Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/12/06 05:25 AM, lapis wrote: That the Palestinian militants also violate international conventions? Did I ever claim the opposite? More importantly, does that excuse Israel's violations of international conventions like resorting to collective punishment, resettling of civilians in occupied territories, keeping children in administrative detention, locking up children among adults and discriminating based on ethnicity by keeping the age at which a child becomes adult at 18 for Israelis in the occupied territories but lowering it to 16 for Palestinian Arab children in the same area? (For sources read here, somewhere after page three I think, it's your topic so you should know what was written there anyway.)

@collective punishment: First of all, do you have any examples besides the power station bombing that could be construed as such? Personally, I disagree with the power station bombing, but I hope you understand Israel’s reasons.

@resettling of civilians: when did Israel ever resettle any civilians besides its own, when it withdrew from Gaza?

@keeping children in administrative detention: Minors can be terrorists too. It’s more like teenagers than children.

At 7/11/06 10:00 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: The Darfurians aren’t fighting, they are being killed.

Incorrect, the Darfurian militias of the SLA and JEM have been fighting all along. Although there have always been tensions in the region, the real conflict started in February 2003, when the SLA launched attacks on government positions in Darfur. They shot down a government helicopter in March and continued attacks during April, provoking a government response which led to the humanitarian crisis.

Well, I’m really not as informed as I’d like to be on the subject.

The author doesn't mention the orignins of the conflict because the terrorists and Arab countries were the originators.

If you go as far back in time as to name the Arab countries as originators of the conflict then I'll state the simple observation that if there had never been Zionism this whole problem wouldn't exist. The Aliyah immigrants knew very well that if you claim an independent, inherently Jewish country on land in which others had been a vast majority for hundreds of years it might the irk the locals, the fact that the immigrants had the backing of an Imperialist overseer does not negate this. Every conflict that has sprung up in the former Mandate territories over the past decades has been a direct result of Zionism for that matter.

You think the immigrants had the backing of the British? Hardly. The British were Arab-leaning, for the most part. Their policies for the most part favored the Arabs. The British tried to stop the Jews coming into Israel, putting them in detention camps instead. Those Jews that did come didn’t claim a country, and in the beginning were at peace with the locals, from whom they bought land legally. When the British divided up the land between the Jews and the Arabs, each to whom it had promised the land at different times, the Jews accepted and the Arab countries rejected it, attacking. You cannot say that because the Arab governments didn’t like Jews that the Jews’ arrival started the conflict.

Can we not just nuke them both?

At 7/12/06 09:50 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: @collective punishment: First of all, do you have any examples besides the power station bombing that could be construed as such?

Destroying infrastructure in the Gaza strip, destroying a Gaza university, destroying a zoo, permanently shutting down the only airport in Gaza and until last year house demolitions, for example. But the most visible are actions like firing missiles into crowds, shelling recently opened beaches and firing 150 artillery shells into Gaza for every Qassam missile. All of which explain why about 20% of the killed Palestinians in the second Intifada were minors.

Personally, I disagree with the power station bombing, but I hope you understand Israel’s reasons.

Revenge? Deterrence? Because the strategic advantages are pretty minimal compared to the fact that the Gaza sewage system relied on power of which 50% was provided by that plant.

@resettling of civilians: when did Israel ever resettle any civilians besides its own, when it withdrew from Gaza?

Now that you mention it, you still owe me the shocking new evidence as to why the settlements are legal and all the attendees of the UN meeting regarding the subject were wrong. The Israeli government allowed Israelis to settle in occupied territory against the will of the locals, that's called resettlement of civilians and it's forbidden under the 4th Geneva Convention. It hardly matters how you personally feel about the Convention or what you define as resettlement, international law is international law. Write an angry letter to Kofi Annan for all I care.

@keeping children in administrative detention: Minors can be terrorists too. It’s more like teenagers than children.

Once again, a law is a law, a law that the Israeli government is violating. So mackid is pretty wrong in claiming that "Israel has international law on it's side". And if they were terrorists then they should be tried in court instead of being held in administrative detention.

