with the backing of the British nor with the Arabs living there for over 1200 years. It all has to do with rule of law. No matter how long or short you lived there if you want to buy or sell a home the rule of law is the most important thing. So according to your logic, an Arab who's family owns a property for 1200 years cannot sell it to a Jew? Thtat's BS. Both during the Ottoman empire and the British mandate anyone could sell or buy a property to or from anyone.

That's absolute crap, and you know it, here you have the facts as told by Jews, people who unlike the pro zionists, have nothing to gain from voicing their opinion.

So, again according to your logic, the Arab's sold their properties to the Jews and then complained the Jews were buying up their land?

As I have said several times, read what is written and not what you would like me to have said. At no stage have i ever said that, this is another example of your continued deliberate distortion of the facts, another unsuccessful attempt at putting words in people's mouths.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today's tidbit, showing the Nazi like mentality of Zionist leaders. (Not to be found in anyone's diary) :wink:
"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

 

[MontyB]

I never approved what they are doing today (expanding settlements), although I have said that it can be disputed (legality). I still beleive that the 1967 borders and a 2 nation solution are the best ways to bring peace.

So as I understand it you don't approve of them taking land today but some how you approve of the last 60 years of land grabs?

Mate it must be a bastard removing those splints after all this time on the fence.

What are they going to do if Gingrich becomes the new president next year? They can forget everything for at least the next 4 years or are they hoping that Egyptian and Turkish muslims will come to their aid?

Other than a Veto at the UN which should be removed from all 5 permanent members do you honestly think the USA has any influence in the outcome of this mess, the USA has taken sides Israel knows it can get away with anything it likes and the Palestinians know they will get nothing as long as the USA can block it but the one thing they can do is force Israel to spend billions and the USA to give them billions on defence until eventually both economies collapse.

So you can have who ever you like in the White House (Democrat or Republican) and it will still be the same rhetoric spewing forward, "The only peace will be on Israel's terms but we are impartial really so trust us".

 

[RayManKiller3]

So as I understand it you don't approve of them taking land today but some how you approve of the last 60 years of land grabs?

Mate it must be a bastard removing those splints after all this time on the fence.

He didn't say he approved those either; he is arguing it in a legal point of view. Buying up land is really not illegal as far as I know. After all, like he says, they didn't need to sell it to them. Sure their intenetions was wrong and it may have been unethical, but unethical do not equal illegal....


If your talking about the expansion after the partition plan, I call it pain and suffering gain. If the Arabs never went hostile, Israel may not have been able to expand.

Other than a Veto at the UN which should be removed from all 5 permanent members do you honestly think the USA has any influence in the outcome of this mess, the USA has taken sides Israel knows it can get away with anything it likes and the Palestinians know they will get nothing as long as the USA can block it but the one thing they can do is force Israel to spend billions and the USA to give them billions on defence until eventually both economies collapse.

So you can have who ever you like in the White House (Democrat or Republican) and it will still be the same rhetoric spewing forward, "The only peace will be on Israel's terms but we are impartial really so trust us".

I am not sure if I agree with the veto being removed thing, though I admit, I don't like it.

 

[MontyB]

He didn't say he approved those either; he is arguing it in a legal point of view. Buying up land is really not illegal as far as I know. After all, like he says, they didn't need to sell it to them. Sure their intenetions was wrong and it may have been unethical, but unethical do not equal illegal....

Wow seems running in circles is popular around here, ok so lets say I own the house next to yours but you wont sell it to me, as a response I cut off your water, take pot shots at you when ever possible, dump my trash over the fence, let my dog crap on your lawn and in general escalate my actions until you eventually do sell me your property.

Oh and if you retaliate in anyway the police show up, evict you and bulldoze your property.

Perfectly fine in your view?

If your talking about the expansion after the partition plan, I call it pain and suffering gain. If the Arabs never went hostile, Israel may not have been able to expand.

