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


Palestine-Israel conflict





valient
thats the Core issue of todays world issrael issue. u wud realy like to know abt it. the article is wriiten br M shahid Alam

Quote:
Israel: consequences of ‘uniqueness’

By M. Shahid Alam


Quote:
WHY did the creation of Israel engender such deep but opposing emotions in the Islamic world and the West, leading to Arab wars against Israel and Israeli wars against its Arab neighbours, producing tensions that have poisoned relations between Islam and the West, and, now, arguably, pushing the United States into a direct occupation of two Muslim countries?

The Zionists claim that Israel is a ‘normal’ state, like India, Iraq or Indonesia. They equate their ‘struggle’ to establish a Jewish state in Palestine with the movements for national liberation in Asia, Africa and elsewhere during the 20th century. The hostility of Arab and Muslim peoples to Israel, they claim, is motivated by their anti-Semitism, a hatred of Jews implanted by Islam itself. In recent years, this hostility has also been explained as the result of an Arab or Islamic envy of Israeli democracy.

We face a difficult choice here between Israeli and Arab normalcy. If Israeli statehood is normal, then it follows that there is perversity in the Islamic opposition to it. On the other hand, if Israel is not a normal state — like India, Iraq or Indonesia — then we are justified in investigating this lack of normality, or ‘uniqueness,’ and probing into its consequences. It may turn out that Islamic hostility to Israel did not proceed from perversity but, instead, is a legitimate response to the ‘unique’ conditions surrounding Israel’s creation.

This Zionist claim to normalcy — that Israel belongs to the same species of states as India, Iraq or Indonesia — is based on two superficial similarities. First, Israel was created as an independent state out of Palestine, a British colony since 1917. Second, after 1945, some of the Jews in Palestine took up arms against the British to force them out of Palestine. On the basis of these partial truths, the Israelis claim that Zionism was a nationalist movement aimed at liberating Palestine from the British occupiers. Incidentally, the Palestinians are completely missing from this narrative about Jewish statehood in Palestine.

This claim is not tenable: one intransigent fact militates against it. The Jews who created the state of Israel in Palestine were not indigenous to Palestine. Indeed, more than 90 per cent of them were settlers from Europe, having entered Palestine after its conquest by the British in 1917. In the 1940s, the European Jews had a legitimate claim to our sympathy, but, as Europeans, they had no legitimate nationalist claim to statehood in Palestine. In other words, Israel is a ‘unique’ case of nation building.

Sadly, the Jews of Europe could not have staked a nationalist claim to any part of Europe either. They did not constitute a majority in any of the territories which they shared with other Europeans. This was the unstated problem the ‘nationalist’ Jews confronted in Europe during the 1890s. The oppressed nations in Europe could stake a valid claim to sovereign statehood. Not so the Jews: they may have been a distinct people, and some of them were still oppressed, but they were not a nation.

In order to become ‘normal’ — that is, in order to transform themselves into a European nation — the Jews of Europe would first have to create a Jewish majority in some part of Europe. This path of ‘normalization,’ however, was not open to Europe’s Jews. It would have been opposed. Indeed, it would have amounted to courting disaster.

Nevertheless, there would be poetic justice in the creation of a Jewish state in Europe. After all, the Jews were a European people; the history of their continuous presence in Europe goes back to the time of the ancient Greeks. Since the European Jews — as minorities — have historically faced persecution, and, under the Nazis, many Europeans participated in a fiendish attempt to exterminate them, one can argue that it was Europe’s moral responsibility to accommodate the Jews as a nation inside Europe. The historical wrongs done to a segment of the European population should have been corrected by Europeans inside the geographical boundaries of Europe. At least, this might have been the right thing to do. But when has Europe shown magnanimity of this order?

Unable to stake a nationalist claim in Europe, those European Jews who sought ‘normalization’ as a nation had another idea. After all, this was the 19th century, the age of colonization and of settler-colonialism. If the British and the French could establish settler-colonies in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Algeria, among other places, why not the Jews of Europe?

In its early stages, during the 1890s and 1900s, when the project to create a Jewish state was being broached in some Jewish circles of Europe, several locations for this state were considered. Although Palestine was his first choice, at various times Theodore Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, was willing to settle for Uganda or Madagascar. Earlier, others had scouted Surinam, Argentina, Missouri and New York! However, Palestine won easily. It would appeal to Jewish emotions associated with religious Zionism, and the Messianic Christians would support the idea of a Jewish return for their own eschatological reasons.

If political Zionism does not qualify as a movement for national liberation, was it a scheme for establishing a colonial-settler state similar to those being established or consolidated in the same era? I will argue that it was, but with two differences that make Israel rather unique among states of this species. Unlike the other colonial-settler states, Israel was not the creation of another state ethnically allied to it. Israel had no mother country. A Jewish state did not yet exist.

Indeed, the Zionist movement sought to create such a state; this would be its end point, not its point of departure. Secondly, there was an important difference in the goals of the colonial-settlers in Africa or Australia and the political Zionists. The former intended to expropriate the natives so that they could use them as cheap labour on the lands they would expropriate. In other words, they did not intend to expel the natives from their colonies.

On the other hand, the Zionists intended to expropriate the Palestinians and remove them from Palestine. They wanted a Palestine without the Palestinians; this was their goal, not the serendipitous consequence of their settlement activity. In its conception, then, Zionism was a colonial-settler project with a difference.

This ‘unique’ project had several vital implications. First, in the absence of a Jewish mother country, the Zionists had to find a surrogate, a western power that would use its military to implement their colonial-settler project. This would not be too hard to find. For more than two hundred years several western powers — in league with Christian messianic groups — had worked on various schemes to persuade the Jews of Europe to establish a Jewish state in the Levant, a state that would serve as the staging post for their colonial ambitions in that region and farther East.

Wisely, the Jews rejected these overtures, suspecting that that they were traps to get them out of Europe and into greater trouble. However, the emergence of political Zionism in the late 19th century turned the tables. Starting in 1897, after the First Zionist Congress, the Zionists began courting the ‘powers’ to take on their cause.

Their efforts were directed primarily at Britain, the greatest colonial power of that era. Success in this venture came almost exactly twenty years after the First Zionist Congress in the shape of the Balfour Declaration of November 1917. This document stated that His Majesty’s Government “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object...”