You think the immigrants had the backing of the British? Hardly. The British were Arab-leaning, for the most part. Their policies for the most part favored the Arabs.

Oh my, the British didn't unconditionally support the Zionists so they were pro-Arab. Look, they promised an independent country to migrants, a country on a strip of land to which the immigrants had no more of a legit claim than modern-day Greeks have to an independent state on the western coast of Turkey. The backing of the Zionists that I was talking about was obviously the Balfour Declaration, now don't tell me that you think it was pro-Arab.

The British tried to stop the Jews coming into Israel, putting them in detention camps instead.

The situation was becoming explosive, of course they had to restrain the migration waves. They tried to prevent or lessen the conflict that the influx of ideologically motivated migrants was fueling and they apparently didn't try hard enough.

Those Jews that did come didn’t claim a country, and in the beginning were at peace with the locals, from whom they bought land legally.

Exactly, they were at peace at first when they didn't claim an independent state. To avoid future nitpicking let's clearly define what I mean with "Zionism caused this all". I'm not talking about proto-Zionism like the Hovevei Zion or Labour Zionism but to the Zionism as defined during the First Zionist Congress in 1897, with the clear goal of forming a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. It was bound to cause violence in the claimed territories, you can't expect the locals to just learn the language of the immigrants, adopt to their political beliefs and serve in their military.

When the British divided up the land between the Jews and the Arabs, each to whom it had promised the land at different times, the Jews accepted and the Arab countries rejected it, attacking. You cannot say that because the Arab governments didn’t like Jews that the Jews’ arrival started the conflict.

Just to be a bitch: the British didn't divide the territory, the three-year-old UN did. They issued a non-binding recommendation as an attempt to solve the dispute, both parties had the right to disagree and I can see why the Palestinian Arabs rejected it. They gave a collection of territories to the Zionists which had a 40% Arab population, including the Negev which was almost exclusively inhabited by Bedouins. And like you said yourself: there was initially peace. The Arab nations didn't hate Jews, just Jews who tried to take land away from them.

Ahhh! I thought when I was done with that megathread I’d be done with these long emails vs lapis. Oh well. Here we go again.

At 7/12/06 12:39 PM, lapis wrote:

At 7/12/06 09:50 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: @collective punishment: First of all, do you have any examples besides the power station bombing that could be construed as such?

Destroying infrastructure in the Gaza strip, destroying a Gaza university destroying a zoo permanently shutting down the only airport in Gaza and until last year house demolitions, for example. But the most visible are actions like firing missiles into crowds, shelling recently opened beaches and firing 150 artillery shells into Gaza for every Qassam missile. All of which explain why about 20% of the killed Palestinians in the second Intifada were minors.

The destruction was from missles aimed at terrorists who were in or were thought to be in those locations. The house demolitions were also an anti-terrorist tactic, and used selectively, and not anymore. Firing the missle into the crowd in your link was a targeted assassination. If the beach incident was really from Israeli missle, it was an accident. The 150 per Quassam statistic is, again, not random missles, but targeted missles. I’m not saying that Palestinians don’t die because of these defensive measures, but that they are not the target and, more importantly, none of them are collective punishment.

@resettling of civilians: when did Israel ever resettle any civilians besides its own, when it withdrew from Gaza?

Now that you mention it, you still owe me the shocking new evidence as to why the settlements are legal and all the attendees of the UN meeting regarding the subject were wrong. The Israeli government allowed Israelis to settle in occupied territory against the will of the locals, that's called resettlement of civilians and it's forbidden under the 4th Geneva Convention. It hardly matters how you personally feel about the Convention or what you define as resettlement, international law is international law. Write an angry letter to Kofi Annan for all I care.

Right you are, I do owe you that evidence. I don’t have time during the week, but when I get a chance I’ll write it up.

