Not self-defense... Won during war time = rightly won?
As to your editted response... Correct, there was no Palestine... So technically did they even have a claim?
Regardless, I do believe that the Palestinian Arabs were armed to fight against Israel during one of those wars ( not sure which, possibly multiple ones ), so the Palestinian Arabs were not just innocent bystanders.
Was it even the 6 day war when the land was first occupied?
Othell, there is this UN resolution called Resolution 242. It demands Israel's "withdrawal from the territories conquered" during the six day war. So it should have no right to the controlled areas, unless of course you believe Israel is an imperial force and has a doctrine of conquest. Israel is also a signatory to the UN charter, so it's obligated to adhere to UN resolutions.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 31 2004, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 31 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't believe I missed this post. It's a good source of humour.
Oh yeah, the UN is anti-progress. So, lets just shift back to the dark ages of might makes right. Israel conquered the areas, so it can keep them. International law be damned! </sarcasm>
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 03:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can't believe I missed this post. It's a good source of humour.
Oh yeah, the UN is anti-progress. So, lets just shift back to the dark ages of might makes right. Israel conquered the areas, so it can keep them. International law be damned! </sarcasm> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have a strange sense a humor.
Tell me why Israel should adhere to the rules of a body that has done nothing but criticize and belittle Israel, and do nothing to help it when it was in dire need of help. If you think Israel should do whatever the "world community" tells it to do then you find a way for a country to wipe it's self off the face of the earth, that won't damage your precious sense of morals.
If you think the UN is the answer to the worlds problems you need you have your head examined, the UN is nothing more then a bunch of greedy member countries throwing their weight around and trying to push their own political agenda.
/example War in Iraq? No says France! We have a nice cushy thing going on here with the oil for food program....I mean we...don't think it's....erm...it's a nice thing to do...
Besides the UN is useless for all but talk, they have so many more failures then successes, if you think the UN is making progress in the world then you’re wrong. I personally think Israel should withdraw from the UN, as I find it hypocritical to be a member of a worthless organization that doesn’t like you to begin with.
However if you want humor.
The sky is blue, the sun rises in the east, and the majority of the UN hates Israel.
The UN is the body that gave Israel its sovereignty. Without it, Israel would probably not exist today.
Drop the anti-semetism rhetoric. Most Jews aren't even semites, they're Ashkenazi european in origin, and have no historical connection with the Holy land. Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of Canaan, and are semites. They've lived on the land for thousands of years.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 11:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The UN is the body that gave Israel its sovereignty. Without it, Israel would probably not exist today.
Drop the anti-semetism rhetoric. Most Jews aren't even semites, they're Ashkenazi european in origin, and have no historical connection with the Holy land. Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of Canaan, and are semites. They've lived on the land for thousands of years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats right, and wrong. Most Israelies (just like myself), aren't tight to their religion, but it doesnt mean they hate their country, we are being taught about "The Holy Land" at school just like you got taught about Jesus and such, besides the fact we celebrate all of our holydays just like you do, in Canada, U.S, or wherever you are, most of us don't put "kippas" on our heads, grow long hair, or pray, but it doesn't mean we don't give a damn about our country and where we live at, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't wanna leave your home and land that you grew up in, even if you didn't care about "The stories behind it".
And just to clarify some more things, After "The 6 Days War", this is how the borders looked:
Purple = conquered | Pink = not israel's | Green = Israel | Light green = What israel kept (Gaza) |
As you can see, the Israelies didnt keep the huge part they conquered, that wasn't their meaning. The fact they attack first was only because they had great "Information Center" (not sure about the exact world in english), and if they didnt attack the Egypt airport first, they would have may lost. Self defence.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa whoa whoa, you are not getting away with that. You cannot pretend that no one really knows what went on in the 6 day war, that there is no information available from the time, so we just have to look at the fact that Israel struck first and leave it at that. Thats completely false.
You stated at the outset of this thread the the Israeli's were the aggressors. Now you are claiming that there is no information to prove either way what happened. Did you not read reasa's sourced linked? Unless you have information to the contrary, then might I suggest you back away from that line of reasoning. You cannot dismiss quotes like Egypts Nasser: Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel, the Arab people want to fight. That was said on may the 30th, about a week before the Israeli people strike.
The weight of evidence is stacked heavily against you here Jamil, either back up your arguement, or back down. Why also did you answer your question in the second paragraph that you asked in the third? The Israelis kept the land they took for pure defence purposes, as you said yourself.
Othello, Israel has not always had US support. During the 6 day war, the US warned Israel that it would not support them if they struck first. In 1948 the Jews bought weapons using donations from rich American Jews, but no official support. The US also resisted the Israeli's bitterly (even siding with the soviets on this one) when they attacked Egypt in 1956.
The UN gave Israel its soveriegnty HA. It didnt expect them to last a week. The Jews were attacked from all sides the instant they declared independence by Arabs bent upon genocide - and the Arabs got smashed. They then had the gall to demand that the Jews adhere to the 1947 UN guidelines for borders for the Zionist state. Lets not give the UN too much credit for setting up Israel - Israel is there because Israel fought to be there. Despite their numerous attempts at genocide, in which the Palestinians cheered them on, the Muslim states surround have not been able to dislodge them.
Seeing as you have so much respect for international law Jamil, will you not them join me in condemning all 7 Muslim nations who attacked the Jews in 1948? Will you not join me in condemning the Egyptians illegal blockage of the Tirian straights in 1967? Will you not join me in condemning illegal suicide bombings on soveriegn Israeli land? I suspect you wont. Again let me requote Ralph Galloway, former head of UNWRA, as to why the Palestinian problem still exists:
"The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as a open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders dont give a damn whether Palestinians live or die." Nothing I have seen in the conflict has lead me to believe anything else. The Palestinians are the willing tools of their Muslim "brothers".
Your right, i am taking this off topic, perhaps i shouldnt post on this thread.. After all, even if what i said is not correct, i'm only saying what we're being taught at class.
EDIT: I have to disagree about the false information thig you said, its all about trusty information, there are many sources that can tell you everything about this war, i doubt if its that hard to understand why IDF attacked first...
<!--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--> Whoa whoa whoa, you are not getting away with that. You cannot pretend that no one really knows what went on in the 6 day war, that there is no information available from the time, so we just have to look at the fact that Israel struck first and leave it at that. Thats completely false.
You stated at the outset of this thread the the Israeli's were the aggressors. Now you are claiming that there is no information to prove either way what happened. Did you not read reasa's sourced linked? Unless you have information to the contrary, then might I suggest you back away from that line of reasoning. You cannot dismiss quotes like Egypts Nasser: Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel, the Arab people want to fight. That was said on may the 30th, about a week before the Israeli people strike.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did he say basic objection? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I doubt it, but all you have is a couple quotes to go on? Nothing concrete? Why didn't he attack Israel the moment he said that, if Israeli airfields were within range of Egypt's? He was waiting for the second coming so Jesus could come help him slaughter the Jews? So, lets stack it up. Nasser's quotes and a military buildup on the border for arguably defensive purposes, weighed against actual military use against their enemies. Also, shortly before the six day war, Israel also attacked Syrian migs in the Golan Heights. One of these countries was willing to use military force, the others were not.
<!--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-->The weight of evidence is stacked heavily against you here Jamil, either back up your arguement, or back down. Why also did you answer your question in the second paragraph that you asked in the third? The Israelis kept the land they took for pure defence purposes, as you said yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A land grab is a land grab by any other name.
<!--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--> The UN gave Israel its soveriegnty HA. It didnt expect them to last a week. The Jews were attacked from all sides the instant they declared independence by Arabs bent upon genocide - and the Arabs got smashed. They then had the gall to demand that the Jews adhere to the 1947 UN guidelines for borders for the Zionist state. Lets not give the UN too much credit for setting up Israel - Israel is there because Israel fought to be there. Despite their numerous attempts at genocide, in which the Palestinians cheered them on, the Muslim states surround have not been able to dislodge them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The UN gave them what they wanted, sovereignty. Or wait, Israel was asking for that but its security was implied? The Arabs attacked in protest to the UN, and they were not in league with the UN to somehow create a Jewish state for the sake of a beat on. The Arabs rejected the construction to the UN at every level. Had the UN listened to the arabs, then the wars would not have occurred, because Arabs never wanted any wars. Had Israel been created in say...Florida, then the middle east would be a peaceful area right now.
<!--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--> Seeing as you have so much respect for international law Jamil, will you not them join me in condemning all 7 Muslim nations who attacked the Jews in 1948? Will you not join me in condemning the Egyptians illegal blockage of the Tirian straights in 1967? Will you not join me in condemning illegal suicide bombings on soveriegn Israeli land? I suspect you wont. Again let me requote Ralph Galloway, former head of UNWRA, as to why the Palestinian problem still exists:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of your damn business and is only an attempt at attacking my character. It's also irrelevant to the subject at hand. You know very little about me, so don't make any sweeping generalizations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 08:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did he say basic objection? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I doubt it, but all you have is a couple quotes to go on? Nothing concrete? Why didn't he attack Israel the moment he said that, if Israeli airfields were within range of Egypt's? He was waiting for the second coming so Jesus could come help him slaughter the Jews? So, lets stack it up. Nasser's quotes and a military buildup on the border for arguably defensive purposes, weighed against actual military use against their enemies. Also, shortly before the six day war, Israel also attacked Syrian migs in the Golan Heights. One of these countries was willing to use military force, the others were not.
The UN gave them what they wanted, sovereignty. Or wait, Israel was asking for that but its security was implied? The Arabs attacked in protest to the UN, and they were not in league with the UN to somehow create a Jewish state for the sake of a beat on. The Arabs rejected the construction to the UN at every level. Had the UN listened to the arabs, then the wars would not have occurred, because Arabs never wanted any wars. Had Israel been created in say...Florida, then the middle east would be a peaceful area right now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if say...Germany...were to threaten Poland in the same way Egypt did to Israel and then proceed to block off it's trade routes and mass troops on the border, any pre-emptive attack by Poland or her allies would be wrong in your eyes because Germany had yet to <i>actually</i> attack Poland?
You CANNOT say it would be right and stick to your own incorrect and mind numbing logic.
So what your saying is that the Arab countries were willing to talk tough, and do <b>everything possible</b> but attack, which they would have done given the time. And Israel was willing to stand up for it?s self and fight, Israel is wrong?
Why do I get the feeling that this standard you have only applies to Israel?
So you think that if Israel didn't exist the Middle East would be peaceful? This made me laugh out loud. You?re so willing to forget about the Taliban, would you call them peaceful? Would you call Russia's invasion of Afghanistan peaceful? Would you call Saddam Hussein's Iraq peaceful? Would you call the Iran-Iraq war peaceful? Would you call the Saudi government peaceful? Would you call Pakistan a peaceful country? Would you call the Gulf War peaceful? There are many more examples of unrest in the Middle East that have nothing to do with Israel, but I don?t feel like typing all night. You sir, have the strangest definition of peace I have ever seen.
