Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 5/2/2002 4:25:47 PM EDT
Was Israel justified in taking over the land currently disputed in the Middle East?
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 4:46:01 PM EDT
[img]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Elbarfo/dedhorse.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 5:10:38 PM EDT
Hmmm...let's see. In America, we moved in and basically seized the land from the Indians, who had not attacked us. In Israel, they were attacked and seized the land of the people who attacked them. Yes, they are justified.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 5:39:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: In America, we moved in and basically seized the land from the Indians, who had not attacked us.
View Quote
Yeah, well they couldn't get across the ocean, you know. [:D] The "Indians" were not exactly pacifists either - from inter-tribal massacres during and previous to the arrival of Europeans, to the same on the women and children of the early "immigrants," often defenseless and not posing a threat.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 5:52:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Blaze-Of-Glory: Was Israel justified in taking over the land currently disputed in the Middle East?
View Quote
You should be more clear in what you are asking, but following some of your other posts, I'm thinking that may be deliberate. If you are referring to the land seized in the '67 war (West Bank and Gaza strip), then I think so. Jordan and Egypt attacked them with the intent of [b]eradicating them from the map[/b] and family of nations. Should the land be returned (to it's inhabitants, and not former controlling nations who no longer want it) as an independent Palestinian state, as part of a peace and security agreement remains to be seen. Will they have peace if they return the land, Blaze?
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 6:02:18 PM EDT
Not just yes....but hell yes. When you win a war you keep the land...usually as a buffer zone. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 6:25:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2002 6:29:04 PM EDT by Blaze-Of-Glory]
r.e., the European takeover of Indian land: I think that's an interesting parallel, but one that occured before the era of the United Nations. Furthermore, the European-Indian conflict seems to have died down and does not currently seem likely to escalate into a global nuclear war. r.e., Middle East: Yes, Israel got attacked and has every right to defend its existence. But by what code does this entitle Israel to have expanded its area to include West Bank and Gaza strip? If we advocate a code that allows a country to expand its borders each time it's attacked, aren't we virutally guaranteeing an endless and growing state of war around the globe? shooter69, if Israel returns the disputed land, I don't know what will happen. I do know that it would remove from the Muslims to ability to base further attacks on the claim that they are only defending what's rightfully theirs. If the land were returned, and the Muslims stopped pushing, then the conflict would be resolved. If the Muslims continued to push, what of substance would have been lost, other than the basis for the Muslims' claim of righteousness?
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 6:37:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Blaze-Of-Glory: r.e., the European takeover of Indian land: I think that's an interesting parallel, but one that occured before the era of the United Nations.
View Quote
ROFLMAO! Why the HELL should anyone care what the UN says?
Furthermore, the European-Indian conflict seems to have died down and does not currently seem likely to escalate into a global nuclear war.
View Quote
Neither will the Middle Eastern conflict. Neither Russia nor China will start a nuclear war over Israel and no one else besides us has ICBMs. Now there might be a REGIONAL nuclear exchange, but that's not what you said (and frankly I wouldn't cry a tear over it).
r.e., Middle East: Yes, Israel got attacked and has every right to defend its existence. But by what code does this entitle Israel to have expanded its area to include West Bank and Gaza strip?
View Quote
The right of conquerors to seize the land they've conquered from those that have attacked them without provocation.
If we advocate a code that allows a country to expand its borders each time it's attacked, aren't we virutally guaranteeing an endless and growing state of war around the globe?
View Quote
No, you're guaranteeing that no one will attack a nation unless they are DAMNED sure they can beat it. And I think that's a good thing.
If the land were returned, and the Muslims stopped pushing, then the conflict would be resolved. If the Muslims continued to push, what of substance would have been lost, other than the basis for the Muslims' claim of righteousness?
