<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the so called "illegal annexation".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was referring to an incident shortly after the 6 days war. Israelian forces crossed palestine in order to move to Epypt. The civil population of Gaza and other areas abandoned their homes and fled in fear of Israelian attacks. When returning from the successful campingn, these lands were still abandoned and the governement decided it was not occupiend and therefore just claimed it.
Hrmmm, well you'd have to supply me with a link to back that up before I could answer it, but even if its true I'm not surprised. The Israeli's are no choirboys, they've done a lot of bad things (Irgun massacre anyone?), but I still on the whole see them as the victims.
<!--QuoteBegin-Fantasmo+Aug 30 2004, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fantasmo @ Aug 30 2004, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In a war with Israel versus any Islamic State <b>there will be no victor</b>.
In a conventional war the IDF will have quite a military and technological advantage over most Islamic States. However, I have a feeling if war erupted it will likely be <u>Israel versus the Islamic <b>WORLD</b></u>. Any tribal issuses that may have been an obstacle to a united Islamic front will set aside.
That wall they are building had better surround the entire country and be 100 feet tall because they will have every able bodied Muslim parked on their border with everything from strap-on-explosives to pencil sharpeners trying to kill any man, women, child or pet related to the State of Israel.
I would think any country whom they suspect is supporting Israel would recieve the same kinda treatment (Think US).
Israel will be a mess, the Middle East will be a mess, the Islamic World will be a mess, and any country with a significant Islamic population will be a mess. And as far as I can tell, terrorism and extremism thrive in messes.
If it ever comes down to war, the victor will either have to wipe the State of Israel off the map or ensure no Muslim lives within 100 miles of Israelis' borders.
Whatever the outcome it'll be ugliness to the max... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This thread keeps getting dragged more and more off-topic. At least here's a post that's somewhat on-topic.
Iran doesn't have many allies in the Islamic world, because of its Shia majority. If Iran was ever attacked, it's very unlikely that a large muslim reprisal would occur. And contrary to the ZOG propoganda being spouted in this thread, most muslims are not rabid jew killers and have no interest in going to war with Israel. Any assistance Iran would receive from the countries bordering Israel, would be for political motives, and not on religious grounds. Saudi Arabia is a different story though.
Fantasmo's post may be on topic, but the scenario he described is not looking plausible. We've been told that Islam would rise up several times, and they havent (well to be honest they have, but got put down, hard) - and with Israel's nuclear weapons and the will to use them, then the Middle East is doomed the minute the Arabs try anything.
If the Muslims actually officially declare war on the US (not just the odd terrorist, but as a whole) - then I dont fancy their chances. The US may not have the stomach for a sustained war, but you start attacking them on their homeland and they get very serious very quickly.
Jamil - I am still waiting for either a) a retraction or b) continuing arguement to support your claim that the Israeli's were the aggressors in the 1967 6 day war.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Aug 31 2004, 12:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 31 2004, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Israeli's are no choirboys, they've done a lot of bad things (Irgun massacre anyone?), but I still on the whole see them as the victims. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> While they can't help that such atrocities ruin their nation's history , let's not forget that Sharon , a war criminal (involved in the Sabra & Chatila massacre) was democratically elected by the israelis. So they shouldn't expect more compassion than the desesperate palestinians they fight.
The arab nations don't have the military power to invade Israël or even contain its armies , but the muslim believer's resent would reach a new high , harassing Israël and isolating it from the rest of the world , rendering it unlivable. Imagine what would happen if Israël had to occupy all of the neighboring countries to ensure the safety of its inner territory - an Iraq * 5 scenario , where the occupation troops can't even hope that things would calm down.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Aug 31 2004, 04:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 04:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The recent military operations in palestine are directly violating all international and UN treaties.
Same goes for the illegal annexion of palestine land after the 6 days war and building fortified outposts (a.k.a. settlements).
Also, randomly attacking civil settlements and systematically destroying civil property to drive the population into poverty and out of their homes is considered ethnic clensing. Similar (althoug definately more brutal) acts were commited in the yugoslavian civil wars and action was taken. Not so in Israel.
Go, have a look at palestine refugees, then judge my opinion.
I do not deny Israel their right to defend themselves, but selfdefense and attacking political activists and suspected terrorists with air to ground missles in broad daylight on frequented marketplaces are two different pairs of shoes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I could care less if Israel violates UN treaties, the majority of the UN hates Israel and always has. The UN has no power over Israel, and shouldn't in my mind, seeing as how they were completely ok with letting the whole of the Arab world destroy Israel.
Israel does not randomly attack Palestinian settlements, it is usually done in retaliation for terrorist attacks committed against them. They are usually trying to kill the terrorists responsible for committing these attacks. The best defense is a good offence. If the Palestinian people don't want Israel to invade their towns then they should riot against the terrorist minority and stop it.
As for ethnic cleansing as you call it, look at it this way. Israel is a very tiny country, with a pretty good economy, eventually over time they are going to have to keep expanding.
As for the "refugees" this part really makes me mad....at Saudi Arabia...the most corrupt country in the region. If the Saudi's really wanted to, if the cared so much about their "Muslim brothers" they could, with all the money they give to support the terrorists in Palestine, actually provide living for the refuges. But the ugly truth is they don't a rat’s **** about those refuges and nether do any of the other Arab countries. They are nothing more then a propaganda tool for them. And their constant lack of any support for them proves this on it's own.
I'm surprised you criticized Israel's attacks on terrorist leaders with air to ground missiles, because lets face it Israel is going to attack these people no matter what, they have to prevent more attacks on themselves. So would you prefer a quick "clean" air strike, or a "messy" invasion of said town that would result in allot more deaths and give the target plenty of time to escape making the whole effort worthless? And saying they shouldn’t attack at all isn't an option.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 11:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Create a new thread if you wish to continue discussing this. It seems Zionists have no respects for anyone else's claim to ownership, what a surprise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No that's quite alright, I think we've exhausted all the “Israel vs Iran” points in this discussion, and it can make it's evolution to other Israel/Iran related topics, if you wish.
please stop calling people zionists. it's blatant and willful ignorance such as this that keeps the arab world in constant hostility with everyone else.
