FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Israel Palestine war?





ParsaAkbari
In my opinion i think that this war started with greed and probably wont end for a while.
Yes i know there are many peacefull Jews, but in my opinion the isrealies should never have moved to jerusulem IF they was going to live there by force, death and war.

Yes i know that land is very inportant to them due to religious reasons, but did Jesus ever say
"Kill people so that you can live in my birthplace"?
No.

Did Jesus ever even mention killing for land at all?
No.

I find it disgusting that they give themselves the right to do that. Yes, the palasitinians are to blame as well. I fully agree, but come on they wasnt attacking Jews before they where threatened by the isreali regime.

i end with a quote from bbc news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7790255.stm


Quote:
Jaqlin raised her head to tell her mother that no, Iyad was injured.

As she did so, a bullet ripped through her mouth, and came out behind her ear.

She died immediately, her two year-old sister still clutched to her chest. Iyad died as he was taken away to hospital.

"We don't love this life any more," Mirvat says, twin photos of her dead children beside her, in a painted wooden frame.

"We feel like there is no reason to live any more." She then echoes the words her brother-in-law had told me that cold morning in March
ocalhoun
ParsaAkbari wrote:
did Jesus ever say
"Kill people so that you can live in my birthplace"?
No.

Did Jesus ever even mention killing for land at all?
No.

*laughs hysterically at the thought that Jews care what Jesus said*

Judaism (the religion, not the ethnicity) doesn't believe Jesus was anything more than a false prophet, who needed to be crucified to stop his blasphemy. (Though in these more civilized times they no longer kill false prophets.)

The God that the Jews worship actually did tell them to kill in order to live on that land, on numerous occasions.
ParsaAkbari
ocalhoun wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
did Jesus ever say
"Kill people so that you can live in my birthplace"?
No.

Did Jesus ever even mention killing for land at all?
No.

*laughs hysterically at the thought that Jews care what Jesus said*

Judaism (the religion, not the ethnicity) doesn't believe Jesus was anything more than a false prophet, who needed to be crucified to stop his blasphemy. (Though in these more civilized times they no longer kill false prophets.)

The God that the Jews worship actually did tell them to kill in order to live on that land, on numerous occasions.


Oh well sorry, maybe then i can view the Jews god as "warrish".
No other reasonable god told his OWN creations to right for land
(unless you got that land wrongly taken off you.)
ocalhoun
ParsaAkbari wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
did Jesus ever say
"Kill people so that you can live in my birthplace"?
No.

Did Jesus ever even mention killing for land at all?
No.

*laughs hysterically at the thought that Jews care what Jesus said*

Judaism (the religion, not the ethnicity) doesn't believe Jesus was anything more than a false prophet, who needed to be crucified to stop his blasphemy. (Though in these more civilized times they no longer kill false prophets.)

The God that the Jews worship actually did tell them to kill in order to live on that land, on numerous occasions.


Oh well sorry, maybe then i can view the Jews god as "warrish".
No other reasonable god told his OWN creations to right for land
(unless you got that land wrongly taken off you.)

Modern ones, not so much, but it was very common in those days.
deanhills
ParsaAkbari wrote:
In my opinion i think that this war started with greed and probably wont end for a while.


How did it start with greed? Am interested to know why you think it was greed.
venometal
ocalhoun wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
did Jesus ever say
"Kill people so that you can live in my birthplace"?
No.

Did Jesus ever even mention killing for land at all?
No.

*laughs hysterically at the thought that Jews care what Jesus said*

Judaism (the religion, not the ethnicity) doesn't believe Jesus was anything more than a false prophet, who needed to be crucified to stop his blasphemy. (Though in these more civilized times they no longer kill false prophets.)

The God that the Jews worship actually did tell them to kill in order to live on that land, on numerous occasions.


its not bout the religion or belief, its just bout politics. so many bloody hands on middle east region
ocalhoun
venometal wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
did Jesus ever say
"Kill people so that you can live in my birthplace"?
No.

Did Jesus ever even mention killing for land at all?
No.

*laughs hysterically at the thought that Jews care what Jesus said*

Judaism (the religion, not the ethnicity) doesn't believe Jesus was anything more than a false prophet, who needed to be crucified to stop his blasphemy. (Though in these more civilized times they no longer kill false prophets.)

The God that the Jews worship actually did tell them to kill in order to live on that land, on numerous occasions.


its not bout the religion or belief, its just bout politics. so many bloody hands on middle east region

There are bloody hands the world round, just most of the conflicts had a clear victory, and (more or less) permanently ended, while the conflict in the middle east lags on and on.

Just look at the way the US government handled the Native Americans... Nearly as bad as what the ancient Jews did.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Just look at the way the US government handled the Native Americans... Nearly as bad as what the ancient Jews did.


Not to mention what the Nazis did to those with "impure" blood and that was not limited to Jews. Evil deeds, and it is probably going to visit us collectively for the rest of our lives. Wonder whether it is something like the global economic crisis in a way. All this killing is a debt in the form of human suffering, children who are maimed or orphaned and who are our future. Have we really learned anything at all from our mistakes in history?
GLOBALSTRATEGY
ParsaAkbari wrote:
In my opinion i think that this war started with greed and probably wont end for a while.
Yes i know there are many peacefull Jews, but in my opinion the isrealies should never have moved to jerusulem IF they was going to live there by force, death and war.

Yes i know that land is very inportant to them due to religious reasons, but did Jesus ever say
"Kill people so that you can live in my birthplace"?
No.

Did Jesus ever even mention killing for land at all?
No.

