Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/3/08 12:55 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

I've been there

So have a lot of people, that doesn't make your word divine mandate.

Gives credibility relative to posters on NG who say "why bother talk about countries you'll never go to"

knows a lot more material on the subject than you or anyone else.

Theres one of your main problems, you assume you and him know more then everyone else simply because you were there and that zoorule agrees with you.
Besides, just because your well versed with the subject doesn't necessarily mean you are right. And ignoring other peoples opinion because it comes from another source that isn't first hand is just foolish.

Zoolrule and I don't agree, but everything about palestinians not existing before the 1960s is backed by wiki, the UN failing is backed by well documented sources, and hearing the same rhetoric that's been disproved again and again and again makes somone who claims it seem foolish.

Most of the opinions are based off of historically fiction books and propaganda sources such as The protocols of the elders of zionism, and base their interpretations of Jews with blood libels. Now, you know how rediculous anyone for thinking jews feast on the blood of christians is, right? So would any other garbage coming from someone who believes that load of bull have much credibility? I think not.

People buy into inaccurate political cartoons,

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you minimize other peoples arguments to propaganda and claim your argument isn't and therefor are right.

Well usually when someone needs a cartoon to get their message across shows me that they don't know about the topic and act before thinking.

So please save the bullshit argument that "I was there, I am right" and actually provide information. Because if you don't I'm afraid I'm going to have to claim I'm god and automatically overturn your argument.

har har, but I have shown information making the palestinians look so much worse than Israelis, and if you look at all those threads, you'll see the links I've provided along with timelines.

At 4/2/08 10:28 AM, Korriken wrote: the morons to keep making attacks from the gaza strip, fucking it up for everyone else living there. Its the classic meat shield / moral backlash tactic. you make an attack from a place that is impossible to counter attack without killing some civilians. when the enemy attacks you and kills some civilians, you make it as public as possible that they killed civilians without mention that you like some of their civilians as well.

Bingo.

Ding. Ding.

The innocent deaths of Palestinians are not Israel's fault. It's the Palestinians themselves because they intentionally use innocents for tactical and propaganda benefit against Israel.

I guess to fadious, these children are needed for those gunmen to "defend themselves".

thread over

At 4/3/08 01:56 AM, n64kid wrote: but everything about palestinians not existing before the 1960s is backed by wiki,

The Palestinian people existed there. Although I don't see a point to that, a Jewish kingdom/state hadn't existed there for thousands of years (like 2700 or something).

the UN failing is backed by well documented sources,

I'm sorry, I don't get the reference. The UN failing what?

Well usually when someone needs a cartoon to get their message across shows me that they don't know about the topic and act before thinking.

Fair enough, but I've seen a lot of people that throw the propaganda card out whenever they can just because they argue against a side that has people who use propaganda.

har har, but I have shown information making the palestinians look so much worse than Israelis, and if you look at all those threads, you'll see the links I've provided along with timelines.

There isn't a whole lot of " all those threads", and apparently nothing in your recent posts about it.

At 4/3/08 02:25 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

The Palestinian people existed there. Although I don't see a point to that, a Jewish kingdom/state hadn't existed there for thousands of years (like 2700 or something).

-sigh- not this again. Jews are the oldest tribe of people with claims to the land. The ancient Canaanites died out, and the people who called themselves palestinians of roughly 400 BC have no relationship to the arabs who call themselves palestinians.

The modern "Palestinian" was designated as such as a propaganda tool by the arab league in 1967 so people assume that they were from palestine. This is NOT the case as most do not have any blood to the land. In fact, most are arabs who were dumped there in the late 1800s to keep the jews a minority by the Ottoman empire.
I've already said that I've seen the cover of a Jewish prayer book, one not used by muslims, and on the cover it says The Palastinian Haggadah (jewish prayer book for passover). Date? 1937. You might notice countless newspapers from Palestine. I've seen them as early as 1908-1948. What language are they? They're all in hebrew. In fact, the only people prior to 1967 that were ever considered palestinians were Jews.

the UN failing is backed by well documented sources,

I'm sorry, I don't get the reference. The UN failing what?

The UN declaring Israel as an independent country, and not doing anything about the 1948 war of independence. Any UN peace negotiations, including the cease-fire of 2006. No matter how you look at it, the UN failed.

Fair enough, but I've seen a lot of people that throw the propaganda card out whenever they can just because they argue against a side that has people who use propaganda.

Both sides have propaganda. One side uses it towards children to hate Jews. They train kids to run around shooting Israelis. But wait, you said a decade can mean a lifetime in politics, why should it also mean a lifetime for these children. But people who have Palestinian sympathy seem to blame Israeli soliders for killing kids when the blood is on the hands of those who endanger their own children. On top of this, Israelis do not target kids or civilians, but the Palestinians do. Therefore I simply cannot see anyone consider the palestinians to be victums of Israel due to all events that have happened in the past and present. So although I disagree when people say both sides make mistakes, I'll respect that, but to say that they're both equal is far from the truth.

There isn't a whole lot of " all those threads", and apparently nothing in your recent posts about it.

Fuck the Un and Israel and etc, In regards to Palestine, You know... (Thoughts on Israel), Amnesty accuses Israel ofwar crimes, Pro vs. Anti Israel, World War 3, Armenian Genocide, along with others that turned into total hatred towards Israel.

At 4/2/08 11:56 AM, Fadious wrote: Israel attacked Palestine first
Palestinians are defending themselves
These defenders have women & children
Israel is targeting them to stop the defenders

stupid.

propagandic.

bullshit.

lies.