View Quote
The Islamic radicals don't NEED a reason to hate Israel other than the EXISTENCE of Israel. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the Middle East.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 6:44:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2002 6:53:53 PM EDT by cc48510]
Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Yet, from time to time the Hizbollah still stage attacks into Northern Israel. On an interesting side note, the PLO was founded in 1964, 3 years before the Israeli's "expanded their borders". So, what does that say ? Well, their charter says it all. They want the destruction of Israel from the face of the earth. The PLO was not a creation of so-called Palestinians. Palestine didn't exist in 1964. It was created by the Arab League which consists of a number of Arab countries for the sole purpose of waging war by proxy.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 6:56:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2002 7:03:16 PM EDT by cc48510]
[url]http://www.arabji.com/ArabGovt/ArabLeague.htm[/url]
[red]The Arab League was founded in Cairo in 1945 by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan (Jordan, as of 1950), and Yemen.[/red] Countries that later joined are: Algeria (1962), Bahrain (1971), Comoros (1993), Djibouti (1977), Kuwait (1961), Libya (1953), Mauritania (1973), Morocco (1958), Oman (1971), Qatar (1971), Somalia (1974), Southern Yemen (1967), Sudan (1956), Tunisia (1958), and the United Arab Emirates (1971). The Palestine Liberation Organization was admitted in 1976. [red]Egypt's membership was suspended in 1979 after it signed a peace treaty with Israel[/red]; the league's headquarters was moved from Cairo, Egypt, to Tunis, Tunisia. In 1987 Arab leaders decided to renew diplomatic ties with Egypt. Egypt was readmitted to the league in 1989 and the league's headquarters was moved back to Cairo.
View Quote
6 of the 7 founding countries of the Arab League were the 6 that attacked Israel in 1967. The PLO is a creation of the Arab League. The same Arab League that ejected Egypt for making peace with Israel and moved their headquarters out of Cairo as a result.
Among the [red]goals the league set for itself[/red] were winning independence for all Arabs still under alien rule, and [red]to prevent the Jewish[/red] minority [red]in Palestine (then governed by the British) from creating a Jewish state.[/red] The members eventually formed a joint defense council, an economic council, and a permanent military command.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 7:11:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2002 7:12:47 PM EDT by cc48510]
[url]http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/arableag.asp[/url]
[red]When the state of Israel was created in 1948, the league countries jointly attacked it, but Israel resisted successfully.[/red] The league continued to maintain a boycott of Israel and of companies trading with Israel. [red]The summit conferences of 1964-65 established a joint Arab military command, which proved unsuccessful in implementing a united strategy for the liberation of Palestine. Egypt's membership was suspended from 1979 to 1989 because of its treaty with Israel,[/red] and the league's headquarters were moved to Tunis.
View Quote
How is it that the Arabs can claim to have established an organization (PLO was a 1964 creation of the AL Summits) to liberate an area which wasn't occupied until 3 years later. Either the PLO can see into the future or they are lying through their teeth. I will go with the latter.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 9:30:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2002 9:32:19 PM EDT by Blaze-Of-Glory]
cc48510, Most of that information is news to me ("[b]F[/b]" in history, still trying to catch up), thanks for taking the trouble to explain it. So the PLO charter, today, continues to call for the destruction of the entire country of Israel? Before, I was aware only of bin Laden's demands, which seem to include return of only West Bank and Gaza, not all of Israel.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 10:16:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shooter69: The "Indians" were not exactly pacifists either - from inter-tribal massacres during and previous to the arrival of Europeans, to the same on the women and children of the early "immigrants," often defenseless and not posing a threat.
View Quote
In one of the earliest massacres of English settlers in North America, the "friendly" Indians were treated as trusted friends, and allowed into homes, etc. They attacked without warning, murdering women and children and everyone else, and scalping their victims (proving that scalping was a native practice). Back to the Middle East: the Crusades were really a counterattack. The Arabs invaded the Holy Land, just as Muslims invaded Spain and Eastern Europe. Jews and Christians lived in the Holy Land before Muslims.