I find it disgusting that they give themselves the right to do that. Yes, the palasitinians are to blame as well. I fully agree, but come on they wasnt attacking Jews before they where threatened by the isreali regime.

i end with a quote from bbc news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7790255.stm


Quote:
Jaqlin raised her head to tell her mother that no, Iyad was injured.

As she did so, a bullet ripped through her mouth, and came out behind her ear.

She died immediately, her two year-old sister still clutched to her chest. Iyad died as he was taken away to hospital.

"We don't love this life any more," Mirvat says, twin photos of her dead children beside her, in a painted wooden frame.

"We feel like there is no reason to live any more." She then echoes the words her brother-in-law had told me that cold morning in March


You have a bit of a problem with the facts. Jews has been a majority in Jerusalem for at least the last two hundred years, I see no reason why it shouldn't be under Israeli suzerainty. Secondly, the Arabs atacked the Jews in the land of Israel long before the Jews had their state: for example the anti-Jewish 1921 riots in Jaffa left 43 Jews dead. Another example: in 1929 Islamists managed to incite the Arab masses against the Jews in relation to supposed designs they had on the Temple Mount (by the way the same story that surrounded many decades later the Ariel Sharon visit to the area) and in the pogroms there were 133 Jews killed and about 400 wounded. The entire Jewish population of Hebron, who lived there for centuries, fled or had been killed, with the British authorities not doing great efforts to prevent it. Immediately after the United Nations resolution on the partition of Palestine in November of 1947, anti-Jewish riots left 62 Jews dead. On May 5th, ten days before Ben-Gurion declared the creation of the new Jewish state of Israel, the Arab Legion (headed by the British officer Glubb) attacked Jewish Kfar Etzion and many defenders were massacred even after they had surrendered.

Basically (there are always exceptions in the long history of Jewish-Arab relations in the Land of Israel) the Jews haven't done any "killings" for the sake of it, but have taken arms against the Arab attempts to throw them into the sea. Some years before the creation of the State of Israel the Jews lost a third of their people, six million, in the Nazi holocaust, including a million and a half of children. After the declaration of independence of Israel, Azzam Pasha, Secretary- General of the Arab League - declared which were their intentions: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” (quoted endlessly,but it can also be find in Isi Leibler, The Case For Israel, (Australia: The Globe Press, 1972), p. 15). Five Arab countries invaded the new state, in the first aggresion after the end of the second world war, the Jews were outnumbered and outgunned by Arab troops who had in part of them the benefit of British training and equipment. But the Zionists won, the aggression was repelled, and the Jewish state survived. What should they have done? Let themselves be killed? Let them be thrown into the sea? Or stand up and fight for their lives?

In this very moment, the Israeli IDF is confronting with their arms the terrorist Hamas, who has managed to dominate the Gaza strip, and left it in misery and hunger. The Nazi-inspired program of Hamas calls for killing the Jews (it is important to stress the point: kill the Jews, not only the Zionists) and has been implementing in the Gaza strip Islamic sharia law and customs (films show more and more women using the traditional cover on their faces). For eight years Iran-backed Hamas has been spreading fear and destruction in southern Israel throwing thousands of rockets against the innocent civilian population. We back the IDF actions to try to put an end to this.
deanhills
ParsaAkbari wrote:
but come on they wasnt attacking Jews before they where threatened by the isreali regime.


Think your facts are wrong here. Simply not true! If it were true, would the United States have kept silent through all of this? Hamas has been attacking the Israelis, while hiding behind its Arab civilians in Gaza. They are using the civilians as cover. They have even used them on suicide missions. Convincing them that that would earn them a place in heaven. During the supposedly cease fire, Hamas has been smuggling in weapons, as well as shooting missiles at Israelis, killing and maiming Israelis on a sporadic basis. They are fighting a war, using the media, and using their own people's misfortune in the most graphic detail to rally everyone behind them. How come there is such an abundance of photos available all of the time? In the most gruesome detail? With no delay in showing them to all of the world?
jwellsy
Greed made Humas fire rockets into Israel?
That creates a cognitive dissonance in logic.
liljp617
Let's keep in mind (for the sake of discussion) this fight is centuries old.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Let's keep in mind (for the sake of discussion) this fight is centuries old.


Excellent point. Nothing temporary about it. Also many interests vested in it outside the area of conflict. Wheels within wheels. And possibly us guys in the street will never know what is really going on. We are just being fed by everyone with vested interests, what they want us to know, and what they want us to believe.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:


Not to mention what the Nazis did to those with "impure" blood and that was not limited to Jews. Evil deeds, and it is probably going to visit us collectively for the rest of our lives.

Only for the rest of our lives? It will continue until the human species is extinct.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Only for the rest of our lives? It will continue until the human species is extinct.


Will you be a horse by then? Smile Which do you think has the greatest chance of surviving, or do you think human beings will go down with everything else at the same time and everything on earth will be extinct, perhaps earth too?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Only for the rest of our lives? It will continue until the human species is extinct.


Will you be a horse by then? Smile Which do you think has the greatest chance of surviving, or do you think human beings will go down with everything else at the same time and everything on earth will be extinct, perhaps earth too?

Probably Sad .
But there is another, brighter option... The human species could evolve into something better, making the old humans extinct.
GLOBALSTRATEGY
I believe that a good point can be found in an old but cardinal article of the American political scientist Huntington:

"The interactions between civilizations vary greatly in the extent to which they are likely to be characterized by violence. Economic competition clearly predominates between the American and European subcivilizations of the West and between both of them and Japan. On the Eurasian continent, however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in "ethnic cleansing," has not been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different civilizations. In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders." Cfr. Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?", Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
But there is another, brighter option... The human species could evolve into something better, making the old humans extinct.