It really is a pity Palestinians arent white christians like say the IRA then they could count on US support, I would also suggest never ever using the "pain and suffering gain" as a term ever again and be very thankful you are outside arms reach right now as that is one of the most appalling things I have ever heard said on this forum and there have been some really shitty post over the years.

 

[VDKMS]

So as I understand it you don't approve of them taking land today but some how you approve of the last 60 years of land grabs?
Mate it must be a bastard removing those splints after all this time on the fence.

Israel was not land grab, the UN gave it to the Jews. After the war of 1948 Israel took some more because of the Arab attacks. Just like Jordan took the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza. The settlements in the West Bank are a problem to the Palestinians. My point of view is that it is better to give the West Bank (including the Israeli settlements) to the Palestinians. This is also the international view. Legaly though it can be desputed.

I explain : palestine was ruled by the UN, devided in two (Israel - Palestine). The Arabs refused, so the land keeps under UN rule. But they left in 1948 (the British who were responsible for the governing the land). After the war of 1948 Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it became Jordan land (although never approved by the UN). In 1988 Jordan renounced it and in 1993 Israel and the PLO devided it according to the Oslo accords.

Other than a Veto at the UN which should be removed from all 5 permanent members do you honestly think the USA has any influence in the outcome of this mess, the USA has taken sides Israel knows it can get away with anything it likes and the Palestinians know they will get nothing as long as the USA can block it but the one thing they can do is force Israel to spend billions and the USA to give them billions on defence until eventually both economies collapse.

The US not only give money to Israel but also to the Palestinians. In fact, in % of GDP, the Palestinians get more.
You seem to blame only Israel for not making peace but have you already read the covenants of the PO and Hamas? Is that promoting peace? Or teaching children in geography classes that Israel doers not exists? A 2007 Palestinian Media Watch report says ."The teachings repeatedly reject Israel's right to exist, present the conflict as a religious battle for Islam..." Would you be happy to make peace with your neighbour who says I'm going to kill you?

So you can have who ever you like in the White House (Democrat or Republican) and it will still be the same rhetoric spewing forward, "The only peace will be on Israel's terms but we are impartial really so trust us".

The Republicans will stand by Israel when they expand the settlements, the Democrats will condemn it.
As long as the Palestinians cannot guarantee that they are able to stop attacks against Israel there will not be a peace accord.

 

[VDKMS]

Yeah, that's why the israeli government turn a blind eye to forced evictions, destruction of olive groves, burning of pasture and crops and intimidation of farmers by armed settlers, not to mention the army who quite regularly shoot farmers and their animals on their own land (not leased). Your quote above would be laughable if it were not such a blatant piece of zionist propaganda. Again, the facts on the ground prove to be diametrically opposed to what what you would have us believe.

The discussion was about Arabs not able to lease land in Israel. I proved you were wrong. So, don't jump on something else.

That's absolute crap, and you know it, here you have the facts as told by Jews, people who unlike the pro zionists, have nothing to gain from voicing their opinion.

Rule of law is not absolute crap.
BTW the conflict is a religious one.

As I have said several times, read what is written and not what you would like me to have said. At no stage have i ever said that, this is another example of your continued deliberate distortion of the facts, another unsuccessful attempt at putting words in people's mouths.

You said . "...strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying...". Now you tell me how a Jew is able to buy land from a Arab Palestinian. Tell me.

Today's tidbit, showing the Nazi like mentality of Zionist leaders. (Not to be found in anyone's diary) :wink:
"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

Well, well, well, you blew it again! This is the complete quote:

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir warned today that rioters would be crushed ''like grasshoppers.'' and ''Anybody who wants to damage this fortress and other fortresses we are establishing will have his head smashed against the boulders and walls.''
Original article in the New York Times !

How many times are you going to distort the quotes of those people?