In fulfilment of this commitment, the British created the mandate (euphemism for colony) of Palestine. Under the terms of this mandate, duly approved by the Council of League of Nations in July 1922, the British administration in Palestine would work with the Zionist organization to “secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.” Thanks to British support, the Zionist project was in motion.

The Zionists converted the absence of a Jewish mother country into an advantage. Political Zionism appealed to the West for at least three reasons: messianic Christians saw the Jewish return as a prelude to the Second Coming; western powers were eager to acquire control over the Middle East because of its strategic value; and the West was still animated by an antipathy to Islam. In September 1922, the US Congress passed a resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration.

When British support for the creation of a Jewish state wavered in the 1940s — coincidentally, just when British power was being superseded — the United States stepped into the breach, thanks to Jewish votes, money and influence in that country. The western sponsorship of Zionism would evoke historical memories in the Muslim world. In time, many Muslims would come to see the creation of Israel as the return of the Crusaders, an escalation of western Christendom’s campaign to undermine their faith and civilization. This was a dynamic that contained the seeds of a clash of civilizations.

The goal of a Jewish state in Palestine with a Jewish population had an unavoidable corollary. As the Jews entered Palestine, the Palestinians would have to be ‘transferred’ out of Palestine. As early as 1895, Theodore Herzl had figured this out in an entry in his diary: “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.”

Others took a more direct approach: “As soon as we have a big settlement here we’ll seize the land, we’ll become strong, and then we’ll take care of the Left Bank. We’ll expel them from there, too. Let them go back to the Arab countries.” At some point, when a dominant Jewish presence had been established in Palestine, and the Palestinians had departed or been marginalized, the British could end their mandate to make room for the emergence of a Jewish state in Palestine.

This plan ran into two problems. The Palestinians would not cooperate: they refused to leave and very few were willing to sell their lands. As a result, in 1948, the year that Israel was created, nearly all of Palestine’s “penniless population” was still in place. In addition, more than 50 years after the launching of political Zionism, the Jewish settlers owned only seven per cent of the lands in Palestine, not the best lands either.

During the Second World War, the Zionists ran into a problem with the British too. In order to rally Arab support during the war, in 1939 the British decided to limit Jewish immigration into Palestine to 75,000 over the next five years. However, these problems would not derail the Zionist project. The Zionists would achieve under the fog of war what they had failed to achieve through money and discriminatory policies.

In cooperation with the British colonial authorities, the Zionists had been establishing since 1918 a parallel government in Palestine, consisting of a network of Jewish organizations that brought in Jewish settlers, acquired Palestinian lands, organized Jewish settlements, supported Jewish businesses, and established Jewish educational institutions.

In addition, as early as 1920, the Zionists had set up the Haganah, a grass-roots military organization. Fifteen years later, the Haganah consisted of 10,000 mobilized men and 40,000 reservists, equipped with imported and locally manufactured weapons. When the British refused to lift the restrictions on Jewish immigration after the war, the Jewish military organizations started a campaign of terror against them. Partly in response to this terror, the British announced their premature departure from Palestine before the conflict they had spawned could be resolved.

The Zionists found their opportunity in the British loss of nerve. On May 14, 1948, on the termination of the British mandate in Palestine, they declared the emergence of the Jewish state of Israel under a UN partition plan. Although the Jews in Palestine owned only seven percent of the land, the UN plan assigned 55 per cent of Palestine to Israel. The Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states decided to resist the UN partition plan.

But the ranks of the Palestinian resistance had been decimated before by the British, and the Arab armies were poorly equipped, poorly led, and their leaders lacked nerve and commitment. They were decisively defeated. In the process, the Zionists occupied 78 per cent of Palestine, and 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or left their homes under duress. Israel, Mark I, had arrived in the Middle East, a Jewish state in Palestine with only ten per cent of its Palestinian population.
IslamicThinker
You sir are a man:D Razz who beleives in truth and integrity! You have quoted, perhaps, one of the better articles of today. Nowadays we have the media being infiltrted by the government, while the government(Canadaian and American) dances to every request of the zionists! Hence the media (which most educated peoples keep up with) is controled by the zionists.... distance from North America.For the most part, conveying that muslims, particularily the modernizing ones and those who are steadfast in there religion as Twisted Evil "terrorits" I really appreciate your post and please do keep it up! Very Happy


"By the way there never used to be a land called Jeruslaem 100 years ago...it was invaded by the jews and now they control most of palestine ...since the American government has supplied them with the best military technologies..which they use to atack innocent civillians...Thanks to the American Goverment the Isreali army has developed to be amongst the top 4 mostpowerful armies in the world despite its tiny population of ony a few million and its new existaance of much less than 100 years it is now one of the worlds most powerfull countries . If you request more information please pm me or post again! THANKYOU MY GOOD FRIEND!!!!!!!!!!!!
valient
now have a look how UN acted on this dipute ., it only tried to do whts the best for israel and America. it dint even tried to amek justice.

Quote:
Neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs have ever accepted the resolution for the partition of Palestine. They considered it to be invalid and of no effect. Their attitude is based upon political, historical and juridical considerations.

Not only Palestinians and Arabs consider the UN resolution for the partition as invalid, everyone fails to see on what legal basis a UN resolution, which is of no effect, could subsequently and retroactively acquire legal effectiveness.

The first ground of invalidity of the resolution lies in the incompetence of the General Assembly of the UN to recommend the partition of Palestine or to create the Jewish State in that country. The legal position is clear in this regard. The UN is an organization of States, which was formed to perform certain purpose defined in the Charter. At no time did this organization possess any sovereignty or any other right over Palestine. Accordingly, UN possessed no power to decide the partition of Palestine, or to assign any part of its territory to the religious minority of alien immigrants in order that they might establish a State of their own. The UN could not give what it did not possess. Neither individually, nor collectively could the members of the UN alienate, reduce or impair the sovereignty of the people of Palestine, or dispose of their territory, or destroy by partition the territorial integrity of their country.

