Thanks sub.  I'm probably going to take a sabbatical from these political discussions for a while.  I expected most posters (as well as most of the sheeple in the U.S.) will blindly support Isreal despite it's policy of abuse of the Palestinian people (most of whom are not suicide bombers, believe it or not.  Yes, there are 1 or 2 decent Palestinian people).  But never did I expect to be pointed as an Anti-Semite on this board.  Most of the world has no clue as to what is really happening to the Palestinians.  As much as I normally side with the Jews (for apocalyptical reasons among others), I can't condone their genocide of the Palestinian people.  I used to support Isreal against the Palestinians, just like I used to support gun control.  But now I question the shit that the media feeds us.

[url]http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_article.cfm?articleid=527[/url]

[(:|)]

Really? With antisemitism rising up in the US and more neonazi organization than in Germany?
Did you ever hear about the Evian Conference just before the war?




You're right. Also Arafat, if we use the same logic is a war criminal. The High Court of Belgium for Crime against Humanity has recently asseted that both of them are liable to be inciminated...





You don't understand the issue. Barak lost not because Israelis wanted to make war, but to punish Arafat because he didn't want to make peace! And what the best punishment than to elect a long-dated enemy of Arafat? I remember that the opinion polls in Israel, during Camp David negotiations, were in favour also for a division of part of Jerusalem and ALL the polls showed the will of a good majority of the Israelis to go out of the Territories!

Sorry to contraddict you.
In an Iterview made by an Italian Sat Channel (RAINEWS 24... very pro palestinian btw!)the journalists asked to Sheik Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, if it is right or not to choose as a target "Innocent Israeli civilians, like teenagers, women, children" he answered (causing a big imbarace to the journalist, who evidently was waiting for another answer) that: "There are no innocent Israelis". And Hamas is orienting currently, , people...

No Larry, it is not antisemitism. It is ignorance of the history and a biased view of the facts.

You forgot to mention the British Troops in Palestine in 1920 Arab Uprising and in 1936-1937 Arab Uprising...

Already tried. Didn't work.
Palestinians tried to kill King Hussein in 1968 and to make Palestine in Jordany. Hussein wiped them away 1970 using tanks and artillery.
Then they tried to make Palestine in the South Lebanon in 1982 and brought Civil war in the rest of the Lebanon. They were pushed out of Lebanon by Syria on one side and Israel and SLA on the other.

Yes there were many idiots also in the US Navy commitee that made the inquiry about the USS Liberty. If you take the care to read history books maybe you can have an unbiased opinon. And I will bother to clarify any fact that I regard as significative. Americans teached me how is important the First Emendaments. If you cannot live with it, maybe is the case you take in consideration to live somewhere else than USA.

I disagree on what you said about PoliticalScience about how he is bending over backwards to see the Palestinian side of things and ignoring "facts".  A lawyer once told me.  There is no right or wrong.  It's how you present it.  He just see the facts from a different point of view.

I believe that both sides have done terrible things to each other, but the jews are more of a bully then the Palestinians.  It is just wrong to shoot and kill rock throwing kids.  How do you think Americans would react if the police fired on and killed people at the WTO protest?

I dunno, wut is it??

This is what I've been reading.  Maybe it's corrupting my mind.

[url=http://zog.to/3/zog/111199i-c.htm]Israel has stabbed America in the back[/url]

[url=http://zog.to/3/liberty/lib-ind.htm]The unarmed USS Liberty after Israeli attack[/url]

[url=http://zog.to/3/intifada2/Sharon.htm]The Crimes of Ariel Sharon[/url]

Well, one thing that I've noticed has been missing has been the history of the area in question. I haven't refreshed my knowledge recently, but what I remember should be very close to the way it was.

"Palestine" had been part of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, and after the Germans and Turks were defeated, their territory was divided up amongst the victors. "Palestine" was designated as a British protectorate by the Balfour Declaration. Both Arabs/Muslims and Jews were residents of "Palestine," and there was no natural or innate animosity between them - in fact, Jews have historically been better-treated in Muslim/Arab society than they have been in European society.