At 4/3/08 03:08 AM, n64kid wrote: and the people who called themselves palestinians of roughly 400 BC have no relationship to the arabs who call themselves palestinians.

Wow, I don't even have an response to that.
That information came out of nowhere, and frankly I'm surprised and confused as to why you would mention it.

This is NOT the case as most do not have any blood to the land. In fact, most are arabs who were dumped there in the late 1800s to keep the jews a minority by the Ottoman empire.

You are so disillusioned, its not even comical.
Normally I would argue with you, but there is nothing to argue about.

I mean really, I am dumbfounded by the fact that your response to my comment that Palestinians lived in Israel before the state of Israel is that they are not "real Palestinians and were 'dumped' there".
I would expect something like that out of a extreme propaganda shouting nut job.

Both sides have propaganda. One side uses it towards children to hate Jews.

Let me guess, you aren't going to mention the other side.

But wait, you said a decade can mean a lifetime in politics,

I did?

blame Israeli soliders for killing kids when the blood is on the hands of those who endanger their own children.

Don't worry, I'm not going to get into an argument of how Israeli soliders massacre children that throw rocks at them.

but the Palestinians do.

Terrorists.
The Palestinian terrorists target children. Lumping all palestinians into the acts that only a few cause makes you no better then the palestinians who throw out propaganda.

Therefore I simply cannot see anyone consider the palestinians to be victums of Israel due to all events that have happened in the past and present.

Well its hard for me to understand how people can justify their beliefs that harming or killing civilians is ok because of an extremist group.

I can understand why or that you would do it, but not how they can make themselves feel better about it.

At 4/2/08 12:05 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/2/08 10:13 AM, Fadious wrote: Who is the real Terrorist??

the jaberwock?

no, the jews.

Of all the arguments about Israel that there is, this is by far the most stupid. Trying to assign (and deny) nationhood on the basis of very sketchy history just isn't a good argument.

The modern "Palestinian" was designated as such as a propaganda tool by the arab league in 1967 so people assume that they were from palestine. This is NOT the case as most do not have any blood to the land. In fact, most are arabs who were dumped there in the late 1800s to keep the jews a minority by the Ottoman empire.

You say they have no blood there....yet most families have been living there for over a century. Is America not a nation then? Because the people have no "blood to the land"? Or are you going to invent a new idea of nationhood?

I've already said that I've seen the cover of a Jewish prayer book, one not used by muslims, and on the cover it says The Palastinian Haggadah (jewish prayer book for passover). Date? 1937. You might notice countless newspapers from Palestine. I've seen them as early as 1908-1948. What language are they? They're all in hebrew. In fact, the only people prior to 1967 that were ever considered palestinians were Jews.

Err....what? Your "evidence" doesn't even lead to your conclusions, unless you honestly consider seeing things in hewbrew proof that there weren't things in other languages (in which case you need some major major lessons in logic.)

Another thing you need a lesson in is the history of political ideas. Prior to the 19th Century there was NO idea that people belonged to a land - that nations (with geographical boundaries) existed. There was rulers and subjects, no citizens, no nation-states, nothing. It is historical fiction to project modern ideas on to ancient history (please also note that ancient Israel was an empire - land was taken by force and claiming legitimacy from the ancient ownership of the lands is the endorsement of the idea of might is right.)

Another quick question, can anyone explain a concept of nationhood, which does not rely on statehood, that would support the idea of Israelis as a people, but not Palestinians? The reason for excluding definitions based on statehood is because, in theory, a nation legitimately deserves a state and trying to reverse this makes no sense.

At 4/3/08 08:43 AM, Slizor wrote: You say they have no blood there....yet most families have been living there for over a century. Is America not a nation then? Because the people have no "blood to the land"? Or are you going to invent a new idea of nationhood?

No, I'm saying most arabs didn't even have belonging there until the late 60s with a mass influx of arab immigrants after the war in '67. The majority of arabs living in that land would be in what modern day Jordan is, and therefore have no real claim to historical times. The part that was Israel was mostly desert and uninhabitable. During the late 1800s to early 1900s, the Jews drained the swamps, irrigated the deserts, and turned Israel to what it is today. On top of that, the Jews SHARE the land. Palestinians and arabs are allowed to live in Israel, but no non muslim Israeli is allowed in any Arab nation.

Err....what? Your "evidence" doesn't even lead to your conclusions, unless you honestly consider seeing things in hewbrew proof that there weren't things in other languages (in which case you need some major major lessons in logic.)

It proves that Jews were palestinians prior to Israel's birth. And if you cannot follow that, the illogical person be you.

Another quick question, can anyone explain a concept of nationhood, which does not rely on statehood, that would support the idea of Israelis as a people, but not Palestinians? The reason for excluding definitions based on statehood is because, in theory, a nation legitimately deserves a state and trying to reverse this makes no sense.

You misinterpreted me entirely. The Palestinians never had control of what Israel is today. And don't confuse Palestinians with arabs or it shows that you don't know that much about your middle eastern history.

At 4/3/08 04:49 AM, fahrenheit wrote: Wow, I don't even have an response to that.
That information came out of nowhere, and frankly I'm surprised and confused as to why you would mention it.

It's in regards to claims of the land. Palestinians claim they once owned the land of ancient palestine when the modern palestinians have no blood to ancient palestinians.

You are so disillusioned, its not even comical.

You're sounding like Cellar.

Normally I would argue with you, but there is nothing to argue about.

You're sounding like zoolrule.

I mean really, I am dumbfounded by the fact that your response to my comment that Palestinians lived in Israel before the state of Israel is that they are not "real Palestinians and were 'dumped' there".
I would expect something like that out of a extreme propaganda shouting nut job.