The UN also did not possess any power to administer the country. And the Charter of the UN did not give the organization any right of supervision over exiting mandates. The General Assembly, however, paid no heed to this fact. It might possibly be argued that the General Assembly could deal with the Palestine question since it was placed on its agenda as a result of a request made by the Mandatory Power for the recommendations to be made under Article 10 of the Charter concerning the future government of Palestine.

However, the power given by Article 10 to the General Assembly to discuss any question or matter within the scope of the Charter cannot be enlarged so as to imply the power to break up the territorial integrity of a State or to create a new State. The General Assembly possesses no power to prescribe the future form of the government of Palestine, a matter that was the sole concern and within the exclusive competence of the people of Palestine. Such recommendations, unless accepted by the original inhabitants of the country, possess no juridical value or obligatory force. Since the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine have unequivocally expressed their opposition to partition, the resolution of the partition of Palestine was therefore ultra vires and invalid.

Further more, the resolution of the partition of Palestine constituted an encroachment upon the sovereignty of the people of Palestine. This encroachment not only was contrary to principles of law but also constituted a violation of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which declares that nothing contained therein shall authorized the UN to intervene in the matters that essentially fall within the scope of domestic jurisdiction of any State.

Another ground of invalidity of the partition resolution is that it violated the principles embodied in Article 22 of the Covenant of League of Nations and in the Charter of the UN. This violation was emphasized in the report of Sub Committee 2 to the Ad Hoc Committee of the Palestine Question. The UN has no power to give effect to the partition resolution because UN is bound by the Article 1 of the Charter to act “in conformity of the principle of justice and international law and to respect the principle of equal rights and self determination of the peoples.”

Under Article 73 concerning non self-governing territories and mandated areas the UN undertakes ‘to promote to the utmost the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories and to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples.’ The imposition of the partition of Palestine against the express wishes of the people of Palestine can in no way be considered as respect for or compliance with any of the above-mentioned principles of the Charter. In accordance with the principles of self-determination of peoples recognized by the Charter, the people of Palestine were entitled to affirm their national identity and to preserve the integrity of their territory. The carving out of the substantial area of Palestine for the creation of the Jewish State and the subjection of parts of the original inhabitants of its dominion was a patent violation of this principle.

One might perhaps argue that the existence of a Jewish minority in Palestine changed the situation. The answer is obvious. What country does not possess in its midst a religion or racial minority? Nowhere is the world can a dismemberment of a country be recognized as a legitimate method for guaranteeing the rights of a minority.

In 1946 the total population of Palestine amounted to 1,972,000 inhabitants, comprising 1,203,000 Muslims 145,000 Christians and 608,000 Jews. Only one-tenth of these Jews were part of the original inhabitants and belonged to Palestine. In fact, the original Jewish Palestinian community did not favour partition or the establishment of the Jewish State. The rest of the Jewish population was composed of the foreign immigrants, originating mostly from Poland, former USSR and Central Europe. Only one-third of these Jewish immigrants had acquired the Palestinian citizenship.

In terms of the land ownership, the Jews owned only 5.6 percent of the total Palestinian land, and, in contrast, the Arabs owned 47.8 percent of the total land and the rest comprise the public domain.

What did the partition plan do? It attributes to the Jews — who were less that one third of the population, largely foreigners and owned less the 6 per cent of the land — an area exceeding 14,500 sq km and representing 57 percent of the area of the Palestine. This meant that the Jews were given the territory, which was ten times the area owned by them in the whole of Palestine. Moreover, the territory allocated to the Jewish State included the coastal plain extending from Acre to Isdud and other fertile lands, while the Palestinians were left with mountainous and sterile regions. In other words, it was not a partition, but spoliation. Its enquiry is obvious.

It is evident that the grounds of nullity of the partition resolution, which we have reviewed, vitiate such a resolution and make it null and void. The partition resolution was essentially a political decision, which was conceived, engineered and adopted through the efforts and pressures of the Zionists and their friends in violation of the principles of law, justice and democracy.

The nullity of the partition resolution should not be dismissed as a matter of the past. Although ethically wrong, and legally void, these grave acts are still producing their effects. The present abnormal and explosive situation, which exists in Palestine and in the Middle East, is directly related to the Balfour Declaration, to its implementation under the mandate, and to its realization in the partition resolution.
mengshi200
very poor man,you kill me and me kill you,when end it?
atomictoyz
Quote:
Nevertheless, there would be poetic justice in the creation of a Jewish state in Europe. After all, the Jews were a European people; the history of their continuous presence in Europe goes back to the time of the ancient Greeks. Since the European Jews — as minorities — have historically faced persecution, and, under the Nazis, many Europeans participated in a fiendish attempt to exterminate them, one can argue that it was Europe’s moral responsibility to accommodate the Jews as a nation inside Europe. The historical wrongs done to a segment of the European population should have been corrected by Europeans inside the geographical boundaries of Europe. At least, this might have been the right thing to do. But when has Europe shown magnanimity of this order?


Jews..... a European people?

Jews are the decendents of Abram, Israel and Ishmael were destined to be at odds with each other. The amount of Archaeology to support this is absolutely amazing. Mt Sinai is in Arabia where Moses went up to the burning bush. As far as Jeruselam being only a 100 years old I think you should do some more research.

Jews are indigenous people who share the same father, different mothers are the only thing that separates them from being complete brothers.

Recent genetics studies reinforce this fact, that Palestinians are very closely related to Jews. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf

If anything should be alarming is that the Zionist and Islamic leaders are both perverting history and the words of God so that they might force each other out of the holy lands.

If I were a Palestinian or Jew I would rethink about messing around with the US since it is run by a Zionist government at this point in time. The US is also an extension of the Roman Empire if you follow the history and leaders. Will Rome conquer the middle east again?

The Zionists think so.

Peace,
Atomic
alkutob
Isllamic Thinker reflect the best idea to your graet subject
thank you both
geeren
It is a shame yes, but the jewisch people need a country too.
benwhite
Methinks its a bit unfair to blame the Jews for not being 'indigenous' to British Palestine. They were kicked out by the Christian. Then they were kicked out again by the Ottomans.

Then, living in Europe, they were kicked out by the their countries. In Arab countries, they were effectively exiled in '48. Where should they go? About half came to America and half went there, with the rest scattered to the winds.

Both sides lack a whole lot of credibility. The easiest thing to say is that no one is particularly correct.