Anyway, to make a long story longer, the British garrisoned in "Palestine" were typically anti-Semitic, and this led to unfair treatment of the Jews who had been considered as equals by their Arab/Muslim neighbors. Zionism, or the movement for an independent Jewish homeland, didn't really begin to take hold till the 1930s, and most likely only because of the way the British treated Jews. Britain responded by curbing more of the Jews' civil rights and privileges, but by this time WW2 was looming and the British (correctly) felt they had more important problems to deal with. The Zionists took advantage of this and began fighting back whenever the British cracked down...and the British cracked down even harder whenever the Zionists fought back. Meanwhile, European Jews were fleeing Hitler's Europe, and quite a few of them ended up in Palestine. They were often rather well-off, which is part of the reason why the Europeans generally didn't like Jews, and began buying land in "Palestine."

After WW2 the British turned their attentions to "Palestine" again and things got worse. The British weren't taking any lip from the Jews, many of the Arabs/Muslims who had been so friendly with the Jews 30 years earlier were now siding with the British against them (because the British catered to them), and Zionist freedom fighters/terrorists like The Stern Gang, Haganah, and Irgun began to fight in earnest. British soldiers were legitimate targets, and so were any civilians who helped the British. Both sides used some pretty despicable tactics, but hey, it was a war (in everything but name.) Finally in 1948 the UN split "Palestine" into 2 separate nations - Israel and Jordan - and the Arabs immediately attacked Israel. The Israelis won that war, as they did every single one that followed (all started by the Arabs), and in several of them took control of former Arab lands (imagine that, taking your enemies' lands when you win a war against them!) In short, [b]every[/b] territorial gain the Israelis realized was a valid one. They didn't start the wars as an excuse to gain territory, they were attacked every time and kept only those lands that they controlled at the (temporary) end of hostilities.

(cont)

Now, my questions are: 1) How were Israeli freedom fighters (Zionists) any different than American freedom fighters (the Founding Fathers)? I'm pretty sure that American patriots committed more than a few atrocities during the Revolution, but since we won the war they've been swept under the rug and the British atrocites emphasized.

2) If Israel has no legitimate claim on lands obtained as a result of winning wars, what claim do [b]we[/b] have to any of [b]our[/b] lands obtained the same way, i.e., the original 13 colonies, land won in the Mexican-American war, the Indian Wars, etc? The [b]fact[/b] is that if you lose a war, you lose any and all claims to any land that you don't control, forever. The fact that you have a deed for land that your family owned before their former home country lost it in a war 2 or 3 generations earlier is irrelevant - any Brit who shows up at MY house with a deed from 1771 and a U-Haul truck full of his goods is going to find himself re-enacting the Revolution!

3) Where is the outrage at Jordan's treatment of the Palestinians who "only wanted a homeland," and why is Jordan's national legitimacy never called into question the way Israel's is? They were both formed at the same time, from the same land, by the same UN, after all.

4) What, exactly, [b]are[/b] "Palestinians," anyway? Both the original citizens of Jordan and the original citizens of Israel were Palestinians until the last "i"s were dotted and "t"s crossed in the UN declaration forming both countries. Why do some "Palestinians" need a separate homeland of their own, when there is really no ethnic or religious differences between them and Jordanians? At least other separatist/independence movements, like that in Quebec and the nuts who want a "La Raza" homeland in the American southwest, base their claims on religious or ethnic differences. What the "Palestinians" want is akin to the following scenario: California is split into 2 separate states by Congress, North and South California, based on ethnic makeup - South CA is the mostly Hispanic state, North CA is the Anglo. (I know Congress can't really do it but just ignore that - I needed an "outside" power for it to be a valid comparison.) Hispanics in North CA immediately begin clamoring for a Hispanic state(Hispania?) in North CA.

You ought to get your info elsewhere.  Anybody who praises "Dr." William Pierce of the ultra racist/white supremacist National Alliance as a "great patriot" is a moron.  The author of that website does, and is...

Almost ANY other source of info will be more balanced and accurate.

A very well written piece, NH2112!



The concept of winning land through war was put to rest by humanity in 1945.  Israel, as a civilized society, has to consider the Palestinians as individuals who continued to have their land taken away from them long after hostilities concluded, often by the simple device of voiding their land titles.

