The world only protests when Israel Strikes

[perseus]

Well, I would say that those figures would certainly lean towards the State being given to the Palestinians rather than the Jews

Problem is, that we could equally say the America's belong to the Native Indians on the same basis. The counter-argument is that one needs to include what people have brought to the country as well. Israel is a prosperous country by the standards of the region, even including oil rich states. It is difficult to see this being the case if only Palestinians lived there. Perhaps a compromise would be if all were to share in the wealth of the country.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/GNP+per+capita+in+dollars.htm

 

[errol]

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

If only things were that simple !!!

 

[senojekips]

Well, I would say that those figures would certainly lean towards the State being given to the Palestinians rather than the Jews

Problem is, that we could equally say the America's belong to the Native Indians on the same basis.

The US was not just given away to the current owners by a third party who didn't own it in the first place.

The counter-argument is that one needs to include what people have brought to the country as well. Israel is a prosperous country by the standards of the region, even including oil rich states. It is difficult to see this being the case if only Palestinians lived there. Perhaps a compromise would be if all were to share in the wealth of the country.

The fact that invaders have done something with the country that the original owners did not doesn't mean a thing. If I steal an item or receive a stolen item and put it to better use that the original owner, that does not mean that I should be allowed to keep it.

If you don't believe me, just try it in any court, in any country in the world.

 

[perseus]

The US was not just given away to the current owners by a third party who didn't own it in the first place.

Not far off, The French sold Louisiana to the US and Russians Alaska

the remaining parts of the US were obtained by fighting third parties (Spanish and British) as well as the indigenous population

 

[MontyB]

The counter-argument is that one needs to include what people have brought to the country as well. Israel is a prosperous country by the standards of the region, even including oil rich states. It is difficult to see this being the case if only Palestinians lived there. Perhaps a compromise would be if all were to share in the wealth of the country.

If for arguments sake a couple of million Iraqi's turned up in Zimbabwe, claiming that New Zealand (just an example) had decided to partition the place because its not really being used to its potential so it is now half Iraqi and half Zimbabwean although all the good land just happens to be in the Iraqi areas and Zimbabwes 50% is just patches of land unfit for anything useful.

Who can argue, those poor Iraqis have been through so much, a horrible dictatorship that killed thousands followed by a war and occupation that has killed thousands and lets face it a Muslim must have passed through Zimbabwe going somewhere remotely religious so we have biblical precedent, they deserve a land of their own.

How do you think that would turn out?
Sound reasonable after all I am sure 50 years down the track with enough foreign aid the country could turn a profit.

 

[wolfen]

I've been watching this thread for a whiel too and now after thinking and watching and reading I'm ready to make my comment, so for what its worth, here it is,


Hamas fired first,

everybody on this board know my beliefs about being fired upon.

 

[senojekips]

I've been watching this thread for a whiel too and now after thinking and watching and reading I'm ready to make my comment, so for what its worth, here it is,


Hamas fired first,

everybody on this board know my beliefs about being fired upon.

First?? Now that's odd, as Hamas was not even dreamt about when the first shots were fired.

Never the less that is not the point, as I too believe (I don't know), that the fighting was initiated by the Palestinians, in defence of their country being stolen.

Perseus, all you are doing is making a case for the Native Americans, and in view of what you are saying, you are probably correct. But why do you do it, do you think that you will get all the US members jumping on the band wagon for Israel because they suddenly feel that their own country is in jeopardy? It is not really relevant, because at the moment the more recent arrivals in the USA are no longer murdering and mistreating their Native Americans to steal their land, nor are they in armed insurrection against the US Government. And that in no way answers the second part of my answer regarding the ownership.

 

[wolfen]

First?? Now that's odd, as Hamas was not even dreamt about when the first shots were fired.

Never the less that is not the point, as I too believe (I don't know), that the fighting was initiated by the Palestinians, in defence of their country being stolen.

Perseus, all you are doing is making a case for the Native Americans, and in view of what you are saying, you are probably correct. But why do you do it, do you think that you will get all the US members jumping on the band wagon for Israel because they suddenly feel that their own country is in jeopardy? It is not really relevant, because at the moment the more recent arrivals in the USA are no longer murdering and mistreating their Native Americans to steal their land, nor are they in armed insurrection against the US Government.