That said, the idea that Isreal goes around with a vendetta killing random innocent people is pretty foolish. The idea that Israel stole the land in the first place is also pretty lame. In the partition plan which Israel agreed to, they were given the dregs of the Negev, and they were satisfied with it. Some other people refused to tolerate even that.
ronbarak
A few questions to Mr. Shahid Alam,

Do Jews have a right to self determination ?
Isn't Israel the original state of the Jewish people ?
Weren't the Jews the majority in Jerusalem almost throughout history since ~1000 BC ?
Before the Arabic-Islamic conquest of Syria/Israel in the 7th century AD, how many Arabs were living in "Palestine" ?
Did the neighboring Arab counties (Egypt and Jordan) create the state of Palestine when "its" areas were in their possession between 1948-1967 ?
Did the Arab counties try to resettle the Arab refugees of 1948 like Israel did with the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries ?
mengshi200
Two kind of religion both over tough,so emerge this situation now.
Bikerman
ronbarak wrote:
A few questions to Mr. Shahid Alam,

Do Jews have a right to self determination ?
I presume you mean Israelis? (since the question is meaningless otherwise). Yes, I believe they do, within their own nationally recognised borders - just like any other state.
Quote:
Isn't Israel the original state of the Jewish people ?
Depends what you mean by 'original'. According to the bible, yes, but the boundaries have changed a lot in that time. The original biblical state was bounded by the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Euphrates. I don't think a story-book is a valid arbiter on these matters, however. Should we also have 'Canaan for the Canaanites?'. Would Israelis be happy to divide Israel into 12 according to the original 12 tribes? Nobody is seriously suggesting that we should revert to the land boundaries mentioned in the Old Testament for other countries (many of which have since disappeared), so why it should be done for Israel I do not know...
Quote:
Weren't the Jews the majority in Jerusalem almost throughout history since ~1000 BC ?
No, certainly not (and why choose 1000BC?). For large stretches of time the Jews have been hugely outnumbered by Muslims and others - in fact this is true for most of the time where reliable records exist - cf Census data from 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Quote:
Before the Arabic-Islamic conquest of Syria/Israel in the 7th century AD, how many Arabs were living in "Palestine" ?
Again why do you choose some arbitrary date? Simply because it would seem to suit your argument I suspect. Why not go back to the Neolithic, before Judaism? Or why not start in the middle-ages when we have reasonably accurate data?
In fact, to answer your question directly, the answer is we don't know. The Arabs of that time were nomadic and no reliable data exists on population. In the times of the Roman Empire the land of Palestine was officially Christian. Later the Persians (early 7th century) allowed Judaism as an officially recognised religion, as did the later Muslim rulers (7th century onwards). Population data for this time is difficult to come by and must also be considered in light of many boundary changes.
Quote:
Did the neighboring Arab counties (Egypt and Jordan) create the state of Palestine when "its" areas were in their possession between 1948-1967 ?
Not really. The land 'Palestine' dates back to pre-biblical times and is referred to in the bible as 'Pəléshseth' - the land of the Philistines.
The first use of the term, as we know it, occurs in Herodotus in the 5th century BCE, when he refers to a region of (then) Syria as 'Palaistinê'
Quote:
Did the Arab counties try to resettle the Arab refugees of 1948 like Israel did with the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries ?
Do you mean the Palestinian Arabs? No, most Arab countries did not allow the Palestinian refugees to settle - to their dishonour and shame. Many Palestinians did not want to, however, since they believed they would be able to return to their homes - a belief bolstered by the UN, in that same year - 1948, when it ruled that the displaced Palestinian Arabs had the right of return (resolution 194)
Quote:
...the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
ronbarak
Bikerman wrote:
ronbarak wrote:
A few questions to Mr. Shahid Alam,

Do Jews have a right to self determination ?
I presume you mean Israelis? (since the question is meaningless otherwise). Yes, I believe they do, within their own nationally recognised borders - just like any other state.

I wrote Jews, and I meant Jews. Israelis may be Jewish, Muslim, Christians, Druz, and any other group who have Israeli citizenship. I asked about the Jews, who were forced out of their country by the Romans (read, sold into slavery) following their defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt of 66-70 AD.

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
Isn't Israel the original state of the Jewish people ?
Depends what you mean by 'original'. According to the bible, yes, but the boundaries have changed a lot in that time. The original biblical state was bounded by the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Euphrates. I don't think a story-book is a valid arbiter on these matters, however. Should we also have 'Canaan for the Canaanites?'. Would Israelis be happy to divide Israel into 12 according to the original 12 tribes? Nobody is seriously suggesting that we should revert to the land boundaries mentioned in the Old Testament for other countries (many of which have since disappeared), so why it should be done for Israel I do not know...

Not just the Bible. There are numerous archeological finds (I could give references - if you'd like) showing Jewish/Hebrew residency in what is now called Israel since before Rome was founded until the present.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Weren't the Jews the majority in Jerusalem almost throughout history since ~1000 BC ?
No, certainly not (and why choose 1000BC?). For large stretches of time the Jews have been hugely outnumbered by Muslims and others - in fact this is true for most of the time where reliable records exist - cf Census data from 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

~1000 BC is not an arbitrary date, this is the time King David conquered Jerusalem and made it the capital of the Kingdom of Yehuda (Judea). Would you mind giving the sources for your census data claims ?

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Before the Arabic-Islamic conquest of Syria/Israel in the 7th century AD, how many Arabs were living in "Palestine" ?
Again why do you choose some arbitrary date? Simply because it would seem to suit your argument I suspect. Why not go back to the Neolithic, before Judaism? Or why not start in the middle-ages when we have reasonably accurate data?
7th century AD is not just some arbitrary date - this is the time of the Muslim conquest of what they later called Greater Syria (the area that includes Israel). So, this date is very relevant, as before that date, the Arabs were confined mainly to what is known today as Saudi-Arabia. Only with the Muslim conquests the Arabs spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And I don't go back to the Neolithic or Canaanite area because there are no Neolithic or Canaanite people left, so they make no claim on the area where Israel is.

Bikerman wrote:
In fact, to answer your question directly, the answer is we don't know. The Arabs of that time were nomadic and no reliable data exists on population. In the times of the Roman Empire the land of Palestine was officially Christian.