If you seriously think Israel could have been "created" in Florida you need to take a few days off and rethink your views of the world.
<!--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--> 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--> Haha, that's a nice analogy, but if you start shooting out your windows at your neighbors, you're going to jail. If your neightbor breaks down your door and you give him two in the chest and one in the head, you can get off scot free.
<!--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--> So if say...Germany...were to threaten Poland in the same way Egypt did to Israel and then proceed to block off it's trade routes and mass troops on the border, any pre-emptive attack by Poland or her allies would be wrong in your eyes because Germany had yet to <i>actually</i> attack Poland? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes exactly. Much like attacking a country for the slim chance that WMDs existed. It's quite possible that they are just not there! A build up of defences, setting them on high alert, and seeking a diplomatic resolution is the more logical course of action. Egypt was able to do 2 of 3 of these things in response to Israel's actions prior to the six day war before Israel attacked.
<!--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--> You CANNOT say it would be right and stick to your own incorrect and mind numbing logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I can. I prefer logic instead of 'might makes right'.
<!--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--> So what your saying is that the Arab countries were willing to talk tough, and do <b>everything possible</b> but attack, which they would have done given the time. And Israel was willing to stand up for it’s self and fight, Israel is wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there's this thing called diplomacy. It doesn't involve weapons. The concept might be a little abstract to some Americans.
<!--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--> Why do I get the feeling that this standard you have only applies to Israel? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Refer to none of your business above.
<!--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--> So you think that if Israel didn't exist the Middle East would be peaceful? This made me laugh out loud. You’re so willing to forget about the Taliban, would you call them peaceful? Would you call Russia's invasion of Afghanistan peaceful? Would you call Saddam Hussein's Iraq peaceful? Would you call the Iran-Iraq war peaceful? Would you call the Saudi government peaceful? Would you call Pakistan a peaceful country? There are many more examples of unrest in the Middle East that have nothing to do with Israel, but I don’t feel like typing all night. You sir, have the strangest definition of peace I have ever seen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> All good topics for separate threads.
<!--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--> If you seriously think Israel could have been "created" in Florida you need to take a few days off and rethink your views of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What's the problem? Don't want a bunch of Jews in your backyard?
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 31 2004, 09:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 31 2004, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes exactly. Much like attacking a country for the slim chance that WMDs existed. It's quite possible that they are just not there! A build up of defences, setting them on high alert, and seeking a diplomatic resolution is the more logical course of action. Egypt was able to do 2 of 3 of these things in response to Israel's actions prior to the six day war before Israel attacked.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->The U.S. feared a major Arab-Israeli and superpower confrontation and asked Israel to delay military action pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. On May 23, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson publicly reaffirmed that the Gulf of Aqaba was an international waterway and declared that a blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal. In accordance with U.S. wishes, the Israeli cabinet voted five days later to withhold military action.
The U.S., however, gained little support in the international community for its idea of a maritime force that would compel Egypt to open the waterway and it abandoned its diplomatic efforts in this regard. On May 30, President Nasser and King Hussein signed a mutual defense pact, followed on June 4 by a defense pact between Cairo and Baghdad. Also that week, Arab states began mobilizing their troops. Against this backdrop, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders intensified their anti-Israel rhetoric and repeatedly called for a war of total destruction against Israel.
Arab mobilization compelled Israel to mobilize its troops, 80 percent of which were reserve civilians. Israel feared slow economic strangulation because long-term mobilization of such a majority of the society meant that the Israeli economy and polity would be brought to a virtual standstill. Militarily, Israeli leaders feared the consequences of absorbing an Arab first strike against its civilian population, many of whom lived only miles from Arab-controlled territory. Incendiary Arab rhetoric threatening Israel's annihilation terrified Israeli society and contributed to the pressures to go to war.
Against this background, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria. The war ended on June 10.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Yes, there's this thing called diplomacy. It doesn't involve weapons. The concept might be a little abstract to some Americans.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how do you think those negotiations would have went? Arabs: Leave now or we will destroy you! Jews: No.
Military conflict ensues no matter what, Jews are slaughtered by Arabs, chalk up one more failure under the UN's watch.
And let’s watch the subtle anti-American rhetorical snipes shall we.
<!--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-->What's the problem? Don't want a bunch of Jews in your backyard?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Florida is hardly my "backyard", besides if you live in Florida as the stereotype goes there are already allot of Jews. I can only assume it is by this stereotype that you figured it would be perfectly fine by everyone in the US that a state of the union becomes a separate country for the Jews. Completely insane and you know it. Lets debate real issues not fantasy ones.
Marone01, I know my post seemed "dramatic" but it was purposeful.
I don't like to involve myself in discussions about or relating to the Israel / Palestinian Conflict because every time without fail it is all about trading and comparing "attrocoties" and "injustices" committed on both sides that occured long after the initial problem took place. The 1st Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur / Ramadan War, they are all <b><i>after</i> the fact</b>.
I believe the origins of the State of Israel did not start in and after 1948 with the "official announcement"... the story of the origin of Israel occurs between the late 1800's to around 1922 when the British were given mandate over Palestine.
I'll take a swing at this one and see what surfaces.
When you reading about the creation of the State of Israel you pretty much have to go back to the late 1800s to when First Zionist Congress created the World Zionist Organiztion. Since the Jewish Diaspora* way back when the Byzantine Empire conquered Judea it was the desire of the Jews to return to their "homeland" (which they conquered from the Canaanites). The whole idea of Zionism and the World Zionist Organization is about creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
*A myth about the Jewish Diaspora was that not all Jews were exiled... a small number remained or returned and lived sometimes peacefully, and sometimes not so peacefully, with the conquerors of the region up until larger-scale immigration began late in the 1800s and ever increasing into the 1900s.
The zionist visionary Theodor Herzl, a writer, playwright and journalist, convened the first ever Zionist Congress. It was his Zionist novels, Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) and Altneuland (Old New Land, 1902), that popularized the idea of an Israel State, a socialist utopia that would be a “light unto the nations.” That vision of an Jewish national home help spread the idea to the masses which he later harnessed into a popular Jewish movement with the convening of the First Zionist Congress. With the creation of the Jewish National Fund by the Zionist Congress in 1905, efforts had already begun to purchase land for absentee Arab land owners in Palestine. The World Zionist Organization was also formed as the political arm of the Zionist Congress. The tools for Zionist activism was laid down.
Another significant Zionist influence came in the form of a book by Theodor Herzl known as "Political Zionism" which talked about getting an official international charter for Jewish settlements in Palestine. The book focused on outside diplomacy to achieve the goals of the Zionist.
Chaim Wiezmann, a Jewish biochemist/professor and zionist activist influenced by "Political Zionism", was instrumental in lobbying for the Zionist cause and The Balfour Declaration. In 1910 the British made him a citizen where during his time as the Director of the British Admiralty Laboratories his research on synthesizing acetone (used in explosives manufacturing) was vital to the war effort. His influence and connection to the British political elite made him the perfect candidate to lobby for "official recognizion" of a Jewish State in Palestine.
Wiezmann is an incredibly important figure to the story of Israel. His acetone patent gave him the financial resources and most importantly the political and social connections to promote the cause of Zionism to those who are in the position to make a difference. A prime examples of his connection, during 1916, to the Minister of Munnitions Lloyd George who later <b>became</b> the Prime Minister of Britain! Combined with his connection to Lord Arthur Balfour who became the Foreign Secretary, Wiezmann played an instrumental role laying down the case over several years for a Jewish State in Palestine to all the right people.
Mid-1916 during WWI, Sir Henry McMahon and his role as British Commissioner and the <b><i>secret </i></b> Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France made conflicting promises. When the Ottoman Empire joined the Axis during WWI it was Arab forces backed by the British that ended Turkish control. Sir Henry McMahon promised Arab Leadership independence for Ottomen Arab Provinces. However at the same time the Britain and France divided the former Ottoman Arab provinces under their joint control with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The agreement led to the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Areas of direct British and French Direct Control, and areas of British and French "Influence" as well as areas of joint control were established.
The British negotiator for the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, Sir Mark Sykes, Chief Secretary of the War Cabinet, was eagar to gain a British foothold in most of Palestine of which the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not fully grant them. Informed of the Zionist Movement through dialogue with a scholar and zionist Dr. Moses Gaster, Sykes saw an opportunity to nullify the part of his agreement dealing with the disposition of Palestine. Sykes felt that if Britain was sympathetic to the Zionist cause they could point out that the Jews were overwhelming in favor of British trusteeship. Having met Wiezmann and other Zionist leaders he helped them greatly in furthering the Zionist cause by connecting them with other influential and important people and also eventually took part in drafting 'The Balfour Declaration'. Skyes' efforts was successful when late in 1918 France concented to British control over the territory.
A letter written to Lord Rothschild a leading Zionist Leader in Britain known as the 'The Balfour Declaration' in 1917 is often used as the first time a world power announced support for the creation of Jewish settlements in Palestine.
After the League of Nations granted British Mandate of Palestine in 1922. This was considered a great victory for the Zionist cause bacause along with 'The Balfour Declaration" the British Mandate Palestine would allow Zionist foundations to be laid down which will aid and attract Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Incidently it was between the 1920-40s during the British Mandate Palestine when the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Jews caused civil unrest within the Arab community. The Arab response gradually increased from General Strikes to all out violent clashes with Jewish and British elements.
The point I'm trying to make with the brief summary is that comparing who did what to whom and what was worse after Tel Aviv proclaimed the State of Israel in 1947 is so after the fact it obscures the root cause which has to do with the <b><i>process</i></b> which lead to the creation of Israel.
I think I just dragged the whole bloody thread off-topic a bit but I'll throw this into the mix anyways so I took the time to write this damn thing. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.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-->Did he say basic objection? I doubt it, but all you have is a couple quotes to go on? Nothing concrete? Why didn't he attack Israel the moment he said that, if Israeli airfields were within range of Egypt's? He was waiting for the second coming so Jesus could come help him slaughter the Jews? So, lets stack it up. Nasser's quotes and a military buildup on the border for arguably defensive purposes, weighed against actual military use against their enemies. Also, shortly before the six day war, Israel also attacked Syrian migs in the Golan Heights. One of these countries was willing to use military force, the others were not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I dont think he did - unless his english is worse than those translating that site <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A couple of quotes can say a lot. George Bush decrying the attack on the WTC, announcing an axis of evil and declaring war can say a lot - even though all can be summed up in a few quotes. And these quotes were interspersed with factual infomation about Egypt eg closing the state of Tirian had previously been anticipated by the Israeli's, who claimed such an event would constitute an act of war.
