The world only protests when Israel Strikes

[MontyB]

Note: Only Jordan took Palestinians in as citizens after 1948 and also later. Only Jordan and Egypt have peace with Israel. And though these country's cannot be called true democracies, they certainly allow their citizens much more freedom than their neigbors in the Arab world

One other interesting note: It has only been recently that the Egyptian school system has stopped teaching that ridiculous nonsense called, The Protocals of the Elders of Zion.

Israel is the only Democracy on the block in the middle east. That they can be rabid about protecting their citizens should be lauded not condemned. If the fanatics laid down their arms and truly asked for peace, I believe the world would be pleasantly surprised by the accomadation they would recieve from Israel.

You know what, this argument is pointless. Israel could be the most perfect country on earth and it wouldn't matter because it still does not solve the problem of ownership.

You have two groups of people claiming ownership of the area and neither of them are going to live happily together under the others rule, until you can solve that the battles will go on.

 

[senojekips]

There' an old saying regarding the press, "Never ruin a good story with the truth."

This is what is known as a "truism" but that doesn't make it fact, in fact, by quoting this you are guilty of the same offence you are attributing to the press,... it is only partly true,... on some occasions in some papers.

It's like the idiots here in Australia who every time something is written that they do not agree with, whinge about "Our Left wing Press" when nearly all of our major Papers and TV stations in Australia are owned and controlled by two families, both notoriously Right Wing, and both known to interfere with the editorial choice along political lines .

 

[papasha40]

You know what, this argument is pointless. Israel could be the most perfect country on earth and it wouldn't matter because it still does not solve the problem of ownership.

You have two groups of people claiming ownership of the area and neither of them are going to live happily together under the others rule, until you can solve that the battles will go on.

I see your point and even agree with it. Also Israel must give up more land than they are willing to presently do, if a lasting peace is to be achieved.

The problem with ownership is this. The land was settled by many communities over hundreds if not thousands of years. And not all the settlements were Palestinian. There were Jewish and Christian communities as well. But the land belonged to none of the above. Before 1917 it was part of the Ottoman Empire and after it was British untill the war of independance in 1948. Before Israel was ganged up on they were quite willing to go along with a two state system. And yes many had reservations in the Jewish community. But Arab greed did more to torpedo it's attempt than anything else. The Palestinians were used in a much bigger Arab game. As I've stated before no one in the Arab world thought Israel would survive. And the Rulers of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and who-ever else wanted a piece of the Palestine pie. They certainly didn't want some upstart getting posessions they coveted.

When Israel won the war it was a surprise and a bitter pill. And as they say, the rest is history.

 

[MontyB]

I see your point and even agree with it. Also Israel must give up more land than they are willing to presently do, if a lasting peace is to be achieved.

The problem with ownership is this. The land was settled by many communities over hundreds if not thousands of years. And not all the settlements were Palestinian. There were Jewish and Christian communities as well. But the land belonged to none of the above. Before 1917 it was part of the Ottoman Empire and after it was British untill the war of independance in 1948. Before Israel was ganged up on they were quite willing to go along with a two state system. And yes many had reservations in the Jewish community. But Arab greed did more to torpedo it's attempt than anything else. The Palestinians were used in a much bigger Arab game. As I've stated before no one in the Arab world thought Israel would survive. And the Rulers of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and who-ever else wanted a piece of the Palestine pie. They certainly didn't want some upstart getting posessions they coveted.

When Israel won the war it was a surprise and a bitter pill. And as they say, the rest is history.

Yes but there is a significant problem with the two state system even if both parties were to accept it and that is fair allocation of land as we have seen with the American and South African "homelands" and "reservations" systems one side tends to seek out all the barren dirt that they can't or wont use themselves and say congratulations here is your new homeland which is usually followed by "you found [insert something of value gold, oil etc.]" at which point the borders change again.

I am sure that even the most ardent "Israelophile" would have to concede that there was and is no way the land "assigned" to Palestinians could ever be a viable state, half a dozen little patches of land all over the place does not a country make.

 

[senojekips]

Before Israel was ganged up on they were quite willing to go along with a two state system.

Of course they were.

If Australia ceded the better part of Canada to the Mexicans,... after all, their ancient ancestors are alleged to have lived where Canada is now when they migrated from Asia thousands of years ago. I guess that they would also be quite happy to go along with a two state system too. But what about the present occupiers, would they be happy to have half their country given away? Do you think that they would just roll over and go along with it?

And while we are on about terrorism, what about the Irgun and little indiscretions such as the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946? The Jews had organised terrorism firmly in place long before the local "Palestinian" population ever started.

 

[SHERMAN]

But what about the present occupiers, would they be happy to have half their country given away? Do you think that they would just roll over and go along with it?