What ? The Roman Empire Christian ? Don't you mean the Byzantine Empire ? Since the foundation of the Roman Republic and Later the Roman Empire under Augustus, the Romans were pagans. Only in 380 AD Christianity was established as the Roman Empire's official religion by Theodosius I. In any case, before Muhammad there were no Muslims, and the Arabs didn't start their spreading of Islam by the Sword.
Bikerman wrote:
Later the Persians (early 7th century) allowed Judaism as an officially recognised religion, as did the later Muslim rulers (7th century onwards). Population data for this time is difficult to come by and must also be considered in light of many boundary changes.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Did the neighboring Arab counties (Egypt and Jordan) create the state of Palestine when "its" areas were in their possession between 1948-1967 ?
Not really. The land 'Palestine' dates back to pre-biblical times and is referred to in the bible as 'Pəléshseth' - the land of the Philistines.
The first use of the term, as we know it, occurs in Herodotus in the 5th century BCE, when he refers to a region of (then) Syria as 'Palaistinê'

The Philistines where people of Greek origin, which have no relation to the Palestine Arabs. So, what's your point ? And the Roman changed the name of the Province of Judea to Palestine to facilitate in eradicating the bond between the Jewish people and their homeland.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Did the Arab counties try to resettle the Arab refugees of 1948 like Israel did with the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries ?
Do you mean the Palestinian Arabs?

No, I mean the Arabs. The term Palestinian was coined by Arafat only in the 1960's, years after the 1948 war.
Bikerman wrote:
No, most Arab countries did not allow the Palestinian refugees to settle - to their dishonour and shame. Many Palestinians did not want to, however, since they believed they would be able to return to their homes - a belief bolstered by the UN, in that same year - 1948, when it ruled that the displaced Palestinian Arabs had the right of return (resolution 194)
Quote:
...the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
Bikerman
ronbarak wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
ronbarak wrote:
A few questions to Mr. Shahid Alam,

Do Jews have a right to self determination ?
I presume you mean Israelis? (since the question is meaningless otherwise). Yes, I believe they do, within their own nationally recognised borders - just like any other state.

I wrote Jews, and I meant Jews. Israelis may be Jewish, Muslim, Christians, Druz, and any other group who have Israeli citizenship. I asked about the Jews, who were forced out of their country by the Romans (read, sold into slavery) following their defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt of 66-70 AD.
How can a bunch of long-dead people share a right to self-determination? I don't really understand the question so I cannot answer it.
Quote:
Not just the Bible. There are numerous archeological finds (I could give references - if you'd like) showing Jewish/Hebrew residency in what is now called Israel since before Rome was founded until the present.
So what? I can show you fossils of Germanic peoples in France - does that mean france should hand over the country to the present day Germans? I don't see what your point is.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Weren't the Jews the majority in Jerusalem almost throughout history since ~1000 BC ?
No, certainly not (and why choose 1000BC?). For large stretches of time the Jews have been hugely outnumbered by Muslims and others - in fact this is true for most of the time where reliable records exist - cf Census data from 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

~1000 BC is not an arbitrary date, this is the time King David conquered Jerusalem and made it the capital of the Kingdom of Yehuda (Judea). Would you mind giving the sources for your census data claims ?
Yes no problem. I was a bit lazy and used wiki but the data is sketchy anyway so it seemed a reasonble source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem#Population_by_ethnicity

The 'fact' that David conquered Jerusalem around that period is open to doubt. Even the Israelis are cautious about putting dates to it:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality
But it matters not in any case - it is certainly arbitrary to those who lived there in 2000BCE and 3000BCE. Why not go from 1187 when Saladin took the city? - that way we can be sure of our dates because we have good evidence for that. Or is the idea to show who was there first? Well that is daft because that logic leads to us having to shift the whole population of the world round according to the genes of long dead ancestors. Let's see...most of our ancestors originally came from Africa so we'll have to move the Etheopians into Sweden to make room for the Europeans, then the Americans - who are all basically immigrants - will have to be dispersed back to their european homes before then going on to their ancestral african huts.
This whole line of argument is really that ridiculous.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Before the Arabic-Islamic conquest of Syria/Israel in the 7th century AD, how many Arabs were living in "Palestine" ?
Again why do you choose some arbitrary date? Simply because it would seem to suit your argument I suspect. Why not go back to the Neolithic, before Judaism? Or why not start in the middle-ages when we have reasonably accurate data?
7th century AD is not just some arbitrary date - this is the time of the Muslim conquest of what they later called Greater Syria (the area that includes Israel). So, this date is very relevant, as before that date, the Arabs were confined mainly to what is known today as Saudi-Arabia. Only with the Muslim conquests the Arabs spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And I don't go back to the Neolithic or Canaanite area because there are no Neolithic or Canaanite people left, so they make no claim on the area where Israel is.
More silliness. Of course there are Neolithic ancestors left and of course there are descendants of Canaanites left. We just need some widespread genetic testing to spot them and then a questionaire to see if they would like a country.
Then later we can throw all the Americans out and give the land back to the native indians. The ozzies will have to go as well of course. Dumb.
I could equally well say that we should go back to just before 10th century BC when the Israelis stole the land by conquest under their invading monarch.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
In fact, to answer your question directly, the answer is we don't know. The Arabs of that time were nomadic and no reliable data exists on population. In the times of the Roman Empire the land of Palestine was officially Christian.

What ? The Roman Empire Christian ? Don't you mean the Byzantine Empire ? Since the foundation of the Roman Republic and Later the Roman Empire under Augustus, the Romans were pagans. Only in 380 AD Christianity was established as the Roman Empire's official religion by Theodosius I. In any case, before Muhammad there were no Muslims, and the Arabs didn't start their spreading of Islam by the Sword.
If I had meant the Byzantines I would have said it.
The romans killed a huge number of the resident Jews after the uprising around 135CE. After that period Jews were officially not allowed to live in the newly named 'Syria Palaestina' and Judaism stopped being the official religion of the region at that time. The romans didn't impose their own (rather confused) religion (they rarely did in occupied territories) so the Jewish Christians took over to a large extend from that time onwards.
Quote:
The Philistines where people of Greek origin, which have no relation to the Palestine Arabs. So, what's your point ? And the Roman changed the name of the Province of Judea to Palestine to facilitate in eradicating the bond between the Jewish people and their homeland.
*sighs* It is getting boring having to keep doing your research for you.
The philistines occupied the region around Gaza in the bronze age and the region became known as Philistia. Only later did the Israelites arrive -starting around 1480BCE.