I prefer that option ... definitely a good one ... Smile
GLOBALSTRATEGY
This thread has been called "Isreal Palastine war?", but actually it should be "Israel Palestine war?"

[MOD - Thread title changed - Bikerman]
lagoon
There IS no foreseeable end to this conflict. The fact that it has been going on for hundreds of years only shows that the greatest minds in the last four centuries have found no solution.
ocalhoun
lagoon wrote:
There IS no foreseeable end to this conflict. The fact that it has been going on for hundreds of years only shows that the greatest minds in the last four centuries have found no solution.

Perhaps they used the exact same excuse...
GLOBALSTRATEGY
To see something positive in the bleak picture of the current armed conflict, it can be addressed the renewal of the humanitarian aid through the Israeli channels.Through the Kerem Shalom Crossing, approximately eighty truckloads of medical supplies and basic commodities are being delivered.The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) military operations have diminished the dangers to the civilian personnel manning depots and other infrastructure, and are allowing now for the pumping of some 200,000 liters of heavy diesel fuel through the Nahal Oz terminal. This will allow a reasonable functioning of the Gaza power station and also allow for other humanitarian needs. Since the military campaing began some four hundred trucks of humanitarian aid was transported. Dual citizens who wanted to leave were assisted to do it and many Palestinians, including injured children, were evacuated to Israel for medical assistance.
deanhills
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
To see something positive in the bleak picture of the current armed conflict, it can be addressed the renewal of the humanitarian aid through the Israeli channels.Through the Kerem Shalom Crossing, approximately eighty truckloads of medical supplies and basic commodities are being delivered.The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) military operations have diminished the dangers to the civilian personnel manning depots and other infrastructure, and are allowing now for the pumping of some 200,000 liters of heavy diesel fuel through the Nahal Oz terminal. This will allow a reasonable functioning of the Gaza power station and also allow for other humanitarian needs. Since the military campaing began some four hundred trucks of humanitarian aid was transported. Dual citizens who wanted to leave were assisted to do it and many Palestinians, including injured children, were evacuated to Israel for medical assistance.


I did not know that Globalstrategy, and this is indeed awesome news! Just feel so sorry for the women and children who are too scared to leave their homes to fetch necessary supplies. I guess they cannot really benefit fully from all the aid that has been pouring into Gaza warehouses, until it is safe for them to venture out of their houses again.
ocalhoun
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
To see something positive in the bleak picture of the current armed conflict, it can be addressed the renewal of the humanitarian aid through the Israeli channels.Through the Kerem Shalom Crossing, approximately eighty truckloads of medical supplies and basic commodities are being delivered.The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) military operations have diminished the dangers to the civilian personnel manning depots and other infrastructure, and are allowing now for the pumping of some 200,000 liters of heavy diesel fuel through the Nahal Oz terminal. This will allow a reasonable functioning of the Gaza power station and also allow for other humanitarian needs. Since the military campaing began some four hundred trucks of humanitarian aid was transported. Dual citizens who wanted to leave were assisted to do it and many Palestinians, including injured children, were evacuated to Israel for medical assistance.

Now, the day Hamas does something like that, I may become more inclined towards their side...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
To see something positive in the bleak picture of the current armed conflict, it can be addressed the renewal of the humanitarian aid through the Israeli channels.Through the Kerem Shalom Crossing, approximately eighty truckloads of medical supplies and basic commodities are being delivered.The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) military operations have diminished the dangers to the civilian personnel manning depots and other infrastructure, and are allowing now for the pumping of some 200,000 liters of heavy diesel fuel through the Nahal Oz terminal. This will allow a reasonable functioning of the Gaza power station and also allow for other humanitarian needs. Since the military campaing began some four hundred trucks of humanitarian aid was transported. Dual citizens who wanted to leave were assisted to do it and many Palestinians, including injured children, were evacuated to Israel for medical assistance.

Now, the day Hamas does something like that, I may become more inclined towards their side...


Agreed Ocalhoun. And irony of this is you cannot find this news anywhere on the Websites. No acknowledgement whatsoever! Now should that surprise us?!
hunnyhiteshseth
deanhills wrote:
Now should that surprise us?!


More realistically, that should make us doubt the source.
ocalhoun
hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Now should that surprise us?!


More realistically, that should make us doubt the source.

True enough; I am a bit suspicious about it...
Though it could also be that most news outlets figure that mere aid isn't newsworthy when rockets are flying towards civilians.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Though it could also be that most news outlets figure that mere aid isn't newsworthy when rockets are flying towards civilians.


Agreed. Probably would not flow right either, as Al Jazeera TV for example on its Website had been scathing about Israel's refusal to allow a shipment of aid to be flown into Gaza. I'm no expert, but possibly Israel had some good reasons for worrying about that specific shipment, but back to the news article on the Al Jazeera Website, it would probably not have fit right then to mention that Israel had despatched XYZ aid by surface in a convoy of trucks.
handfleisch
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
This thread has been called "Isreal Palastine war?", but actually it should be "Israel Palestine war?"

[MOD - Thread title changed - Bikerman]


Might as well fix the spelling of Palestine in the title while you're at it.

edit by rvec: done Smile
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
This thread has been called "Isreal Palastine war?", but actually it should be "Israel Palestine war?"

[MOD - Thread title changed - Bikerman]


Might as well fix the spelling of Palestine in the title while you're at it.

edit by rvec: done Smile


Ok, so since we are nit-picking here Smile , would it not be better to say:

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

To allow for the Palestinians who do not acknowledge Israel as a country, and the other way round too, war is perhaps only possible between countries? So has to be conflict rather than war?
LumberJack
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Let's keep in mind (for the sake of discussion) this fight is centuries old.