Got any proof they didn't? Fact: The ottoman empire sent arabs to the area that is modern day Tel Aviv to keep Jews at a minority, only after Jews migrated there, and only after Jews made the lands inhabitable. Hardly natives, these arabs were only there to compete with population numbers.

Let me guess, you aren't going to mention the other side.

Israel uses truth in propaganda to piss people off towards Palestinians, yet Israel always leads the way in peace negotiations, calling for peace first, asking for UN support(2006 was the only exception), and always giving in.
Now don't even get me started with Palestinian propaganda dehumanizing Jews, giving them horns, making them look like dogs, making children think Jews are canines, arming children, suicide bombing with elderly and children, effigy, jihad propaganda and so forth.
And let's not forget the tactics both sides use.
They massacre students, they target innocent lives, they send their own children to die, they behead, they suicide bomb, they target tourists, they target jews and non jews, and they would target your ass too if you just happened to walk in Gaza.

But wait, you said a decade can mean a lifetime in politics,

I did?

My bad, Tri-nitro said it

Don't worry, I'm not going to get into an argument of how Israeli soliders massacre children that throw rocks at them.

Another bullshit propaganda tactic. It was more than rocks, and you ignore all the deaths of Israeli's caused by those kids with rocks and knives and guns and bombs. Don't be a fucking tool.

but the Palestinians do.

Terrorists.
The Palestinian terrorists target children. Lumping all palestinians into the acts that only a few cause makes you no better then the palestinians who throw out propaganda.

Only a few cause? God you're ignorant of the situation.
Most "Palestinians" would kill themselves to take the life of a jew given the chance. 82% want a destruction of the state of Israel and to exterminate the Jews. But Jews call for peace, and every single problem always rests on the Palestinians.

Well its hard for me to understand how people can justify their beliefs that harming or killing civilians is ok because of an extremist group.

Several extremist groups target citizens of your country. You attack their missle sites and militant headquarters. The enemy specifically places them near it's own citizens there so people like you look down upon your country when innocents are killed. Who's at fault? I'd say the original attacker, who not only targets civilians, but endangers their own civilians only to make the other side look bad. Who else is at fault, the people who ignore that fact and just call the policy idiotic just because more civilians died on the other side than your own. Neither side compares, the palestinians are pure bad, and people who fall for their shenanigans are just foolish.

I can understand why or that you would do it, but not how they can make themselves feel better about it.

They've tried peace, it never works, they've tried countless negotiations, they never work, Palestinian and arab sentiment is still stuck on the destruction of the Jews and western world.

Pressure
???

At 4/3/08 03:02 PM, Fadious wrote: Pressure
???

These only work with intellectuals talking who are competent on the subject. An analysis is just an opinion. Besides, democracy now is just like the BBC, they are openly anti-Israel and will do anything to manipulate facts to get idiots like you outraged. Did you even hear what they had to say?

At 4/3/08 01:43 PM, n64kid wrote: Palestinians claim they once owned the land of ancient palestine when the modern palestinians have no blood to ancient palestinians.

I think that the palestinians claim that they had owned the land before before Israel kicked them out when they were given country status. Not that they lived in the land before the ancient Israelites, but that their parents/grandparents had physically owned property in Israel before being kicked out.

You're sounding like zoolrule.

If I really sounded like cellar and zoorule every other word would be an insult and I would say how pathetic you are when you don't agree with me.

Got any proof they didn't?

I'm not saying it isn't true, its just a very harsh and anti-humanist approach to it.
Reducing people to their ancient ancestry kind of like how they judged people in the middle ages.

Another bullshit propaganda tactic.

Again, trying to reduce my argument to propaganda.
The burial evolved into the ritual protest of children marching to the security fence that separates Gaza's dense and beggared Khan Yunis refugee camp from the spacious religious exclusivity of the neighbouring Jewish settlement. As Rahman hung a Palestinian flag on the fence, a bullet caught him under his left eye. He died on the spot. "It looks as if the soldiers saw him put the flag on the fence and they shot him,"
Then theres always Rachel Corrie.

This might be a spotty source, but I've heard the actual quote in a few articles and newspapers so here.
A 2004 field study by the British Medical Journal reported: "Two thirds of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest - the sniper's wound. Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorized to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat ... "

Listen to what former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges has to say about the systematic sniper murder of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers:

"Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered ... but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport." (Chris Hedges, "A Gaza Diary" Harpers Magazine, October 2001).

and you ignore all the deaths of Israeli's caused by those kids

Did I? Well it might have been because I'm not trying to prove how much of saints the palestinian terrorists are.

Only a few cause? God you're ignorant of the situation.

Thank you for your opinion.

Most "Palestinians" would kill themselves to take the life of a jew given the chance.

Again, thank you for your opinion.

But Jews call for peace, and every single problem always rests on the Palestinians.

Yeah we get it. Jews hate arabs and arabs hate jews.
Palestinians would kill a jew, and jews would kill a palestinian.

Several extremist groups target citizens of your country.

And we kill their civilians, but I don't go around arguing how killing innocent civilians is ok because they happen to have an affiliation with an extremist group.

They've tried peace, it never works, they've tried countless negotiations, they never work, Palestinian and arab sentiment is still stuck on the destruction of the Jews and western world.

And vice versa, if Israeli had their way no arabs would exist in Israel.

At 4/3/08 04:03 PM, fahrenheit wrote: I think

Exactly, think but not know.

that the palestinians claim that they had owned the land before before Israel kicked them out when they were given country status. Not that they lived in the land before the ancient Israelites, but that their parents/grandparents had physically owned property in Israel before being kicked out.