What should I call them then? People interested in the establishment of a Jewish state in the middle east, where there once was a Palestinian majority but has now been ethnically cleansed by Jews?
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 11:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What should I call them then? People interested in the establishment of a Jewish state in the middle east, where there once was a Palestinian majority but has now been ethnically cleansed by Jews? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You neglect to mention that the specific area in the Middle East that was chosen was inhabited and even ruled by Jews for thousands of years. I believe the only time it was ever made a productive nation was under the Jews, of past and present.
But no...they have no claim over that land at all...
Are you asking me to prove that Israel planned on attacking Syria and Egypt. Or the converse, that Egypt and Syria were not planning on attacking Israel?
It's impossible for me to prove that latter, but to prove the first, one only has to look at the fact that Israel attacked first. Propaganda aside, the Egyptians made no effort to attack Israel when they were fully capable of doing so. This is not a convincing argument, I know, but as I said, I cannot prove the second statement.
What could possibly motivate Israel to attack its neighbours? Well, security for one thing. As has been stated before, Israel was a small state prior to the six day war, and a buffer zone would greatly increase Israel's ability to protect itself. Also, the Golan heights is a strategically important part of Israel and has been used to bombard Jewish settlements on many occasions.
I make the conclusion that the six day war was an Israeli attempt at a land grab from its neighbours. If it was only an attempt at defending itself, then why hold on to the land it had captured during the war? Even after UN resolutions declared that it must return the land? Holding on to the controlled areas only discredits any claim that the six day war's purpose was to defend the state of Israel, and indicates Israel's attempt at securing strategically important locations from its neighbours.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 31 2004, 12:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 31 2004, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 11:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What should I call them then? People interested in the establishment of a Jewish state in the middle east, where there once was a Palestinian majority but has now been ethnically cleansed by Jews? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You neglect to mention that the specific area in the Middle East that was chosen was inhabited and even ruled by Jews for thousands of years. I believe the only time it was ever made a productive nation was under the Jews, of past and present.
But no...they have no claim over that land at all... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It was also controlled by the Roman empire at one point. Should we revive the Romans so they can take back controll of Palestine? Your argument makes no sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 12:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 12:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It was also controlled by the Roman empire at one point. Should we revive the Romans so they can take back controll of Palestine? Your argument makes no sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It makes perfect sense, the Jews at the end of WWII were scattered about the world with no homeland what so ever and their population decimated. But they still existed as a people unlike the Romans. It doesn’t take a great leap of the mind when contemplating a place to put them that their Holy Land should come up as one of the options.
I'll let someone else take this. Too damn easy. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel does not randomly attack Palestinian settlements, it is usually done in retaliation for terrorist attacks committed against them. They are usually trying to kill the terrorists responsible for committing these attacks. The best defense is a good offence. If the Palestinian people don't want Israel to invade their towns then they should riot against the terrorist minority and stop it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes indeed. But it is not justicable to flatten entire town in order to search for terrorists. Shure, they might be hiding in civil estates, as these so called "terrorists" are considered heroes among their people. However, it has a bad taste if you move in Bulldozers when going on anti terror operations you know?
Also, I think it is not actually correct to call these people terrorists. They simply have no other means to fight than bomb attacks. They neither have the logistics not the weapons to fight a conventional war. The Israelian Nation was founded by the british because of bombing attacks by the same people that now are head of the state. Back then, men like Sharon fought for their dream of an own, sovereing nation, and they too were called "terrorists".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the "refugees" this part really makes me mad....at Saudi Arabia...the most corrupt country in the region. If the Saudi's really wanted to, if the cared so much about their "Muslim brothers" they could, with all the money they give to support the terrorists in Palestine, actually provide living for the refuges. But the ugly truth is they don't a rat’s **** about those refuges and nether do any of the other Arab countries. They are nothing more then a propaganda tool for them. And their constant lack of any support for them proves this on it's own. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fully agree wiht you on this. Also, many of the suicide bombers are actually palstine refugees. The Terror organisations recruit them in exchange for a fair amount of money for the volunteers familiy, which will allow them a better life and to leave the refugee camps.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 12:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 12:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's impossible for me to prove that latter, but to prove the first, one only has to look at the fact that Israel attacked first. Propaganda aside, the Egyptians made no effort to attack Israel when they were fully capable of doing so. This is not a convincing argument, I know, but as I said, I cannot prove the second statement.
What could possibly motivate Israel to attack its neighbours? Well, security for one thing. As has been stated before, Israel was a small state prior to the six day war, and a buffer zone would greatly increase Israel's ability to protect itself. Also, the Golan heights is a strategically important part of Israel and has been used to bombard Jewish settlements on many occasions.
I make the conclusion that the six day war was an Israeli attempt at a land grab from its neighbours. If it was only an attempt at defending itself, then why hold on to the land it had captured during the war? Even after UN resolutions declared that it must return the land? Holding on to the controlled areas only discredits any claim that the six day war's purpose was to defend the state of Israel, and indicates Israel's attempt at securing strategically important locations from its neighbours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well look at it this way.
I'm your next door neighbor, I hate you and you don't like me, and this is known by both of us. One day as you leave your house to go to work I stand out in my yard and start making threats, to kill you, your family and burn down your house. You ignore it and go to work. The next day I do the same, but yell louder, other neighbors come out and start doing the same. You ignore it and go to work. The next day I do the same along with all your other neighbors, and this time I block off your driveway so you can't get out. You stay in your house and all of us surround it. You call the cops but they tell you they don't care, you call again they don't even bother to answer.
Your only chance is to act on your own.
