The region had some 1200+ years of relative peace until the Zionists walked in and tried to take land that wasn't theirs. Calling the Palestinians "at least equally wrong" is nothing more than a poor attempt to blame them for trying to defend the territories stolen from them by the Israelis.
wouldn't you defend the land you live on if some outside party came in and said "we own it now" based on some declaration made by a fourth party who was never sovereign over the land on which you live
I believe that I've made it abundantly clear that the Israeli plan was, from day 1, to evict Arabs/Palestinians from any territory the Israelis considered theirs, regardless of their legal rights to it (and that's stretching "legality" a bit, as UN 181 did), yet you continue to hold the Palestinians more responsible that the Israelis. That's the part in this whole discussion I find indefensible and, as yet, unexplained.
So, because the Holocaust happened to the Jews (let's get one thing straight, I'm not a Holocaust disbeliever or revisionist historian of any stripe), this trumps the rights of the Palestinian Arabs to their land.
By that same analogy, we should find some poor sots we can dispossess to find homes for the Armenians, Tutsis, Bosnian Muslims, Kosovar Muslims, Native Americans, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, Chinese famine victims, Russians who fell afoul of Stalin, or any other ethnic group that suffered at the hands of another (and I'm leaving out many). In several of these incidents, the goal was to exterminate the other group
. Why is it that the Holocaust makes Jews special and distinct from these other groups and deserving of the "right" to expropriate land from others.
Nothing, other than the ability to use the world's collective guilt to get what they want.
Next question: What justifies Israel's continued occupation of this territory, in violation of UN 181's intent that this be sovereign Palestinian/Arab territory?
Israel is in possession of territory not granted it in UN 181
Jaraxle; Are you aware of the FACT that the number of Palestinians killed are many times higher than Israelis.
When asked about the Israelis landthievery you talk about wars
.... perhaps you need to be reminded that the Israelis are weekly demolishing houses owned by Palestinians, sometimes owned for CENTURIES back in their families, and SURPRISE!, just a few weeks later the same spots are suddenly an Israeli "settlement", often surrounded by 2-3m high walls or fences and guarded by soldiers and/or tanks.
Have you also noticed the fact that when something happens that kills or wounds a few Israelis, it´s bigtime news, when Palestinians dies, the news mostly just states "X Palestinians died yesterday" if even that; only when the Israelis does something really stupid like last week or so, hitting a car with the wife and children of the leader of an Palestinian organisation, only then does it become bigtime news.
Israel are calling nearly all Palestinians terrorists,
The Israelis demand a total stop of violence to even start to talk peace with the Palestinians, THAT IS STUPID, why?... because they thereby give the extremist minorities on BOTH sides a veto(sp?), allowing them to crash any such possibilities.
Sofar, there have been no deal whatsoever offered to the Palestinians that have had anything to do with fairness.
Usually because Israel wants to keep most or all of its "settlements"; do you know why?, because the land Israel have stolen by way of "settling" it, is more often than not the most useful parts of Palestine, water sources/arable land etc. If the Palestinians had accepted tha latest "offering" they would have given more than 70% of the arable lands on WB/Gaza to the Israelis.
Perhaps you should also know that Sharon is a man personally responsible for what is nowadays called warcrimes. Would you trust a man that once ordered a massaker on civilians?
I hope you do know that the "accepted" borders of Israel today is nowhere near the borders that was supposed to be, the borders that might be called legal.
And before you start babbling about the ground taken in the wars with Syria/Egypt ...etc. , the borders I mean are the ones that defined the Palestinian areas.
ou say the Israelis have a right to a country.... well so does the Palestinians.
Since Israel did not allow the Palestinian Arabs to form the state promised them by UN 181
(by first occupying territory in 1948, then "legally stealing" it in 1967)
Call it what you want, a war of liberation or self-defence against an occupying aggressor, but the Palestinians aren't going to stop fighting (if ever, but that's a whole 'nother thread) until such time as Israel vacates the land promised to the Palestinians. Given these realities, how do you propose to return to the Palestinians that land promised them under UN 181?