Let's look at it from this perspective. Arabs lived in Palestine, but Israel is less than 20% of the British Mandate of Palestine. The part that is Israel today was uninhabitable swamp, marsh and desert. This makes sense due to it's humidity, location, and the fact it's right on the Mediterranean. The first real city in modern day Israel was started by Jewish settlers in partnership with the British in the early 1900s. Tel Aviv was the first city in the area, and was predominantly Jewish. The entire arab population at the time of the british mandate had no industries, and were almost all farmers. Seeing how the deserts and swamps make harsh terrain for farmers, the arabs lived further inland. (Israel is less than 40 miles wide, some parts less than 10). Most documents I've seen, from museums, show that the historical farmlands were well past Israel and into Jordan and Syria. So the majority of arabs couldn't have lived in the swamp filled Israel due to how almost everyone farmed, and because there wasn't much else for trade or merchant work. It's impossible to say there were many arabs living there in the first place. Israel simply would be nothing without the Jews working the lands, and draining the swamps, an arabs could have only lived in that little plot after them, so theres little proof of arabs actually living there before the Jewish settlers arrived.

Now I've heard two sides to the arabs leaving, and many varying numbers of how many left. One is that they were forced, and the other is that they were disgusted with western culture and left to be with their own kind. I've heard too much conflicting evidence to even voice my opinion, and I've heard a great deal of it too. I'm more inclined to believe that they were forced, but the only concrete evidence I've seen showed that it was arab sentiment to move out. However, I've heard anywhere that between 100-400,000 left, but the most viable proof anyone has brought up is a small village of about 150 arabs that falls within Israel's current borders. The most logical stories and estimates have been 400-600 arabs being kicked out over the course of the 1920s. Does that mean Israel should belong to the decenents of those families? No. Are arabs who can OR can't trace their blood to the people who lived there free to move back? Yes. So I feel the emmigration of arabs is pointless because they are free to move back as long as they don't run around blowing themselves up.

If I really sounded like cellar and zoorule every other word would be an insult and I would say how pathetic you are when you don't agree with me.

Or by dismissing parts of what I say without fully addressing it. I'm guilty of that too, but I try and take a less direct approach at first and narrow it down. I use it as my style for broad topics.

I'm not saying it isn't true, its just a very harsh and anti-humanist approach to it.
Reducing people to their ancient ancestry kind of like how they judged people in the middle ages.

Europeans do it all the time today so what's your point? Besides, it's just to refute bullshit claims.

Again, trying to reduce my argument to propaganda.

I hate saying omg propaganda (ignores) but capus-watch is a leftist site who took an anti-Israel side just because Republicans started to support Israel. And these reports come from a biased analysis by the media with agendas. Try finding fact sites, encyclopedias, and books. The media, pro or against Israel, is never a good outlet.

Did I? Well it might have been because I'm not trying to prove how much of saints the palestinian terrorists are.

Well the media goes on to ignore the fact that these were brainwashed kids, told by their parents and government to attack armed soldiers. What it also doesn't mention is that the kids who were killed were armed with actual weapons, many stone throwers threw boulder sized rocks, and many Israelis soldiers died because of the lack of force they initially used.

Like I said, I understand if you think Israel is bad. I just get angered that people post more crap about Israel than they do Palestinians. But I ask you this, which side do you think is less bad than the other? And please, don't say it's equal.

But Jews call for peace, and every single problem always rests on the Palestinians.

Yeah we get it. Jews hate arabs and arabs hate jews.
Palestinians would kill a jew, and jews would kill a palestinian.

But you don't get it, arab countries would nuke Israel given the chance. Israel has had nuclear weapons for quite some time, but has never even thought about using nukes, especially as a random act of hatred. If Israel wanted a destruction of palestinians, they would have done so. But wait, they provided free water, power, and economic support to the gaza strip before Hamas went on a rampage to capture it. Who's the warmongerer now?

Several extremist groups target citizens of your country.

And we kill their civilians, but I don't go around arguing how killing innocent civilians is ok because they happen to have an affiliation with an extremist group.

They've tried peace, it never works, they've tried countless negotiations, they never work, Palestinian and arab sentiment is still stuck on the destruction of the Jews and western world.

And vice versa, if Israeli had their way no arabs would exist in Israel.

That's not true, Israel has the force to blow up Iran 100 times over, but like the western world, they won't act foolishly. Could you say the same if Iran or Syria got nukes? Honestly?

You know, this isn't a fight for land, and the people living on territories like the golan heights and the west bank do not want Israel to lose control of them. It's really human rights. Lands given back to the arab world in the past have only seen dismay, and the people living on those lands, torture and a fraction of their standard of living.
And the claims that Palestinians need that land? Heres a biased site, but the facts are there.
http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html

I recommend this for anyone who's interested in reading a fairly unbiased glimpse at how the violence really unfolds in that region, and what certain things mean for each group.

Frankly, I think both sides are idiots. They're acting like children fighting over the cookie jar. One of these days, mommy should just come in, take it away, and NEITHER of them should get it.

Both sides can argue all day about the justice of one, the injustice of the other, and vice-versa. Fact is we're talking about a cultures, and the cultural values of each need to be attached to their actions.

Otherwise we're just beating around the bush; violence is violence. Both sides have a claim on the land, and frankly because they're too stupid to resolve it, neither side should get it.

At 4/3/08 07:40 PM, n64kid wrote: Exactly, think but not know.

It's hard for me to know what the people think when I happen to not live there.