Please dont pass of Nasser's stupidity and lack of military foresight as proof of his innocence. Why didnt the Americans attack Iraq 3 days earlier? Because they would go when their military leaders said they were good and ready. Nasser was busily whipping up Islam, signing military deals with countries like Syria
<!--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-->May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Not argueably defensive purposes. Making repeated statements that you are about to attack a country, while signing military deals with other nations promising to do the same, whilst blocking off shipping to that nation, at the same time as massing military on their borders - is not, never will be and never has been argueably a defensive gesture.</b> They talked offence and genocide, they took every single measure a country would take as if it was going to war, they had the clearly superior military position - I cant comprehend the intellectual dishonesty that would lead a man to conclude this was all for defence.
<!--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-->None of your damn business and is only an attempt at attacking my character. It's also irrelevant to the subject at hand. You know very little about me, so don't make any sweeping generalizations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
False. You have repeatedly in this thread invoked the supposed illegality of what the Israeli's were doing. To claim on one hand that its unfair for Israel to break international law, but refuse to condemn anyone else doing so, <b>specifically Israel's enemies you are defending</b> is flagrant hypocracy. Now if you are forced into a position whereby you either agree with a statement or have to admit to being a hypocrite, then that isnt me assasinating your character, that is you condemning yourself. I gave voice to my suspicion that you were guilty of hypocracy, but left you every avenue to rebut that.
You chose not too. In a court of law, if, when you are accused, you refuse to answer, then that is taken as an admission of guilt. Fortunately for you, this isnt a court, so at any stage you are clean and clear to point out just how darn incorrect and naive I was to assume hypocracy on your part. All you have to do is condemn various other illegal activities committed by the side you are defending.
You make sweeping generalizations about "argueing with Zionists is always the same, they have no respect for other peoples property" etc etc but insist on calling marine "The Kettle" 01 black?
I fail to see how you apply double standards to a situation you are supposed to be critically analysing is irrelevant to the debate. I dont know anything about you save what I have gathered from your responses in this thread.
Fantasmo - nice post. I shall return at a later date and reply <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Jamil, will you at least concede that the U.N. is anti-Israel?
(Attention: this is a test of the anti-Semite detector. If Jamil answers "no" to this, it will say some very strong things about him that have been hinted at in his previous threads. The U.N. is anti-Semetic, something easily proved, and not even worth proving. If he argues about it, it will simply make it seem that he is either an anti-Semite or an ignoramus.)
Jamil, your logic frightens me. I didn't think that people could ever think so one sided. Israel is the aggressor, eh? So, with your logic, you're saying that Israel should have tried harder to be diplomatic with war mongering racists amassing on her borders? Or maybe they should have just gotten down on their knees with their hands behind their heads execution style, waiting for the Arabian legions to sweep upon them.
Israel has never done anything except make sure she exists. That country has the biggest metaphorical "balls" of any country currently in existence. They're even tougher than us Americans, but then again, Americans don't walk outside everyday and fear their daughter's school bus will be blown up, or that some bloodthirsty, genocidal dictator is going to launch some sort of attack against them.
I'm frankly disturbed by much of the anti-Israeli sentiment running through this thread.
<!--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-->(Attention: this is a test of the anti-Semite detector. If Jamil answers "no" to this, it will say some very strong things about him that have been hinted at in his previous threads. The U.N. is anti-Semetic, something easily proved, and not even worth proving. If he argues about it, it will simply make it seem that he is either an anti-Semite or an ignoramus.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Sir, that is not true.
The UN was founded to preserve peace and to calm conflicts. I will not discuss the futility of such a task. I simply state the fact.
Assuming that the UN is actually trying to do its job, it is certainly easy to understand why they condemned Israelian mititary operations against civil targets in Gaza or Western Jordan.
The Israelian <i>Government</i> ( by highlighting that word I want to say I mean the government only, not the perople of Israel in general) misused their right for self-defence as an excuse to gain control in these ares.
They use their so called self-defense to subdue and terrorize civilians. Nothing less than that. Anybody who denies that should have a talk to someone working in Palestina for Amnesty or any other charity organisation.
Any country will be target of UN sanctions for that kind of action, even the United States! So why should Israel be spared? Why should Israel be allowed to violate International law? because the other side does? No, because the other side is going to get bombed down by the UN if they did.
You are delusional if you actually believe what you are saying, Legat. The U.N. is the most disgustingly pointless organization ever created. They do nothing when they need to, and everything when they don't need to. In the case of Israel they do everything possible to harm that little nation whenever possible.
Israel took territory during a war and refuses to give it back because giving that terrority back to hostile neighbors is simply asking to be attacked again. You and Jamil have done nothing but Israel-bash throughout the entire thread. They should be held to the same standard as everyone else, which is what everyone in this thread is for, but the second Israel does something like *gasp* defend itself and then refuse to give up its buffer zones, everyone acts like Israel is the problem and not the aggressive Islamic neighbors.
Oh yeah, Israel definitely terrorizes civilians. Not. The entire Palestinian population is in camps, so where do Palestinian terrorists come from? Palestinian refugee camps. So, when they're "terrorizing civilians," they might actually be taking down terrorists.
Stop acting like Israel is the problem here. You love forgetting the fact that just a few years ago the Israeli Prime Minister practically gave Arafat a BJ, along with a whole new state for Palestine. What'd Arafat do? He refused. But of course you won't remember that, because it hurts your viewpoint that maybe the Palestinians really are just tools of the Arab nations to harm Israel.
Israel does not want to fight everyone. They want peace more than you do, but they won't give up National Sovereignty to make the surrounding nations happy. Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend herself. End of story, end of discussion.
So when Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, it is Israel's prerogative to attack to 'defend itself'? What you don't seem to understand is Israel's defence is assurred by maintaining that its neighbours are weak and unable to hurt it, but not because it is under any direct threat at all. This is acheived through a campaign of war mongering, with the aide of the US, and guilt tripping the rest of the world into giving it diplomatic immunity.
I really get sick of Zionists and their stupid calls of anti-semitism. I want to have ONE discussion about Isreal without some bungling miscreant throwing around anti-semitism. Show me ONE thing I have said that says Jews are evil and should be killed, then you can start your anti-semetic claims, otherwise, shut it. This is a time and time again used strategy of Zionists, to bring back memories of the holocaust to further their cause. Oh no, we must feel guilty for the j00s! Most of the anti-semetic attacks we see today on the news are done by Jews! The Zionists are trying to perpetuate this guilt upon the rest of the world, because it is the source of their political invulnerability. Take a look at this article from 2 days 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--> PARIS, Aug. 30 (JTA) — French Jewish leaders fear they may have cried wolf once too often after a Jew was arrested in connection with the well-publicized arson of a Jewish community center in central Paris.
Paris police say a 52-year-old Jewish man arrested Monday morning in connection with the Aug. 22 torching of the Judaeo-Spanish social center in the capital’s 11th district is the principal suspect in the arson. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then take a look at this one from over a month ago! <a href='http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1170815/posts' target='_blank'>French woman admits she made up anti-Semitic attack</a>
Just shows that Zionists don't even have to be Jewish!
So, just drop the anti-semetic garbage. It's not even worth discussing anymore, and I won't even indulge you enough to answer your questions regarding the issue. I find these strategies appalling, and the people who are motivated by guilt for the Jews, simply idiotic.
FACT! Every man, woman, and child living in Israel right now is living on STOLEN land. The only exception to this statement would be the Jews that historically lived PEACEFULLY with the Palestinians. So are the Jews innocent? Hell no, they're opportunistic and self-serving just like the rest of the world. I won't feel any guilt for them because of what the Germans did to them during WWII, because I had nothing to do with it.
<!--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--> Jamil, will you at least concede that the U.N. is anti-Israel?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the UN helped to create Israel. So I would call it pro-Israel. If the UN is only trying to force Israel into meeting human rights standards such as the Right of Return. Oh no! Those Jew hating bastards!
<!--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-->Jamil, your logic frightens me. I didn't think that people could ever think so one sided. Israel is the aggressor, eh? So, with your logic, you're saying that Israel should have tried harder to be diplomatic with war mongering racists amassing on her borders? Or maybe they should have just gotten down on their knees with their hands behind their heads execution style, waiting for the Arabian legions to sweep upon them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, throwing around anti-semitism. The only racism I've seen in this thread has been directed towards the Arabs. Calling them all genocidal maniacs as an example.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Sep 1 2004, 04:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Sep 1 2004, 04:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So when Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, it is Israel's prerogative to attack to 'defend itself'? What you don't seem to understand is Israel's defence is assurred by maintaining that its neighbours are weak and unable to hurt it, but not because it is under any direct threat at all. This is acheived through a campaign of war mongering, with the aide of the US, and guilt tripping the rest of the world into giving it diplomatic immunity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Saudi Arabia, a large wealthy and powerful Middle Eastern country is hardly being "kept down" by Israel, then again their not trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Ask yourself what the hell does Iran need nukes for? Nothing good can come of it. Not just Iran but no other country that does not have them already needs to have them. They should be stopped from doing this at all costs, and if Israel does it or India, I don't care, we don't need any more countries with nukes. And don’t even mention the countries that already do have nukes (ex: Israel) and say we should take them away. Because if you can come up with a realistic peaceful way to that, don’t post it here, send it to the UN so they can sit on it for a few years, decide if it will be profitable to certain member nations then half **** the plan for a 10 year period.
And what "war mongering" are you referring to? It is evident throughout this thread that Israel was not the aggressor in the 6 day war, you have yet to provide reliable proof that they were. The only act of aggression I will admit Israel committed was attacking Iraq's nuclear facilities. But even you, Jamil, must surely think an Iraq with out nuclear capabilities is a good thing. Again I could careless who "disarmed" them be it Israel or the UN. (Like that would ever happen)
<!--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-->FACT! Every man, woman, and child living in Israel right now is living on STOLEN land. The only exception to this statement would be the Jews that historically lived PEACEFULLY with the Palestinians. So are the Jews innocent? Hell no, they're opportunistic and self-serving just like the rest of the world. I won't feel any guilt for them because of what the Germans did to them during WWII, because I had nothing to do with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well guess what, every single American is technically living on "stolen" land, do you think it bothers 99.9% of the population? Where do you live Jamil? What country do you live in, what race of people do you descend from that has not "stolen" the very land your home is built on from some other group of people at some point in history? Again your concept of land ownership is very nice, and I'm sure in your head it makes perfect sense, in some imaginary universe where everyone is happy, it might work. But as I said before the real world doesn’t work that way. Land is owned by the country that can control it and enforce that control by itself or with the help of its allies.
<!--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-->No, the UN helped to create Israel. So I would call it pro-Israel. If the UN is only trying to force Israel into meeting human rights standards such as the Right of Return. Oh no! Those Jew hating bastards!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Right of Return? There’s another thing that makes perfect sense in the world where everyone is happy and everything always works out. However this concept has no bearing in the realm of the real world and common sense.
<!--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-->Again, throwing around anti-semitism. The only racism I've seen in this thread has been directed towards the Arabs. Calling them all genocidal maniacs as an example.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I think it's pretty damn obvious what the Arabs goal was for the 6 day war. Oh I forgot just because they did <i>everything</i> but actually commit the genocide they had planned that makes them completely innocent. You have yet to give your scenario for what would have happened if the Arabs won the 6 day war. Remember be realistic.