Now by your logic, if you were to start attacking your neighbors, you would be the aggressor and therefore responsible for anything that might ensue from that.
As for the land that Israel took, take a look at my other post about Israel expanding. But it's clear to all that Israel was not the aggressor in this conflict although they did strike first, which for a group of people who had been massacred and persecuted so much in their recent past, do you really find that so surprising.
Any land lost in that conflict is rightly Israel’s, have you never heard of the spoils of war, a war they did not ask for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It makes perfect sense, the Jews at the end of WWII were scattered about the world with no homeland what so ever and their population decimated. But they still existed as a people unlike the Romans. It doesn’t take a great leap of the mind when contemplating a place to put them that their Holy Land should come up as one of the options. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahem, the "Romans" still exist. they are called italians you know? besides, Germany Spain, france and even Britain was part of the roman Empire once, and their citicens (unless they were not slaves) calle themseves "Romans"
Roman was an empire, An idea. Like Israel was once. But, you cannot simply imply that israel has a right to exist because it did so 2000 years ago.
What if the UN decided, that the NAtive americans should have their territories set back to the state before the colonisation of america? Would america allow someone to say: "Well, this here is texas, thats the land for tribe XYZ."?
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 31 2004, 12:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 31 2004, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the land that Israel took, take a look at my other post about Israel expanding. But it's clear to all that Israel was not the aggressor in this conflict although they did strike first, which for a group of people who had been massacred and persecuted so much in their recent past, do you really find that so surprising.
Any land lost in that conflict is rightly Israel’s, have you never heard of the spoils of war, a war they did not ask for. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Excuse me for a moment while I go cry over the plight of the Jews. Those Palestinians persecuted them and massacred them over so many centuries. Hey actually, wait. The Palestinians protected all their shrines and welcomed them into their community only to be repaid with military occupation. Suddenly, I don't feel so sad. Actually, wait, that's anger.
The UN has made a resolution stating the Israel must give the land back. It has no rightful claim to this land under International law. So what rights are you referring to when you say that Israel has rightful rule to the land?
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Aug 31 2004, 12:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ahem, the "Romans" still exist. they are called italians you know? besides, Germany Spain, france and even Britain was part of the roman Empire once, and their citicens (unless they were not slaves) calle themseves "Romans"
Roman was an empire, An idea. Like Israel was once. But, you cannot simply imply that israel has a right to exist because it did so 2000 years ago.
What if the UN decided, that the NAtive americans should have their territories set back to the state before the colonisation of america? Would america allow someone to say: "Well, this here is texas, thats the land for tribe XYZ."?
No. certainly not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rome has nothing to do with the bloody argument and it was idiotic of him to compare Israel to Rome.
Israel was not "an idea" it was a state made up of the Jewish people, whom were Jews. So, using the infallible logic that you use, having a set "time limit" to land ownership, which is so stupid and pointless in the real world. Land is owned by the person who can control it, ether by their own military force or though agreements with allies. Using this logic which applies much better to the real world Israel has a right to the land it owns, and more given its military.
However what is the "time limit" when a piece of land is no longer considered to be a part of a group of people? I can't seem to find a set standard. So I'm going to say it's 50 years. Oh looks like the Palestinian people no longer have a right to exist because they had that land 50 years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well look at it this way.
I'm your next door neighbor, I hate you and you don't like me, and this is known by both of us. One day as you leave your house to go to work I stand out in my yard and start making threats, to kill you, your family and burn down your house. You ignore it and go to work. The next day I do the same, but yell louder, other neighbors come out and start doing the same. You ignore it and go to work. The next day I do the same along with all your other neighbors, and this time I block off your driveway so you can't get out. You stay in your house and all of us surround it. You call the cops but they tell you they don't care, you call again they don't even bother to answer.
Your only chance is to act on your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, thats nice and all, but we are somewhat civilised here and your argument is off hand. First off
Don't get me wrong. Again, I do not deny Israels Right to exist and to preserve their soverenity. I think it was a fatal descision to create in in the first place, but thats not Israels fault, so they have their right for self devense.
BUT: The means of self defense must not cross certain borders. especially if a Nation claims to be civilized, democratic and rightful in their intentions.
Back to your Argumentation about the neighbors. Hate has an origin. There are reasons for conflicts. Conflicts do not appear out of nothing. I am not a Historian and I do not know much about the time shortly after the foundation of Israel. Hence, I am pretty sure that Israelians and and the natives did actually get along quite well in the first place. What happened then? I do not accuse any side of being responsible, as I said I do not know enough about the course of History at that time to judge the situation. But I know that Israel had many opportunities to bring the conflict to an end, as well as the other side.
I personally think, this conflit is a war between old men on both sides which hate each other with passion and will not ever abandon their struggle, because they know nothing else than fighting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 12:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The UN has made a resolution stating the Israel must give the land back. It has no rightful claim to this land under International law. So what rights are you referring to when you say that Israel has rightful rule to the land? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As I said before, the UN has no right to tell Israel to do anything, the useless bureaucratic anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli/anti-progress, entity that it is.
Israel has a right to that land because it can control it, and the Arabs can't take it back. It's that simple.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Aug 31 2004, 01:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BUT: The means of self defense must not cross certain borders. especially if a Nation claims to be civilized, democratic and rightful in their intentions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Where'd you get that assertion? If someone has you cornered in a dark alley and pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, and you manage to disarm, you put him down hard and take away his gun, so he can't do it to you again. You don't simply say "oh, you lose. bye" and walk away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Land is owned by the person who can control it, ether by their own military force or though agreements with allies. Using this logic which applies much better to the real world Israel has a right to the land it owns, and more given its military.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you get to the point. Thak you. Its getting hot. Yes Israel controls the land. By military force. It even controls land that was not considered theirs by the UN in the first place. They took it. That is aggressive expansion. It does not onw its land by International laws or because of birthright or gods will.