Tel Aviv was the first city in the area, and was predominantly Jewish.

The first modern city.

so theres little proof of arabs actually living there before the Jewish settlers arrived.

Wait, didn't just a few posts ago you said the Ottoman empire dumped arabs into the area and now your saying theres little proof they actually lived there?

How about I make it clear?
According to this, which is sourced from A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry , the only jewish dominated district in the british mandate area are Haifa, Jaffa, and almost even in Jerusalem. Also, in the same article, theres a chart showing that in 1922 the area was 78% Muslim and 11% Jewish.

The most logical stories and estimates have been 400-600 arabs being kicked out over the course of the 1920s.

Ok, don't bother providing any sources.

Does that mean Israel should belong to the decenents of those families?

Does this mean Israel soldiers took land from the arabs who lived there? Yes.

Are arabs who can OR can't trace their blood to the people who lived there free to move back? Yes.

Or by dismissing parts of what I say without fully addressing it.

If I do that its only because what you said was either irrelevant, obvious, or skimmed over.

Europeans do it all the time today so what's your point?

That its sad that people still do it in modern day.

Besides, it's just to refute bullshit claims.

I'm afraid that doesn't refute the fact that arabs lived in Israel before it became a jewish state.

I hate saying omg propaganda (ignores) but capus-watch

Why don't you go look up "Gaza Diary", because thats where I got the quotes from. The site was just a vehicle I used, if you want I can give you a shit load of other sites that have the actual Gaza Diary in it.

Well the media goes on

I'm afraid I wouldn't know, and I don't care. So how about you stop telling me what the media does and doesn't say, ok?

Also, anyone can write a book. Anyone can write an article. And generally encyclopedia's aren't accepted in scholarly article's sources.

to ignore the fact that these were brainwashed kids, told by their parents and government to attack armed soldiers.

And that gives soldiers the right to kill them?

Hey, I've got an idea, I know a bunch of little kids that always makes faces at me when I drive to school. Next time I pass them by I'll just go ahead and run them over because their parents didn't tell them not to make faces at me.

many stone throwers threw boulder sized rocks,

They're little kids on the other side of a fence. Not super he-men that have the body of Arnold Schwarztennager.

and many Israelis soldiers died because of the lack of force they initially used.

Really? I would love to see the statistic that shows how many Israeli soldiers that died due to children.

But I ask you this, which side do you think is less bad than the other? And please, don't say it's equal.

Obviously if I had to pick a side it would Israel because they don't have suicide terrorists. But you can't just declare one evil and one good because one side is worst then the other. But even though I would lean on the pro-Israeli side I do argue with people who would do the same because they automatically make the assumption:
Israel = Good. Palestine = Evil. Jews deserve all of the Israel, Palestinians don't deserve to live in Israel and Israel has a right to kill them.

But you don't get it, arab countries would nuke Israel given the chance. Israel has had nuclear weapons for quite some time,

I'm not talking about the leaders of Israel. They would have to be completely retarded to nuke another country in such a close vicinity as most of the arab countries.

they would have done so.

Maybe, especially if they wanted the UN to jump all over them and the US to cut supplies and leave Israel out there by itself.

But wait, they provided free water, power, and economic support to the gaza strip before Hamas went on a rampage to capture it.

Can I ask you a question? Does this look like modern day Israel?

That's not true, Israel has the force to blow up Iran 100 times over, but like the western world, they won't act foolishly.

Just because their not stupid enough to basically declare war on the world does not mean they do not want to kill those that would kill them.

And the claims that Palestinians need that land?

I think the claim is just that Israel doesn't deserve the land.

If we're going to start playing the "who took land from who" game to determine who should get the land when half a century has passed by, then I propose we all give up our land to those who had it before us.

At 4/3/08 11:31 PM, Memorize wrote: If we're going to start playing the "who took land from who" game to determine who should get the land when half a century has passed by, then I propose we all give up our land to those who had it before us.

I propose we humans commit mass suicide and give all our land back to the animals we took it from.

At 4/3/08 10:41 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 4/3/08 07:40 PM, n64kid wrote:

so theres little proof of arabs actually living there before the Jewish settlers arrived.

Wait, didn't just a few posts ago you said the Ottoman empire dumped arabs into the area and now your saying theres little proof they actually lived there?

How about I make it clear?
According to this, which is sourced from A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry , the only jewish dominated district in the british mandate area are Haifa, Jaffa, and almost even in Jerusalem. Also, in the same article, theres a chart showing that in 1922 the area was 78% Muslim and 11% Jewish.

First, the amount of muslims of 1910, which was when mass immigration of Jews came to make the land habitable, is what's important. Second, the 78% of muslims in 1922 says that 78% of the British Mandate of Palestine was muslim. This area includes modern day Jordan, which had muslims farming there.

The most logical stories and estimates have been 400-600 arabs being kicked out over the course of the 1920s.

Ok, don't bother providing any sources.

I believe the 400-600 was at the Eretz museum in the west bank. Along with an exhibit full of palestinian artifacts, hebrew newspapers, and arabian newspapers in arabic. Hundreds of copies, each with translations. Which sucks because museums don't post their exhibits on the web.

Does that mean Israel should belong to the decenents of those families?

Does this mean Israel soldiers took land from the arabs who lived there? Yes.

Israeli soldiers? The british had all the power during the 20s. Arabs have no evidence of life before the jews drained the swamps and irrigated the desert. And if you remember zoolrule's argument, that I have used as well, is that the Jews purchased the land prior to 1948. Hence why there was a UN resolution to create Israel as the Jewish homeland, since the Jews had just aquired that land. It wasn't a "heres free land" but a "you now have land and a right to be there". Now if I buy your house, and you come back and say you lived there and you want it back, does this mean I had soldiers force you out? No.