Look, they promised an independent country to migrants, a country on a strip of land to which the immigrants had no more of a legit claim than modern-day Greeks have to an independent state on the western coast of Turkey. The backing of the Zionists that I was talking about was obviously the Balfour Declaration, now don't tell me that you think it was pro-Arab.

What do you mean they had no claim? They had paid for it. The Arabs sold it to them legally. They had worked the land and been living on it. Yes, the Balfour Declaration is the promise, but it wasn’t fully adhered to by the British. The British also promised the land to the Arabs, and ignored Arab attacks on Jewish settlements.

The British tried to stop the Jews coming into Israel, putting them in detention camps instead.

The situation was becoming explosive, of course they had to restrain the migration waves. They tried to prevent or lessen the conflict that the influx of ideologically motivated migrants was fueling and they apparently didn't try hard enough.

Yeah, it was the mentality of the British to try to not upset the Arabs. What were these immigrants ideologically motivated to do? To live.

didn’t try hard enough

So you would rather that many more Jewish refugees be kept for years in detainment camps than go to live in the Palestine Mandate?

Those Jews that did come didn’t claim a country, and in the beginning were at peace with the locals, from whom they bought land legally.

Exactly, they were at peace at first when they didn't claim an independent state. To avoid future nitpicking let's clearly define what I mean with "Zionism caused this all". I'm not talking about proto-Zionism like the Hovevei Zion or Labour Zionism but to the Zionism as defined during the First Zionist Congress in 1897, with the clear goal of forming a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. It was bound to cause violence in the claimed territories, you can't expect the locals to just learn the language of the immigrants, adopt to their political beliefs and serve in their military.

Let me first thank you for defining Zionism for you, as it is a term which can mean various things to various people.

Now let me respond. What is wrong with a Jewish national homeland? Throughout history, Jews have been killed and massacred. Now, this alone does not give them the right to have a country, but rather the motivation to have a homeland. They didn’t harm anyone. Also, you seem to think that the Jewish immigrants wished to change the Arabs or replace them. No such thing. They wished to live alongside them, and create a state – not Jewish exclusive mind you – where Jews could live free from fear. Also, homeland does not mean country. Jews wished to create a country or land where they could live freely. They in no way expected or require the locals to learn their language, adopt their beliefs, or serve in their military. They only hoped that they could live in the land that the Arabs sold them.

When the British divided up the land between the Jews and the Arabs, each to whom it had promised the land at different times, the Jews accepted and the Arab countries rejected it, attacking. You cannot say that because the Arab governments didn’t like Jews that the Jews’ arrival started the conflict.

Just to be a bitch: the British didn't divide the territory, the three-year-old UN did. They issued a non-binding recommendation as an attempt to solve the dispute, both parties had the right to disagree and I can see why the Palestinian Arabs rejected it. They gave a collection of territories to the Zionists which had a 40% Arab population, including the Negev which was almost exclusively inhabited by Bedouins. And like you said yourself: there was initially peace. The Arab nations didn't hate Jews, just Jews who tried to take land away from them.

I think to have a Jewish state you have to have a Jewish majority. A Jewish state and an Arab state was what the British/UN was going for. The Jewish land was also in such a shape geographically that it was difficult to defend. The Jewish state as in the partition was also 20% of what had been originally promised.

Find me a single example of the Jews “taking” land.

There was a de-facto Jewish state in the northern regions pre-1948. But after 1948, Israel took land in war for its protection. And I stand by that. In the 1967 and '73 wars, the Arabs complained to the Un when Israel was about to pwn them, yet when Jerusalem was taken by the Arabs, Israel didn't complain. It kicked them OUT.

At 7/12/06 02:21 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote:

Find me a single example of the Jews “taking” land.

Golan heights.

At 7/12/06 02:58 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote:

At 7/12/06 02:21 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: Find me a single example of the Jews “taking” land.

Golan heights.

No, that was captured by Israel in a war. I'm sure that made the Arabs angry. But what instance do you have of Jews taking land, as I said before? You can't really call a country fighting a war that captures land as taking it, in the sense that whoever brought it up was using it.