Morever, the land that was stolen from the Indians and from Mexico here in America was stolen several generations ago, and the original participants are long since dead and gone.  The passage of decades and centuries, and the death of the original claimants does count for something.  [b][u]In this case, most of the original landowners are likely still alive.[/u][/b]  If Israel is going to ignore them and walk all over them, then human nature will simply dictate the end result.  If the Israelis do not recognize this simple fact, they will continue to reap their harvest.

ar50troll, you may want to fix your quote in the post above, you are implying that your opinions came from nuetrino45.  Incendiary as they are, they should be understood to come from you, not him.

Didn't you know, the Israelis are Gods people, they can displace/shoot, and bomb anyone they want.

We send them billions and billions of dollars because they are Gods people.

Gee wizz!!

waterdog

Thank you very, very much for your kind suggestion as to my 'considering changing country and citizenship.'

I see that in your post to "Chimborazo" you State "With antisemitism rising up in the US..."
Are you equating the early shift in some few Americans away from blindly supporting Israel in each and every instance (a lessening pro-Israel position) to "antisemitism ?"

Jews may be defined in many ways;
a tribe, a people, a religion.....but I'm certain Israel is a country. I believe the correct charge would be "Anti-Israel."  Of course the proper and correct charge would not give you the baseless emotion as your charge of antisemitism.

"PoliticalScience" was astounded by charges of antisemetism.  Earlier in my life on this board I too was charged with being antisemetic.  I too was astounded and hurt by the baseless charge.

No more.

Since the "Gulf War" my position of supporting the Israeli position without thought has slowly erroded.  I expect but cannot guarantee this trend will continue.

I remember my posting, within a few days of the 9/11 attacks, a question/statement about the trail (at least financially) leading back to the Saudi's.  I remember the attacks received from that post.  I remember the defense of our 'good friends' the Saudi's.  I no longer see very much defense our 'good friends' the Saudi's.  I do not remember being labeled "anti-Arabian."  This shift in attitude occured within a time period of less than three months.

PaoloAR15, you might (or might not) want to give this some thought.

At heart most Americans are isolationists - we simply wish to be left alone.  On our part naive.  This position is also beginning to lessen.

Unlike many older countries we are capable of change; very rapid change.  You might (or might not) choose to again consider the speed with which our attitudes toward Saudi Arabia changed.

When forced by events onto the world's stage and despite our tendency to favor isolation, we Americans are capable of striking at speeds so blinding as to put to rest any thought the speed-of-light is maximum.  We are capable, without the use of nuclear weapons, to strike with a ferocity and efficiency previously unknown to mankind.  (Our actions in Afghanistan were relatively low-level and thoughtful.)

PaoloAR15, today America is awake and we are being forced to think outside our borders.  Intellectually you might (or might not) want to give some thought to the speed with which our attitudes changed toward the Arabians as facts of their complicity began to emerge..  

When forced to contend with facts we Americans are a pretty capable people.

Regarding the USS Liberty - I'm going to check with our dead Americans and get their take.  I'll be back with you.

Finally I just can't remember the "nickname" of the Israeli Prime Minister.  Perhaps you can help ??

Shalom !

[smoke]

                                           Palestines and the "chosen people of God".....have been at war since before Christ....and will be until the "end days"......so why continue a fruitless discussion......."point"....read the bible....

I'm really not certain but somewhere I believe I heard/read it was the "bulldozer."

If so kind of fitting for this thread.

Thank you very much, ckapsl!

Regardless of whether or not "humanity" has decided to stop fighting over land, I don't think you'll be able to point out a single war in history that wasn't fought over land. Some will say that many wars have been fought over religion, but I say that they wer fought more so a certain religious group had all the land (and souls) they wanted. Moreover, there hasn't been a single war since 1945 that didn't result in land being taken from someone. The country called Korea was divided in 2 at the Panmunjom talks (the ROK lost half its land in the creation of the DPRK), an already divided Viet Nam was forcibly reunited, relegating the RVN to history books, etc. Therefore, I'd say that [b]every[/b] war fought since 1945 was fought to gain land.