Now you're making me laugh. Your ignorance on this issue is amazing. I don't have any guilt towards what happened to the Jews. Why should I? It wasn't my fault. This has nothing to do with guilt, and your weak attempt at saying it is only helps further my points.
No one in here's saying that Jews are perfect, but you're acting like we are!
You're also missing some major facts in your case, such as the fact that the Jews never kicked the Palestinians out; it was the Palestinians that left when Israel was formed, and then lost their homes and land because of it. They didn't support Israel when it needed their support, they lost out.
You have such an idealistic view point of "war mongering." Were the Jews "war mongering" when they took out the nuclear power plant in Iraq in the 1980's? You know, the one that would have allowed them to really begin a nuclear weapons program? That's some heavy war mongering right there. Yep. Real heavy.
And us Americans, we're real war mongers. We just make war on anyone we can. Watch out France, you're next to be owned!
Israel has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Israel's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Muslim regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context.
Also, no one is being unfair to Muslims in this thread. Muslims attacked Jews over religion, nothing else. They labeled themselves as crazy Muslims through their actions. There are plenty of great Muslims out there who won't strap a bomb on their chest and kill schoolchildren. We're not bashing the religion, we're bashing the ignorant and arrogant Muslim regimes who tried invaded Israel and got whooped.
The U.N. once upon a time was an organization with potential. Then the anti-Jew/anti-American legion showed up and it all went down the tubes.
Please Jamil, respond to my post higher up in the thread. You are still using legality as though you respect the decisions of the UN - although you clearly dont respect their giving soveignty to the Israeli's. That's contradictory.
<!--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--> Please Jamil, respond to my post higher up in the thread. You are still using legality as though you respect the decisions of the UN - although you clearly dont respect their giving soveignty to the Israeli's. That's contradictory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At what point did I say I agreed with all of the UN's decisions? <span style='color:red'>Keep it civil.</span>
Israel is a signatory to the UN charter, so it's bound to adhere to UN mandate such as the right of return. That is universal legality. Otherwise, Israel is in breach of its agreement with the UN. There is no ifs and or buts about it.
Giving sovereignty to Israel, while I would tolerate it, I think was a grave miscalculation. The area was not ready to accept Israel, and further negotiations with the arab neighbours and Palestinian locals needed to be sought.
<!--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--> You're also missing some major facts in your case, such as the fact that the Jews never kicked the Palestinians out; it was the Palestinians that left when Israel was formed, and then lost their homes and land because of it. They didn't support Israel when it needed their support, they lost out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh you mean the REFUGEES? The ones that don't want to be caught in the middle of a war zone!? Gee golly, serves them right to have their homes stolen.
<!--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--> You have such an idealistic view point of "war mongering." Were the Jews "war mongering" when they took out the nuclear power plant in Iraq in the 1980's? You know, the one that would have allowed them to really begin a nuclear weapons program? That's some heavy war mongering right there. Yep. Real heavy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I consider Israel with nukes as much of a threat as Iraq with nukes. Both countries are/were crazy enough to actually use them. Iraq never got a nuclear program underway, but Israel has the nukes now. Do you realize how dangerous that is? If you think this is only my opionion, scroll up! You'll find numerous people who have agreed that Israel is willing to use its nukes.
<!--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-->And us Americans, we're real war mongers. We just make war on anyone we can. Watch out France, you're next to be owned! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq. Owned.
<!--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 has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Israel's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Muslim regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iran has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Iran's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Jewish regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context.
<!--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-->They should be stopped from doing this at all costs, and if Israel does it or India, I don't care, we don't need any more countries with nukes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, you don't care.
<!--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-->And what "war mongering" are you referring to? It is evident throughout this thread that Israel was not the aggressor in the 6 day war, you have yet to provide reliable proof that they were.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evident? Where is the evidence? I haven't seen it yet, or I wouldn't still be discussing this. My smoking gun is "hey look, Israel attacked first". Yours is, "Nasser was being a meanie and calling Jews bad names". Your evidence pales in comparison.
<!--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 guess what, every single American is technically living on "stolen" land, do you think it bothers 99.9% of the population?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. Thanks for bringing it up. It helps my point.
<!--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--> Where do you live Jamil? What country do you live in, what race of people do you descend from that has not "stolen" the very land your home is built on from some other group of people at some point in history? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> None of your damn business again. Stay objective.
<!--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--> Again your concept of land ownership is very nice, and I'm sure in your head it makes perfect sense, in some imaginary universe where everyone is happy, it might work. But as I said before the real world doesn’t work that way. Land is owned by the country that can control it and enforce that control by itself or with the help of its allies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds like it should be on a nazi ad. Imperialism should die.
<!--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 I think it's pretty damn obvious what the Arabs goal was for the 6 day war. Oh I forgot just because they did everything but actually commit the genocide they had planned that makes them completely innocent. You have yet to give your scenario for what would have happened if the Arabs won the 6 day war. Remember be realistic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before or after Israel attacked? If before, the 6 day war would never have happened , because Israel was the aggressor! After, Israel would have probably had a regime change. Egypt was nice enough to ask UN workers to leave the area, and I fully believe they would have complied with UN standards of human rights.
I hope you will take your time to read my answer to your last post, because you certainly did not do so when replying to my last one.
<!--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-->You have such an idealistic view point of "war mongering." Were the Jews "war mongering" when they took out the nuclear power plant in Iraq in the 1980's? You know, the one that would have allowed them to really begin a nuclear weapons program? That's some heavy war mongering right there. Yep. Real heavy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Israel should be allowed nucelar weapon capability becasue of? Do you ever consider the Idea that the surrounding nations actually feel intimidiated by Israels nukes? I remember a big "good" nation in panic because there were some nukes close to its boardes on a small "evil" island a few miles to the south. However, the same nations had nukes on the border of the big "evil" ally of that "evil" island state for several years at that time. In conclusion, both nations, the "good" and the "evil" agreed on removing these weapons from their boarders.
<!--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-->The U.N. once upon a time was an organization with potential. Then the anti-Jew/anti-American legion showed up and it all went down the tubes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but the UN is not inefficient because of "antiamerican" sentiments or whatever. Its inefficient because the vitory nations of WW II implemented a veto for themselves, which is sufficient to cancel every descision. This veto was frequently used by the UDSSR during cold war, now, its mostly the USA that that deter and delay UN decisions. The only occation I remember, where a majority of States disapproved with US actions, was the recent Gulf war.
<!--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-->You are delusional if you actually believe what you are saying, Legat. The U.N. is the most disgustingly pointless organization ever created. They do nothing when they need to, and everything when they don't need to. In the case of Israel they do everything possible to harm that little nation whenever possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said before, the UN is fighting a lost cause, and the entire Idea is, in my eyes, is a failure. I also said I don't intend to discuss that matter. Thats off topic, open an "UN is useless" thread if you wish to debate this.
However, just for the record: It is not the UNs fault, but that that of its memberstates, which twist the principles stated by the UN as they see fit for the moment. Especially The U.S. are quite selective with their support for UN missions. Thus, the UN was able to liberate Kuwait, while in Africa, they let hundreds ot thausands of people die in civil unrests, because the U.S. feared another Somalia incident. Also, The U.N approved in ending the Balcany(spelling?) conflict but actually don't intervene in Palestina.
In case you don't know, the Yugoslavian civil war had many similarities to the Israel/Palestina conflict. A supperior military force invaded the land of the neighboring minorities and ethnically clensed these areas. Massive violence against civilans occured on both sides. The UN Attacked the agressor (Serbia) and ended the conflcit. The peacekeeping mission is still ongoing iirc. The Kosovo conflict was the latest disturbance in the area. So, whats your problem? The UN started 2 major pacification missions in one hotspot. Yet, they did not intervene in Israel did they? And why didn't they? Because of The US did not approve.
<!--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 took territory during a war and refuses to give it back because giving that terrority back to hostile neighbors is simply asking to be attacked again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read before posting. Or even better, infor yourself. The land in question, Gaza and Western Jordan, was NOT taken by right of war. Neither was it taken during war. Neither was it attacked by Israel, not did it ever pose a thread. It was claimed <i>after</i> the six days war as "uninhabited" land, because the inhabitants had abandoned it to hide from said war.
<!--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--> Oh yeah, Israel definitely terrorizes civilians. Not. The entire Palestinian population is in camps, so where do Palestinian terrorists come from? Palestinian refugee camps. So, when they're "terrorizing civilians," they might actually be taking down terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Buddy....there are still regular palstinensian settlements and towns in Palestina. Not every palstinensian is a refugee...yet. I don't know the exact numbers but I think there are quite a lot more arabs In the land than Jews. They have actually Houses you know? and private property. And not every last one of these refugees in these camp is a terrorist. You really should reconsider your stereotypical view of these people.
Also, there is a difference in seeking and arresting "Terrorist" and Attacking them in Broad daylight on frequented marketplaces with Air to ground missles. Also, there is really no reason why you move in with buldozers and systematically lay wastes to entire towns.
<!--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--> Stop acting like Israel is the problem here. You love forgetting the fact that just a few years ago the Israeli Prime Minister practically gave Arafat a BJ, along with a whole new state for Palestine. What'd Arafat do? He refused. But of course you won't remember that, because it hurts your viewpoint that maybe the Palestinians really are just tools of the Arab nations to harm Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do remember that. And other than you seen to, I do not have a "viewpoint". Instead of your generalisations, I make diffences and look on both sides of the street. Arafat made the historical mistake by refusing that offer, but that was not the point of the recent direction this discussion was leading to. It was about the UN "discriminating" Israel and my point is, that Israel has no right to complain, as long as they act like barbarians. Any other Nation would get scolded for simial behavior, too. Thats the point. I don't give a **** if the other guy did burn houses first, it still is wrong to do so as retaliation. If you don't accnowledge that I am very, very sorry for you.
<!--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 want to fight everyone. They want peace more than you do, but they won't give up National Sovereignty to make the surrounding nations happy. Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend herself. End of story, end of discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of, I do not need glasses so please keep your fontsize down, you are actually violating forim rules. Just to let you know....
secondly, excuse my couriosity, but what do you mean by "wants peace more than you" ? Do you accuse me of warmongering or want to imply that I approve war? Buddy you should really reconsider your words.
Also, I do approve that Israels <i>people</i> want peace. However, I am not certain about its leaders. Sharon is an old warrior, like Arafat. They both waged war against each other since decades. This a war of old men, and as long as they are not dead, this war will not end.
Also, If Israel wanted peace, they had the means to achieve it. All you need to preserve peace is strengh. They have it. They have Nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. No country in the surrounding can oppose Israel simply because that and because of their US allies.