What I want you to find me an example of is the Jews pre-israel taking land. Someone claimed that this is what caused the tensions between Arabs and Jews. You won't be able to, because it didn't happen.

At 7/12/06 02:58 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote:

At 7/12/06 02:21 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote:

Find me a single example of the Jews “taking” land.

Golan heights.

1. That was in a war.
2. That was so terrorists don't shell cities with mortars and Qassams.

At 7/10/06 12:54 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote:

At 7/10/06 12:35 PM, firstJEWISHpope wrote: wow man this tells everything that needs to be told to the palestinians in Gaza and the west bank. It is too bad that this letter wont reach the palestinians beacause the people there are too poor to have computers.

Why do you have to add injury to insult to the Palestinians?Have you ever felt bad for the Palestinians who live in squalid conditions compared to the Israelis who currently live on American taxpayers dollar?

No, because they brought it all on themselves. First they electing the PLO, the original terrorist organization of the Palestinians, and then attacking Israel every time Israel offers them peace. Later, they have a chance to once again end the humiliation and suffering; but instead elect the Hamas and start attacking the Israelites again. Every time these IDIOTS get a chance to have peace they go out of their way to ruin it. Then they cry and whine that they are getting beaten by Israel.

Exactly. If you reject peace, attack civillians and then get some of your terrorists killed, it's your fault.

At 7/12/06 02:20 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: Ahhh! I thought when I was done with that megathread I’d be done with these long emails vs lapis. Oh well. Here we go again.

Yeah, I'm not having fun either. Especially because the letter has been dropped as a subject and we're back on topics that have pretty much been discussed ad nauseam in the past. But whatever, I'll try to keep my response as short as possible.

The destruction was from missles aimed at terrorists who were in or were thought to be in those locations. The house demolitions were also an anti-terrorist tactic, and used selectively, and not anymore.

From the previous source: "In some instances, the damage to neighboring homes apparently resulted from the force of the explosion, and was not deliberate. However, B’Tselem’s research clearly shows that in some cases, soldiers intentionally damaged adjacent homes. Destruction of nearby homes is especially common when the residents of the nearby homes belong to the suspect’s extended family. Almost half of the homes demolished by the IDF as punishment during the current intifada were adjacent homes". It's an abandoned policy but it shows how targeted these IDF attacks are.

Firing the missle into the crowd in your link was a targeted assassination.

Oh really, I bet they also targeted the four innocents that were killed who had nothing to do with Yassin. When you fire a missile towards the exit of a mosque after morning prayer you know for certain that you're going to kill bystanders, while there are plenty of other ways to eliminate an old man in a wheelchair who had been released from prison earlier. These innocents were being killed deliberately, the underlying message was: "if you don't do enough to stop militants this is what happens". The common Palestinian was punished with death because of the actions of others in his group, that's called collective punishment. It's either that or the IDF is simply incompetent, something I doubt.

If the beach incident was really from Israeli missle, it was an accident. The 150 per Quassam statistic is, again, not random missles, but targeted missles.

Yeah, I bet all one hundred and fifty of them are perfectly targeted.

What do you mean they had no claim? They had paid for it.

Oh please, estimates vary from 1,734,000 dunums according to Granott to 1,850,000 according to Azneri. That's about 7% of the total area of Palestine - that means they hadn't paid for at least 85% of the land that was to be assigned to them if the Partition Plan had been accepted. Explain what they did to deserve those lands.

So you would rather that many more Jewish refugees be kept for years in detainment camps than go to live in the Palestine Mandate?

I'd rather have them migrate somewhere else where the situation wasn't about to explode. You can't blame the Palestinian Arabs for the US refusal to let large amounts of Jewish refugees in.

No such thing. They wished to live alongside them, and create a state – not Jewish exclusive mind you – where Jews could live free from fear. Also, homeland does not mean country.