So why do you think the the arabian world unified agaisnt Israel? Because there was a military power next to their borders, that was supported by foreing nations and equipped with modern weaponry. Israel has become a thead.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel was not "an idea" it was a state made up of the Jewish people, whom were Jews.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any state or Nation is an abstract thing set in shape by the borderlines on the map. Yet, it is an idea of a place where its people creates their own nation. Israel was an Idea, because it was desinged as some kind of ancien "national" entitiy. The people did not follow a despotic Leader, like it was common at these times, but tied their loyalty to the <i>state</i>, the <i>nation of Isarael </i>,which was their "promised land". At least when it was founded, as later on the elected Kings got more and more important.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I said before, the UN has no right to tell Israel to do anything, the useless bureaucratic anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli/anti-progress, entity that it is.
Israel has a right to that land because it can control it, and the Arabs can't take it back. It's that simpleuseless bureaucratic C entity that it is.
Israel has a right to that land because it can control it, and the Arabs can't take it back. It's that simple<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN was founded to end conflicts on the world an ensure peace after the 2 WWs. Thats nice in therory but cannot possibly be achieved. You cannot subdue regional conflicts by means of arms, neither by nice talking.
However, the UN is not "anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli/anti-progress" just because it critisizes Israels actions. It's simply doing what it's made for. If it was not Israel and their US supporters, The UN probably would bomb Israel to force it out of Gaza, like they did with the Serbians In Yugoslavia.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:00 PM) BUT: The means of self defense must not cross certain borders. especially if a Nation claims to be civilized, democratic and rightful in their intentions.
Where'd you get that assertion? If someone has you cornered in a dark alley and pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, and you manage to disarm, you put him down hard and take away his gun, so he can't do it to you again. You don't simply say "oh, you lose. bye" and walk away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Buddy, you are talking about self defense. To port your description an the matter at hand, this would mean to
1: find and destroy the terrorists weapons. 2: cut their financial support 3: arrest the terrorits.
What Israel is actually doing, however is more like disarming the attacker, kick him in the goin repeatedly, unload the weapon into his body, reload to do so again and leave him to die.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Aug 31 2004, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes Israel controls the land. By military force. It even controls land that was not considered theirs by the UN in the first place. They took it. That is aggressive expansion. It does not onw its land by International laws or because of birthright or gods will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, the Palestinian Arabs never accepted the conditions set by the UN, so there is no country of Palestine at this point in time. Much of the land is controlled by Israel because they took it during war time. When you are attacked or provoked into an attack ( say, because you have multiple armies surrounding you ) and you win, you can keep the land if you want. That's the way war is. The Arabs lost all of their wars with Israel, why shouls Israel just give it back to them? It is not required to. International law doesn't require them to.
The entire argument that the Jews belong in Israel because that's where they were thousands of years ago is also crap. It does not entitle Jews to a homeland. They should've kept it themselves if they really wanted it. The Otoman empire lost and was broken up into pieces that were controlled by foreign countries. These countries, England specifically, decided to give the Jews a place to call their own ( on no small part because of Jewish lobbying ). Now, there were already Jews and Arabs living in this area. Both cultures were given a relatively equal amount of land even though the Arabs out numbered the Jews by a good bit. Still, that is history and trying to change it now is pointless and nothing more than an excuse for hate.
After all of that Israel is attacked many times just because it was created for the Jews ( although, it is a secular country that respects and observes Jew, Christian and Muslim holidays ). Israel acquired quite a bit of land after defeating the Arabs. They had no obligation to give this back. It was not acquired illegally.
There were lots and lots of Palestinian Arab refugees. For the most part not because of Israel, but because of the Arab nations surrounding Israel. They even helped to create an Palestinian Arab army to fight against Israel in one of the wars ( perhaps more, can't recall ). This army, like their Arab handlers, were soundly defeated.
Some want to say Israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war. Although they did indeed fire the first shots, they were being openly threatened with enemy armies surrounding them. They did not attack because they needed a buffer zone. They already had a buffer zone, at least from Egypt; but Egypt told the UN forces that were attacking as a buffer to leave the Sanai and then proceeded to move their forces into it in anticipation of an attacked. Israel had no choice but to take these actions head on. Unless self defense goes against international law or something...
As has been said, the Golan heights had been used to shell Israel for years. They had more than a right to claim such land by force. Again, unless self defense goes against international law....
As for the UN being anti-Semitic... There's good reason for people to get that impression. The UN passes resolutions that condemn the deaths of Palestinian children, but will not pass resolutions that condemn the deaths of Israeli children. This is just one example off the top of my head that could give the impression that the UN is anti-Semitic.
As for something that's somewhat on topic... I do not believe Israel is breaking any laws by possessing nuclear weapons. Why? Because I do not believe Israel is part of the non-proliferation treaty and so is not breaking any treaties or international law. Iran, however, is part of the treaty.
Iran, like Iraq, should not be allowed to have such weapons. There is no reason Iran to have such weapons. They do not need them for self defense. Israel will not attack Iran ( unless Iran is developing nukes... So is that a circular argument? ).
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Aug 31 2004, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now you get to the point. Thak you. Its getting hot. Yes Israel controls the land. By military force. It even controls land that was not considered theirs by the UN in the first place. They took it. That is aggressive expansion. It does not onw its land by International laws or because of birthright or gods will.
So why do you think the the arabian world unified agaisnt Israel? Because there was a military power next to their borders, that was supported by foreing nations and equipped with modern weaponry. Israel has become a thead.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well considering the Arabian world unified against Israel before they were considered a military power, and before they had major support from the US and before they kept the lands they seized during the 6 day war....I'm going to have assume they did it because they really, really don't like the Jews and wanted to kill them all.
Which I'm sure seemed like a plenty good reason to the Arabs, and the UN sure didn't seem to mind at the time, so I guess that makes it ok.