On 2002-03-14 16:01, Jaraxle wrote:
Captain NedSince Israel did not allow the Palestinian Arabs to form the state promised them by UN 181
This is Israel's fault how?(by first occupying territory in 1948, then "legally stealing" it in 1967)
So you don't think that they should have granted a DOI at all then?? And it also appears that you admit the land annexed is legal.Call it what you want, a war of liberation or self-defence against an occupying aggressor, but the Palestinians aren't going to stop fighting (if ever, but that's a whole 'nother thread) until such time as Israel vacates the land promised to the Palestinians. Given these realities, how do you propose to return to the Palestinians that land promised them under UN 181?
They did for ~ 7yrs '94 - '00 IIRC. As I have expressed before, why during this time was no Palestinian state issued. (or even from 48 till the present)
The Camp Davis summit gave the Palestinians most of land back and Israel would be downsized to the pre '67 size. It was halted and unaccepted by the Palestinians (Arafat).
I don't know how you see it, but there's just a little bit of difference between the two maps.
As for Israel and it's Declaration of Independence: If said declaration only included those lands assigned to Israel in UN 181, I have no complaint. As for the post-1967 seizures, I hope you understand sarcasm.
Someone acting in selfdefense normally don´t kill civilians outside of their own territory, it also shows that Israel doesn´t care any more about killing than the Palestinians.
>"Can you link some specifics in this case, so I know what your argument is here"<
It´s IRRELEVANT that Israel is stealing the best parts of the Palestinian lands?
Now you are getting stupid in the extreme.
No but they seem to be the only side that you have listened to
You don´t get the point, every time they DO TRY to make things more peacful there is always some hotheaded Israeli soldier, fanatic Palestinian, fanatic Israeli "settler"(occupant), or in some cases PURE accidents that makes something explode or a few shots fired
and since Sharon took over, any such happening instantly makes the Israeli army go back to "shoot anyone on sight",
Meanwhile, the Israelis complain about how the Palestinians should restrain their fanatics, then go about attacking the little in way of police forces that the Palestinians does have. That is utterly stupid. You don´t demand someone to sit up straight just after you killed them.
The Israelis in the current government don´t want any negotiations at all; heard the recent proposal of building wall around all the palestinian areas? Yea that sure sounds like someone wanting to talk peace....
Most of what was stated in media about that was not true, ask one of the Palestinians what they WERE offered, the answer wont be what the news said they were offered
The results of the Camp David summit posed a serious problem for Yasser Arafat. Barak's conditional acceptance of the Clinton proposals juxtaposed against Arafat's total rejection of the American plan created a strong impression in the international community that the Palestinians were responsible for the failure of Camp David. As a result, as Arafat, after Camp David, sought international support for a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, he discovered that major powers in the international system, including France, were not prepared to assure him that they would recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Realizing the need to reverse international sympathy away from Israel, back to the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority began preparing for a renewal of violence against Israel, which would put supposedly unarmed civilians against armed Israeli soldiers - like the Intifada of 1987.
Neither Israel nor the Palestinians fully accepted the Clinton Plan; indeed, the Palestinian position was closer to outright rejection.
Despite the unprecedented concessions offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak regarding Jerusalem, especially in comparison with every preceding Israeli prime minister since 1967, the PLO did not offer any corresponding readiness to compromise on territorial matters. Generally, Yasser Arafat insisted on receiving 100 percent of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.
Also, even if it had been 100% true, Israel would still have kept most of the arable lands INSIDE the palestinian areas due to their "settlers".
What you don´t understand here is that those 5% represents that 70 or so % arable land; that is what is a BIG thing, the Israelis want to keep the small pieces of good land while giving the Palestinians the parts less useful.
VERY FAIR, isn´t it?
As I SAID!!!!!!, I wasn´t talking about land taken in the wars!!!!! READ THE DAMN LINES YOUR REPLYING TO.
There's no use talking to someone with a closed mind. What might work would be to shanghai Jaraxle and drop him in the middle if Jerusalem and let him find out the hard way.
If we dress him up in clothes covered with the stars & stripes, he could also discover that our "allies" there hate us too
On 2002-03-18 22:27, Speed wrote:
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, revisionist history != truth.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, revisionist history != truth.
wall of Jaraxle's irrationality
that every one of your talking points has been thoroughly debunked.
As for Jaraxle, another SNL recurring skit comes to mind: "Jaraxle, you ignorant slut."
Jaraxle, we only need to rebut once. You're the one beating the dead horse.
Jaraxle, are you Jew?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], ludi, MSN NewsBlogs and 5 guests