Excellent point. Nothing temporary about it. Also many interests vested in it outside the area of conflict. Wheels within wheels. And possibly us guys in the street will never know what is really going on. We are just being fed by everyone with vested interests, what they want us to know, and what they want us to believe.



Just remember who drew the lines in 1948, Western Nations. In an area so culturally diverse, and with centuries of conflict bred into people. It was one of the biggest mistakes in the modern world. It has always been fought over, it will always be fought over. Its upsetting.
ParsaAkbari
I must agree with lumberjack.

No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land. This will obviously offend somebody and spark a war.

No matter how you put it what isreal did was wrong.
deanhills
ParsaAkbari wrote:
No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land. This will obviously offend somebody and spark a war.


If this is as simple as is stated, then the solution should be equally simple? I think it is much more complex, and the consequences following this complex as well, hence the situation that is being faced with presently. If it had been that simple, this problem would have been resolved a long time ago.
hunnyhiteshseth
ParsaAkbari wrote:

No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land.


By same analogy, there was no Pakistan 61 years ago, (which is less than 100 years Mad ) So, you mean there should not be any Pakistan and it should be part of India only?
Rolling Eyes Wink Laughing


By the way, thats Israel & not isreal.
ocalhoun
ParsaAkbari wrote:

No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land. This will obviously offend somebody and spark a war.

A war that should have ended with the first defeat, not lingered on as an eternal murderous grudge.
Moonspider
ParsaAkbari wrote:
No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land.


A chunk of land that was once the nation of Israel in ancient times. A chunk of land that is historically the homeland of the Jewish people. A chunk of land that the Jews occupied until the Romans destroyed the nation, the Temple of Solomon, dispersed the Jews and renamed the territory to what we now call Palestine.

When did the nation of "Palestine" exist in history?

Respectfully,
M
LumberJack
Moonspider wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land.


A chunk of land that was once the nation of Israel in ancient times. A chunk of land that is historically the homeland of the Jewish people. A chunk of land that the Jews occupied until the Romans destroyed the nation, the Temple of Solomon, dispersed the Jews and renamed the territory to what we now call Palestine.

When did the nation of "Palestine" exist in history?

Respectfully,
M


One can argue that we do not have any right to judge people as North American history is tainted with numerous examples of conquests and genocide. If I recall, North America once belongs to a variety of Aboriginal Peoples. I do not see us giving our land back to Aboriginals, what I do see is a large segment of our own population marginalized and racially discriminated against.

But, should be be held responsible for the sins of our fathers? Should the Palestinians be? Because of what Romans did thousands of years ago? Do you think it is relevant to the average family in Palestine? For a lot of people, it is simply their homes were taken away from them, their family may have been killed, etc, etc, etc.

When does it stop? West Bank, Palestine, Jerusalem, has been fought over since Jesus. Do you actually think our society is mature enough to be able to solve this problem? Absolutely not. If you think so, you are living in a pipe dream.
Moonspider
LumberJack wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land.


A chunk of land that was once the nation of Israel in ancient times. A chunk of land that is historically the homeland of the Jewish people. A chunk of land that the Jews occupied until the Romans destroyed the nation, the Temple of Solomon, dispersed the Jews and renamed the territory to what we now call Palestine.

When did the nation of "Palestine" exist in history?

Respectfully,
M


One can argue that we do not have any right to judge people as North American history is tainted with numerous examples of conquests and genocide. If I recall, North America once belongs to a variety of Aboriginal Peoples. I do not see us giving our land back to Aboriginals, what I do see is a large segment of our own population marginalized and racially discriminated against.

But, should be be held responsible for the sins of our fathers? Should the Palestinians be? Because of what Romans did thousands of years ago? Do you think it is relevant to the average family in Palestine? For a lot of people, it is simply their homes were taken away from them, their family may have been killed, etc, etc, etc.

When does it stop? West Bank, Palestine, Jerusalem, has been fought over since Jesus. Do you actually think our society is mature enough to be able to solve this problem? Absolutely not. If you think so, you are living in a pipe dream.


I think you read far too much into my comment. All I'm refuting is the notion put forth by ParsaAkbari that there was no Israel until the mid-20th Century. That's it.

On a side note, I'm a mix of both American Indian and European ancestry, so I sympathize with the plight of American Indians over the years but wouldn't trade the blood of either flowing through my veins.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
LumberJack wrote:
Just remember who drew the lines in 1948, Western Nations. In an area so culturally diverse, and with centuries of conflict bred into people. It was one of the biggest mistakes in the modern world. It has always been fought over, it will always be fought over. Its upsetting.


Wow, sounds so simple the way this has been put. But does not reflect the atmosphere that was around at that time in the Middle East after WWII and the Allied countries completely in guilt with not knowing what to do with the Israel settlements. All of those countries were rebuilding their own countries, and did not have the resources at that time to get involved in lengthy disputes. They followed simple routes. It was also not as easy as it sounds with the Israelis either. They had to fight to keep the land that was given to them before independence. And the votes were not given to them that easy in the UN either. They did not get things for free, they had to work for it, fight for it, die for it and that is after a lengthy WWII where they had come out with very low-self esteem had been battered, bruised, hurt. That had been the reality of that time. And they survived it!

ParsaAkbari wrote:
I must agree with lumberjack.

No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land. This will obviously offend somebody and spark a war.