Hamas has been around since '87 and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel claiming its political, not religious.
Now I'm not defending Israel, I've been there a couple of times when I was in the Navy and trust me they don't need protection for their surrounding neighbors, but trust me if the UN had established Isrweal anywhere elsein the world the muslims would still want them all dead.
Face it, muslims are no better than the Nazi's when it comes to Jewish people, and yes its a religious thing with all of them, nobody will know who's god id teh right god until a god aappears and says hey yall, I'm the god you read about in those books

 

[senojekips]

Hamas has been around since '87 and calling for the destruction of the state of Israel claiming its political, not religious.
Now I'm not defending Israel, I've been there a couple of times when I was in the Navy and trust me they don't need protection for their surrounding neighbors, but trust me if the UN had established Isrweal anywhere elsein the world the muslims would still want them all dead.
Face it, muslims are no better than the Nazi's when it comes to Jewish people, and yes its a religious thing with all of them, nobody will know who's god id teh right god until a god aappears and says hey yall, I'm the god you read about in those books

My point was that it's no use blaming Hamas when you talk about who fired first. Hamas only ever arose because of perceived Israeli oppression.

Also, I am not against the Israelis defending themselves, my argument being about the legitimacy of the state of Israel and how it came into being in the first place. If Israel had not been handed over to the Jews alone, but made into a homeland for those who lived there prior to it being given away. Then the European Jews only allowed to migrate there with the permission of the new owners, all of this would probably never have occurred. The flooding of Palestinian land with hundreds of thousands of new refugees who thought they had a god given right to take what they wanted, was basically the cause of what we see today. Yes they will argue that there was unrest prior to this, but it was only isolated and no worse than went on in the range wars of the US in the early days of settlement when families both vied for the same land.

The Muslims only show special hatred for the Jews in this instance because they are trying to wipe out their fellow Muslims in what was previously a Muslim dominated land. Other than that I feel that they hate them no more than other infidels. It's really only the US and their allies that the Muslims "jack up" about, I've never seen a Muslim crowd protesting about any country that is not interfering against Muslim people somewhere in the world, and it has largely been the US support of the Jews in this respect that has escalated the whole affair and bought the Muslims together as a reasonably united entity.

 

[wolfen]

My point was that it's no use blaming Hamas when you talk about who fired first. Hamas only ever arose because of perceived Israeli oppression.

Also, I am not against the Israelis defending themselves, my argument being about the legitimacy of the state of Israel and how it came into being in the first place. If Israel had not been handed over to the Jews alone, but made into a homeland for those who lived there prior to it being given away. Then the European Jews only allowed to migrate there with the permission of the new owners, all of this would probably never have occurred. The flooding of Palestinian land with hundreds of thousands of new refugees who thought they had a god given right to take what they wanted, was basically the cause of what we see today. Yes they will argue that there was unrest prior to this, but it was only isolated and no worse than went on in the range wars of the US in the early days of settlement when families both vied for the same land.

The Muslims only show special hatred for the Jews in this instance because they are trying to wipe out their fellow Muslims in what was previously a Muslim dominated land. Other than that I feel that they hate them no more than other infidels. It's really only the US and their allies that the Muslims "jack up" about, I've never seen a Muslim crowd protesting about any country that is not interfering against Muslim people somewhere in the world, and it has largely been the US support of the Jews in this respect that has escalated the whole affair and bought the Muslims together as a reasonably united entity.

In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan.

the arab nations haven't let up since. Every now and then theres a ceace fire or a peace talk, but it always comes down to the fact that the arab nations don't want Iseral to exist

 

[senojekips]

In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan.

the arab nations haven't let up since. Every now and then theres a ceace fire or a peace talk, but it always comes down to the fact that the arab nations don't want Iseral to exist

Wouldn't you do the same if the UN suddenly decided to partition the US and give half (The most useful and productive half) to the starving Ethiopians or some other needy community.

The point being that the UN or the Brits who were administering it at the time, did not have the right to give away a country inhabited mainly by Arabs to the Jews. If anything it should have been made into a Palestinian homeland. By Palestinian, I mean belonging to the descendants of those people who had lived there for centuries. NOT a people who merely claimed that they had a god given right, and yet had lived elsewhere for a thousand years or more.

For some reason it only seems to be the US, Israel and their close allies who think the partition was correct. Hence the thread found elsewhere here about the Swiss complaining that the Israelis are breaking International law.http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/switzerland-says-israel-breaking-international-t69610.html

 

[papasha40]

If for arguments sake a couple of million Iraqi's turned up in Zimbabwe, claiming that New Zealand (just an example) had decided to partition the place because its not really being used to its potential so it is now half Iraqi and half Zimbabwean although all the good land just happens to be in the Iraqi areas and Zimbabwes 50% is just patches of land unfit for anything useful.