New York also fits your description for a Jewish homeland, but that's not what the early Zionists had in mind by far. Come on, Herzl's most important work was called "der Judenstaat", a Jewish state, a state that is Jewish. Zionism is in a way simply the Jewish form of Nationalism, the belief that all different peoples deserve to have an independent country. Herzl's way of combating anti-Semitism was to have a state were Jews had control of the country, if they didn't they could not properly defend themselves in case the other ethnicities turned on them, not an unlikely scenario like you said. This is why organisations like Efrat use slogans like "if the Arab population in Israel reaches 40% the Jewish state will be nullified", there is no problem when there are small amounts of Arabs but the idea to coexist with them in one country with them having more say due to their larger numbers was never dominant among Zionists after 1897.

How could they live with any less fear in one country where the Arabs had most or equal control than they could in the United States for example?

And even though I'm not a fan of Nationalism I'm even willing to make an exception for a Jewish state due to historical reasons, but not in Palestine, not in any place where there are others who have at least as much of a claim to that land as the Jews. If Israel had been founded in Utah or Micronesia, in agreement with the locals, it would have been wonderful.

I think to have a Jewish state you have to have a Jewish majority.

If Los Angeles gets a Mexican majority does the land then automatically belong to the Mexicans?

The Jewish state as in the partition was also 20% of what had been originally promised.

Irrelevant. The British could just as well have promised them the whole Arabian Peninsula. That doesn't make it rightfully theirs.

Find me a single example of the Jews “taking” land.

Founding Israel.

At 7/10/06 12:54 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote:

At 7/10/06 12:35 PM, firstJEWISHpope wrote: wow man this tells everything that needs to be told to the palestinians in Gaza and the west bank. It is too bad that this letter wont reach the palestinians beacause the people there are too poor to have computers.

Why do you have to add injury to insult to the Palestinians?Have you ever felt bad for the Palestinians who live in squalid conditions compared to the Israelis who currently live on American taxpayers dollar?

you seriously over-estimate the financial help given to israel by the us ...which sums up at roughly2 billion dollars a year -a very(very) insignificant portion of the total yearly budget of israel.....america's greatest donation to israel is an international support not a financial one......

israel is a self made success........hell the us did not even assist israel until the 1970's-and objected to it's foundation(although it voted pro in the un vote due to political reasoning)......

At 7/13/06 07:37 AM, lapis wrote: From the previous source: "In some instances, the damage to neighboring homes apparently resulted from the force of the explosion, and was not deliberate. However, B’Tselem’s research clearly shows that in some cases, soldiers intentionally damaged adjacent homes. Destruction of nearby homes is especially common when the residents of the nearby homes belong to the suspect’s extended family. Almost half of the homes demolished by the IDF as punishment during the current intifada were adjacent homes". It's an abandoned policy but it shows how targeted these IDF attacks are.

Still, it was a tactic AIMED at terrorist’s families, to deter the terrorists. I don’t think it was a good tactic, but its definitely not collective punishment.

At 7/12/06 02:20 PM, Dragon_Smaug wrote: Firing the missle into the crowd in your link was a targeted assassination.

Oh really, I bet they also targeted the four innocents that were killed who had nothing to do with Yassin. When you fire a missile towards the exit of a mosque after morning prayer you know for certain that you're going to kill bystanders, while there are plenty of other ways to eliminate an old man in a wheelchair who had been released from prison earlier. These innocents were being killed deliberately, the underlying message was: "if you don't do enough to stop militants this is what happens". The common Palestinian was punished with death because of the actions of others in his group, that's called collective punishment. It's either that or the IDF is simply incompetent, something I doubt.

No. They took into account that innocent people would die, and decided that the amount would be less than if the terrorist lived and went on to kill more innocents. The underlying message was: “Terrorists, don’t think you can hide behind civilians.” It’s not easy to kill these terrorists. They don’t move in the open often. When you get a chance, you have to take it if the risks are acceptable. It would be collective punishment if Israel fired missles into innocents everywhere. But no, just at terrorist targets. Unfortunately, there is no way to kill the terrorists without injuring or killing civilians.