Right, but there is an Israel now. And while they have been in Israel from the forties to date, they have worked for their freedom. They have built a country from absolutely nothing to something.
handfleisch
Amnesty Int'l knows better:


http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=jlKUK5PSJlIULjK&s=fqJQISMtHeLQJ1PIIsH&m=hoLRJ1PCImIYF
Quote:
20 days into the Gaza crisis and the humanitarian crisis there gets worse each day. 398 women and children are dead, another 4700 injured, 750,000 lack access to water and one million are without electricity. Each day that passes guarantees more innocent civilians will suffer. Tell Congress to act swiftly to help humanitarian workers get into Gaza and to suspend all transfers of weapons to Israel.
It’s critical that Congress acts. Congress can take two actions that will make a significant impact on the ground:


1. Urge Israel to allow for increased humanitarian supplies into Gaza and press Egypt to allow more wounded Palestinians to seek medical treatment in Egypt.


The Israeli three hour truce to allow for humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza is not sufficient. A spokesman for the UN relief agency UNWRA said “When you are trying to feed 750,000 people a day in Gaza as we are, you need a permanent ceasefire. You can’t do that in a three-hour window.”8

Although Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing allowing limited medical help in and injured Palestinians out, the number allowed to seek medical care outside of Gaza needs to increase dramatically. There are currently 4500 wounded Palestinians.

2. Suspend all transfers of weapons to Israel
until there is no longer a substantial risk that they will be used for serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law -- such as in attacks that disproportionately kill civilians -- while pressing all sides to stop unlawful attacks.

AI is calling for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups. The US Arms Export Act of 1976 was passed to help guarantee that US-made weapons would only be used for legitimate self-defense and not for violations of internationally recognized human rights. The act requires the State Department to report to Congress when there is a ‘’substantial violation” of the law9.

These demands comply with widely recognized international human rights law.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Amnesty Int'l knows better:


They know better than what?
liljp617
dedeveloper wrote:
what the role of UN ?


To sit there and pretend they serve a purpose.
ThePolemistis
Moonspider wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land.


A chunk of land that was once the nation of Israel in ancient times. A chunk of land that is historically the homeland of the Jewish people. A chunk of land that the Jews occupied until the Romans destroyed the nation, the Temple of Solomon, dispersed the Jews and renamed the territory to what we now call Palestine.

When did the nation of "Palestine" exist in history?

Respectfully,
M


Jews were kicked out their lands 2000 years ago. Muslims controlled Jerusalem 1000 years ago.
There existed a Muslim empire which sretched fom Spain to India, in which people of all faiths were free to move around. Except the Jews remained in Muslim Spain and not moved back to the holy land.
And suddenly, now they want not only to move back, but to occupy someone elses land?

And yes, there was no Palestine. There was no Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Lebanon either. Whats your poinjt?
It was united as one, the Muslim Empire, under many people including the abbasids, ottomons etc etc. They are people part of a community nevertheless - For they are Arabs.
I can say the same arguement, Who are Jews?
deanhills
ThePolemistis wrote:
Jews were kicked out their lands 2000 years ago. Muslims controlled Jerusalem 1000 years ago.
There existed a Muslim empire which sretched fom Spain to India, in which people of all faiths were free to move around. Except the Jews remained in Muslim Spain and not moved back to the holy land.
And suddenly, now they want not only to move back, but to occupy someone elses land?

And yes, there was no Palestine. There was no Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Lebanon either. Whats your poinjt?
It was united as one, the Muslim Empire, under many people including the abbasids, ottomons etc etc. They are people part of a community nevertheless - For they are Arabs.
I can say the same arguement, Who are Jews?


I can't understand your point either. What has history got to do with it anyway? Then was then. Now is now. Tomorrow may be different. The only thing we can be sure of is change, not that things should be the same, or are going to be the same, or are going to become the same again. Only thing that history is good for is to look at lessons, however it would seem that in this particular conflict, the lesson of history is a total unwillingness to look for insights for peace. The conflict goes too deep for that. Which of course is sad for the people who are caught in the conflict, and sad for the world who has to deal with something it cannot seem to find a solution for. How can you find a solution when there is a lack of sincere interest to find lasting peace by the parties who are directly and indirectly involved in the conflict?
LumberJack
Moonspider wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
ParsaAkbari wrote:
No matter what you say. The was no isreal 100 years ago, they just came and took a chunk of land.


A chunk of land that was once the nation of Israel in ancient times. A chunk of land that is historically the homeland of the Jewish people. A chunk of land that the Jews occupied until the Romans destroyed the nation, the Temple of Solomon, dispersed the Jews and renamed the territory to what we now call Palestine.

When did the nation of "Palestine" exist in history?

Respectfully,
M


One can argue that we do not have any right to judge people as North American history is tainted with numerous examples of conquests and genocide. If I recall, North America once belongs to a variety of Aboriginal Peoples. I do not see us giving our land back to Aboriginals, what I do see is a large segment of our own population marginalized and racially discriminated against.

But, should be be held responsible for the sins of our fathers? Should the Palestinians be? Because of what Romans did thousands of years ago? Do you think it is relevant to the average family in Palestine? For a lot of people, it is simply their homes were taken away from them, their family may have been killed, etc, etc, etc.

When does it stop? West Bank, Palestine, Jerusalem, has been fought over since Jesus. Do you actually think our society is mature enough to be able to solve this problem? Absolutely not. If you think so, you are living in a pipe dream.


I think you read far too much into my comment. All I'm refuting is the notion put forth by ParsaAkbari that there was no Israel until the mid-20th Century. That's it.