The partition gave parts of israel according to the population and common sens. it wasent a good deal for either side but it was the best they could manage.

And while we are on about terrorism, what about the Irgun and little indiscretions such as the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946? The Jews had organised terrorism firmly in place long before the local "Palestinian" population ever started.

Firstly, arab terrorisem in Israel dates to the 1920s, so historically your incorrect. more over, Irgun and Etzel were despised by most of the population, and were handed to the Brits by the moderate Hagana. Finally, even Etzel and Irgun, who were indeed terrorists, warned the british before blowing stuff up. King David was a military target and even so the British were warned by the Etzel that there is a bomb. The British chose to ignore the warning. When did Hamas warn before blowing up a bus?

 

[senojekips]

The partition gave parts of israel according to the population and common sens. it wasent a good deal for either side but it was the best they could manage.

It was a bloody good deal for the Jews. They got something given to them that they had no real entitlement to as a singular entity.

Firstly, arab terrorisem in Israel dates to the 1920s, so historically your incorrect.

I will concede this point as i don't have sufficient knowledge of the facts at the time. But I strongly suspect that it was not "terrorism" as it is thought of today, it was more like what we would term "active resistance"

more over, Irgun and Etzel were despised by most of the population, and were handed to the Brits by the moderate Hagana.

Is it not true that this was mainly to settle old scores between the two forces , (The Irgun and Hagana) rather than to aid the Brits?

Finally, even Etzel and Irgun, who were indeed terrorists, warned the british before blowing stuff up. King David was a military target and even so the British were warned by the Etzel that there is a bomb. The British chose to ignore the warning.

for the same reason that the US ignored their own intelligence that Pearl Harbour was a likely target for the Japanese, it was too awful to be really contemplated. There have been a number of these oversights in recent history which have left us wih egg on our faces. We must remember that terrorism on this scale was previously virtually unheard of. Also the phone call(s) were far too late to have been of any use as no real plan was in place for such an event. Besides that, there was no record in the phone log of the alleged first call ever actually having been received, this is still denied by the British to this day.

There is little doubt that even had the call been received and acted upon, that it would have saved a great number of people. It sounds improbable to me, and people will always try to lessen their guilt on both sides, so I really dont know, It certainly would not have made it any worse.

 

[SHERMAN]

It was a bloody good deal for the Jews. They got something given to them that they had no real entitlement to as a singular entity.

Again, your subjective opinion.

will concede this point as i don't have sufficient knowledge of the facts at the time. But I strongly suspect that it was not "terrorism" as it is thought of today, it was more like what we would term "active resistance"

As i happen to be related to one of the earliest victims of terror attacks in israel, i can tell you shooting an unarmed man that went to pick oranges in his own orchard is hardly resistance.

Is it not true that this was mainly to settle old scores between the two forces , (The Irgun and Hagana) rather than to aid the Brits?

The "old scores" were that Hagana(As it is named "Defence") did not believe in attacking civilian targets and was appauled by Etzel actions. The point was not to help the Brits, it was to stop Irgun from portraing the entire Jewsih people as terrorists and murderers.

for the same reason that the US ignored their own intelligence that Pearl Harbour was a likely target for the Japanese, it was too awful to be really contemplated. There have been a number of these oversights in recent history which have left us wih egg on our faces. We must remember that terrorism on this scale was previously virtually unheard of. Also the phone call(s) were far too late to have been of any use as no real plan was in place for such an event. Besides that, there was no record in the phone log of the alleged first call ever actually having been received, this is still denied by the British to this day.

There is little doubt that even had the call been received and acted upon, that it would have saved a great number of people. It sounds improbable to me, and people will always try to lessen their guilt on both sides, so I really dont know, It certainly would not have made it any worse

this is the story as i know it. I agree that my sources on this matter are not first hand so i will not be surprised if it was indeed an attempt to lesson the Irgun and Etzels guilt.

 

[senojekips]

Again, your subjective opinion.

i don't think that too many people would disagree with me, except perhaps in Israel. Remember, I did say "as a singular entity" I firmly believe that in a land where you have a mixed population who have lived side by side (for the most part) happily for centuries, that the ownership of any bordered area should have been given to no one side "on their own".

As i happen to be related to one of the earliest victims of terror attacks in israel, i can tell you shooting an unarmed man that went to pick oranges in his own orchard is hardly resistance.

Agreed most wholeheartedly. reserving the right to change my mind if the details should have given the shooter a good reason. I'm not being nasty or disrespectful here, but in my mind people rarely shoot people just "in cold blood" I would want to know what had transpired previously. But certainly on the face of the evidence, it was at least a cowardly attack and at worst it was terrorism.