I don't see how the original owners of the land being alive or dead makes any difference. A war was fought, you lost it, and your land is therefore forfeit. Let's just say that instead of 2002, it's now 1802, and a British subject shows up at my house with a deed in his name to the land it's on (dated 1771) and a wagonload of goods. Is the land no longer mine, because the person whom it belonged to before is still alive?

I guess the concept of [b]not[/b] winning land through wars is alien to me. Why else would you want to fight? I guess you could say the objective was to kill as many of the enemy as possible, but is that an objective in and of itself? OK, so now that you've killed 50% of the enemy's people, what do you do next? Did you really just get a large number of your own nation's young men killed and spend billions of dollars just to halve the population density in your enemy's country? Landowners over there would love that - they can double their land after every war! No, I say territorial increases [b]are[/b] what wars are fought over, if for no other reason than land is one of the only things on earth with a finite supply.

Without knowing anymore than that contained in the portion of your post I've chosen to remain, I would have thought the discussion would have been about Vietnam.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything I should about that situation.  I do have something to add though.

For people who think the U.S. or "The West" prop up or support Israels actions... consider for a moment what would happen without the U.S. or the The West's influence.

There probably wouldn't be ANY homes left.  There wouldn't be any chance of a Palestinian authority.  Israel would just have dominated the entire region, however they pleased.

Sharon, 72, is a former military general active in several of Israel's past wars. He is known for taking a hard line against the Palestinians, and favoring military solutions rather than diplomatic compromise. In his military career he led raids against Arab settlements and planned Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. His tough manner has earned him the nickname "Bulldozer."

[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/israel_election.html[/url]

Then why don't we own Germany and Japan and half of Iraq?
We haven't stolen land in warfare since the War with Mexico.
Civilized countries don't do this anymore.
Even Russia gave back E.Germany eventually.
Just because you kick their ass, doesn't mean you have title to their homes.

I'm just curious as to how long the good citizens of Texas would sit quietly by if their Mexican neighbors decided to bomb and terrorize the border towns of TX and lay claim to their former lands?  

Nations have no "friends" in the traditional sense of the word. They only form alliances when there is something in it for them. This is the way it has always been and will always be.  Just review history as to who are friends and enemies were.  

The Arabic nations could resolve the Palestinian issues quite easily if they chose to.  The problem is they dislike the Palestinians more then the Israelis do.

Peace can only be negotiated from a position of power.  At some point the bigger stick will beat the crap out of the little stick and peace will prevail.  Not before.

No Democrats ?

rkbar15,
Yeah I did know.  It was just interesting to watch the question being avoided when the title of this thread is considered.

Our allies are not us.  Israel is not the U.S., and to think that because we as a country support them they are always going to do everything we want them to do is silly.  We don't act like they do in our country because we're not them, and we're not there.  As an aside, it IS interesting to see how many Americans have adopted a very different position regarding terrorism now that we lost some of our own citizens.

We ally ourselves with other governments or countries because it is in OUR best interest to do so.  I bet no one could name ONE of our past or present allies that did everything exactly as we would do or would have them do.  

Germany?  England?  Canada?  France? (Bwahahaha!)

Israel is our partner in the middle east in part because there a lot of Jews in this country, and in part because they support our interests.  You don't have to like them, or everything they do, but consider the alternatives....

I agree with this.  I do consider Israel to be our ally.  But like you say, our allies are not us.  Because we have some interests in common with Israel, we do not have to endorse and rubberstamp everything that they do.  Their taking of Palestinian land is theft at the point of a gun, and we can and should call it that.  More to the point, it will ultimately rebound on Israel, because the people they are taking it from will not sit quietly and suffer it meekly.  The Israelis fail to understand this.

Thank you.  Very informative!

What I meant to say is that civilized nations have decided that it is no longer permissible to gain land by waging war.  Germany, Japan and Italy went to war to expand their "living space".  We beat them down into the dust, but we did not occupy them and take their land in revenge.  The other wars we have fought in this century, including Korea and Vietnam, involved political power and ideology, not a land grab via war.  Even the communists wanted to install communist governments, not annex land to their nations.