On a side note, I'm a mix of both American Indian and European ancestry, so I sympathize with the plight of American Indians over the years but wouldn't trade the blood of either flowing through my veins.

Respectfully,
M


I may have indeed. However, you make a very good point. You wouldn't trade the blood of either flowing through your veins. That is not the case in Isreal/Gaza/Westbank. There are many people who are willing to fight to the death for revenge, their homes, to regain something in history.

<To everyone>

We are trying to reason with some families where mothers are proud to have sons blow themselves up. You cannot reason with people like that.

I feel Israel is using the past as a justification for what they are doing today, and I think it is disgusting. I really do not have much sympathy for it.
handfleisch
LumberJack wrote:


We are trying to reason with some families where mothers are proud to have sons blow themselves up. You cannot reason with people like that.

I feel Israel is using the past as a justification for what they are doing today, and I think it is disgusting. I really do not have much sympathy for it.


I agree, but you cannot reason with some Israeli families either. Here is the harshest incident lately -- an Israeli woman shouting "propaganda" in the face of a father who's just had 3 children killed by Israeli tanks in Gaza.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3657587,00.html

Quote:
Soldiers' mother: Stop Gaza doctor's propaganda

Confrontation at Sheba medical center: Mother of three soldiers interrupts press conference convened by Gaza doctor who lost his three daughters, says 'why is he engaging in propaganda? Have you all gone crazy?'

Dudi cohen
Published: 01.17.09, 16:49 / Israel News

The Sheba medical center was the site of a confrontation Saturday, as Israeli visitors to the hospital slammed the "propaganda" of a Gaza doctor who lost three of his daughters after an IDF shell hit his home in the Strip.


The doctor, who works at Sheba, convened a press conference at the medical center where he spoke about his daughters. At one point, he was interrupted by a mother of three soldiers who said: "Why is he engaging in propaganda? He's talking against Israel at the Sheba hospital. You should all be ashamed. All my children are serving in Gaza. Who knows what he had at his home?"


During his press conference, Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, said that his children were involved in peace missions.
ThePolemistis
deanhills wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
Jews were kicked out their lands 2000 years ago. Muslims controlled Jerusalem 1000 years ago.
There existed a Muslim empire which sretched fom Spain to India, in which people of all faiths were free to move around. Except the Jews remained in Muslim Spain and not moved back to the holy land.
And suddenly, now they want not only to move back, but to occupy someone elses land?

And yes, there was no Palestine. There was no Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Lebanon either. Whats your poinjt?
It was united as one, the Muslim Empire, under many people including the abbasids, ottomons etc etc. They are people part of a community nevertheless - For they are Arabs.
I can say the same arguement, Who are Jews?


I can't understand your point either. What has history got to do with it anyway? Then was then. Now is now. Tomorrow may be different. The only thing we can be sure of is change, not that things should be the same, or are going to be the same, or are going to become the same again. Only thing that history is good for is to look at lessons, however it would seem that in this particular conflict, the lesson of history is a total unwillingness to look for insights for peace. The conflict goes too deep for that. Which of course is sad for the people who are caught in the conflict, and sad for the world who has to deal with something it cannot seem to find a solution for. How can you find a solution when there is a lack of sincere interest to find lasting peace by the parties who are directly and indirectly involved in the conflict?


Whereever there is resistance in the world, it is a sign of troubles. The Palestinian people are resisting occupation - and so they should. The building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land is illegal and violates international law.

My point is: if Moonspider believed that Jews were entitled to the land because they were forced out of it 2000 years ago, then why the heck did the Jews not return to the land during 1000 years of Islamic occupation of it, where they instead decided to reside in Muslim Spain (and not Muslim Palestine)?
Therefore, they cannot suddenly claim entitlement to the land of Palestine for what happened 2000 years ago.


My second point is: If Israel had been created by conquering Palestine, then that is a different issue. But it wasen't The Jews were given Israel on a piece of plate. They did not fight for it. The international community decided it WHICH VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. Been given it, and fighting for it are two seperate issues.
Moonspider
ThePolemistis wrote:
[
My point is: if Moonspider believed that Jews were entitled to the land because they were forced out of it 2000 years ago, then why the heck did the Jews not return to the land during 1000 years of Islamic occupation of it, where they instead decided to reside in Muslim Spain (and not Muslim Palestine)?
Therefore, they cannot suddenly claim entitlement to the land of Palestine for what happened 2000 years ago.


I never said that the Israelis are entitled to the land. As I stated earlier, all I did was refute the claim by some that Jews are relative newcomers taking land away from people (Palestinians) that have been there longer. That's not true.

I'll wax philosophical here...

I don't believe that any one person or group is entitled to certain lands. Property "ownership" exists through either law or force. The land, whether North America, Africa, the Middle East, or Antarctica remains independent of whomever claims ownership of it. When I die, per my will I'll have Tennessee soil placed in my casket should I be buried outside of that state. However "Tennessee" is just a name humans gave to a piece of territory with boundaries drawn up and honored by others in accordance with U.S. laws. I want the soil on my rotting remains because my "European" ancestors have lived there since 1801 (I hate to call them "European" since they arrived in North America in the 1600s) and my Indian ancestors lived there for centries prior to that.

But humans may go extinct and it'll still be there until it's transformed or destroyed by earthly events, or ceases to exist with the planet when our sun becomes a red giant. 2,000 years from now it may be occupied by humans with no ancestors from that area. My belief is that it is all moot. Law and force are the only things that matter when it comes to land "entitlement."

And, in the end, it really only boils down to force. Laws only matter if all parties choose to honor them. Once one party decides to use force, then even laws are moot unless a stronger party chooses to force those laws upon others.