I'm now a bit tired of this and it is going nowhere. You have posted several erroneous 'facts' which I have attempted to correct in good humour and the argument is now a silly one about who was there when. Since the Jews were certainly NOT the first settlers then this appears to be a last desperate attempt to justify the claim, but it is based on the fallacious notion that the ancestors of ancient people retain the right to the lands of their ancestors. As I have tried patiently to point out, any time you pick is arbitrary because you could always have gone further back for the 'real' first inhabitents.
The notion that present day jews are the ancestors of the first occupants of the region is simply not true. They were not the first, and most modern Jews will have ancestors in loads of different places - like the rest of us. The fact that Judaism is matrilineal will change that little, and I'm sure a genetic study of modern Jewish communities would show as many hailing from the far east as from the lands around palestine - after all the jews didn't 'evolve' in that region, they took it by force. If you really want to push the argument then, as I said, we should all go back to africa where our ancestors certainly came from. The jews claim to the region is no more valid than the palestinians - or no less valid, depending on how you wish to phrase it. The point in today's world is that boudaries were agreed internationally, so we have a new start, and Israel needs to stop doing what it accuses others of - chucking people out of their home and lands and illegally occupying it. There is nothing anyone can do about the Roman massacre of the Jews - that is history. There IS something people can do about the present situation in the region.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
There IS something people can do about the present situation in the region.
And what would that be? And more importantly, how would it be implemented?

If history is any indicator in the conflict, I would say it is usually the group of people who are more progressive and stronger, who seem to be the rulers of the land. For now the Israelis are the stronger and more progressive leaders. They have done miracles with farming and irrigation of the land, have become leaders in the field of science and technology, and are definitely experts at warfare, and military intelligence. Quite a large number of the Western world intelligence organizations are relying on Israel for accurate data. However, as soon as they should weaken, and the Palestinians become the stronger and more progressive, obviously the shoe will be on the other foot, and it will be the Israelis who will be forced to vacate the land or be enslaved or put into bondage, as they have experienced centuries ago.
Bikerman
There is only one solution - the establishment of a VIABLE Palestinian homeland. It always has been the only solution and it is the one that nearly every country in the world has signed up to and the one that Israel and the US are determined to thwart.
The notion that the Arab world would gang-up and throw the Jews out of Israel is out of date. Most Arab states are not interested in any such notion - it is a straw man argument.
Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel as long ago as 1979 and most other states in the region have done so since. The Arab peace initiative in 2002 explicitly recognises the state of Israel and offers peace and good relations when Israel does what international law requires it to do, and what it has often promised to do - establishes a palestinian land.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The notion that the Arab world would gang-up and throw the Jews out of Israel is out of date. Most Arab states are not interested in any such notion - it is a straw man argument.
Perhaps you did not read my posting properly. I did not even mention a Home Land. What I said is that history has proven that it is usually the progressive and strong who rule. Right now Israel is progressive and strong. Tomorrow perhaps the Palestinians will be strong and Israel weak, and they will do exactly onto Israel as the other way round. If not worse.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps you did not read my posting properly. I did not even mention a Home Land. What I said is that history has proven that it is usually the progressive and strong who rule. Right now Israel is progressive and strong. Tomorrow perhaps the Palestinians will be strong and Israel weak, and they will do exactly onto Israel as the other way round. If not worse.
No, I mentioned it. You asked what could be done. I answered, including saying why the most commonly deployed argument is not valid.
ronbarak
Bikerman wrote:
There is only one solution - the establishment of a VIABLE Palestinian homeland. It always has been the only solution and it is the one that nearly every country in the world has signed up to and the one that Israel and the US are determined to thwart.

Ah, I love it that you're so sure of your argument.
The Arabs have, since the first British proposals, until the partition resolution of the UN of 1947, always rejected any compromise, and demanded the whole of "Palestine".
And still, according to you, it's Israel's (i.e., the Jews) and the US' fault that there's no Arab state in the land of Israel.

Bikerman wrote:
The notion that the Arab world would gang-up and throw the Jews out of Israel is out of date. Most Arab states are not interested in any such notion - it is a straw man argument.
Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel as long ago as 1979 and most other states in the region have done so since. The Arab peace initiative in 2002 explicitly recognises the state of Israel and offers peace and good relations when Israel does what international law requires it to do, and what it has often promised to do - establishes a palestinian land.

I'm so happy you're willing to gamble with the lives of all the Jews in Israel (in case you're wrong). Establishing a militerised Palestinian stated in the 1949 Borders would mean placing an (hostile) Arab army 16 KM from the Mediterranean shore. 16 KM!
(see http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94&sll=46.067276,-118.34301&sspn=0.120768,0.303154&g=walla+walla&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Netanya,+Israel&ll=32.315281,34.928284&spn=0.147105,0.303154&t=h&z=12)

Bikerman wrote:
How can a bunch of long-dead people share a right to self-determination? I don't really understand the question so I cannot answer it.

I'm not following you: do you state that all Jews in Israel are dead ?

Bikerman wrote:
Why not go from 1187 when Saladin took the city?

You keep regressing to dates after the Muslim conquests, and try to mask the fact that there were events prior to Islam:-)

Bikerman wrote:
In the times of the Roman Empire the land of Palestine was officially Christian.

Bikerman wrote:
The romans killed a huge number of the resident Jews after the uprising around 135CE. After that period Jews were officially not allowed to live in the newly named 'Syria Palaestina' and Judaism stopped being the official religion of the region at that time. The romans didn't impose their own (rather confused) religion (they rarely did in occupied territories) so the Jewish Christians took over to a large extend from that time onwards.

How does the above make your claim that "In the times of the Roman Empire the land of Palestine was officially Christian." true ?
Okay, Jews were killed by Romans. Okay, Jews were banned from Israel. Okay, Christians-Jews were left in Israel. How does all the above make the official religion christian ?