 

[MontyB]

Israel was not land grab, the UN gave it to the Jews. After the war of 1948 Israel took some more because of the Arab attacks. Just like Jordan took the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza. The settlements in the West Bank are a problem to the Palestinians. My point of view is that it is better to give the West Bank (including the Israeli settlements) to the Palestinians. This is also the international view. Legaly though it can be desputed.

Are you seriously going with that argument if so I guess we owe Germany a really big apology for invading the West after all the French did invade Germany in 1939 so the Germans only took Paris because of French aggression and it was the British and French that declared war on Germany first, however the German invasion of Vichy France in 1944 should be seen as a problem for the French.

The US not only give money to Israel but also to the Palestinians. In fact, in % of GDP, the Palestinians get more.
You seem to blame only Israel for not making peace but have you already read the covenants of the PO and Hamas? Is that promoting peace? Or teaching children in geography classes that Israel doers not exists? A 2007 Palestinian Media Watch report says ."The teachings repeatedly reject Israel's right to exist, present the conflict as a religious battle for Islam..." Would you be happy to make peace with your neighbour who says I'm going to kill you?

No I do not blame Israel for not making peace I accuse Israel of not wanting peace and using this as a method of stealing more land they do not own, it is my opinion that the last thing Israel needs or wants is peace.

Fortunately for them they have apologists like yourself to ensure they are always patted on the back no matter what they do still given Belgium's colonial history I guess I can understand your support of another colonial project.

 

[VDKMS]

Wow seems running in circles is popular around here, ok so lets say I own the house next to yours but you wont sell it to me, as a response I cut off your water, take pot shots at you when ever possible, dump my trash over the fence, let my dog crap on your lawn and in general escalate my actions until you eventually do sell me your property.

Oh and if you retaliate in anyway the police show up, evict you and bulldoze your property.

Perfectly fine in your view?

If you are talking about the present you forget to mention that you first smashed my windows, destroyed my dinner table in a suicidal attack and killed my dog!

If you are talking about the past I'll answer with a quote:

Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.
Written statement (1920), as quoted in Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs : From Peace to War (1985) by Shabtai Teveth, p. 32.

It really is a pity Palestinians arent white christians like say the IRA then they could count on US support, I would also suggest never ever using the "pain and suffering gain" as a term ever again and be very thankful you are outside arms reach right now as that is one of the most appalling things I have ever heard said on this forum and there have been some really shitty post over the years.

I didn't expect those words to come from you. All that RayManKiller3 is saying is that they (the Arab Palestinians) started all this by being the first to use big deadly attacks and got beaten up. Maybe you like this saying better : chickens come home to roost

 

[MontyB]

I didn't expect those words to come from you. All that RayManKiller3 is saying is that they (the Arab Palestinians) started all this by being the first to use big deadly attacks and got beaten up. Maybe you like this saying better : chickens come home to roost

I don't disagree however we look at things in a very different light because I am damn sure I would do the same if a bunch of immigrants tried to take over land I believed to be mine and it is a damn good thing that European resistance movements did not share your views or Western Europe would still be under Nazi control.

All I get from the two of you is some wishy washy nonsense that you don't approve of dispossessing people today but it was ok 70 years ago however the Palestinians who are indigenous to the region for at least 2000 years by DNA (as you agreed) can be dispossessed because 100 years ago they were not called Palestinians they were called Arabs/Syrians by guys who 100 years ago were called Europeans.

Sound about where you are at?

 

[RayManKiller3]

I don't disagree however we look at things in a very different light because I am damn sure I would do the same if a bunch of immigrants tried to take over land I believed to be mine and it is a damn good thing that European resistance movements did not share your views or Western Europe would still be under Nazi control.

I kind of think of the illegal immigrants coming into the U.S (in mass numbers) as somewhat like the Jews going into Palestine. This is a severe issue for U.S (home value, certain crimes, and jobs mainly), but you don't see us making terrorist groups to attack illegals (particulary hispanics). We rather do it legally through our political system.