The last option left for the old warriors on arabian side is terror and guerrillia warfare. The only justification for the arabs to do this is the Palestina. End that conflict, and they have no justification to attack Israel. If they still did, Israel would be free to attackt them in self defense, because the palestinensians would now be considered the attackers. Why do you think Arafat did not sign the treaty back then? Because he could not do so. Because the old warriors wanten to fight.
<!--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-->End of story, end of discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, I think I will not reply to your discussion posts as long as you rethink your choice of words.
<span style='color:red'>I would like to interject briefly.
This thread has gotten 6 pages without being shut down. That is no easy task for ANY thread concerning the middle east, and israeli/palestinian issues.
Nerves, however, have gotten frayed and it will eventually reach a breaking point (if it hasn't already). While I have opinions on the matter, they are just that: opinions. The issue of israel/palestine has been a touchy one since the creation of the nation, and the deeper issue of Arabs and Jews goes back even farther. Nobody, from the highest diplomats, to average joe with an opinion, has been able to come to a reasonable compromise that worked, or "solved" the matter thusfar. While I highly doubt a resolution to the issue will go down in history as being discovered by some people in the natural selection forums, I am here to give you a reminder to keep it civil. I have read several borderline insults, and this is not tolerated no matter how heated the opinions of the other side gets you.
Go cool off if you're frustrated. Don't post something that will get the thread shut down, or yourself temporarily suspended. If that means not posting in this thread at all, then that makes you one step closer to gaining a certain wisdom about debates such as these.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Sep 1 2004, 06:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Sep 1 2004, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I consider Israel with nukes as much of a threat as Iraq with nukes. Both countries are/were crazy enough to actually use them. Iraq never got a nuclear program underway, but Israel has the nukes now. Do you realize how dangerous that is? If you think this is only my opionion, scroll up! You'll find numerous people who have agreed that Israel is willing to use its nukes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well considering Israel well only use its nukes defensively, I don't see a problem. If you don't want to get your country nuked, don't invade Israel. It's not hard to understand. However if Israel’s neighbors had not been so hostile to Israel I would agree with you that they should not have nukes ether. It's pretty much the ultimate way of saying "leave me alone".
<!--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-->Iran has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Iran's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Jewish regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please state one example where Israel has threatened Iran, other then threats to destroy its nuclear facilities? Give me one good example where Israel has threatened Iran to the point that it should need nukes to save itself from Israel?
Actually I do care if they have the nukes, however I don't care how they are stopped and who does it.
<!--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-->Evident? Where is the evidence? I haven't seen it yet, or I wouldn't still be discussing this. My smoking gun is "hey look, Israel attacked first". Yours is, "Nasser was being a meanie and calling Jews bad names". Your evidence pales in comparison.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must have lead eyelashes then. There is no smoking gun, Mr. Fleischer, and I'm not reposting my evidence for this again. It's there go read it. Oh so we should excuse Nasser for what he said? When the leader of a country threatens to destroy another country we should ignore it?
Now pay attention: But it wasn’t just the comments, Israel said that if Egypt blocked off it's trade routes they would go to war, well guess what Egypt did it. They got what they asked for. It's their fault. Your wrong, end of the discussion about that point. Move on.
<!--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-->Agreed. Thanks for bringing it up. It helps my point.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how, unless you're going to say the US has no right to exist because it "stold" land from the Indians.
<!--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-->None of your damn business again. Stay objective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not asking for your home address, just tell me what country you live in. I don't see why you wouldn't, unless you have something to hide, or your worried it will damage one of your already very contradictory arguments.
<!--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-->That sounds like it should be on a nazi ad. Imperialism should die.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm then I guess Nazi ad's are the way the real world functions then? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the way the world works? Just because you don't like it doesn’t mean you can shove your fingers in your ears and yell "lalalalalala".
<!--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-->At what point did I say I agreed with all of the UN's decisions? <span style='color:red'>Keep it civil.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, so its okay for nations to break 100 UN rules if you happen to disagree with them, but woe betide Israel should they break any of the same? That doesnt strike you as a little odd? Applying different standards to different sides does not lend hand to your credibility.
<!--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 is a signatory to the UN charter, so it's bound to adhere to UN mandate such as the right of return. That is universal legality. Otherwise, Israel is in breach of its agreement with the UN. There is no ifs and or buts about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, and Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and friends ARENT signatories, so they dont have to listen to the UN, so you can sweep their breaches of UN charter under the carpet? I really wish I'd known this earlier.....
<!--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-->Oh you mean the REFUGEES? The ones that don't want to be caught in the middle of a war zone!? Gee golly, serves them right to have their homes stolen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd have more sympathy had their Muslim neighbours tried to help them - instead of leaving them to rot. During the 1948 war, many Jewish cities eg Haifa pleaded with the Palestinians not to flee, but after the Irgun massacre, nothing they said or did could make the Palestinians stay. And why would they - many palestinians had thrown in their lot with bloodthirsty Arabs bent on genocide, it only made sense to them that the Jews would respond in kind. Most Palestinians left without seeing an Israeli soldier, although portions were forcibly removed as they would harass zionist soldiers from behind.
<!--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-->Iran has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Iran's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Jewish regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Jews have never threatened genocide, never declared intentions of wiping their neighbours out. The Iranians cannot make the same claim with a straight face. Iran's right to exist is threatened, because the Jews are going to take away that right if they face largescale muslim assualt.
<!--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-->Evident? Where is the evidence? I haven't seen it yet, or I wouldn't still be discussing this. My smoking gun is "hey look, Israel attacked first". Yours is, "Nasser was being a meanie and calling Jews bad names". Your evidence pales in comparison.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont understand you Jamil. This is unbelieveable. The Egyptians had assualted Israel 2 decades ago in 1948 pledging genocide, the Israeli's had attacked the Egyptians in 1956 and since had remained on extremely hostile grounds with them. They committed several acts of war in blockading Jewish shipping. The signed military deals with other nations also screaming about how they were about to wipe the Jews out. They took every single damn last action a nation should take before it goes to war. Nasser did not call the Jews "stink faces", he told them he was going to kill the lot of them - and went about setting up to do so. I see a huge difference between insults and promises of genocide.
Requoting myself as no attempt has been made to reply to this line of reasoning:
Not argueably defensive purposes. <b>Making repeated statements that you are about to attack a country, while signing military deals with other nations promising to do the same, whilst blocking off shipping to that nation, at the same time as massing military on their borders - is not, never will be and never has been argueably a defensive gesture.</b> They talked offence and genocide, they took every single measure a country would take as if it was going to war, they had the clearly superior military position - I cant comprehend the intellectual dishonesty that would lead a man to conclude this was all for defence. Any nation in the world would consider this overt aggression.
<!--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-->Before or after Israel attacked? If before, the 6 day war would never have happened , because Israel was the aggressor! After, Israel would have probably had a regime change. Egypt was nice enough to ask UN workers to leave the area, and I fully believe they would have complied with UN standards of human rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thats right. They asked the UN workers/defence personel to get the hell out of the way... for... uhhh... defence purposes right? Cause according to you the Egyptians were just having a few military exercises right? And when they said they were going to exterminate the Jews, well, they were just kidding werent they? I'm sorry, but if you want to talk genocide, then the world should be forced to believe that you are going to carry it out.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 1 2004, 10:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 1 2004, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, thats right. They asked the UN workers/defence personel to get the hell out of the way... for... uhhh... defence purposes right? Cause according to you the Egyptians were just having a few military exercises right? And when they said they were going to exterminate the Jews, well, they were just kidding werent they? I'm sorry, but if you want to talk genocide, then the world should be forced to believe that you are going to carry it out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't believe I didn't pick up on that, I'm glad you noticed it.
Yes, why was it necessary to ask UN workers to leave Israel, if in fact Egypt was not planning to attack them?
<!--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-->secondly, excuse my couriosity, but what do you mean by "wants peace more than you" ? Do you accuse me of warmongering or want to imply that I approve war? Buddy you should really reconsider your words.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must be skimming my posts. I made a point that no one can even try to refute. The nation of Israel's leader was practically <i>begging</i> the Palestinian's corrupt leadership to accept a plan that would give the Palestinian's a state and all kinds of wonderful peace.
Arafat refused. In response, the nation of Israel elected Sharon, a guy who said "if you screw with me, I will take you down so fast you won't know what hit you."
They tried diplomacy <i>and it didn't work.</i> Yep, those nasty, evil Jews are so bad to the Palestinians.
Jamil, I have a real interesting analogy for you. It's a school, somewhere in a poorer area. There's a kid with funny hair and a wierd accent that just walked in; he's new, but the area tough guys were taught to hate people with "funny hair" and "wierd accents." The second he walks in, he's surrounded and the punching starts. All of the sudden, the two or three lead guys start crying; the new guy seems to have given them all a bloody nose.
Flash forward a few months. The tough guys never forgot what happened, and even though some skirmishes have occurred over time the "funny hair" has been around, there has not been a major fight like the first. The tough guys have started banding together again with a common cause: give funny hair a real beating.
They starting talking smack about the guy who just wants to be left alone, to his face, to his friends, to their friends, talking about doing things to him with knives, to his mom, to his sister, threating the people he chills with. The lead tough guy and funny hair have a small "discussion" in the halls in front of everyone. Basically, funny hair says straight up "I know what you're up to, but if you go after my girlfriend, you are done."
That weekend, there is a party. The lead tough guy sees funny hair's lady chilling with some friends, goes over, gives her a nice tap on thie behind, feels her up forcefully, etc. The girl is too shocked to really do anything, and all of the rich kids at the party don't care what some poor boy does to a poor girl.
Tough guy gathers his crew for Monday. Funny hair walks in, looking generally ****. They start to surround funny hair, laughing at him, show off their knives to him, talk about what they're going to do to him with the knives, so on and so forth. They close in, moving around him, packing in, closing in for the kill.
But funny hair strikes first. He goes straight for the lead man, knocking the knife from his hand, upper cutting him, and then getting him right in the sac. He takes down the resulting big guys in similar fashion. The crowd dispurses, leaving our aggressor, funny hair, alone, glared at around the halls.
Now, Jamil, that's an analogy for what happened during the 6th Day war. Israel struck first, because she had a right to live. She wasn't willing to wait for something to happen. She took initiative. If she had let them strike force, would she have survived? Maybe, but the chances still aren't high enough to warrant even discussing it.
Of course, this to you is unacceptable. But this is reality. What Israel did was something that any nation would have done, at least any nation that wanted to survive. Make no mistake about it, Israel wants to be left alone. To even act like it's the fault of Israel that the 6 Day War occurred is simply pointing out your own personal bias.
Also, why are you treating the Israeli government as though it is on the same level or lower than the Iranian government? The two are not equal; one is free, one is not. Israel wants to be left alone, to live in peace. The Iranian government does not want peace. They are motivated by a perverted form of a peaceful religion to seek destruction of the only Jewish state in existence, and call upon the surrounding Muslim nations to the same cause.