This bickering over who was there first, who has a greater historical claim, etc. is all nonsense. Only one thing matters: who has the will and the strength to hold it (either by force of arms or by law backed by force of arms). Everything else is trivial rhetoric.

Now, allow me to step back from a purely secular Moonspider perspective and give you my whole perspective on the situation:

I'm a Christian. Furthermore, I believe Israel's modern day existence to be part of God's plan. I believe it was prophesied that the Jews would return to this land now known as Palestine, just as I believe Jesus Christ prophesied the destruction of the third temple (which occurred at the time of the Jewish diaspora). I also believe based on Biblical prophecy alone that some day a ruler from outside of the Middle East (Europe, United States, doesn't matter) will sign a treaty with Israel (and probably the Palestinians) guaranteeing peace to the region, including the protection of Israel (in whatever form the Israeli boundaries take in the future). As part of this agreement, I believe Israel will rebuild Solomon's Temple (the fourth temple) adjacent to the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount. (Israel has already made great progress in preparations for its construction.) This world leader will then betray Israel to her destruction, a destruction stopped only by Christ's direct intervention.

So that's my perspective, the first is how I believe about land ownership in general, the second about Israel as a Christian. But either way, it all boils down to the will and strength to hold it, even if it is God.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
ThePolemistis wrote:
They did not fight for it.


Now that is really a farfetch? What do you think Israel have been doing since 1948? Play drums?
ThePolemistis
Moonspider wrote:

This bickering over who was there first, who has a greater historical claim, etc. is all nonsense. Only one thing matters: who has the will and the strength to hold it (either by force of arms or by law backed by force of arms). Everything else is trivial rhetoric.


I agree with what you are saying. But you forget one thing: Respecting International Law during times of war.

What is happening in Palestine is Israel is occupying Palestinian land and moving their own citizens into the occupied territories and the building of Jewish settlements. This is illegal under International Law.

And Israel is not fighting a government, it is fighting a people who are resisting occupation.
Are you saying Israel has a right to occupy Palestine through force, even if it means killing the last Palestinian civilian man, women or child?

Moonspider wrote:

I'm a Christian. Furthermore, I believe Israel's modern day existence to be part of God's plan. I believe it was prophesied that the Jews would return to this land now known as Palestine, just as I believe Jesus Christ prophesied the destruction of the third temple (which occurred at the time of the Jewish diaspora). I also believe based on Biblical prophecy alone that some day a ruler from outside of the Middle East (Europe, United States, doesn't matter) will sign a treaty with Israel (and probably the Palestinians) guaranteeing peace to the region, including the protection of Israel (in whatever form the Israeli boundaries take in the future). As part of this agreement, I believe Israel will rebuild Solomon's Temple (the fourth temple) adjacent to the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount. (Israel has already made great progress in preparations for its construction.) This world leader will then betray Israel to her destruction, a destruction stopped only by Christ's direct intervention.


Well, I am a Muslim and I also believe that an Israel will be created at the end of time in which there would be peace such that (as the prophecy states) a little girl will play with a snake, and a little boy will be able to chase away a lion. This will only happen at the coming of Jesus.
Obviously in neither the narrations (Christianity or Islamic) did the prophecy be fulfilled (in the establishement of Israel). Because Israel is far from being at peace.
The only time in which Israel/Palestine has seen peace was during the Muslim rule of it for 1000 years initially conquered by the great Salahuddin (Saladin).

Modern day Israel was created out of anti-semetism and pro-(Christian?) Zionism from Europe, but predominantly Britain. It was created out of hate, and not love.



deanhills wrote:

Now that is really a farfetch? What do you think Israel have been doing since 1948? Play drums?


I said, Israel was "GIVEN" to the Jews on a plate. They did not fight for it for its establishment like any other people/nation would. The UN and international community decided what happened, without even consulting the people of that land. The people of that land (the arabs) were kicked out to make way for the Jews.
This is a gross violation of International Law, yet the UN (United Nothing) supported it.
Over a million Palestinians were made refugees, and over 7 million to this date. Do these innocent Palestinians ever get a mention? What right did the Jews have over the arabs to live in that land in teh eyes of the International Community. The answer: No right! Israel, like I said above, was created out of anti-semitism and pro-Christian Zionism.
deanhills
ThePolemistis wrote:
Because Israel is far from being at peace.

So is Palestine


ThePolemistis wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Now that is really a farfetch? What do you think Israel have been doing since 1948? Play drums?


I said, Israel was "GIVEN" to the Jews on a plate. They did not fight for it for its establishment like any other people/nation would. The UN and international community decided what happened, without even consulting the people of that land. The people of that land (the arabs) were kicked out to make way for the Jews.
Israel was already present, as well as defending its borders at the time when the UN decided the land belonged to Israel. They actually were working the land, adding value to it, were present in great numbers in it, and were already defending the land from attacks from outside. They had not necessarily been fighting as a war at that time, but it was a fight of survival.
ocalhoun
^An interesting addition to that I just found out about, but haven't verified yet:

Originally, the Jews relocated from Europe were not an autonomous nation, but were protected by an English garrison. After a while, the Jews attacked the garrison, stole the weapons, and declared independence, then struck a new deal with the English.

I do still need to verify this from another source, but it would put an interesting new slant on the debate on whether or not Israel was 'given' to the Jews.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
^An interesting addition to that I just found out about, but haven't verified yet:

Originally, the Jews relocated from Europe were not an autonomous nation, but were protected by an English garrison. After a while, the Jews attacked the garrison, stole the weapons, and declared independence, then struck a new deal with the English.