Also, I didn't mean to be harsh about it, VDKMS understood what I meant. If you start trouble and get beaten, most likely the victor will take more than he needs as "pain and suffering". I didn't say I agree with it, but I see it like that. I am not sure how your legal system works, but if you damage someone's property here, you can be liable for that and even greater payment for the actions you done in the terms "pain and suffering".

All I get from the two of you is some wishy washy nonsense that you don't approve of dispossessing people today but it was ok 70 years ago however the Palestinians who are indigenous to the region for at least 2000 years by DNA (as you agreed) can be dispossessed because 100 years ago they were not called Palestinians they were called Arabs/Syrians by guys who 100 years ago were called Europeans.

Sound about where you are at?

The U.N decided it, whether it was for good or ill. We may not like it, but it happened and I think it would be completely aweful to repeat those mistakes by removing Israel, which hosts more than 5 million Jews). A lot of countries dispossessed Jews and I don't see no one fighting to get them back to those countries, certainly not as hard as fighting for Palestine.

We agree on the solution Monty,I am only arguing the fact that most here seems to want to blame Israel mainly for this problem (and the fact Seno seems to want to "move" Israel from "Palestinian lands"). There are many political steps Palestine can take to get their state. The fact they chose violence and not to get a state simply because a Jewish state is there, tells me it was largely related to religion. This is undisputable, I don't see how anyone can not agree that it was started mainly because of religion.

 

[VDKMS]

Are you seriously going with that argument if so I guess we owe Germany a really big apology for invading the West after all the French did invade Germany in 1939 so the Germans only took Paris because of French aggression and it was the British and French that declared war on Germany first, however the German invasion of Vichy France in 1944 should be seen as a problem for the French.

You're mixing things up a bit. The Jews didn't start a war. The Germans did. Britain and France declared war on Germany because of their accords with Poland. The (very) small invasion of the French into Germany in 1939 was because the Germans invaded Poland. The Jews did not invade anything. They were attacked by the Palestinians and a bit later by Arab armies.

No I do not blame Israel for not making peace I accuse Israel of not wanting peace and using this as a method of stealing more land they do not own, it is my opinion that the last thing Israel needs or wants is peace.

Israel does want peace but on their own terms. I do not support the religious parties (BTW - no matter what religion in no matter what country) which support the settlements and in fact want the whole of Palestine. Do not forget that Israel is going to remove illegal settlements in the West bank. According to your answer you still didn't read the covenants of the PLO and Hamas.

Fortunately for them they have apologists like yourself to ensure they are always patted on the back no matter what they do still given Belgium's colonial history I guess I can understand your support of another colonial project.

That's not nice. But the Congo was not attacked or invaded by the Belgians. Congo was a private property of King Leopold II and he gave it to Belgium shortly before his death. At that time people had quite a differnt look at the native people of Australia, New Zealand, America, Africa etc. Nowadays it's outrageous what they did to those people, but back then it was quite normal. If we look at the whole history of the world with the glasses of today it will only be about massacres, crimes against humanity, property theft etc. Who knows what people think of our doing in 1000 years from now.

 

[VDKMS]

I don't disagree however we look at things in a very different light because I am damn sure I would do the same if a bunch of immigrants tried to take over land I believed to be mine and it is a damn good thing that European resistance movements did not share your views or Western Europe would still be under Nazi control.

All I get from the two of you is some wishy washy nonsense that you don't approve of dispossessing people today but it was ok 70 years ago however the Palestinians who are indigenous to the region for at least 2000 years by DNA (as you agreed) can be dispossessed because 100 years ago they were not called Palestinians they were called Arabs/Syrians by guys who 100 years ago were called Europeans.

Sound about where you are at?

What about you? Are your ancestors natives of the country you live in or did they come from Europe. If so are you ready to move if the natives reclaim their land? And if you have native ancestors don't you have to go back from where they came from?