Ehhhhh... I could've sworn Israel has had US support since its creation. I could be wrong, but I thought we were where they got their initial weapons from.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Aug 31 2004, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:00 PM) BUT: The means of self defense must not cross certain borders. especially if a Nation claims to be civilized, democratic and rightful in their intentions.
Where'd you get that assertion? If someone has you cornered in a dark alley and pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, and you manage to disarm, you put him down hard and take away his gun, so he can't do it to you again. You don't simply say "oh, you lose. bye" and walk away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Buddy, you are talking about self defense. To port your description an the matter at hand, this would mean to
1: find and destroy the terrorists weapons. 2: cut their financial support 3: arrest the terrorits.
What Israel is actually doing, however is more like disarming the attacker, kick him in the goin repeatedly, unload the weapon into his body, reload to do so again and leave him to die. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> nice dodge, but you won't get away with it that easily. The situation at hand was the 6 days' war, not the current palestinian vs israeli conflict.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Aug 31 2004, 02:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Aug 31 2004, 02:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ehhhhh... I could've sworn Israel has had US support since its creation. I could be wrong, but I thought we were where they got their initial weapons from. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought Britain gave them their initial weapons and we didn't start helping them on a larger scale until after the 6 day war. I could be off though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->nice dodge, but you won't get away with it that easily. The situation at hand was the 6 days' war, not the current palestinian vs israeli conflict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Touché. You got me.
Still, shortly after the 6 days war, they took possesion of Gaza which was abandoned by the palestinesan population because of the war. Is that still self defense?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Much of the land is controlled by Israel because they took it during war time. When you are attacked or provoked into an attack ( say, because you have multiple armies surrounding you ) and you win, you can keep the land if you want. That's the way war is. The Arabs lost all of their wars with Israel, why shouls Israel just give it back to them? It is not required to. International law doesn't require them to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, BUT, the war was not declared against Palestina! Palestina was not under attack during the 6 days war. (Tell me if I am wrong...) Israelian forces just crossed Gaza in order to reach their target destinations. So the inhabitants abandoned their homes to hide from the israelian forces as they feared to be attacked. After the war, Israel claimed Gaza because it was....not inhabited by anyone.
Comments
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the so called "illegal annexation".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was referring to an incident shortly after the 6 days war.
Israelian forces crossed palestine in order to move to Epypt. The civil population of Gaza and other areas abandoned their homes and fled in fear of Israelian attacks. When returning from the successful campingn, these lands were still abandoned and the governement decided it was not occupiend and therefore just claimed it.
That is illegal. By any standard.
In a conventional war the IDF will have quite a military and technological advantage over most Islamic States. However, I have a feeling if war erupted it will likely be <u>Israel versus the Islamic <b>WORLD</b></u>. Any tribal issuses that may have been an obstacle to a united Islamic front will set aside.
That wall they are building had better surround the entire country and be 100 feet tall because they will have every able bodied Muslim parked on their border with everything from strap-on-explosives to pencil sharpeners trying to kill any man, women, child or pet related to the State of Israel.
I would think any country whom they suspect is supporting Israel would recieve the same kinda treatment (Think US).
Israel will be a mess, the Middle East will be a mess, the Islamic World will be a mess, and any country with a significant Islamic population will be a mess. And as far as I can tell, terrorism and extremism thrive in messes.
If it ever comes down to war, the victor will either have to wipe the State of Israel off the map or ensure no Muslim lives within 100 miles of Israelis' borders.
Whatever the outcome it'll be ugliness to the max... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This thread keeps getting dragged more and more off-topic. At least here's a post that's somewhat on-topic.
Iran doesn't have many allies in the Islamic world, because of its Shia majority. If Iran was ever attacked, it's very unlikely that a large muslim reprisal would occur. And contrary to the ZOG propoganda being spouted in this thread, most muslims are not rabid jew killers and have no interest in going to war with Israel. Any assistance Iran would receive from the countries bordering Israel, would be for political motives, and not on religious grounds. Saudi Arabia is a different story though.
If the Muslims actually officially declare war on the US (not just the odd terrorist, but as a whole) - then I dont fancy their chances. The US may not have the stomach for a sustained war, but you start attacking them on their homeland and they get very serious very quickly.
Jamil - I am still waiting for either a) a retraction or b) continuing arguement to support your claim that the Israeli's were the aggressors in the 1967 6 day war.
While they can't help that such atrocities ruin their nation's history , let's not forget that Sharon , a war criminal (involved in the Sabra & Chatila massacre) was democratically elected by the israelis. So they shouldn't expect more compassion than the desesperate palestinians they fight.
The arab nations don't have the military power to invade Israël or even contain its armies , but the muslim believer's resent would reach a new high , harassing Israël and isolating it from the rest of the world , rendering it unlivable. Imagine what would happen if Israël had to occupy all of the neighboring countries to ensure the safety of its inner territory - an Iraq * 5 scenario , where the occupation troops can't even hope that things would calm down.
Same goes for the illegal annexion of palestine land after the 6 days war and building fortified outposts (a.k.a. settlements).
Also, randomly attacking civil settlements and systematically destroying civil property to drive the population into poverty and out of their homes is considered ethnic clensing.
Similar (althoug definately more brutal) acts were commited in the yugoslavian civil wars and action was taken. Not so in Israel.
Go, have a look at palestine refugees, then judge my opinion.
I do not deny Israel their right to defend themselves, but selfdefense and attacking political activists and suspected terrorists with air to ground missles in broad daylight on frequented marketplaces are two different pairs of shoes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could care less if Israel violates UN treaties, the majority of the UN hates Israel and always has. The UN has no power over Israel, and shouldn't in my mind, seeing as how they were completely ok with letting the whole of the Arab world destroy Israel.
Israel does not randomly attack Palestinian settlements, it is usually done in retaliation for terrorist attacks committed against them. They are usually trying to kill the terrorists responsible for committing these attacks. The best defense is a good offence. If the Palestinian people don't want Israel to invade their towns then they should riot against the terrorist minority and stop it.