Bikerman wrote:
The philistines occupied the region around Gaza in the bronze age and the region became known as Philistia. Only later did the Israelites arrive -starting around 1480BCE.

Not quite true. cf:

Quote:
"Iron Age IA (1200-1150 BC) saw the decline of Egyptian control of the Land of Canaan. Around 1200 BC, the Late Bronze Age world was shattered by a series of cataclysmic invasions. The huge Hittite empire in Asia Minor was overrun by the Sea Peoples, who also threatened mighty New Kingdom Egypt until Pharaoh Rameses III defeated them on sea and land, an achievement celebrated on the walls of the temple he erected at Medinet Habu. Following his victory over the Sea Peoples, Rameses III made them subjects and settled many of them (chiefly the Philistines) along the Canaanite coast. The Tjeker, another of the Sea Peoples, settled in the Canaanite city of Dor further north.
The Canaanites maintained their presence in the plains, as well as in most of the fortified cities scattered around the country. The Philistines developed a confederation of city-states, notably Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, and erected settlements encircled by walls."


See:
Albright, W.F., From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, 1940)
Dothan, T , The Philistines and their Material Culture (Jerusalem, 1982)

Also see:
Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography (Philadelphia, 1979)
Avigad, N., Discovering Jerusalem (Oxford, 1984)
Ben Tor, A., The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (New Haven, 1992)
Bright, J . , A History of Israel (Philadelphia, 1959)
Finkelstein, I., The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem, 1988)
Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N.A., The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's
New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts
(New York, 2001)
Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE
(New York, 1990)
Maxwell Miller, J . , and Hayes, J.H., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah
(Philadelphia, 1986)
Stern, E., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land
(Jerusalem, 1993)
de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Grand Rapids, 1997)
Yadin, Y , Hazor. The Discovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (London, 1975)

Bikerman wrote:
The notion that present day jews are the ancestors of the first occupants of the region is simply not true. They were not the first, and most modern Jews will have ancestors in loads of different places - like the rest of us

Then I urge you to read the articles mentioned in http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html, especially:

Gil Atzmon, Li Hao, Itsik Pe'er, Christopher Velez, Alexander Pearlman, Pier Francesco Palamara, Bernice Morrow, Eitan Friedman, Carole Oddoux, Edward Burns, Harry Ostrer. "Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry." American Journal of Human Genetics

"Common Genetic Threads Link Thousands of Years of Jewish Ancestry." ScienceDaily (June 4, 2010)

Andrea Anderson. "Study Points to Shared Genetic Patterns amongst Jewish Populations." GenomeWeb News (June 3, 2010)
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps you did not read my posting properly. I did not even mention a Home Land. What I said is that history has proven that it is usually the progressive and strong who rule. Right now Israel is progressive and strong. Tomorrow perhaps the Palestinians will be strong and Israel weak, and they will do exactly onto Israel as the other way round. If not worse.
No, I mentioned it. You asked what could be done. I answered, including saying why the most commonly deployed argument is not valid.

In addition, you said this as well, which I could only assume you must have misinterpreted what I said.
Bikerman wrote:
The notion that the Arab world would gang-up and throw the Jews out of Israel is out of date. Most Arab states are not interested in any such notion - it is a straw man argument.
Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel as long ago as 1979 and most other states in the region have done so since. The Arab peace initiative in 2002 explicitly recognises the state of Israel and offers peace and good relations when Israel does what international law requires it to do, and what it has often promised to do - establishes a palestinian land.
That was not my argument. Maybe yours?
Bikerman
ronbarak wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
There is only one solution - the establishment of a VIABLE Palestinian homeland. It always has been the only solution and it is the one that nearly every country in the world has signed up to and the one that Israel and the US are determined to thwart.

Ah, I love it that you're so sure of your argument.
The Arabs have, since the first British proposals, until the partition resolution of the UN of 1947, always rejected any compromise, and demanded the whole of "Palestine".
And still, according to you, it's Israel's (i.e., the Jews) and the US' fault that there's no Arab state in the land of Israel.
Untrue. It was the Zionists who rejected the UN partition plan in 1947 and simply moved into the disputed areas & refused to recognise the international zone. This was always the plan.
Ben-Gurion 1938 wrote:
..after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”

Begin, 1948 wrote:
“The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized.The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“.

Quote:
I'm so happy you're willing to gamble with the lives of all the Jews in Israel (in case you're wrong). Establishing a militerised Palestinian stated in the 1949 Borders would mean placing an (hostile) Arab army 16 KM from the Mediterranean shore. 16 KM!
(see http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94&sll=46.067276,-118.34301&sspn=0.120768,0.303154&g=walla+walla&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Netanya,+Israel&ll=32.315281,34.928284&spn=0.147105,0.303154&t=h&z=12)
So what? Israel is a nuclear state and has the most powerful military machine in the world behind it. As I said - straw man.

Bikerman wrote:
How can a bunch of long-dead people share a right to self-determination? I don't really understand the question so I cannot answer it.
Quote:

I'm not following you: do you state that all Jews in Israel are dead ?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? That is a response to
Quote:
I asked about the Jews, who were forced out of their country by the Romans (read, sold into slavery) following their defeat in the Great Jewish Revolt of 66-70 AD.
I imagine that they would be dead by now.
Quote:
You keep regressing to dates after the Muslim conquests, and try to mask the fact that there were events prior to Islam:-)
Untrue. I am the ONLY one who HAS mentioned the fact that the area has a long history. You seem to think it starts with David. When I mentioned previous occupants you were the one who dismissed it, not I.
Quote:
Okay, Jews were killed by Romans. Okay, Jews were banned from Israel. Okay, Christians-Jews were left in Israel. How does all the above make the official religion christian ?
Because the Romans were the occupiers and their laissez fair attitude (in not opposing the Christian Jews) meant that the only legal religion practiced in the region was an early form of Christianity. You can say 'legal' instead of 'official' if you like - doesn't really make any difference to the point that Judaism was not the religion of the region and Christianity was...and it makes no difference to the point that your contention that the Jews have been the majority population of the region since old testament times is simply untrue.
Quote:
Iron Age IA (1200-1150 BC) saw the decline of Egyptian control of the Land of Canaan. Around 1200 BC, the Late Bronze Age world was shattered by a series of cataclysmic invasions. The huge Hittite empire in Asia Minor was overrun by the Sea Peoples, who also threatened mighty New Kingdom Egypt until Pharaoh Rameses III defeated them on sea and land, an achievement celebrated on the walls of the temple he erected at Medinet Habu. Following his victory over the Sea Peoples, Rameses III made them subjects and settled many of them (chiefly the Philistines) along the Canaanite coast. The Tjeker, another of the Sea Peoples, settled in the Canaanite city of Dor further north.
The Canaanites maintained their presence in the plains, as well as in most of the fortified cities scattered around the country. The Philistines developed a confederation of city-states, notably Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, and erected settlements encircled by walls."
So I was a bit out on the dates - it doesn't alter my point which was that 'Palestine' dates back to the same times as the Jewish biblical times and was not 'invented' in 1948.
Bikerman wrote:
The notion that present day jews are the ancestors of the first occupants of the region is simply not true. They were not the first, and most modern Jews will have ancestors in loads of different places - like the rest of us
Quote:
Then I urge you to read the articles mentioned in http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html, especially:...
Why? What I said remains true. The Jews were not the first occupants of the land and they certainly DO have ancestors in lots of different places.
What Ostrer shows is that there is are genetic markers linking some Jews from surrounding regions to the region - that is entirely uncontroversial as far as I'm concerned. Judaism is matrilineal so of course one would expect mitochondiral DNA to converge, statistically, on the region. Neither do I have any issues with the basic result of the paper
Quote:
The researchers identified distinct Jewish population clusters that each exhibited a shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations and variable degrees of European and North African genetic intermingling. ... The two major groups, Middle Eastern Jews and European Jews, were timed to have diverged from each other approximately 2500 years ago. Southern European populations show the greatest proximity to Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Italian Jews, reflecting the large-scale southern European conversion and admixture known to have occurred over 2,000 years ago during the formation of the European Jewry. An apparent North African ancestry component was also observed as was present in the Sephardic groups potentially reflecting gene flow from Moorish to Jewish populations in Spain from 711 to 1492. ... Dr. Ostrer noted, 'The study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history. Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blonde hair.'"
Fine - no problem. It is exactly what I said - modern day jews have ancestors in lots of different places and of course there will be genetic markers linking to the region around Israel - nobody is denying that the Jews lived there. My point was simply that :
a) They were not the first
b) Modern Jews have no claim to the region simply because some of them have a propotion of their DNA in common with people of the region. You might as well say that the Italian segments of their DNA entitle them to settle Italy. Any modern Jew will be a mixture of ethinicities from wide range of geographical locations. They will have 'tighter' mitochondrial DNA correlations because of the nature of the religion, but that is what one would expect.
There really is nothing new here to debate....
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps you did not read my posting properly. I did not even mention a Home Land. What I said is that history has proven that it is usually the progressive and strong who rule. Right now Israel is progressive and strong. Tomorrow perhaps the Palestinians will be strong and Israel weak, and they will do exactly onto Israel as the other way round. If not worse.
No, I mentioned it. You asked what could be done. I answered, including saying why the most commonly deployed argument is not valid.

In addition, you said this as well, which I could only assume you must have misinterpreted what I said.
Bikerman wrote:
The notion that the Arab world would gang-up and throw the Jews out of Israel is out of date. Most Arab states are not interested in any such notion - it is a straw man argument.
Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel as long ago as 1979 and most other states in the region have done so since. The Arab peace initiative in 2002 explicitly recognises the state of Israel and offers peace and good relations when Israel does what international law requires it to do, and what it has often promised to do - establishes a palestinian land.
That was not my argument. Maybe yours?
{count to ten, don't loose it..1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10}
Yes Dean - that is the 'commonly deployed argument' I was referring to that is not valid. I didn't say or imply that YOU have made the argument, I was simply pre-empting anyone else making it by pointing out that it is untrue. Unfortunately it didn't work because it has, as I suspected, been deployed again anyway...
busman
Israel is probably the ONLY country created during the modern world where the land was taken back due to genetic claims and religious persecution. Name another ANYONE; try it go ahead... Falling a little blank? Ya so am I... Israel was created by perpetuating a theivery between different ethinicities in the SAME RACE that has gone on for thousands of years.

Secondly i could care less about who was there first... That argument is straight ridiculous in the modern world the way it is now and you know it! The native americans were here in the USA first, should i leave then considering i'm white? To make sure they have self determination and a true home land? FFS no, i'm not going to. You wanna know why? Because the crimes of the past are DONE and nothing i can do would bring back any semblence of normalcy to their lives. Would i do it if i know it would bring back their lost culture and they would re-populate etc etc etc? YES; ideally you wish that would happen but its not going to, so you know what you do? Get the hell over it.

It sucks, yes. But it's the cold hard truth. You want a better world right? Ask for the rights for some land from the people your sharing it with, DO NOT go to an American-Euro centric council RIGHT AFTER a genocide of your people, play the guilt card then un-peacefully force out close to a million people off their own land they've owned for generations to become refuges and afterwords continue your own genocide against them. That is despicable to say the least.

And NO, i am not a conspiracy theory guy or a anti-semite sympathizer (arabs are also semites BTW) but i DO NOT sympathize with the corrupt and brutal Isreali regime one bit. Go youtube for less than 5 minutes, you will find hundreds of videos of their soldiers shootin un-armed palestinians AND THEY WONDER WHY THEY DO IT BACK...

Israel was a country FOUNDED BY a mass genocide who slowley but surely has been commiting a ever increasing version of their own against the Palestinian people and culture. After what the Jews had been through you would think they would give 800,000 refuges a place to stay right? Nope, that's not the Isreali way.
Related topics
Israel and Israeli people
Anti-Saddam tendancy of our president is a good thing.
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Muslims worldwide protests over cartoons
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The Middle East Conflict
Religion: The Root of All Evil?
Are Americans stupid?
Islam: Cruelty
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Jewish terrorist escapes UK police
Non-recognition of countries - a source for future conflicts
Israel Supreme Court: Occupation? What occupation?
Sin, original sin, devil;Fantasy or real?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

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