But what's the problem in modern day? Arabs are free to move to Israel, but not one non-muslim Israeli is allowed to even travel to arab nations.

I'm afraid that doesn't refute the fact that arabs lived in Israel before it became a jewish state.

Did they? I want to know how many muslims, prior to 1911, lived in the 8000 square mile swamp that we call Israel. It can't be many seeing how uninhabitable the land was for a group that was predominantly farmers.

I hate saying omg propaganda (ignores) but capus-watch

Why don't you go look up "Gaza Diary", because thats where I got the quotes from. The site was just a vehicle I used, if you want I can give you a shit load of other sites that have the actual Gaza Diary in it.

Chris Hedges is an anthropologist nut, and all his awards come from anti-Israel organizations like Amnesty international. You cannot just live with muslims for years, listen to their media, and then give an unbiased perspective of the IDF in the middle east.

Also, anyone can write a book. Anyone can write an article. And generally encyclopedia's aren't accepted in scholarly article's sources.

Encyclopedias are, wikipedia isn't.

And that gives soldiers the right to kill them?

If you were a 9 year old, along with dozens of other 9 year olds, and you went up to a police officer armed with rocks, and started to throw them, what would he do? Call for back up, tackle kids and arrest them, when more comes, then what? Say his partner gets seriously hurt. Say this goes on for weeks, say the officer finds that his friends are dying because of these kids? Say some of the kids have knives and guns? The officer would start shooting. What makes America great? That people would not condone the officers actions and he'd face a full fledged media assault. What happens when the story of the officer's death gets to the children and their parents? A parade. Fuck peoples opinions, force can be and is necessary.

Hey, I've got an idea, I know a bunch of little kids that always makes faces at me when I drive to school. Next time I pass them by I'll just go ahead and run them over because their parents didn't tell them not to make faces at me.

Wow, totally not the same case. If these kids were endangering your life, and you knew they have intent to kill you, then whats wrong with force? BTW this is totally irrelevant

They're little kids on the other side of a fence. Not super he-men that have the body of Arnold Schwarztennager.

If someone dropped a 4 pound boulder on your head from a building, you'd be in critical condition, especially since Israeli soldiers are 18-22. And who said the other side of the fence? Everytime you add a story it just shows you know less about the situation. 2001 wasn't that long ago.

and many Israelis soldiers died because of the lack of force they initially used.

Really? I would love to see the statistic that shows how many Israeli soldiers that died due to children.

Sort it out yourself

Obviously if I had to pick a side it would Israel because they don't have suicide terrorists. But you can't just declare one evil and one good because one side is worst then the other. But even though I would lean on the pro-Israeli side I do argue with people who would do the same because they automatically make the assumption:
Israel = Good. Palestine = Evil. Jews deserve all of the Israel, Palestinians don't deserve to live in Israel and Israel has a right to kill them.

Dude, Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims have 22 countries. Israel has no oil, and it's only natural wealth is the dead sea. This land isn't even a strategic military point. It's clear from negotiations that palestinians do not want the land, but to "drive Jews back to Cyprus". But you don't see any wars started by Israel, only finished by them.

I'm not talking about the leaders of Israel. They would have to be completely retarded to nuke another country in such a close vicinity as most of the arab countries.

But the arab countries would, and have stated that quite often and not just recently too.

Maybe, especially if they wanted the UN to jump all over them and the US to cut supplies and leave Israel out there by itself.

The arab league holds the largest voting bloc in the UN, and anything against the arabs would be voted against. Anything against the Israelis would just be vetoed, but the UN sucks in general. Even without the UN, Israel would never, and has never provoked force by palestinians or arabs, so I doubt they'd still use nukes then.

But wait, they provided free water, power, and economic support to the gaza strip before Hamas went on a rampage to capture it.

Can I ask you a question? Does this look like modern day Israel?

Pretty much, it looks like a lot as a percentage, but take a look at the square miles. Now is that really something to shed blood over? Anyways, the original resolution was seen unfavorable as most of that land was 8 miles wide. Why should the concentration of population be in such a dangerous position? But wait, there's more. As soon as Israel was established, seven countries declared war on it. How unfounded. Who won? Israel. Who helped Israel, the US? Britain? Nope, it was all Israel. But how unfair, why should Israel have to suffer with it's disadvantaged terrain, especially with the arabs so bitter after defeat? The answer, capture strategic points to make it harder for enemies to attack. To this date, Israel never used....

that land to wage war against arab nations, but only to hold them at a disadvantage when they started wars. Now let's review, Israel is at war on average once every 5 years. Israel started none of them. The palestinians/arabs don't deserve that land.

Just because their not stupid enough to basically declare war on the world does not mean they do not want to kill those that would kill them.

Jews don't like muslims, but have little track records for random violence.
Muslims don't like non muslims, and have a large record for random violence worldwide.
The KKK doesn't like blacks and jews, but have little recent track records for random violence.
Jeremiah Wright hates white people, but he has no track record of violence.

So what's your point? Actions speak louder than thoughts and words.

And the claims that Palestinians need that land?

I think the claim is just that Israel doesn't deserve the land.

But they do, they were slaves in Egypt, kicked out by the Romans, kicked out of Europe(1200-1400s), kicked out of the Ottoman Empire, out of Europe again(1890s Dreyfus affair), out of the Ottoman empire again, out of Europe yet again (holocaust ) [not to be confused with gaza holocaust]

The world needs a place to stick jews so they can be free of persecution. So they get Israel. Why don't people just stfu and let them be?