Who can argue, those poor Iraqis have been through so much, a horrible dictatorship that killed thousands followed by a war and occupation that has killed thousands and lets face it a Muslim must have passed through Zimbabwe going somewhere remotely religious so we have biblical precedent, they deserve a land of their own.

How do you think that would turn out?
Sound reasonable after all I am sure 50 years down the track with enough foreign aid the country could turn a profit.

I believe your argument and your analogy do not hold water. And you are being frivilous with the idea of comparing the Israeli-Palestinian history with what you have written here. (Comical though it was.) You haven't taken in the history of the area which more than anything allowed things to end up the way they did.

Maybe the Palestinians should have dealt directly with the Jewish population in 1947 instead of letting themselves be used as pawns in a greedy and larger Arab game.

Will this situation ever be fixed? Probably not. But Israel has been an entity for over 60 years. What are they suppose to do? Say, Oh my goodness, we are angering some people and hurting the feelings of others. Maybe we should give away half the land.

And even if they did, there still wouldn't be peace.

I wont even bring up the repugnant idea of having to deal with Hamas. This organization takes it's orders from those who spurn modernity, murder women and children for trying to get an education, apply medieval sentances for law and think its alright to blow yourself up as long as you take some infidels with you, no matter what age or gender.

 

[senojekips]

I believe your argument and your analogy do not hold water. And you are being frivilous with the idea of comparing the Israeli-Palestinian history with what you have written here.

Could you please explain how this analogy is frivolous, for to say such a thing is admitting that the donation of Palestine to the Jews was also frivolous, they are in fact two sides of the same coin.

Let's cut a little closer to the bone. Let's say that the present day government of Canada decided to vacate the country, as did the Brits in Palestine. But instead of ceding the land to the descendants of its owners when the French and English arrived, they decided to give it to a tribe of Indians from South America who's forefathers migrated through what is now Canada on their way from Asia. After all, they have no country of their own they are subjugated by the Brazilians or Argentineans or whatever.

The truth is that the European Jews had no right to it just as i have no right to push the present day owners off Raylees farm and surrounding areas in Northumberland where my ancestors came from. The whole concept arose as a result of the Allies guilt complex from not having accepted the Jewish migrants prior to the outbreak of WWII, and the palestinians were the butt of the joke. Chr!st, they are only a mob of nomadic tribesmen they dont "own" the land, they have no paperwork to prove it,... this will be easy.

Well,.. it wasn't, and now we are all paying for it.

 

[perseus]

If for arguments sake a couple of million Iraqi's turned up in Zimbabwe, claiming that New Zealand (just an example) had decided to partition the place because its not really being used to its potential so it is now half Iraqi and half Zimbabwean although all the good land just happens to be in the Iraqi areas and Zimbabwes 50% is just patches of land unfit for anything useful.

Who can argue, those poor Iraqis have been through so much, a horrible dictatorship that killed thousands followed by a war and occupation that has killed thousands and lets face it a Muslim must have passed through Zimbabwe going somewhere remotely religious so we have biblical precedent, they deserve a land of their own.

How do you think that would turn out?
Sound reasonable after all I am sure 50 years down the track with enough foreign aid the country could turn a profit.

Interesting because we (UK, US etc) effectively do something similar through immigration. We trade land for skills. I'm not suggesting that the land or wealth should be disproportionate (or segregated if possible)

 

[Del Boy]

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


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

YES,YES. This link makes the point for Israel's undeniable claim to their homeland.


Thank you Perseus, for providing this important link. Together with the figures, it establishes precisely the truth of Israel's legitimate claim in in all respects to their homeland, far, far greater than any claim of the non-indigineous 'owners' of , say, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc.etc.

I urge readers here to carefully absorb this link, and the important implications of the figures Perseus has listed. With this link, any reader will be provided with a true oversee of the situation. Please read this link carefully, and learn.

I do not think I need add to it except to finf it inexplicable that anyone can claim, that Jerusalem was not the capitol of Israel in recorded history.

I will deal with MontyB's and Senojekips contibutions later on further posts, to avoid confusion on this important link discussion.

 

[perseus]

far greater than any claim of the non-indigenous 'owners' of , say, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc.etc.

Well this is where it all gets very silly. Many reading these boards are I guess are of Anglo-Saxon origin, invaders who displaced the Celts in Prehistoric Britain, yet it would seem ridiculous to suggest we should go back to Germany or the lower Volga or wherever. That is why the only viable solution is that after a period of time (say beyond living memory) races have to share resources, not only in terms of land, but technology, infrastructure, resources, industry, even intellectual property. A classic case of 'what the Romans did for us'. It's the only viable solution. Normally even the worst invaders become assimilated with the population, culturally and sometimes genetically for example Mongols in the Middle East. It's only the insistence on a literal interpretation of the Bible and a dogmatic attitude to ancient rules and scriptures which has caused this problem to fester, along with a genuine bullying of the Jewish race. And the bullied become bullies, they want retribution even if it is against the innocent.