We are not saying that Israel is some high and mighty state, incapable of doing wrong, but we're being realistic here. To say that Iran is trying to defend itself against a state that seeks peace is rediculous. The problem is that in your logic, the Jewish state is not capable of doing right, of being right, and of existing.
I don't support Israeli action against Palestinians that are honest civilians. I strongly condone it, in fact. There are many Palestinians that live inside Israel, with all of the same rights as any other citizen. It would be great if the Palestinians got their own state, but the reality is that it will not happen. The Palestinian leadership is controlled by the surrounding Arab governments who do not want the Palestinian problem solved. The Palestinians are being used as a simple pawn in a sick game contrived by sick people to help destroy a free nation. They are a weapon, and they don't even know it. If only they knew....
In any case, negative press on Israel is usually hyped to unbelievable portions, particularly in the strongly anti-Semetic portions of Europe. The Israeli government does not regularly support and participate in genocide against unarmed Palestinians.
Don't think that all Americans are blind to France's almost election of a known racist. Don't think that all Americans are blind to the rise of neo-nazism in Europe; after all, it's becoming a movement over here as well, it just has taken longer to get a grip here.
Many of us know and understand the world around us (must to the dismay of many nations) and understand the reality of the situation in Israel. I personally condemn the Israeli government on any and all extreme action it has taken against unarmed civilians, but I support the right of Israel to defent herself, including through preemptive air strikes against destabilizing nuclear weapons programs initiated by a regime that is likely to utilize them and/or give access to them to certain groups known to fly civilian airliners into civilian buildings.
<!--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-->You must be skimming my posts. I made a point that no one can even try to refute. The nation of Israel's leader was practically begging the Palestinian's corrupt leadership to accept a plan that would give the Palestinian's a state and all kinds of wonderful peace.
Arafat refused. In response, the nation of Israel elected Sharon, a guy who said "if you screw with me, I will take you down so fast you won't know what hit you."
They tried diplomacy and it didn't work. Yep, those nasty, evil Jews are so bad to the Palestinians<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already approved to that point as Arafat made a historical mistake in the diplomatic poker.
I do not understand why, however, because Rabin had chances of succes in his negotiations before he was assasinated by israelian hardliners, although his offer was far less attractive.
However, a setback in diplomatic negotiation is not a reason for Sharon to dump it and restart the settlement policy, which was the actual spark that revoked the conflict and lead to the second intifada.
There is a difference in not giving in and completely dispatch the negotiations. I am aware that Israel could not offer more than what they did without losing face and ground. Yet, they must have not end the negotiations by that.
Arafat is an Arab. Arabs barter for life, don't forget that.
----I will go for more, but right now I have no time to write----
Comments
As to your editted response... Correct, there was no Palestine... So technically did they even have a claim?
Regardless, I do believe that the Palestinian Arabs were armed to fight against Israel during one of those wars ( not sure which, possibly multiple ones ), so the Palestinian Arabs were not just innocent bystanders.
Was it even the 6 day war when the land was first occupied?
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-->
I can't believe I missed this post. It's a good source of humour.
Oh yeah, the UN is anti-progress. So, lets just shift back to the dark ages of might makes right. Israel conquered the areas, so it can keep them. International law be damned! </sarcasm>
Oh yeah, the UN is anti-progress. So, lets just shift back to the dark ages of might makes right. Israel conquered the areas, so it can keep them. International law be damned! </sarcasm> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have a strange sense a humor.
Tell me why Israel should adhere to the rules of a body that has done nothing but criticize and belittle Israel, and do nothing to help it when it was in dire need of help. If you think Israel should do whatever the "world community" tells it to do then you find a way for a country to wipe it's self off the face of the earth, that won't damage your precious sense of morals.
If you think the UN is the answer to the worlds problems you need you have your head examined, the UN is nothing more then a bunch of greedy member countries throwing their weight around and trying to push their own political agenda.
/example
War in Iraq? No says France! We have a nice cushy thing going on here with the oil for food program....I mean we...don't think it's....erm...it's a nice thing to do...
Besides the UN is useless for all but talk, they have so many more failures then successes, if you think the UN is making progress in the world then you’re wrong.
I personally think Israel should withdraw from the UN, as I find it hypocritical to be a member of a worthless organization that doesn’t like you to begin with.
However if you want humor.
The sky is blue, the sun rises in the east, and the majority of the UN hates Israel.
/me hums <i>The Facts of Life.</i>
Drop the anti-semetism rhetoric. Most Jews aren't even semites, they're Ashkenazi european in origin, and have no historical connection with the Holy land. Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of Canaan, and are semites. They've lived on the land for thousands of years.
Drop the anti-semetism rhetoric. Most Jews aren't even semites, they're Ashkenazi european in origin, and have no historical connection with the Holy land. Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of Canaan, and are semites. They've lived on the land for thousands of years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats right, and wrong.
Most Israelies (just like myself), aren't tight to their religion, but it doesnt mean they hate their country, we are being taught about "The Holy Land" at school just like you got taught about Jesus and such, besides the fact we celebrate all of our holydays just like you do, in Canada, U.S, or wherever you are, most of us don't put "kippas" on our heads, grow long hair, or pray, but it doesn't mean we don't give a damn about our country and where we live at, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't wanna leave your home and land that you grew up in, even if you didn't care about "The stories behind it".
And just to clarify some more things, After "The 6 Days War", this is how the borders looked:
Purple = conquered | Pink = not israel's | Green = Israel | Light green = What israel kept (Gaza) |
As you can see, the Israelies didnt keep the huge part they conquered, that wasn't their meaning.
The fact they attack first was only because they had great "Information Center" (not sure about the exact world in english), and if they didnt attack the Egypt airport first, they would have may lost. Self defence.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa whoa whoa, you are not getting away with that. You cannot pretend that no one really knows what went on in the 6 day war, that there is no information available from the time, so we just have to look at the fact that Israel struck first and leave it at that. Thats completely false.
You stated at the outset of this thread the the Israeli's were the aggressors. Now you are claiming that there is no information to prove either way what happened. Did you not read reasa's sourced linked? Unless you have information to the contrary, then might I suggest you back away from that line of reasoning. You cannot dismiss quotes like Egypts Nasser: Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel, the Arab people want to fight. That was said on may the 30th, about a week before the Israeli people strike.
The weight of evidence is stacked heavily against you here Jamil, either back up your arguement, or back down. Why also did you answer your question in the second paragraph that you asked in the third? The Israelis kept the land they took for pure defence purposes, as you said yourself.
Othello, Israel has not always had US support. During the 6 day war, the US warned Israel that it would not support them if they struck first. In 1948 the Jews bought weapons using donations from rich American Jews, but no official support. The US also resisted the Israeli's bitterly (even siding with the soviets on this one) when they attacked Egypt in 1956.
The UN gave Israel its soveriegnty HA. It didnt expect them to last a week. The Jews were attacked from all sides the instant they declared independence by Arabs bent upon genocide - and the Arabs got smashed. They then had the gall to demand that the Jews adhere to the 1947 UN guidelines for borders for the Zionist state. Lets not give the UN too much credit for setting up Israel - Israel is there because Israel fought to be there. Despite their numerous attempts at genocide, in which the Palestinians cheered them on, the Muslim states surround have not been able to dislodge them.
Seeing as you have so much respect for international law Jamil, will you not them join me in condemning all 7 Muslim nations who attacked the Jews in 1948? Will you not join me in condemning the Egyptians illegal blockage of the Tirian straights in 1967? Will you not join me in condemning illegal suicide bombings on soveriegn Israeli land? I suspect you wont. Again let me requote Ralph Galloway, former head of UNWRA, as to why the Palestinian problem still exists:
"The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as a open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders dont give a damn whether Palestinians live or die." Nothing I have seen in the conflict has lead me to believe anything else. The Palestinians are the willing tools of their Muslim "brothers".
After all, even if what i said is not correct, i'm only saying what we're being taught at class.
EDIT: I have to disagree about the false information thig you said, its all about trusty information, there are many sources that can tell you everything about this war, i doubt if its that hard to understand why IDF attacked first...
Whoa whoa whoa, you are not getting away with that. You cannot pretend that no one really knows what went on in the 6 day war, that there is no information available from the time, so we just have to look at the fact that Israel struck first and leave it at that. Thats completely false.
You stated at the outset of this thread the the Israeli's were the aggressors. Now you are claiming that there is no information to prove either way what happened. Did you not read reasa's sourced linked? Unless you have information to the contrary, then might I suggest you back away from that line of reasoning. You cannot dismiss quotes like Egypts Nasser: Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel, the Arab people want to fight. That was said on may the 30th, about a week before the Israeli people strike.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did he say basic objection? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I doubt it, but all you have is a couple quotes to go on? Nothing concrete? Why didn't he attack Israel the moment he said that, if Israeli airfields were within range of Egypt's? He was waiting for the second coming so Jesus could come help him slaughter the Jews? So, lets stack it up. Nasser's quotes and a military buildup on the border for arguably defensive purposes, weighed against actual military use against their enemies. Also, shortly before the six day war, Israel also attacked Syrian migs in the Golan Heights. One of these countries was willing to use military force, the others were not.
<!--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-->The weight of evidence is stacked heavily against you here Jamil, either back up your arguement, or back down. Why also did you answer your question in the second paragraph that you asked in the third? The Israelis kept the land they took for pure defence purposes, as you said yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A land grab is a land grab by any other name.
<!--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-->
The UN gave Israel its soveriegnty HA. It didnt expect them to last a week. The Jews were attacked from all sides the instant they declared independence by Arabs bent upon genocide - and the Arabs got smashed. They then had the gall to demand that the Jews adhere to the 1947 UN guidelines for borders for the Zionist state. Lets not give the UN too much credit for setting up Israel - Israel is there because Israel fought to be there. Despite their numerous attempts at genocide, in which the Palestinians cheered them on, the Muslim states surround have not been able to dislodge them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN gave them what they wanted, sovereignty. Or wait, Israel was asking for that but its security was implied? The Arabs attacked in protest to the UN, and they were not in league with the UN to somehow create a Jewish state for the sake of a beat on. The Arabs rejected the construction to the UN at every level. Had the UN listened to the arabs, then the wars would not have occurred, because Arabs never wanted any wars. Had Israel been created in say...Florida, then the middle east would be a peaceful area right now.
<!--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-->
Seeing as you have so much respect for international law Jamil, will you not them join me in condemning all 7 Muslim nations who attacked the Jews in 1948? Will you not join me in condemning the Egyptians illegal blockage of the Tirian straights in 1967? Will you not join me in condemning illegal suicide bombings on soveriegn Israeli land? I suspect you wont. Again let me requote Ralph Galloway, former head of UNWRA, as to why the Palestinian problem still exists:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of your damn business and is only an attempt at attacking my character. It's also irrelevant to the subject at hand. You know very little about me, so don't make any sweeping generalizations.