Link Posted: 5/2/2002 10:21:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: Not just yes....but hell yes. When you win a war you keep the land...usually as a buffer zone. Sgtar15
View Quote
Unless you are the United States, then you rebuild the country, economy, and play with your new toy for a while before you let them go back to their own ways.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:34:32 AM EDT
Just for the record, there already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan, a piece of land chopped off of historic Palestine in 1921 at the behest of a young Brit named Winston Churchill, because one of the three brothers who fought with Lawrence of Arabia against the Turks in WW1 hadn't been paid off with a country of his own yet. One of the bros got Iraq (the one played by Alec Guinness in the movie), another got Syria, and the third one, Abdullah was pissed off that he hadn't been paid off yet, so they "made" him a country. In my view, the worst mistake Israel ever made was in NOT backing the Palestinians in September 1970 (Black September), when the Jordanian govt. routed them, slaughtered them (now there was a massacre!) and drove them into Syria and Lebanon. If they'd helped the Palestinians throw out the Hashemite nomads who had come out of (Saudi) Arabia after WW1, and set up a British backed monarchy, there would have been a Palestinian state for years now. Oh well, hindsight is always 20/20
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:40:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: [img]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Elbarfo/dedhorse.gif[/img]
View Quote
My God raven...that's great...LMAO!!!! The people in that region of the world have been fighting each other for LITERALLY thousands of years. They just ain't happy unless they are killn' & dyin'. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:21:33 AM EDT
Actually, many do not realize it but...Islam has only been around since 622 A.D. It was between 632 and 750 AD that the Muslims entered Israel decades after Muhammed's Death. There is no way in my mind that Muhammed, an Arab Tribesman and at that time a Pagan cxrossed the Desert from Mecca to Jeruselam passing well into Judea/Israel unoticeded to have his revelation near some of the holiest Judeo-Christian sites, again unnoticed. In fact, there wasn't any claim that Jeruselam was the site of Muhammed's revelation/ascent to the 7 heavens until this century when some Cleric decided that a specific site in Jeruselam was the site of his revelation/ascent. Amazingly, this came just as Israel was forming and they were going to lose Jeruselam. I'm sorry, but the Muslims only have religious claim to cities: Mecca and Medinah, which are a couple hundred miles apart in South-Central Saudi Arabia. Islam didn't come to Israel/Judea until decades Muhammed's death in battle. Hell, how is that he could walk thousands of miles across a desert infested with variosu warring tribes from Mecca to Jeruselam. Yet, he had to fight wars just to get to Northern Saudi Arabia ? The Muslims took Israel along with all of Northern Africa, large portions of Central Asia, and portions of Europe during their attempt at world domination from 622 AD - 800 AD. Hell, Spain was known as the "Emirate of Cordova" for a few hundred years. The Muslims held onto Grenada in Southern Spain until the early 16th Century, almost 800 years after they invaded.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:22:05 AM EDT
But, in the mid-700s the Muslims reacher Tours where they were defeated by a Frankish (French) Army organized under Charles "The Hammer" Martrel. FWIW, I believe that was the last time the French won a significant battle. But, the Muslims were pushed back to Spain where they remained until the 9th Century when they were pushed back to Grenada where they remained until the 16th Century when they were pushed back into North Africa. But, in the mean time around the time that the first Muslim Invasions were defeated, a Crusade was set up. They made their way to the Middle East liberating Ur, Jeruselam, Bethlehem, etc...from the Muslims who seized control by war a couple hundred years earlier. The Crusaders held portions of Israel until the 13th - 14th Centuries. They held most of it until the 12th Century. At which time, the Turks were waging their war of world domination. They pushed the Crusaders out taking over Israel, large portions of the Middle East, all of Turkey and eventually knocking at Constantinople's door moved into mainland Europe pushing the Byzantine (Former Eastern Rome) Empire back to Muscovy (Moscow) where they formed Kievan Rus calling their leader the Tsar/Czar (Caeser). The 3rd Roman Empire lasted until 1917. But back on topic, the Turks took over large areas of the middle east pushing out the Crusaders. They mantained control for 7 centuries give or take under the Turks (later became the Ottoman Empire). It was WWI, when the Turks sided with the Germans. After the defeat of the Germans, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated and the Europeans moved in to form new countries. These countries were created without regard to tribal borders of religious factions. They were given as prizes to elite. Shortly after the Ottoman Empire disintigrated, some Jews began moving back. They remained a minority until 1948. But, they were significant enough in 1943 to warrant an Arab League goal to prevent them from forming a country. For me it would be easier to believe the PLO if they had formed Post-67 and independtly of any outside body. But, alas they were formed before the West bank was occupied by the very foreign body that twice waged war on Israel. This would be like the Mexicans setting up a group in America's SW to demand their indepence becasue they are being occupied...oh wait...El Voz de Atzlan. The onyl difference is that El Voz te Atzlan isn't sending suicide bombers into Los Angeles Discoteques, Supermarkets, and toy stores. If they were, we'd be rolling tanks into California and Mexico to put the scumbags down.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 3:54:09 PM EDT
Raven when you get through tenderizing that thing send it to me, looks like the other red meat to me. LMAO Bob [smoke]
Top Top