As for ethnic cleansing as you call it, look at it this way. Israel is a very tiny country, with a pretty good economy, eventually over time they are going to have to keep expanding.
As for the "refugees" this part really makes me mad....at Saudi Arabia...the most corrupt country in the region. If the Saudi's really wanted to, if the cared so much about their "Muslim brothers" they could, with all the money they give to support the terrorists in Palestine, actually provide living for the refuges.
But the ugly truth is they don't a rat’s **** about those refuges and nether do any of the other Arab countries. They are nothing more then a propaganda tool for them. And their constant lack of any support for them proves this on it's own.
I'm surprised you criticized Israel's attacks on terrorist leaders with air to ground missiles, because lets face it Israel is going to attack these people no matter what, they have to prevent more attacks on themselves. So would you prefer a quick "clean" air strike, or a "messy" invasion of said town that would result in allot more deaths and give the target plenty of time to escape making the whole effort worthless? And saying they shouldn’t attack at all isn't an option.
No that's quite alright, I think we've exhausted all the “Israel vs Iran” points in this discussion, and it can make it's evolution to other Israel/Iran related topics, if you wish.
You neglect to mention that the specific area in the Middle East that was chosen was inhabited and even ruled by Jews for thousands of years. I believe the only time it was ever made a productive nation was under the Jews, of past and present.
But no...they have no claim over that land at all...
Are you asking me to prove that Israel planned on attacking Syria and Egypt. Or the converse, that Egypt and Syria were not planning on attacking Israel?
It's impossible for me to prove that latter, but to prove the first, one only has to look at the fact that Israel attacked first. Propaganda aside, the Egyptians made no effort to attack Israel when they were fully capable of doing so. This is not a convincing argument, I know, but as I said, I cannot prove the second statement.
What could possibly motivate Israel to attack its neighbours? Well, security for one thing. As has been stated before, Israel was a small state prior to the six day war, and a buffer zone would greatly increase Israel's ability to protect itself. Also, the Golan heights is a strategically important part of Israel and has been used to bombard Jewish settlements on many occasions.
I make the conclusion that the six day war was an Israeli attempt at a land grab from its neighbours. If it was only an attempt at defending itself, then why hold on to the land it had captured during the war? Even after UN resolutions declared that it must return the land? Holding on to the controlled areas only discredits any claim that the six day war's purpose was to defend the state of Israel, and indicates Israel's attempt at securing strategically important locations from its neighbours.
You neglect to mention that the specific area in the Middle East that was chosen was inhabited and even ruled by Jews for thousands of years. I believe the only time it was ever made a productive nation was under the Jews, of past and present.
But no...they have no claim over that land at all... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was also controlled by the Roman empire at one point. Should we revive the Romans so they can take back controll of Palestine? Your argument makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense, the Jews at the end of WWII were scattered about the world with no homeland what so ever and their population decimated. But they still existed as a people unlike the Romans. It doesn’t take a great leap of the mind when contemplating a place to put them that their Holy Land should come up as one of the options.
Legat?
Yes indeed. But it is not justicable to flatten entire town in order to search for terrorists. Shure, they might be hiding in civil estates, as these so called "terrorists" are considered heroes among their people. However, it has a bad taste if you move in Bulldozers when going on anti terror operations you know?
Also, I think it is not actually correct to call these people terrorists. They simply have no other means to fight than bomb attacks. They neither have the logistics not the weapons to fight a conventional war.
The Israelian Nation was founded by the british because of bombing attacks by the same people that now are head of the state. Back then, men like Sharon fought for their dream of an own, sovereing nation, and they too were called "terrorists".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the "refugees" this part really makes me mad....at Saudi Arabia...the most corrupt country in the region. If the Saudi's really wanted to, if the cared so much about their "Muslim brothers" they could, with all the money they give to support the terrorists in Palestine, actually provide living for the refuges.
But the ugly truth is they don't a rat’s **** about those refuges and nether do any of the other Arab countries. They are nothing more then a propaganda tool for them. And their constant lack of any support for them proves this on it's own.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fully agree wiht you on this. Also, many of the suicide bombers are actually palstine refugees.
The Terror organisations recruit them in exchange for a fair amount of money for the volunteers familiy, which will allow them a better life and to leave the refugee camps.
What could possibly motivate Israel to attack its neighbours? Well, security for one thing. As has been stated before, Israel was a small state prior to the six day war, and a buffer zone would greatly increase Israel's ability to protect itself. Also, the Golan heights is a strategically important part of Israel and has been used to bombard Jewish settlements on many occasions.
I make the conclusion that the six day war was an Israeli attempt at a land grab from its neighbours. If it was only an attempt at defending itself, then why hold on to the land it had captured during the war? Even after UN resolutions declared that it must return the land? Holding on to the controlled areas only discredits any claim that the six day war's purpose was to defend the state of Israel, and indicates Israel's attempt at securing strategically important locations from its neighbours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well look at it this way.
I'm your next door neighbor, I hate you and you don't like me, and this is known by both of us. One day as you leave your house to go to work I stand out in my yard and start making threats, to kill you, your family and burn down your house.
You ignore it and go to work.
The next day I do the same, but yell louder, other neighbors come out and start doing the same.
You ignore it and go to work.
The next day I do the same along with all your other neighbors, and this time I block off your driveway so you can't get out.
You stay in your house and all of us surround it.
You call the cops but they tell you they don't care, you call again they don't even bother to answer.
Your only chance is to act on your own.
Now by your logic, if you were to start attacking your neighbors, you would be the aggressor and therefore responsible for anything that might ensue from that.
As for the land that Israel took, take a look at my other post about Israel expanding. But it's clear to all that Israel was not the aggressor in this conflict although they did strike first, which for a group of people who had been massacred and persecuted so much in their recent past, do you really find that so surprising.