I doubt it, but all you have is a couple quotes to go on? Nothing concrete? Why didn't he attack Israel the moment he said that, if Israeli airfields were within range of Egypt's? He was waiting for the second coming so Jesus could come help him slaughter the Jews? So, lets stack it up. Nasser's quotes and a military buildup on the border for arguably defensive purposes, weighed against actual military use against their enemies. Also, shortly before the six day war, Israel also attacked Syrian migs in the Golan Heights. One of these countries was willing to use military force, the others were not.
The UN gave them what they wanted, sovereignty. Or wait, Israel was asking for that but its security was implied? The Arabs attacked in protest to the UN, and they were not in league with the UN to somehow create a Jewish state for the sake of a beat on. The Arabs rejected the construction to the UN at every level. Had the UN listened to the arabs, then the wars would not have occurred, because Arabs never wanted any wars. Had Israel been created in say...Florida, then the middle east would be a peaceful area right now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if say...Germany...were to threaten Poland in the same way Egypt did to Israel and then proceed to block off it's trade routes and mass troops on the border, any pre-emptive attack by Poland or her allies would be wrong in your eyes because Germany had yet to <i>actually</i> attack Poland?
You CANNOT say it would be right and stick to your own incorrect and mind numbing logic.
So what your saying is that the Arab countries were willing to talk tough, and do <b>everything possible</b> but attack, which they would have done given the time. And Israel was willing to stand up for it?s self and fight, Israel is wrong?
Why do I get the feeling that this standard you have only applies to Israel?
So you think that if Israel didn't exist the Middle East would be peaceful?
This made me laugh out loud.
You?re so willing to forget about the Taliban, would you call them peaceful?
Would you call Russia's invasion of Afghanistan peaceful?
Would you call Saddam Hussein's Iraq peaceful?
Would you call the Iran-Iraq war peaceful?
Would you call the Saudi government peaceful?
Would you call Pakistan a peaceful country?
Would you call the Gulf War peaceful?
There are many more examples of unrest in the Middle East that have nothing to do with Israel, but I don?t feel like typing all night.
You sir, have the strangest definition of peace I have ever seen.
If you seriously think Israel could have been "created" in Florida you need to take a few days off and rethink your views of the world.
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-->
Haha, that's a nice analogy, but if you start shooting out your windows at your neighbors, you're going to jail. If your neightbor breaks down your door and you give him two in the chest and one in the head, you can get off scot free.
So if say...Germany...were to threaten Poland in the same way Egypt did to Israel and then proceed to block off it's trade routes and mass troops on the border, any pre-emptive attack by Poland or her allies would be wrong in your eyes because Germany had yet to <i>actually</i> attack Poland?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes exactly. Much like attacking a country for the slim chance that WMDs existed. It's quite possible that they are just not there! A build up of defences, setting them on high alert, and seeking a diplomatic resolution is the more logical course of action. Egypt was able to do 2 of 3 of these things in response to Israel's actions prior to the six day war before Israel attacked.
<!--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-->
You CANNOT say it would be right and stick to your own incorrect and mind numbing logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I can. I prefer logic instead of 'might makes right'.
<!--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-->
So what your saying is that the Arab countries were willing to talk tough, and do <b>everything possible</b> but attack, which they would have done given the time. And Israel was willing to stand up for it’s self and fight, Israel is wrong?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there's this thing called diplomacy. It doesn't involve weapons. The concept might be a little abstract to some Americans.
<!--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-->
Why do I get the feeling that this standard you have only applies to Israel?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refer to none of your business above.
<!--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-->
So you think that if Israel didn't exist the Middle East would be peaceful?
This made me laugh out loud.
You’re so willing to forget about the Taliban, would you call them peaceful?
Would you call Russia's invasion of Afghanistan peaceful?
Would you call Saddam Hussein's Iraq peaceful?
Would you call the Iran-Iraq war peaceful?
Would you call the Saudi government peaceful?
Would you call Pakistan a peaceful country?
There are many more examples of unrest in the Middle East that have nothing to do with Israel, but I don’t feel like typing all night.
You sir, have the strangest definition of peace I have ever seen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All good topics for separate threads.
<!--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-->
If you seriously think Israel could have been "created" in Florida you need to take a few days off and rethink your views of the world.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's the problem? Don't want a bunch of Jews in your backyard?
<a href='http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html' target='_blank'>http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html</a>
<!--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-->The U.S. feared a major Arab-Israeli and superpower confrontation and asked Israel to delay military action pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. On May 23, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson publicly reaffirmed that the Gulf of Aqaba was an international waterway and declared that a blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal. In accordance with U.S. wishes, the Israeli cabinet voted five days later to withhold military action.
The U.S., however, gained little support in the international community for its idea of a maritime force that would compel Egypt to open the waterway and it abandoned its diplomatic efforts in this regard. On May 30, President Nasser and King Hussein signed a mutual defense pact, followed on June 4 by a defense pact between Cairo and Baghdad. Also that week, Arab states began mobilizing their troops. Against this backdrop, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders intensified their anti-Israel rhetoric and repeatedly called for a war of total destruction against Israel.
Arab mobilization compelled Israel to mobilize its troops, 80 percent of which were reserve civilians. Israel feared slow economic strangulation because long-term mobilization of such a majority of the society meant that the Israeli economy and polity would be brought to a virtual standstill. Militarily, Israeli leaders feared the consequences of absorbing an Arab first strike against its civilian population, many of whom lived only miles from Arab-controlled territory. Incendiary Arab rhetoric threatening Israel's annihilation terrified Israeli society and contributed to the pressures to go to war.
Against this background, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria. The war ended on June 10.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Yes, there's this thing called diplomacy. It doesn't involve weapons. The concept might be a little abstract to some Americans.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how do you think those negotiations would have went?
Arabs: Leave now or we will destroy you!
Jews: No.
Military conflict ensues no matter what, Jews are slaughtered by Arabs, chalk up one more failure under the UN's watch.
And let’s watch the subtle anti-American rhetorical snipes shall we.
<!--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-->What's the problem? Don't want a bunch of Jews in your backyard?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Florida is hardly my "backyard", besides if you live in Florida as the stereotype goes there are already allot of Jews. I can only assume it is by this stereotype that you figured it would be perfectly fine by everyone in the US that a state of the union becomes a separate country for the Jews.
Completely insane and you know it. Lets debate real issues not fantasy ones.
Marone01, I know my post seemed "dramatic" but it was purposeful.
I don't like to involve myself in discussions about or relating to the Israel / Palestinian Conflict because every time without fail it is all about trading and comparing "attrocoties" and "injustices" committed on both sides that occured long after the initial problem took place. The 1st Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur / Ramadan War, they are all <b><i>after</i> the fact</b>.
I believe the origins of the State of Israel did not start in and after 1948 with the "official announcement"... the story of the origin of Israel occurs between the late 1800's to around 1922 when the British were given mandate over Palestine.
I'll take a swing at this one and see what surfaces.
When you reading about the creation of the State of Israel you pretty much have to go back to the late 1800s to when First Zionist Congress created the World Zionist Organiztion. Since the Jewish Diaspora* way back when the Byzantine Empire conquered Judea it was the desire of the Jews to return to their "homeland" (which they conquered from the Canaanites). The whole idea of Zionism and the World Zionist Organization is about creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
*A myth about the Jewish Diaspora was that not all Jews were exiled... a small number remained or returned and lived sometimes peacefully, and sometimes not so peacefully, with the conquerors of the region up until larger-scale immigration began late in the 1800s and ever increasing into the 1900s.
The zionist visionary Theodor Herzl, a writer, playwright and journalist, convened the first ever Zionist Congress. It was his Zionist novels, Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) and Altneuland (Old New Land, 1902), that popularized the idea of an Israel State, a socialist utopia that would be a “light unto the nations.” That vision of an Jewish national home help spread the idea to the masses which he later harnessed into a popular Jewish movement with the convening of the First Zionist Congress. With the creation of the Jewish National Fund by the Zionist Congress in 1905, efforts had already begun to purchase land for absentee Arab land owners in Palestine. The World Zionist Organization was also formed as the political arm of the Zionist Congress. The tools for Zionist activism was laid down.
Another significant Zionist influence came in the form of a book by Theodor Herzl known as "Political Zionism" which talked about getting an official international charter for Jewish settlements in Palestine. The book focused on outside diplomacy to achieve the goals of the Zionist.
Chaim Wiezmann, a Jewish biochemist/professor and zionist activist influenced by "Political Zionism", was instrumental in lobbying for the Zionist cause and The Balfour Declaration. In 1910 the British made him a citizen where during his time as the Director of the British Admiralty Laboratories his research on synthesizing acetone (used in explosives manufacturing) was vital to the war effort. His influence and connection to the British political elite made him the perfect candidate to lobby for "official recognizion" of a Jewish State in Palestine.
Wiezmann is an incredibly important figure to the story of Israel. His acetone patent gave him the financial resources and most importantly the political and social connections to promote the cause of Zionism to those who are in the position to make a difference. A prime examples of his connection, during 1916, to the Minister of Munnitions Lloyd George who later <b>became</b> the Prime Minister of Britain! Combined with his connection to Lord Arthur Balfour who became the Foreign Secretary, Wiezmann played an instrumental role laying down the case over several years for a Jewish State in Palestine to all the right people.
Mid-1916 during WWI, Sir Henry McMahon and his role as British Commissioner and the <b><i>secret </i></b> Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France made conflicting promises. When the Ottoman Empire joined the Axis during WWI it was Arab forces backed by the British that ended Turkish control. Sir Henry McMahon promised Arab Leadership independence for Ottomen Arab Provinces. However at the same time the Britain and France divided the former Ottoman Arab provinces under their joint control with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The agreement led to the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Areas of direct British and French Direct Control, and areas of British and French "Influence" as well as areas of joint control were established.
The British negotiator for the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, Sir Mark Sykes, Chief Secretary of the War Cabinet, was eagar to gain a British foothold in most of Palestine of which the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not fully grant them. Informed of the Zionist Movement through dialogue with a scholar and zionist Dr. Moses Gaster, Sykes saw an opportunity to nullify the part of his agreement dealing with the disposition of Palestine. Sykes felt that if Britain was sympathetic to the Zionist cause they could point out that the Jews were overwhelming in favor of British trusteeship. Having met Wiezmann and other Zionist leaders he helped them greatly in furthering the Zionist cause by connecting them with other influential and important people and also eventually took part in drafting 'The Balfour Declaration'. Skyes' efforts was successful when late in 1918 France concented to British control over the territory.
A letter written to Lord Rothschild a leading Zionist Leader in Britain known as the 'The Balfour Declaration' in 1917 is often used as the first time a world power announced support for the creation of Jewish settlements in Palestine.
After the League of Nations granted British Mandate of Palestine in 1922. This was considered a great victory for the Zionist cause bacause along with 'The Balfour Declaration" the British Mandate Palestine would allow Zionist foundations to be laid down which will aid and attract Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Incidently it was between the 1920-40s during the British Mandate Palestine when the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Jews caused civil unrest within the Arab community. The Arab response gradually increased from General Strikes to all out violent clashes with Jewish and British elements.
