| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 1930-40's Jewish terrorist activities in Palestine | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 25 2003, 09:28 PM (832 Views) | |
| Minuet | Sep 30 2003, 10:39 PM Post #31 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I can't believe your hypocrisy!!! Jordan is poor so it doesn't have to compensate the Palestinians. The Jews had nothing when the tiny sliver of land was given to them by the UN. Were they not poor enough to win your sympathy? <_< And of course Muslim sacred sites are more important then Jewish ones. Did you know that the Muslims took every opportunity to defile Jewish sites. Israel has been very careful to respect Muslim sites. The Dome of the Rock is on top of the holiest site in Judaism, but the Muslims are allowed control over the site (except for the Western Wall)
Here you go revising history again. Jordan (and other Arab countries) has actually taken a position of denying Palestinians citizenship in thier country. You are right about the rudimentary care. They have been provided with the minimum and herded into camps. The Jordanians have a vested interest in keeping the Palestinians displaced and putting all the blame on Israel. It deflects world attention from thier disgraceful record. After 60 years you would think they would have found enough room in thier country for thier "brothers". And I don't care whether or not you believe the "average" Palestinian does not want the destruction of Israel. Actions speak louder then words. Palestinians pour into the streets for the funerals of thier "martyrs". They danced in the streets on 9/11. This was not a tiny minority. If the average person really wanted peace they would get rid of Arafat. He stays in power by preventing peace. One more thing. You keep talking about a "fair and reasonable" settlement. Would you mind defining for me what in your mind constitutes this "fair and reasonable" settlement?
If security is guaranteed then yes, I do think this wall will come down. It took a long time, but the Berlin wall did come down. Just remember, your "fair and reasonable" settlement has to be fair to Israel too. They have a right to defend themselves. Something which people like you convieniently forget. I think a wall separating them is better then soldiers on the streets with guns. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 30 2003, 10:49 PM Post #32 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
You can divide up a quote by cutting and pasting. Click on the quote button both before and after the quote
Number 1 the Palestinians NEVER have aknowledged that the Jewish people deserve a homeland. Thier charter calls for driving the Jews into the sea. You are making assumptions and ignoring history again. Number 2 Palestine never existed as a homeland. The land has been conquered many times over. You cannot destroy that which never was. The only Palestinian homeland that existed was the one created by the same UN resolution that created Israel. They lost that through thier own folly and by listening to thier Arab "brothers". And I still don't see how you can let Jordan off the hook as far as returning thier land and helping to create this homeland. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 30 2003, 11:11 PM Post #33 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Did not the Oslo accords of 1993 require MUTUAL recognition of Israel and a Palestinian homeland ?? (still can't work the quoting thing )
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 30 2003, 11:37 PM Post #34 |
|
Lieutenant
|
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory....ubsection=world A simple question then - if the "security fence" is just that, for security, why does Israel not build it along the green line, which is where everyone else in the world - including America - would want it built. That way, Israel can STILL have it's security and the Palestinians will not be furhter disadvantaged or pissed off. President Bush - to his credit - has called the wall "a problem". Hell, when even a devoutly born again Christian Republican American President's administration says the Israeli wall is not logical where it is being built on what will probably become Arab land, surely, we can take it then, that the wall MUST be a problem ???? If so, what is the reason it is being built where it is ? does this sound like the actions of a people willing to compromise and negotiate ? when even Israel's strongest ally and benefactor questions the wall's purpose ? (can quote properly now !!) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Oct 1 2003, 12:36 AM Post #35 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I am a bit confused here Nz, up until recently your question (particularly of Minuet) has been to provide historical justification for Israel's existence beyond Biblical sources. Now we find you changing horses midstream.