Any land lost in that conflict is rightly Israel’s, have you never heard of the spoils of war, a war they did not ask for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahem, the "Romans" still exist. they are called italians you know? besides, Germany Spain, france and even Britain was part of the roman Empire once, and their citicens (unless they were not slaves) calle themseves "Romans"
Roman was an empire, An idea. Like Israel was once.
But, you cannot simply imply that israel has a right to exist because it did so 2000 years ago.
What if the UN decided, that the NAtive americans should have their territories set back to the state before the colonisation of america? Would america allow someone to say: "Well, this here is texas, thats the land for tribe XYZ."?
No. certainly not.
Any land lost in that conflict is rightly Israel’s, have you never heard of the spoils of war, a war they did not ask for. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me for a moment while I go cry over the plight of the Jews. Those Palestinians persecuted them and massacred them over so many centuries. Hey actually, wait. The Palestinians protected all their shrines and welcomed them into their community only to be repaid with military occupation. Suddenly, I don't feel so sad. Actually, wait, that's anger.
The UN has made a resolution stating the Israel must give the land back. It has no rightful claim to this land under International law. So what rights are you referring to when you say that Israel has rightful rule to the land?
Roman was an empire, An idea. Like Israel was once.
But, you cannot simply imply that israel has a right to exist because it did so 2000 years ago.
What if the UN decided, that the NAtive americans should have their territories set back to the state before the colonisation of america? Would america allow someone to say: "Well, this here is texas, thats the land for tribe XYZ."?
No. certainly not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rome has nothing to do with the bloody argument and it was idiotic of him to compare Israel to Rome.
Israel was not "an idea" it was a state made up of the Jewish people, whom were Jews.
So, using the infallible logic that you use, having a set "time limit" to land ownership, which is so stupid and pointless in the real world. Land is owned by the person who can control it, ether by their own military force or though agreements with allies. Using this logic which applies much better to the real world Israel has a right to the land it owns, and more given its military.
However what is the "time limit" when a piece of land is no longer considered to be a part of a group of people? I can't seem to find a set standard. So I'm going to say it's 50 years. Oh looks like the Palestinian people no longer have a right to exist because they had that land 50 years ago.
I'm your next door neighbor, I hate you and you don't like me, and this is known by both of us. One day as you leave your house to go to work I stand out in my yard and start making threats, to kill you, your family and burn down your house.
You ignore it and go to work.
The next day I do the same, but yell louder, other neighbors come out and start doing the same.
You ignore it and go to work.
The next day I do the same along with all your other neighbors, and this time I block off your driveway so you can't get out.
You stay in your house and all of us surround it.
You call the cops but they tell you they don't care, you call again they don't even bother to answer.
Your only chance is to act on your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, thats nice and all, but we are somewhat civilised here and your argument is off hand.
First off
Don't get me wrong. Again, I do not deny Israels Right to exist and to preserve their soverenity. I think it was a fatal descision to create in in the first place, but thats not Israels fault, so they have their right for self devense.
BUT: The means of self defense must not cross certain borders. especially if a Nation claims to be civilized, democratic and rightful in their intentions.
Back to your Argumentation about the neighbors. Hate has an origin. There are reasons for conflicts. Conflicts do not appear out of nothing. I am not a Historian and I do not know much about the time shortly after the foundation of Israel.
Hence, I am pretty sure that Israelians and and the natives did actually get along quite well in the first place.
What happened then? I do not accuse any side of being responsible, as I said I do not know enough about the course of History at that time to judge the situation.
But I know that Israel had many opportunities to bring the conflict to an end, as well as the other side.
I personally think, this conflit is a war between old men on both sides which hate each other with passion and will not ever abandon their struggle, because they know nothing else than fighting.
As I said before, the UN has no right to tell Israel to do anything, the useless bureaucratic anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli/anti-progress, entity that it is.
Israel has a right to that land because it can control it, and the Arabs can't take it back. It's that simple.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where'd you get that assertion? If someone has you cornered in a dark alley and pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, and you manage to disarm, you put him down hard and take away his gun, so he can't do it to you again. You don't simply say "oh, you lose. bye" and walk away.
Now you get to the point. Thak you. Its getting hot.
Yes Israel controls the land. By military force. It even controls land that was not considered theirs by the UN in the first place. They took it. That is aggressive expansion.
It does not onw its land by International laws or because of birthright or gods will.
So why do you think the the arabian world unified agaisnt Israel? Because there was a military power next to their borders, that was supported by foreing nations and equipped with modern weaponry.
Israel has become a thead.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel was not "an idea" it was a state made up of the Jewish people, whom were Jews.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any state or Nation is an abstract thing set in shape by the borderlines on the map. Yet, it is an idea of a place where its people creates their own nation.
Israel was an Idea, because it was desinged as some kind of ancien "national" entitiy. The people did not follow a despotic Leader, like it was common at these times, but tied their loyalty to the <i>state</i>, the <i>nation of Isarael </i>,which was their "promised land". At least when it was founded, as later on the elected Kings got more and more important.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I said before, the UN has no right to tell Israel to do anything, the useless bureaucratic anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli/anti-progress, entity that it is.
Israel has a right to that land because it can control it, and the Arabs can't take it back. It's that simpleuseless bureaucratic C entity that it is.
Israel has a right to that land because it can control it, and the Arabs can't take it back. It's that simple<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN was founded to end conflicts on the world an ensure peace after the 2 WWs. Thats nice in therory but cannot possibly be achieved.
You cannot subdue regional conflicts by means of arms, neither by nice talking.
However, the UN is not "anti-Semitic/anti-Israeli/anti-progress" just because it critisizes Israels actions. It's simply doing what it's made for.
If it was not Israel and their US supporters, The UN probably would bomb Israel to force it out of Gaza, like they did with the Serbians In Yugoslavia.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:00 PM)
BUT: The means of self defense must not cross certain borders. especially if a Nation claims to be civilized, democratic and rightful in their intentions.