I do still need to verify this from another source, but it would put an interesting new slant on the debate on whether or not Israel was 'given' to the Jews.


After World War II great numbers of refugees fled to Israel. Just to be stopped by the British when they were still in boats off shore. That was the first beginning of their troubles. The British typically had to make their minds up for a long while, and obviously given the end of the war and people putting pressure on them to deal with the situation, allowed the Israelis on shore, however interned the Jewish settlers in refugee camps. Can you imagine how horrible that must have been, especially after their experiences from before while the war was going on? That is when they started to revolt of course. Some escaped and became revolutionaries by joining Jewish militant groups that had already existed before their arrival. Others joined in negotiations with the British. There were a great number of Israelis there already before the refugees had joined them, fighting the British for a long time. David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, arrived in Palestine in 1906 from Poland. He headed a peaceful faction who tried to reason with the more revolutionary faction, and so not only were the challenges of the birth of Israel in 1948 international, but also domestic. David Ben-Gurion had his hands full to keep the revolutionary guys from terrorist acts so that they could get what they had been aiming for in a legitimate way. There are two really nice biographies to read if you are interested in this period of Israel: Golda Meir who was Prime Minister for a while and resigned after the Yom Kippur war, and Moshe Dayan, who was a Defence Minister and had a very interesting history (my favourite of the two characters). I managed to look him up on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan

Golda Meir was educated in the United States (Milwaukee) where her family had emigrated from Russia, and then decided to join Palestine in 1917:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golda_Meir[/quote]
ThePolemistis
deanhills wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
Because Israel is far from being at peace.

So is Palestine



I was referring to the Israel in the biblical texts (i.e. that includes Palestine).


deanhills wrote:
Israel was already present, as well as defending its borders at the time when the UN decided the land belonged to Israel. They actually were working the land, adding value to it, were present in great numbers in it, and were already defending the land from attacks from outside. They had not necessarily been fighting as a war at that time, but it was a fight of survival.


I don't see how. Israel was created in 1948. The UN Partition was in 1947.
Moonspider
ThePolemistis wrote:

Obviously in neither the narrations (Christianity or Islamic) did the prophecy be fulfilled (in the establishement of Israel). Because Israel is far from being at peace.


If you want to discuss this further, I recommend that we do so in another thread. But the biblical prophecy speaks nothing about Israel being at peace until after the return of Christ (who returns to save Israel from absolute destruction by other nations of the world). Prior to then Israel is apparently at war quite a bit, so much so that they sign a peace treaty with another world leader to guarantee their security, a leader who then betrays them.

By my interpretation of biblical prophecy, modern day Israel and events reflect biblical prophecy fairly well. And I think many people believe that a third-party nation coming into Palestine, bringing peace to the region with a strong presence and guaranteeing the security of all is a viable and maybe even necessary solution. That would fit with both Old Testament and New Testament prophecy should it come to pass.

Like I said though, a topic for another thread...

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
ThePolemistis wrote:
I don't see how. Israel was created in 1948. The UN Partition was in 1947.
The Partition was recommended in 1947 by the UN, voted on during May 1948. Lots happened during that period of time. A miracle that the resolution got passed.

Moonspider wrote:
By my interpretation of biblical prophecy, modern day Israel and events reflect biblical prophecy fairly well. And I think many people believe that a third-party nation coming into Palestine, bringing peace to the region with a strong presence and guaranteeing the security of all is a viable and maybe even necessary solution. That would fit with both Old Testament and New Testament prophecy should it come to pass.

Like I said though, a topic for another thread...

Respectfully,
M


Interesting comment, I am not that well-versed in the biblical prophecy end of things. Wonder who the third country would be, hopefully not the US? I don't have faith in the UN either. Maybe a special combination of countries along the lines of those who are negotiating with Egypt right now.
ThePolemistis
[quote="deanhills"]
ThePolemistis wrote:
I don't see how. Israel was created in 1948. The UN Partition was in 1947.
The Partition was recommended in 1947 by the UN, voted on during May 1948. Lots happened during that period of time. A miracle that the resolution got passed.

Wasen't really a miracle. And are you referring to King David Hotel bombings and the bombings in Rome as a lot happening during that period?

And yes, there was no Israel. 7% of land ownership belonged to Jews, the rest was Arab. The UN partition was grossly unfair for the Arabs, for it distributed 33% land to Jews, and rest for Arabs, and Arabs grossly outnumbered Jews (even with the illegal migration done by the British of Jews into Palestine).

MoonSpider wrote:

But the biblical prophecy speaks nothing about Israel being at peace until after the return of Christ (who returns to save Israel from absolute destruction by other nations of the world)


Same as the Islamic perspective. The real question is: save Israel from whom ?
- The Zionist who control it and committing Nazi-like aggression against the Palestinian people?
- or the true Palestinian people who are resisting occupation of their lands and who, for centuries, cultivated its green and ate from its olives?
ptfrances
I think this conflict is going to last till extremist of the two sides want really to end with this war...
Confused
Related topics
Israel and Israeli people
Anti-Saddam tendancy of our president is a good thing.
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Suggest featured discussions
Most peaceful religion
Israel "The Untouchables"
The Middle East Conflict
If you end up in my signature you will be charged.
UK Jewish lawmaker: Israeli forces acting like Nazis
BJP doesn’t give a damn for the Lord Ram temple
Israel/Gaza: Stephen Hawking gets it. Do you?
Revolution in Iran?
Israel attacks Freedom Flotilla, at least 10 people killed
Tolerant Islam speaks out
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.