What do you mean they had no claim? They had paid for it.

Oh please, estimates vary from 1,734,000 dunums according to Granott to 1,850,000 according to Azneri. That's about 7% of the total area of Palestine - that means they hadn't paid for at least 85% of the land that was to be assigned to them if the Partition Plan had been accepted. Explain what they did to deserve those lands.

They weren’t going to take those lands and settle them, and kick the owners out. They were going to set up a fair government which would prevent attacks on the Jews and peace at least within its borders. What they did to deserve it was fight in the British army, die for the British army, and carry out suicide missions for the British army, in return for which the British promised the Jews a state. The Arabs owning the land would still own the land, just live in the country of Israel instead of the Palestine Mandate.

So you would rather that many more Jewish refugees be kept for years in detainment camps than go to live in the Palestine Mandate?

I'd rather have them migrate somewhere else where the situation wasn't about to explode. You can't blame the Palestinian Arabs for the US refusal to let large amounts of Jewish refugees in.

Fun fact: No one wanted them. You can blame the Palestinian Arabs for not letting the Jews live in peace on the land they themselves had sold them.

No such thing. They wished to live alongside them, and create a state – not Jewish exclusive mind you – where Jews could live free from fear. Also, homeland does not mean country.

New York also fits your description for a Jewish homeland, but that's not what the early Zionists had in mind by far. Come on, Herzl's most important work was called "der Judenstaat", a Jewish state, a state that is Jewish. Zionism is in a way simply the Jewish form of Nationalism, the belief that all different peoples deserve to have an independent country. Herzl's way of combating anti-Semitism was to have a state were Jews had control of the country, if they didn't they could not properly defend themselves in case the other ethnicities turned on them, not an unlikely scenario like you said. This is why organisations like Efrat use slogans like "if the Arab population in Israel reaches 40% the Jewish state will be nullified", there is no problem when there are small amounts of Arabs but the idea to coexist with them in one country with them having more say due to their larger numbers was never dominant among Zionists after 1897.

Yeah. Obviously in a Jewish state they’d want a Jewish majority. But that by no means means Jewish exclusive or kicking out Arabs, as I said before.

And even though I'm not a fan of Nationalism I'm even willing to make an exception for a Jewish state due to historical reasons, but not in Palestine, not in any place where there are others who have at least as much of a claim to that land as the Jews. If Israel had been founded in Utah or Micronesia, in agreement with the locals, it would have been wonderful.

First of all, Jews were migrating on their own to Israel, so if there was going to be a Jewish homeland or country, it would have to be there. They weren’t wanted anywhere in the world, or else the refugees would have gone there. The establishment of Israel being legal has nothing to do with biblical claims or anything. The establishment of Israel was legal, and took no one’s land.

t 7/13/06 10:43 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote:

Still, it was a tactic AIMED at terrorist’s families, to deter the terrorists. I don’t think it was a good tactic, but its definitely not collective punishment.

What do you define as collective punishment? The word "collective" refers to a group of people with similar characteristics in this context, a "punishment" is a degree of harm or a penalty inflicted as a method of deterrence or revenge. Collective punishment therefore means that you punish a whole group of people for the actions of one member of that group. In this case the entire family of the terrorist is being punished for crimes they didn't commit. It's aimed, it's targeted, yes. Targeted to penalise the innocent, as a means of deterrence.

It’s not easy to kill these terrorists. They don’t move in the open often.

The Isreali authorities had released him from prison earlier. If they're able to incarcerate him they should also be able to kill him without taking innocent lives along with him.

When you get a chance, you have to take it if the risks are acceptable. It would be collective punishment if Israel fired missles into innocents everywhere. But no, just at terrorist targets. Unfortunately, there is no way to kill the terrorists without injuring or killing civilians.

Hypothetical situation: the Israelis nuke Beirut with the intent of discouraging terrorists from capturing Israeli soldiers in the future. The attack is targeted, at Beirut. Collective punishment, yes or no?