The "old scores" were that Hagana(As it is named "Defence") did not believe in attacking civilian targets and was appauled by Etzel actions. The point was not to help the Brits, it was to stop Irgun from portraing the entire Jewsih people as terrorists and murderers.

That sounds correct and is completely understandable. See,... I'm not always unreasonable, when things make sense and seem to line up with other evidence that I have heard or seen

this is the story as i know it. I agree that my sources on this matter are not first hand so i will not be surprised if it was indeed an attempt to lesson the Irgun and Etzels guilt.

Quite possible, and that was not my full intent, also think that it's possible people on the Brit side were trying to do the same.

 

[tomtom22]

Common courtesy an the Rules

I have been watching this thread for some time and I am getting concerned that the discussion is getting somewhat heated.

Please, all of you, bear in mind the rules of the forum.

Think before you type, count to ten before you reply.

 

[SHERMAN]

I'm not being nasty or disrespectful here, but in my mind people rarely shoot people just "in cold blood" I would want to know what had transpired previously

I will look it up. But as far as I know this an act of "Jihad" to kill the Jews who had the nerve to buy lands and work in them, instead of hiring Arab labour. This happend in the 20s, so the few living people who remember this were young kids and are now old and forgetfull. My family came to israel in 1883, and was in very good relations with local arabs. this said, the local arabs still had for some reasons periods in which they decided to attack their neighbours. I did an essay on this toppic i might find it. My great great grandfather was treated by the arabs as a noble, called a Muchtararab for vilalge leader) and they would not bother him unless they were backed by their own leaders.

 

[senojekips]

I will look it up. But as far as I know this an act of "Jihad" to kill the Jews who had the nerve to buy lands and work in them, instead of hiring Arab labour. This happend in the 20s, so the few living people who remember this were young kids and are now old and forgetfull. My family came to israel in 1883, and was in very good relations with local arabs. this said, the local arabs still had for some reasons periods in which they decided to attack their neighbours. I did an essay on this toppic i might find it. My great great grandfather was treated by the arabs as a noble, called a Muchtararab for vilalge leader) and they would not bother him unless they were backed by their own leaders.

Yes, well we are all learning about "Jihad" in recent years, the interpretation of the Koran is one of those few things I find more difficult to comprehend than the Jewish faith:smile:.

Once again I feel that it is not so much what is said in the Koran, as how some people twist it to manipulate their followers and get those who believe in it to do their bidding.

I live in a town with a large Muslim/Christian family, the Rasheeds, and they are obviously not fundamentalists, as only the family of one brother has not converted formally to Christianity. They all get on together Christian and Muslim alike, and are well known and respected members of our community. Those people who have not lived here for many years have no idea of who's who in the family regarding their faith. No hijab. no public prayers, they are just good people.

"Religion" per se and those who follow it closely have a lot to answer for.

 

[BritinBritain]

This is what is known as a "truism" but that doesn't make it fact, in fact, by quoting this you are guilty of the same offence you are attributing to the press,... it is only partly true,... on some occasions in some papers.

It's like the idiots here in Australia who every time something is written that they do not agree with, whinge about "Our Left wing Press" when nearly all of our major Papers and TV stations in Australia are owned and controlled by two families, both notoriously Right Wing, and both known to interfere with the editorial choice along political lines .

In South Africa much of the press and TV is controlled by the government. A couple years ago a protest march took place in Jo-Burg over high crime, nothing on TV whatsoever and very little if anything in the press.

In 1999 two marches were held in Cape Town protesting against the new gun laws, the media reported that police had to confiscate firearms from the marchers when in fact the march organisers asked the police to secure firearms for the duration of the march, secondly it was reported that only 100 marchers took part, when in fact there were over 5000.

In UK after the Hungerford massacre, when Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in 1986, the next day the Sun newspaper published a front page photograph of a man wearing camo, holding a AK47 and Beretta with a belt of 7.62 GPMG rounds around his neck, despite the fact neither of the weapons fired belted ammunition and totally the wrong calibre. If thats not sensationalism I don't know what is.

 

[MontyB]

Umm isnt the Sun a tabloid?

With regard to the accuracy of the media I tend to think people are expecting too much, when I read a new story I generally trust the basics and ignore the rest.

For example if the paper reports that a green car plowed into truck load of fudge 20 kilometers from London creating a sticky situation for firemen, I am confident that a car hit a truck somewhere near London outside that it might have been green and it may have had firemen in attendance.

As information fans out from the central point aka the crash it becomes more prone to individual bias and inaccuracy.

 

[senojekips]

Generally speaking, Press agencies such as AAP/Reuters, BBC News, ABC (Australia) etc., and their associates do not report sensationalist News items.