Did I also mention that Palestinians are brought to Israeli hospitals and receive treatment over Israeli soldiers? It's true, hospitals treat based on need and not by race, side nor religion.
Can the same be said about any other country? Would they treat the enemy over their own kind?

These innocent kids might have the answer.

first of all, the conflict in Gaza isn'ta holocaust. people arn't being shipped to gulags, or concentration camps.

However, it is an Apartheid. israel is confining the palistinians into one territory, and killing indescriminatly. they have commited atrocities against the palistinian people. I think, however, that israel should be striped of sovereign status, removed from the U.N., and a Tribunal to be held in the ICC for people perpetraiting these crimes. at the same time, i feel that U.N. peace keepers should be deployed to prevent any extreme violence during the change of government from Israeli to Palistinian, and to assist the government at ataining order.

At 4/4/08 12:48 AM, atheiossupremos wrote: I'm a fruitcake

Oh God another one. IdiotFinder, can you deputize me?

A reasonable explanation for why Palestinian children die and get shot by Israelis is because the Palestinians USE CHILDREN as fighters, suicide bombers, and human shields.

There are well documented cases of:

- Palestinians strapping bombs to their children and using them as suicide bombers.

- Palestinians teaching their children to die for Allah.

- Palestinians teaching their children to hate.

- Palestinian gunman using child as human shield.

- More Palestinian children used as suicide bombers.

-
Palestinian gunmen shoot a Palestinian man and child and videotape it to blame on Israel.

- Palestinians create a fake funeral, and the supposed corpses are actually alive and moving around.

They fake the death of their own people for propaganda, showing you that their claims of casualties are not credible. They have no problem about both killing their own children and LYING about casualties just to create propaganda.

- Palestinians use UN ambulances for terrorist attacks and to transport weapons and fighters.

Now, think about it... if Israel blew up that ambulance, do you think the Palestinians would admit they were using it illegally? Nope, they'd say that Israel bombed UN ambulances and western liberals would swallow that propaganda up like they do their wheatgrass juice, completely ignoring that Israel had the right to bomb it considering it was used for terrorist tactis.

-------

This is a good one:

- Palestinian militants surround themselves by "unarmed" civilians.

Watch that video closely. The militants are hiding behind a wall and one of the gunmen armed with an AK-47 creeps around the corner and raises his gun but is shot dead instantly by the Israelis. Then, an other militant who was just previously holding a weapon drops it then comes around the corner to pull the dead man back behind the wall and the Israelis don't shoot, yet rightfully could have.

You notice the Palestinian scum wave their hands in the air fully expecting the Israelis to hold their fire... and the Israelis do, they don't kill them. This is a perfect example that shows how the Israelis have decency and the Palestinians have NONE. The Israelis use restraint, the Palestinians use deceitful, completely and utterly scandalous and shady tactics. They expect Israelis to show mercy and restraint against FIGHTERS who just dropped their guns and pretend to be unarmed civilians, yet those very same Palestinians themselves have the OFFICIAL POLICY of killing innocent Israelis, including using their own children as suicide bombers to do it.

This shows you how fucking dishonest and pathetic the Palestinians are. It shows you how misguided western liberals that side with the Palestnians are.

The Palestinians exploit Israeli decency, yet at the same time have NO decency themselves. The Palestinians target innocent civilians as a matter of official policy, the Israelis on the other hand use enormous amount of restraint and don't shoot at unarmed Palestinians, which the barbaric, murderous Palestinians use to their advantage.

Oh, and then never mind that all while people claim Israel is killing all sorts of civilians, the civilian vs. militant death rates during the intifada are pretty telling of how the Palestinians target civilians, and the Israelis target fighters.

Take a look:

At 4/2/08 09:42 PM, Slizor wrote: Quick question: when did the suicide bombings and general (that is to say, widespread) terrorist operations by the Palestinians begin?

I would imagine they began sometime after the state of Israel was established promptly following WW2, which consequently displaced millions of palestinians from a homeland they had occupied from many centuries turning them all into homeless refugees, or maybe it was after large percentages of their population (somewhere around 70% if I remember right) were ethnically cleansed by the newly esablished army of the Israeli state. Either way looking at it I would be more inclined to describe the operations of the genocidal Israeli army terrorist (though I hardly enjoy labeling anything as such) than I would the actions of a handful of disempowered refugees who are simply trying to reclaim their homeland by means they deem tactically effective.

Follow-on question: In light of this information, does anyone want to change their narrative of Israel's history and the supposed intentions of the Palestinians?

yes

What's with all these 08 low post count noobs who aren't reading the threads before positng?

At 4/4/08 01:46 AM, carbanonzo wrote:

I would imagine they began sometime after the state of Israel was established promptly following WW2, which consequently displaced millions of palestinians from a homeland they had occupied from many centuries turning them all into homeless refugees,

Dumb dumb, they had not occupied that land for many centuries, their numbers of that cute little land called Israel never exceeded 1 million and you know jack shit on the subject.

or maybe it was after large percentages of their population (somewhere around 70% if I remember right) were ethnically cleansed by the newly esablished army of the Israeli state.

I guess you don't remember it correctly. Ever heard of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War?

Either way looking at it I would be more inclined to describe the operations of the genocidal Israeli army terrorist (though I hardly enjoy labeling anything as such)

Apparently you do

than I would the actions of a handful of disempowered refugees who are simply trying to reclaim their homeland by means they deem tactically effective.