Where'd you get that assertion? If someone has you cornered in a dark alley and pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, and you manage to disarm, you put him down hard and take away his gun, so he can't do it to you again. You don't simply say "oh, you lose. bye" and walk away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Buddy, you are talking about self defense. To port your description an the matter at hand, this would mean to
1: find and destroy the terrorists weapons.
2: cut their financial support
3: arrest the terrorits.
What Israel is actually doing, however is more like disarming the attacker, kick him in the goin repeatedly, unload the weapon into his body, reload to do so again and leave him to die.
It does not onw its land by International laws or because of birthright or gods will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the Palestinian Arabs never accepted the conditions set by the UN, so there is no country of Palestine at this point in time. Much of the land is controlled by Israel because they took it during war time. When you are attacked or provoked into an attack ( say, because you have multiple armies surrounding you ) and you win, you can keep the land if you want. That's the way war is. The Arabs lost all of their wars with Israel, why shouls Israel just give it back to them? It is not required to. International law doesn't require them to.
The entire argument that the Jews belong in Israel because that's where they were thousands of years ago is also crap. It does not entitle Jews to a homeland. They should've kept it themselves if they really wanted it. The Otoman empire lost and was broken up into pieces that were controlled by foreign countries. These countries, England specifically, decided to give the Jews a place to call their own ( on no small part because of Jewish lobbying ). Now, there were already Jews and Arabs living in this area. Both cultures were given a relatively equal amount of land even though the Arabs out numbered the Jews by a good bit. Still, that is history and trying to change it now is pointless and nothing more than an excuse for hate.
After all of that Israel is attacked many times just because it was created for the Jews ( although, it is a secular country that respects and observes Jew, Christian and Muslim holidays ). Israel acquired quite a bit of land after defeating the Arabs. They had no obligation to give this back. It was not acquired illegally.
There were lots and lots of Palestinian Arab refugees. For the most part not because of Israel, but because of the Arab nations surrounding Israel. They even helped to create an Palestinian Arab army to fight against Israel in one of the wars ( perhaps more, can't recall ). This army, like their Arab handlers, were soundly defeated.
Some want to say Israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war. Although they did indeed fire the first shots, they were being openly threatened with enemy armies surrounding them. They did not attack because they needed a buffer zone. They already had a buffer zone, at least from Egypt; but Egypt told the UN forces that were attacking as a buffer to leave the Sanai and then proceeded to move their forces into it in anticipation of an attacked. Israel had no choice but to take these actions head on. Unless self defense goes against international law or something...
As has been said, the Golan heights had been used to shell Israel for years. They had more than a right to claim such land by force. Again, unless self defense goes against international law....
As for the UN being anti-Semitic... There's good reason for people to get that impression. The UN passes resolutions that condemn the deaths of Palestinian children, but will not pass resolutions that condemn the deaths of Israeli children. This is just one example off the top of my head that could give the impression that the UN is anti-Semitic.
As for something that's somewhat on topic... I do not believe Israel is breaking any laws by possessing nuclear weapons. Why? Because I do not believe Israel is part of the non-proliferation treaty and so is not breaking any treaties or international law. Iran, however, is part of the treaty.
Iran, like Iraq, should not be allowed to have such weapons. There is no reason Iran to have such weapons. They do not need them for self defense. Israel will not attack Iran ( unless Iran is developing nukes... So is that a circular argument? ).
So what were we talking about again?
Yes Israel controls the land. By military force. It even controls land that was not considered theirs by the UN in the first place. They took it. That is aggressive expansion.
It does not onw its land by International laws or because of birthright or gods will.
So why do you think the the arabian world unified agaisnt Israel? Because there was a military power next to their borders, that was supported by foreing nations and equipped with modern weaponry.
Israel has become a thead.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well considering the Arabian world unified against Israel before they were considered a military power, and before they had major support from the US and before they kept the lands they seized during the 6 day war....I'm going to have assume they did it because they really, really don't like the Jews and wanted to kill them all.
Which I'm sure seemed like a plenty good reason to the Arabs, and the UN sure didn't seem to mind at the time, so I guess that makes it ok.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Legat @ Aug 31 2004, 01:00 PM)
BUT: The means of self defense must not cross certain borders. especially if a Nation claims to be civilized, democratic and rightful in their intentions.
Where'd you get that assertion? If someone has you cornered in a dark alley and pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, and you manage to disarm, you put him down hard and take away his gun, so he can't do it to you again. You don't simply say "oh, you lose. bye" and walk away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Buddy, you are talking about self defense. To port your description an the matter at hand, this would mean to
1: find and destroy the terrorists weapons.
2: cut their financial support
3: arrest the terrorits.
What Israel is actually doing, however is more like disarming the attacker, kick him in the goin repeatedly, unload the weapon into his body, reload to do so again and leave him to die. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
nice dodge, but you won't get away with it that easily. The situation at hand was the 6 days' war, not the current palestinian vs israeli conflict.
I thought Britain gave them their initial weapons and we didn't start helping them on a larger scale until after the 6 day war. I could be off though.
Touché. You got me.
Still, shortly after the 6 days war, they took possesion of Gaza which was abandoned by the palestinesan population because of the war.
Is that still self defense?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Much of the land is controlled by Israel because they took it during war time. When you are attacked or provoked into an attack ( say, because you have multiple armies surrounding you ) and you win, you can keep the land if you want. That's the way war is. The Arabs lost all of their wars with Israel, why shouls Israel just give it back to them? It is not required to. International law doesn't require them to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, BUT, the war was not declared against Palestina! Palestina was not under attack during the 6 days war. (Tell me if I am wrong...)
Israelian forces just crossed Gaza in order to reach their target destinations.
So the inhabitants abandoned their homes to hide from the israelian forces as they feared to be attacked.
After the war, Israel claimed Gaza because it was....not inhabited by anyone.