In the specific case that you mention, land deeds were preserved through the Revolutionary War.  Even contracts were honored.  I am not sure how the specific situation you describe would come to pass.  In any case, these two concepts would apply:
1) Possession is nine tenths of the law.
2) A statute of limitations would likely apply.  In Texas, for instance, land claims must be filed against the possessors within twenty years, or they are lost.
I would suggest that if a land claim is not made within the claimant's lifetime, and his immediate descendant's lifetime, then the claim is no longer valid.  Every nation and society makes compromises like this.

That's funny!  I'll have to remember that. [>]:)]

That is an issue but although they may be invading I don't think they're suicide bombing and terrorizing the communities. Just looking for a better life.  Can't blame them for that.

Don't worry fullclip if you Texas guys need help I have a few full mags to help out! [:D]

no. it can't be true.
Nawww

A Link to Ha'aretz of today:

[url]http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=116745&contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=116745[/url]

I agree with this article 100%

Regarding the Israelis, etc...  I've got a LOT of respect for their fighting ability, and I'm sure that just about anyone with ANY knowledge of their history would agree.

The whole stinking conflict is based on what is to me, the dumbest of all reasons:  A dispute over which way of worshipping God is the correct one.  Get a grip, people!  I really don't think God much cares HOW you worship as long as you're worshipping in one of HIS houses!  Any religion that believes in one god qualifies. (I don't want to sound like a religious whacko, but I won't show disrespect, either...)

I am thinking that part of the Israeli aggession as of late is due directly to the Prime Minster, Ariel Sharon.

I mean, think about it.  WHO would have MORE to prove than a man who has TWO women's first names for his name???  [:I] [beer] [rocket]

I'd say he thinks he's got to prove he's a tough guy despite his two majorly feminine names!

CJ

I too agree with this article, and the most unique thing is that it comes from an [u]Isreali[/u] publication.  I seriously doubt that, of the homes that were destroyed, any of the actual "terrorists" lost any property or were displaced.  The Isreali "payback" was visited upon Palestinian families, [b]and for God's sake these people are human beings too[/b], most of them living below the poverty line.  I don't care if they're Muslim or Jew, that action is just plain wrong.

For that reason, there has been a growing movement among Jews (albeit a small one) to end the heavy-handed and brutal treatment of the Palestinians.  I hope that the movement eventually becomes a vocal and influential one.  As long as the Isrealis continue to payback the terrorists by themselves terrorizing the innocent Palestinians, they will create fodder for a hundred new terrorists.

[url]http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=116745&contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=116745[/url]

As for the prior flames against me, I digress.

[(:|)]

And back into the fray.....Excellent !!

[:D]

And I'll bet you agree with my post to you on page three (3).

[smoke]

Some of you people just eat up whatever Arafat tells you.

This crap about Isreal taking over the land is bullshit. Jews have lived in Isreal for thousands of years. Even when many left, a few stayed behind. It has always been their land. Caanan was formed thousands of years ago and reformed throughout history.

Isreal had been Jewish except during times when it was seized by Muslims or Christians.

Until the time of the Ottaman Empire, Isreal was their land. The Muslims moved across the middle east and seized everything displacing the Isrealis. Many left for Europe. Eventually, after the Holocaust and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, they moved back to THEIR land. But, at the time the British were administering the area and no love was lost between the Jews and English. England tried as hard as it could to prevent Isreal from forming. They even went as far as to attempt to whip up Arab fervor against the Jews. The same day the English left the now idiotically chopped up Middle East, Isreal was attacked from all sides. They fought 'em all off and won.

Most of the Palestinians are in fact in Gaza, the West Bank, and The Golan Heights. Until they fired on Isreal from those areas, Isreal had no intention of seizing control of Arab areas. Isreal would have been glad to simply have their land back and let the Arabs live peacfully among them. The Arabs started it and will loose it.

This would be like if America was captured tommorow by say Mexico. And, Mexico were to sweep through North America. Now, many Americans flee. But, a few stay. Later, another country wipes out the Mexican Empire and the desendants of the once displaced Americans swarm back to their homeland. Now would they be invaders. By many's definitions they would be. Then they take back the USA. But, shortly thereafter Canada and Mexico attack the US. So, in response, the US seized Quebec and Tijuana. Would you consider this wrong.