One does not normally quote such things as "The King's Cross Whisper" as a reliable source of International news or opinion.

 

[Del Boy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtom22
I have been watching this thread for some time and I am getting concerned that the discussion is getting somewhat heated.

Please, all of you, bear in mind the rules of the forum.

Think before you type, count to ten before you reply.


Thank you tomtom22 - chilling here.


MONTYB:-

Umm isnt the Sun a tabloid?

Yes, although it is a tabloid that put Labour into power, and its support is awaited with bated breath by the parties pre elections. I do not subscribe to it.

Incidentally, regarding my post re 'heads above the parapet'; as you commented on this, i would like to make it clear that I was not referring to, or including you, in that.

And regarding your previous comment about 'ownership' , please remember that the Jews have a far more legitimate claim to their homeland than any ex-Brit colonies which have established themselves into entrenched positions over far, far shorter periods.

If you continually drove the indigenous of those countries from their lands for a thousand years, it could not then be legitimately claimed that these were not their homelands.

This is why this terrible problem has to be negotiated to peace, and not pressed to war and to destruction, which is the situation currently being manipulated by Hamas. See below link:-


http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/78095

 

[MontyB]

And regarding your previous comment about 'ownership' , please remember that the Jews have a far more legitimate claim to their homeland than any ex-Brit colonies which have established themselves into entrenched positions over far, far shorter periods.

If you continually drove the indigenous of those countries from their lands for a thousand years, it could not then be legitimately claimed that these were not their homelands.

This is why this terrible problem has to be negotiated to peace, and not pressed to war and to destruction, which is the situation currently being manipulated by Hamas. See below link:-


http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/78095

I am sorry but this is one of cyclic justifications that always makes me cringe because simply put even if you were to accept the biblical account of of "god" leading them to the "promised land" you would have to accept that they to were nothing more than immigrants themselves as according to archeological history in pre-Biblical times, the area was the Land of Canaan and had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel-El Amarna tablets. It wasn't until the breakup of the Egyptian empire around 1500 BC made possible the invasion of the Israelites.

So archeological history does not favour them being the original inhabitant's of the land.

If we then move on to biblical versions of this story even that fails to make Jews the original inhabitants, in fact, the Bible itself states that Abraham was not native to Israel, but lived in the city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia, miles away from Israel.

So the problem is that the Jewish claim to the area is only valid if you accept an arbitrary starting point in time and ignore everything else before it, somewhat like me claiming the world started on my birthday because nothing that happened prior to it was convenient to me therefore the world is rightfully mine.

As far as your British colonies argument goes we are talking maybe a 200 year time frame for them and yet very few if any of those colonists descendants would claim to be British and immigration rules in Britain and those former colonies would tend to support this argument so I am not sure how a 1000-2000 (Much longer than 2000 years if you accept that in 700BC the "tribe of Israel" was removed from the region by the Babylonians) year absence from your "homeland" suddenly becomes justifiable.

One of the great problems with the bible these days is that its claims are often trumped by archeology so using it as your land deed starts to become tenuous.

 

[perseus]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Here are some population estimates for Palestine (Christians are typically about 8-10% of total)[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Year, [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Arab+Christian Population, [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Jewish Population[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1600 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]250,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]5,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1850 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]480,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]17,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1890 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]530,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]43,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1922 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]590,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]84,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1931 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]760,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]174,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1939 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]900,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]450,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1948 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]980,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]650,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1954 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]192,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]1,530,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1969 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]423,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]2,500,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1989 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]843,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]3,700,000[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]1997 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]1,120,000 [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]4,640,000[/FONT]

http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/israel-nutshell/chapter3.html

 

[senojekips]

Well, I would say that those figures would certainly lean towards the State being given to the Palestinians rather than the Jews as prior to the influx due to 1933 when Hitler's policies started to really bite, the area was overwhelmingly populated by Arabs, and it appears to have been so for centuries.

But never the less I would still have supported a combined Palestinian state rather than it being controlled by any one faction based on their ethnicity.

 

[Duty Honor Country]

I was on the road for 12 hours and got to listen to lots of news on the SAT radio. I found much amusement in a Palestinian spokesman who said that Israel's action was not in the right direction for peace. I wonder if the spokesman thought the right direction for peace was the direction the latest rockets fired by Hamas into Israel.

Another interesting interview was a militant group who said peace was only attainable if Israel ended its occupation. The militant leader went on to say that the entire state of Israel was illegal and all of Israel was a Jewish occupation.

The latest from the UN security counsel is that the US blocked any criticism of the conflict because criticism was only aimed at Israel and not Hamas' rockets.

I would like to add more but after driving 750 miles, it is time for bed