 

[Del Boy]

As your link confirms, Israel has an unassailable claim to its homeland and to Jerusalem as its capital. Simply fact.

The Europeans who staked their claims into the new world have no such claims whatsoever. USA certainly has a long-standing record and claim, but the others really can call upon neither. Therefore some of these are fortunate to face no major challenge. Whether they would be in position to defend against major oriental challenges, on the basis of their rights, is a different matter.

So talk of 'ownership' should be carefully handled by some, just because it happens to suit the case they attempt to construct.

Please read your own link carefully. Thank you.

I am not finished here BTW, just giving you priority - are you flattered?

 

[perseus]

Del Boy I read it prior to posting and was aware it was a pro-Israel link. In fact I tried to find the Jewish population back to around the time of Christ but I don't think the data is there. I am still not convinced they were not in the minority.

It's all somewhat academic, I still don't see any practical suggestion of yours that could be applied universally to all of us. If we are to go back a few thousand years in our genetic heritage hardly anyone is standing on their rightful ground. We have to live with it, share the land and resign ethnic cleansing and religious fairy stories to a part of history, but Israel seems to choose differently.

 

[MontyB]

I will deal with MontyB's and Senojekips contibutions later on further posts, to avoid confusion on this important link discussion.

I seriously think you over estimate your capabilities here because I am prepared to bet that at the very best you will come out of it with a locked thread as it becomes more and more heated due to neither side giving way and we end up with another 30 pages of "no you started it" arguments.

But hey you fire away because I suspect that thread destruction might be the aim of a few anyway, I look forward to reading the cliches.

Del Boy I read it prior to posting and was aware it was a pro-Israel link. In fact I tried to find the Jewish population back to around the time of Christ but I don't think the data is there. I am still not convinced they were not in the minority.

It's all somewhat academic, I still don't see any practical suggestion of yours that could be applied universally to all of us. If we are to go back a few thousand years in our genetic heritage hardly anyone is standing on their rightful ground. We have to live with it, share the land and resign ethnic cleansing and religious fairy stories to a part of history, but Israel seems to choose differently.

The problem is that you assume a lot in forming these arguments, for example it appears popular belief is that the after WW2 the Jew's just went home but that would imply that they had started there when they didn't, the argument remains that there is no physical link between those that "immigrated" to Palestine after the war and the people that had lived their during biblical times other than a sentimental one.

If you are to accept Jewish claims to the "Holy Lands" then you also have to accept Christian and Muslim claims to the same dirt, just as it is ridiculous to believe that I have a valid claim to a chunk of Germany because of my Anglo-Saxon heritage.

To me this argument comes down to whether "Jewish" is a race or a religion, I see it as a religion and that it is by definition not a race.

 

[senojekips]

YES,YES. This link makes the point for Israel's undeniable claim to their homeland.

Thank you Perseus, for providing this important link. Together with the figures, it establishes precisely the truth of Israel's legitimate claim in in all respects to their homeland, far, far greater than any claim of the non-indigineous 'owners' of , say, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc.etc.

I urge readers here to carefully absorb this link, and the important implications of the figures Perseus has listed. With this link, any reader will be provided with a true oversee of the situation. Please read this link carefully, and learn.

I do not think I need add to it except to finf it inexplicable that anyone can claim, that Jerusalem was not the capitol of Israel in recorded history backed by claims going back into history.

I will deal with MontyB's and Senojekips contibutions later on further posts, to avoid confusion on this important link discussion.

Del Boy I think that you are reading the figures in the list backwards, it is the Palestinians and others that are the larger figure, not the Jews. This firmly establishes a Palestinian Majority going back 400 years, prior to WWII.

Nowhere, does it support an Jewish right to Palestine, it's undeniability is in favour of the Palestinians. 250,000 to 5000 in 1600, that's a majority of 50:1 in favour of the Arabs/Palestians

As for the link quoted..."WWW.torah.org" Hmmm,... no bias there of course. That's a bit like stating the Goebbels propaganda Department has made a claim that Gemany has an "undeniable" right to Lebensraum.

In fact, having said that, there is an amazing resemblance between the Nazis claim for Lebensraum and the Jewish claim for Israel, with both being attributed to a mythical "right" of the people to an expanded homeland "going back into history". Both also being similar in that they are only really believed by the perpetrators.