What would you do if the Mexicans were firing Katusha Rockets into San Diego and killing Civilians.

Put yourself iin their place before you open you big mouth.

When will these people learn this simple lesson:

You will NEVER, EVER succeed in beating the resentment out of someone.   Attempting to do so will only make the resentment increase until action will be taken by the one being beaten.

That is the reason why it is futile to retaliate against anyone for the actions of others.

CJ

You are absolutely right Hanna, the united states needs to give all the land back to the Indians. Australia needs to  go back into the hands of the aborigines. Mexico – the South American tribes. Canada and the Northern Territories – Inuit.

And Jerusalem – The Jews. (Anytime after the Crusades it became rather difficult to find a Mosque in Jerusalem :))

Fact is, the Israelis have as much a claim on that land as any Arab.

Thrice over really.
1) The UN
2) Three different wars
3) A historical claim

What would you do if I built a shack in your back yard?
What would you do if I built a shack in your back yard and then set your house on fire?
What would you do if I built a shack in your back yard, set your house on fire and shot your kid in the head?

Does the mere presence of my shack give me some legal right to do those things?

It all becomes SO much more clear when you realize that %90 of the ‘Palestinians’ were actually born elsewhere.

Hey, I want to thank everyone for their point of view.  I learned a lot from you.

What do you see in the future for Israel and Palestine in the next 5 years?  Do you think Israel will ultimately wipe out the Palestinians??

Read the Bible. Isreal will prevail.

Really. Name one nation where Jews are as safe, more prosperous, and at higher levels of society (government, industry, academia, media, law, medicine, etc). I think on the first two counts (safety and prosperity) you would have to eliminate Israel from consideration.

As to antisemitism rising up... Americans are less prejudiced toward jews than at any point in history. This according to all the major jewish organizations, who conducted their own investigation into the subject right after Gore named Lieberman as his running mate. I heard that for weeks afterwards non-stop on every television channel...



True. I still, however, believe that Sharon OUTMANEUVERED Barak by going to the Temple Mount and touching off the recent intifada, which neither Barak nor Arafat were able to contain, despite being in both of their interests to do so.



German partisan operations in Russia or the French in Spain during the Wars of Napoleon were the other BIG ONES I was thinking of when I said "in particular." But burning down houses and killing ten, a dozen men for each soldier lost didn't work there and it won't for Israel either.

Also in reference to your reply to Political Science... there is a difference between rock-throwing kids and Hamas suicide bombers. At least to most of us, otherwise I don't understand your response. Hamas is Hamas.

I see. If not for the antisemitic British, Zionism (from the 19th century) would not have resulted in the creation of the state of Israel. Imagine that.



"Fighting back" not being terrorism by today's terms. I mean, the Palestinians are also just "fighting back" by your definitions, right? Let's see... British soldiers blown up by courageous bomb-makers... British soldiers bust down a few doors. What a surprise! Never seen that anywhere.



Yes, they decided to get the hell out! If the British catered to the Arabs in the way you describe there wouldn't have been ANY newly arrived jewish immigrants. The Arabs didn't want them!! The British were trying to MANAGE the situation, made unstable by such a large influx. You seem to forget that Britain had the most powerful navy in the world and patrolled the Eastern Med extensively. Jews had substantial placements in British government, even aristocracy. And a substantial number were in the British military there! Now the same cannot be said of the Arabs. What a bunch of simplistic claptrap.



Must've been egged on by Britain, huh? I mean in your previous history lesson you've laid absolutely no ground work for any other reason the Arabs would do such a thing. I mean, a mass emmigration (from Europe) to the point that it changes a majority seeking independence from successive foreign occupiers, into a minority eventually in a subdivided territory called Israel would have never caused tensions to boil over. Damn those wicked British! If not for them Zionism would have been only a dream and today arabs and jews would be living together at peace, in one nation.

BTW Richard Nixon (you know, the antisemite) saved Israel in the '73 war (when the Egyptians actually had military equipment that worked!). But that's only what Golda Meir said, perhaps she was wrong and Israel is just unbeatable...