What they did to deserve it was fight in the British army, die for the British army, and carry out suicide missions for the British army, in return for which the British promised the Jews a state.

And how, pray tell, did the Arabs benefit from that?

The Arabs owning the land would still own the land, just live in the country of Israel instead of the Palestine Mandate.

Oh yeah, how could they not be ecstatic about that scenario? Another hypothetical situation: parts of India got a Gypsy majority and these Gypsies claimed an independent Roma state there. The local Indians would still own the land but they'd live in a new independent country called The Roma Nation and they'd have to learn Romani if they wanted to take part in the new government. They should have been perfectly happy of course.

Or let's say the Mormons become a majority in Iraq and want to found a Mormon state there. The US make it happen and they have the right to do so, as they fought out a defensive war according to your definition of defensive wars so whatever they decide to do with the land is justified. The local Iraqis still own the land but they'll live in a new inherently Mormon nation called Mormonia and they'll have to learn English to properly function in society.

There's a huge, huge difference between living in a territory that's merely administered by a foreign power and living in the national homeland of another people, even a partisan like you should be able to understand that. And when Imperialism was waning the Palestinian Arabs deserved to get ownership of the lands in which their people had been the vast majority for hundreds of years like the Indians deserved a state called India.

Yeah. Obviously in a Jewish state they’d want a Jewish majority. But that by no means means Jewish exclusive or kicking out Arabs, as I said before.

No, you said they wouldn't have had to learn the language of the new overseeing power, that they didn't have to adopt the basic political convinctions of the new power and that they wouldn't have to serve in the military of the new power if they'd choose to serve. I said nothing about kicking out the locals. But at least you admit that Israel was meant to be a Jewish state, a state for the Jews and that whoever wanted to live in that state had to conform to them.

First of all, Jews were migrating on their own to Israel, so if there was going to be a Jewish homeland or country, it would have to be there.

The same could have applied to Argentina according to Herzl’s der Judenstaat. But the main reason for choosing Palestine was the observation that is was “the ever-memorable historic home” of the Jews - a pretty biblical claim. Another excerpt: “An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews.” So don’t tell me that the Zionists didn’t forsee the obvious reaction of the Palestinian Arabs and just came to live in peace.

I’m not really feeling your hypothetical scenarios, I don’t think they are quite as good a metaphor as could be done.

At 7/13/06 01:38 PM, lapis wrote: t 7/13/06 10:43 AM, Dragon_Smaug wrote:

Yeah. Obviously in a Jewish state they’d want a Jewish majority. But that by no means means Jewish exclusive or kicking out Arabs, as I said before.

No, you said they wouldn't have had to learn the language of the new overseeing power, that they didn't have to adopt the basic political convinctions of the new power and that they wouldn't have to serve in the military of the new power if they'd choose to serve.

That’s correct. I still say that. Unless you mean by basic political convictions the right of Jews to life.

I said nothing about kicking out the locals. But at least you admit that Israel was meant to be a Jewish state, a state for the Jews and that whoever wanted to live in that state had to conform to them.

I admit that Israel was meant to be a Jewish state, but whoever wanted to live their did not have to conform to them, no, I never said that.

First of all, Jews were migrating on their own to Israel, so if there was going to be a Jewish homeland or country, it would have to be there.

The same could have applied to Argentina according to Herzl’s der Judenstaat. But the main reason for choosing Palestine was the observation that is was “the ever-memorable historic home” of the Jews - a pretty biblical claim. Another excerpt: “An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews.” So don’t tell me that the Zionists didn’t forsee the obvious reaction of the Palestinian Arabs and just came to live in peace.

Obvious reaction? First of all, they did come to live in peace. Second of all, perhaps they knew some wouldn’t welcome them. But, they didn’t take the land by force (although they defended it with force). They made peace with their neighbors. Their country was created by an international power.

Fine, Herzl believes Argentina wouldv’e been good too. Israel is what the UN gave them.