What are you looking at it? It's NOT their homeland. And if suicide bombing and sending children out to die just to win a propaganda war seems tactically effective to them, and more just than Israel by you, then you are a moron. Nuff said.

Follow-on question: In light of this information, does anyone want to change their narrative of Israel's history and the supposed intentions of the Palestinians?

yes

Read up on all these posts.

Old photographs indicated that Palistine was a wasteland of diseased pools, unfertile desert, which was uninhabited or forgotten as a Province of the Ottoman Empire.

Then through out the 1800s, and early 1900s. Zionist settlers settled it, through Kubutzes and other "Utopian" farming communities. These Kubutzes were scattered, and united through a series of resistance through the Hanaga for their survival, as these communities were isolated. These reunified colonies became Israel.

Anyways, the Israelis and Zionists deserve the land, they fought for it, they suffered pain, and massacres, to birth their nation. Which..... the Ottoman didn't want! But the Jews sure as hell want it, the Jews deserve it!

Palistine would contiune to be a wasteland of desert if it wern't for the settler Kubutzes (not to be confused with present day West bank settlers or ex Gaza Settlers).

Now then, the Golan Heights and other disputed territories. It was the fault of the invaders who lost fair and square! They were stupid enough not to keep the peace. They get their asses kicked. It's like this.. If Mexcio invaded America, to Reconquestia, and get their asses kicked. only to lose more territory. should America keep it or give it back, the territories they fought hard and died for, while trying to defend herself. It was Mexcio's fault for attacking.

You say they have no blood there....yet most families have been living there for over a century. Is America not a nation then? Because the people have no "blood to the land"? Or are you going to invent a new idea of nationhood?

No, I'm saying most arabs didn't even have belonging there until the late 60s with a mass influx of arab immigrants after the war in '67.

"The modern "Palestinian" was designated as such as a propaganda tool by the arab league in 1967 so people assume that they were from palestine. This is NOT the case as most do not have any blood to the land. In fact, most are arabs who were dumped there in the late 1800s to keep the jews a minority by the Ottoman empire."

Yawn. Can't even keep to your own story?

The majority of arabs living in that land would be in what modern day Jordan is, and therefore have no real claim to historical times.

Buuuuuuuuuulllllllllllllllllllllllssssss sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt ttttttttttttttttt.

The part that was Israel was mostly desert and uninhabitable. During the late 1800s to early 1900s, the Jews drained the swamps, irrigated the deserts, and turned Israel to what it is today.

Oh please. Stop trying to claim that it was empty land - a desert that was turned into a paradise.

Err....what? Your "evidence" doesn't even lead to your conclusions, unless you honestly consider seeing things in hewbrew proof that there weren't things in other languages (in which case you need some major major lessons in logic.)

It proves that Jews were palestinians prior to Israel's birth. And if you cannot follow that, the illogical person be you.

No, it proves that there were Jews that lived in Palestine prior to the birth of Israel.....and what does this prove? What is the point of saying this? Has anyone here disputed that there has been a small number of Jews that have lived in the region for god knows how many years? Or that there were a number of Zionist Aliyahs prior to 1948?

Another quick question, can anyone explain a concept of nationhood, which does not rely on statehood, that would support the idea of Israelis as a people, but not Palestinians? The reason for excluding definitions based on statehood is because, in theory, a nation legitimately deserves a state and trying to reverse this makes no sense.

You misinterpreted me entirely. The Palestinians never had control of what Israel is today.

You missed the point entirely - what is nationhood and what is the definition of a "people"?

And don't confuse Palestinians with arabs or it shows that you don't know that much about your middle eastern history.

Not all Arabs are Palestinian, but Palestinians are Arabs.

At 4/4/08 12:48 AM, atheiossupremos wrote:

:I'm a dumbass

What color is the sky in that fantasy world you live in?!!!

At 4/4/08 10:59 AM, Slizor wrote:
Yawn. Can't even keep to your own story?

Are you a dumbass or do I have to write out a timeline for you? Jews lived in Palestine with arabs in the 1800s. There was a mass immigration of Jews to an uninhabited part of the land where almost no one was living at. Jews turned the deserts into usable land while draining the swamps. There could have been no arab living there before the Jewish settlers cleared it out. This cute strip of land was just a small chunk of Palestine.

Buuuuuuuuuulllllllllllllllllllllllssssss sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt ttttttttttttttttt.

Wow you are a delusional idiot. Hey is the statement 2+2=4 bullshit too? Did you read all the posts in this wonderful thread? Links and etc?

Oh please. Stop trying to claim that it was empty land - a desert that was turned into a paradise.

Err....what? Your "evidence" doesn't even lead to your conclusions, unless you honestly consider seeing things in hewbrew proof that there weren't things in other languages (in which case you need some major major lessons in logic.)

I proved that Arabs couldnt have been living in that part of palestine, and proved that there was nothing in arabic that was left behind in that part of palestine either. You, however, need a reality check, and a lesson in logic so your nut sized brain can comprehend the fact that the little state of under 10000 square miles is just a fraction of Palestine.

No, it proves that there were Jews that lived in Palestine prior to the birth of Israel.....and what does this prove? What is the point of saying this? Has anyone here disputed that there has been a small number of Jews that have lived in the region for god knows how many years? Or that there were a number of Zionist Aliyahs prior to 1948?

It proves why the ottoman empire dumped arabs in palestine, and it shows that the Jews already bought and developed the land well before Israel became a state in 1948. So the fact that the poor Muslims were kicked out and they deserve the land is nulled.

You missed the point entirely - what is nationhood and what is the definition of a "people"?

I didn't miss your point, you brought up a question of something objective that's open to many definitions.