What is it you really want? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 1 2003, 06:42 AM Post #36 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Again, Israel was formed through a UN resolution. Because of attacks by those unwilling to uphold the UN resolution, it had to protect its nation through force. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Oct 1 2003, 07:50 AM Post #37 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
And whose fault is it that the Oslo accords have not been enforced. Could it be the Palestinians who continue with HOMICIDE bombings?????? If they were willing to PROPERLY recognize Israel and negotiate in good faith they would already have a country. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Oct 1 2003, 07:54 AM Post #38 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I must whole heartedly agree with Minuet here. The previous example of Egypt, Sadat accomplishes by diplomacy what Nasser could never accomplish through force and terrorism. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Oct 1 2003, 08:00 AM Post #39 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Why are you focusing on one small (and recent) problem???? You are completly ignoring all my points regarding what the Palestinians have done to avoid peace. And you are still ignoring Jordan's role in this issue. The wall would never have been needed if the Palestinians had been willing to negotiate in good faith. And the Palestinians would have much more land to work with had they not been shafted by thier Jordanian "brothers". Israel has been scapegoated as the problem in the region to deflect world attention from the deficencies of the Arab leadership. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Oct 1 2003, 11:06 AM Post #40 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
NZ go to memri.org you'll see among other things that: the arab states want the destruction of Isreal the Onslo accord were a fiction (a trojan horse according to one of Arafat's officers) meant to weaken Israel without tha Arabs giving up a thing. Two things are needed for peace. The death of Arafat Annexation of any land from which a attack is made against Israel. All in good fun ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Oct 1 2003, 09:05 PM Post #41 |
|
Lieutenant
|
swidden - it is very simple. There seems to me to be TWO SEPARATE areas of contention people have with regards the "right" of Israel to exist as it does today, A) the "historical" type claim - based upon biblical references, archaelogical evidence, the "link" to the land etc, etc............... then there is another more simple area of contention - B) the simple right of one group of people to "take over" land that "belongs" to some one else. (for some reason my point "B" comes out as a smilie ??) Although the two issues slightly overlap, I generally treat them as separate arguements. My statement in the quote above you posted, basically says, "look, even if we say, okay all the historical / bibical stuff (point A above) is completely true and incontestable, then for reasons of point B, I still find it unacceptable that Israel exists to the extent and area it does today. Don't get me wrong, both sides should have a homeland; I simply think the 1948 UN solution was the fairest - giving each side about half each. Through the mechanism of war, Israel today is far bigger than it was envisioned to be. No organisation today, including the UN, recognises war as an acceptable way to gain land and the UN and most other countries, consider the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories, since it was won by Israel in the 1967 war. So, even if the Jews have an historical claim to Palestine - so what ? The American Indians can't ever claim back America can they and they have a pretty clear cut claim to that land don't they ? We can argue all day every day about what the bible says and doesn't say - there are plenty of references supporting and contradicting both sides. I generally steer clear of the historical debate. I'm saying, even if the historical debate totally supports the Jewish claim to the land, they can't just go and take it for God's sake. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Oct 1 2003, 09:07 PM Post #42 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Again, Israel was formed through a UN resolution. Because of attacks by those unwilling to uphold the UN resolution, it had to protect its nation through force. [/QUOTE] protect yes; double it's size and CONTINUE to take and settle land to THIS day ? NO !! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Oct 1 2003, 09:20 PM Post #43 |
|
Lieutenant
|
on the subject of Sadat - the Camp David Accords were just one more humiliation for the Palestinans. Of course Egypt has nothing to do with the Palestinan people, apart from being fellow arabs. There is absolutely no reason why the Egyptians should be able to speak for the Palestinain and of course this approach achieved nothing. EXCEPT for Israel. Sadat fell completetly into the Israeli trap, probably willingly as he managed to get billions of American aid as a result. More importantly to Israel, they managed to pry loose and separate their most powerful Arab adversary from the arab league, who, by and large, but not always, supported the Palestinans cause. The Israelis knew that without Egypt, the Palestinains would be in a far weaker position. Without Egypt, the Palestinian cause lost much of its official momentum, though as the Camp David accords said, Egypt was supposed to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinans. (to no effect). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Oct 1 2003, 09:21 PM Post #44 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
While I understand the idea that no country should be allowed to conquer another and annex land through military force. What about those occasions (as did happen with Israel) when a country is attacked and the one being attacked comes out on top and then turns around to tell the attacker that they should reasonably expect to give up land they retreated across? That is what happened with Israel in some of those conflicts, they were attacked won the war and adjusted the borders accordingly. Shouldn't the aggressor in those circumstances expect that a price is going to be extracted? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Oct 1 2003, 09:28 PM Post #45 |
|
Lieutenant
|
that's the whole point with the "you can't just flood into this arab land and take it over" arguement !!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the Jews who were the agressors in the first place. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


)


2:30 PM Jul 11