At 7/10/06 12:26 PM, Inglor wrote:

Written by Youssef Ibrahim, Egyptian-American journalist, published: The Sun.

Dear Brethren, the War With Israel Is Over

long post I can't quote...

The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?

------------------------------------------
-
What do you think about this?

See? Was that too hard?! Why can't the Muslims just be like this guy.

(I am assuming you are Muslim, if I am wrong, sorry, but I now repect you more than any other Muslim I know.)

At 7/13/06 01:38 PM, lapis wrote:

The same could have applied to Argentina according to Herzl’s der Judenstaat.

This wasn't accepted by the Zionist community or the World Zionist Congress. Herzl changed his views later on, anyway.

Oh, and lapis, because you don't have a job, you don't work for peace, no...you blow stuff up...your employer's stuff. Brilliant.

Wow GsGt. Your not really helping.You should go to Gaza or the West bank or any other territory Israel is occupying and see how the Palestinians live on a daily life. If you do that then I'll live with an Israeli Jewish family and see how they have to "struggle' with poverty,constant invasions,humiliation,and a crippled economy.Oh and having the world critiscise you for being the problem.

Sounds fair?

The world criticizes Israel. The US criticizes the Arabs. That's how it is. Once again, the US is 100% correct.

At 7/13/06 05:26 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: The world criticizes Israel. The US criticizes the Arabs. That's how it is. Once again, the US is 100% correct.

The world doesnt like how Israel can do whatever it wants by invading a country and enter undecided territories.It doesnt like when your tanks,jets,ships,ground troops totaly cordon off Palestinians,treat them like animals.You take ordinary Palestinians refuse them basic services in the territories.Your military is free to wander palestinian streets,you can raid houses for absolutely no reason.If Israel has a terroist problem then the world will listen.They already listen.But when you invade a country you expect handshakes.Israel is like a troubled teen that whenever it doesn't get what it wants it runs off to dad's house.(America)

OK! What is everyone's problem?? Isreal did not start this! What do you think the US would do, if Mexico launched missles at us? Send troops! Duh! And all of this, "Isrealis have good lifes, where as the Palestinians are all in poverty' crap really has to stop. That does not give them an excuse to attack Isreal. And just because Isrealis in general have more money and better living situations than most Palestinians does not mean that they have to just sit there and take abuse.

At 7/13/06 05:19 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: Wow GsGt. Your not really helping.You should go to Gaza or the West bank or any other territory Israel is occupying and see how the Palestinians live on a daily life. If you do that then I'll live with an Israeli Jewish family and see how they have to "struggle' with poverty,constant invasions,humiliation,and a crippled economy.Oh and having the world critiscise you for being the problem.

No one disputes that the Palestinians have bad living conditions. At least they got it better than the rest of the world, from the help Israel gave them before giving control over to the PLO.

At 7/13/06 07:14 PM, Iamrecognized wrote: OK! What is everyone's problem?? Isreal did not start this! What do you think the US would do, if Mexico launched missles at us? Send troops! Duh! And all of this, "Isrealis have good lifes, where as the Palestinians are all in poverty' crap really has to stop. That does not give them an excuse to attack Isreal. And just because Isrealis in general have more money and better living situations than most Palestinians does not mean that they have to just sit there and take abuse.

Most of the criticism I have seen is of the way in which Israel defends itself. Perhaps, there is an equally effective way of Israel to defend itself that results in fewer civilian deaths. I do not think you can defend their methods of action by defending their right to some action, such as that resulting in fewer needless deaths.

At 7/13/06 09:39 PM, Wyrlum wrote: Most of the criticism I have seen is of the way in which Israel defends itself. Perhaps, there is an equally effective way of Israel to defend itself that results in fewer civilian deaths. I do not think you can defend their methods of action by defending their right to some action, such as that resulting in fewer needless deaths.

The problem is, can you think of such a way? There is no good way to attack the terrorists, because they have no qualms about endangering their neighbors by holding meetings in their homes and opening fire with innocents nearby.