The point I'm trying to make with the brief summary is that comparing who did what to whom and what was worse after Tel Aviv proclaimed the State of Israel in 1947 is so after the fact it obscures the root cause which has to do with the <b><i>process</i></b> which lead to the creation of Israel.
I think I just dragged the whole bloody thread off-topic a bit but I'll throw this into the mix anyways so I took the time to write this damn thing. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I doubt it, but all you have is a couple quotes to go on? Nothing concrete? Why didn't he attack Israel the moment he said that, if Israeli airfields were within range of Egypt's? He was waiting for the second coming so Jesus could come help him slaughter the Jews? So, lets stack it up. Nasser's quotes and a military buildup on the border for arguably defensive purposes, weighed against actual military use against their enemies. Also, shortly before the six day war, Israel also attacked Syrian migs in the Golan Heights. One of these countries was willing to use military force, the others were not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I dont think he did - unless his english is worse than those translating that site <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A couple of quotes can say a lot. George Bush decrying the attack on the WTC, announcing an axis of evil and declaring war can say a lot - even though all can be summed up in a few quotes. And these quotes were interspersed with factual infomation about Egypt eg closing the state of Tirian had previously been anticipated by the Israeli's, who claimed such an event would constitute an act of war.
Please dont pass of Nasser's stupidity and lack of military foresight as proof of his innocence. Why didnt the Americans attack Iraq 3 days earlier? Because they would go when their military leaders said they were good and ready. Nasser was busily whipping up Islam, signing military deals with countries like Syria
<!--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-->May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Not argueably defensive purposes. Making repeated statements that you are about to attack a country, while signing military deals with other nations promising to do the same, whilst blocking off shipping to that nation, at the same time as massing military on their borders - is not, never will be and never has been argueably a defensive gesture.</b> They talked offence and genocide, they took every single measure a country would take as if it was going to war, they had the clearly superior military position - I cant comprehend the intellectual dishonesty that would lead a man to conclude this was all for defence.
<!--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-->None of your damn business and is only an attempt at attacking my character. It's also irrelevant to the subject at hand. You know very little about me, so don't make any sweeping generalizations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
False. You have repeatedly in this thread invoked the supposed illegality of what the Israeli's were doing. To claim on one hand that its unfair for Israel to break international law, but refuse to condemn anyone else doing so, <b>specifically Israel's enemies you are defending</b> is flagrant hypocracy. Now if you are forced into a position whereby you either agree with a statement or have to admit to being a hypocrite, then that isnt me assasinating your character, that is you condemning yourself. I gave voice to my suspicion that you were guilty of hypocracy, but left you every avenue to rebut that.
You chose not too. In a court of law, if, when you are accused, you refuse to answer, then that is taken as an admission of guilt. Fortunately for you, this isnt a court, so at any stage you are clean and clear to point out just how darn incorrect and naive I was to assume hypocracy on your part. All you have to do is condemn various other illegal activities committed by the side you are defending.
You make sweeping generalizations about "argueing with Zionists is always the same, they have no respect for other peoples property" etc etc but insist on calling marine "The Kettle" 01 black?
I fail to see how you apply double standards to a situation you are supposed to be critically analysing is irrelevant to the debate. I dont know anything about you save what I have gathered from your responses in this thread.
Fantasmo - nice post. I shall return at a later date and reply <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(Attention: this is a test of the anti-Semite detector. If Jamil answers "no" to this, it will say some very strong things about him that have been hinted at in his previous threads. The U.N. is anti-Semetic, something easily proved, and not even worth proving. If he argues about it, it will simply make it seem that he is either an anti-Semite or an ignoramus.)
Jamil, your logic frightens me. I didn't think that people could ever think so one sided. Israel is the aggressor, eh? So, with your logic, you're saying that Israel should have tried harder to be diplomatic with war mongering racists amassing on her borders? Or maybe they should have just gotten down on their knees with their hands behind their heads execution style, waiting for the Arabian legions to sweep upon them.
Israel has never done anything except make sure she exists. That country has the biggest metaphorical "balls" of any country currently in existence. They're even tougher than us Americans, but then again, Americans don't walk outside everyday and fear their daughter's school bus will be blown up, or that some bloodthirsty, genocidal dictator is going to launch some sort of attack against them.
I'm frankly disturbed by much of the anti-Israeli sentiment running through this thread.
No Sir, that is not true.
The UN was founded to preserve peace and to calm conflicts. I will not discuss the futility of such a task. I simply state the fact.
Assuming that the UN is actually trying to do its job, it is certainly easy to understand why they condemned Israelian mititary operations against civil targets in Gaza or Western Jordan.
The Israelian <i>Government</i> ( by highlighting that word I want to say I mean the government only, not the perople of Israel in general) misused their right for self-defence as an excuse to gain control in these ares.
They use their so called self-defense to subdue and terrorize civilians. Nothing less than that. Anybody who denies that should have a talk to someone working in Palestina for Amnesty or any other charity organisation.
Any country will be target of UN sanctions for that kind of action, even the United States! So why should Israel be spared?
Why should Israel be allowed to violate International law? because the other side does?
No, because the other side is going to get bombed down by the UN if they did.
Israel took territory during a war and refuses to give it back because giving that terrority back to hostile neighbors is simply asking to be attacked again. You and Jamil have done nothing but Israel-bash throughout the entire thread. They should be held to the same standard as everyone else, which is what everyone in this thread is for, but the second Israel does something like *gasp* defend itself and then refuse to give up its buffer zones, everyone acts like Israel is the problem and not the aggressive Islamic neighbors.
Oh yeah, Israel definitely terrorizes civilians. Not. The entire Palestinian population is in camps, so where do Palestinian terrorists come from? Palestinian refugee camps. So, when they're "terrorizing civilians," they might actually be taking down terrorists.
Stop acting like Israel is the problem here. You love forgetting the fact that just a few years ago the Israeli Prime Minister practically gave Arafat a BJ, along with a whole new state for Palestine. What'd Arafat do? He refused. But of course you won't remember that, because it hurts your viewpoint that maybe the Palestinians really are just tools of the Arab nations to harm Israel.
Israel does not want to fight everyone. They want peace more than you do, but they won't give up National Sovereignty to make the surrounding nations happy. Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend herself. End of story, end of discussion.
<span style='color:red'>Keep it civil.</span>
I really get sick of Zionists and their stupid calls of anti-semitism. I want to have ONE discussion about Isreal without some bungling miscreant throwing around anti-semitism. Show me ONE thing I have said that says Jews are evil and should be killed, then you can start your anti-semetic claims, otherwise, shut it. This is a time and time again used strategy of Zionists, to bring back memories of the holocaust to further their cause. Oh no, we must feel guilty for the j00s! Most of the anti-semetic attacks we see today on the news are done by Jews! The Zionists are trying to perpetuate this guilt upon the rest of the world, because it is the source of their political invulnerability. Take a look at this article from 2 days 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-->
PARIS, Aug. 30 (JTA) — French Jewish leaders fear they may have cried wolf once too often after a Jew was arrested in connection with the well-publicized arson of a Jewish community center in central Paris.
Paris police say a 52-year-old Jewish man arrested Monday morning in connection with the Aug. 22 torching of the Judaeo-Spanish social center in the capital’s 11th district is the principal suspect in the arson.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=French%20Jews%20worried%20about%20crying%20wolf&intcategoryid=2&SearchOptimize=Jewish%20News' target='_blank'>News article</a>
Then take a look at this one from over a month ago!
<a href='http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1170815/posts' target='_blank'>French woman admits she made up anti-Semitic attack</a>
Just shows that Zionists don't even have to be Jewish!
So, just drop the anti-semetic garbage. It's not even worth discussing anymore, and I won't even indulge you enough to answer your questions regarding the issue. I find these strategies appalling, and the people who are motivated by guilt for the Jews, simply idiotic.
FACT! Every man, woman, and child living in Israel right now is living on STOLEN land. The only exception to this statement would be the Jews that historically lived PEACEFULLY with the Palestinians. So are the Jews innocent? Hell no, they're opportunistic and self-serving just like the rest of the world. I won't feel any guilt for them because of what the Germans did to them during WWII, because I had nothing to do with it.
<!--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--> Jamil, will you at least concede that the U.N. is anti-Israel?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the UN helped to create Israel. So I would call it pro-Israel. If the UN is only trying to force Israel into meeting human rights standards such as the Right of Return. Oh no! Those Jew hating bastards!
<!--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-->Jamil, your logic frightens me. I didn't think that people could ever think so one sided. Israel is the aggressor, eh? So, with your logic, you're saying that Israel should have tried harder to be diplomatic with war mongering racists amassing on her borders? Or maybe they should have just gotten down on their knees with their hands behind their heads execution style, waiting for the Arabian legions to sweep upon them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, throwing around anti-semitism. The only racism I've seen in this thread has been directed towards the Arabs. Calling them all genocidal maniacs as an example.
Well Saudi Arabia, a large wealthy and powerful Middle Eastern country is hardly being "kept down" by Israel, then again their not trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Ask yourself what the hell does Iran need nukes for? Nothing good can come of it. Not just Iran but no other country that does not have them already needs to have them. They should be stopped from doing this at all costs, and if Israel does it or India, I don't care, we don't need any more countries with nukes.
And don’t even mention the countries that already do have nukes (ex: Israel) and say we should take them away. Because if you can come up with a realistic peaceful way to that, don’t post it here, send it to the UN so they can sit on it for a few years, decide if it will be profitable to certain member nations then half **** the plan for a 10 year period.
And what "war mongering" are you referring to? It is evident throughout this thread that Israel was not the aggressor in the 6 day war, you have yet to provide reliable proof that they were.
The only act of aggression I will admit Israel committed was attacking Iraq's nuclear facilities. But even you, Jamil, must surely think an Iraq with out nuclear capabilities is a good thing. Again I could careless who "disarmed" them be it Israel or the UN. (Like that would ever happen)
<!--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-->FACT! Every man, woman, and child living in Israel right now is living on STOLEN land. The only exception to this statement would be the Jews that historically lived PEACEFULLY with the Palestinians. So are the Jews innocent? Hell no, they're opportunistic and self-serving just like the rest of the world. I won't feel any guilt for them because of what the Germans did to them during WWII, because I had nothing to do with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well guess what, every single American is technically living on "stolen" land, do you think it bothers 99.9% of the population?
Where do you live Jamil? What country do you live in, what race of people do you descend from that has not "stolen" the very land your home is built on from some other group of people at some point in history?
Again your concept of land ownership is very nice, and I'm sure in your head it makes perfect sense, in some imaginary universe where everyone is happy, it might work.
But as I said before the real world doesn’t work that way. Land is owned by the country that can control it and enforce that control by itself or with the help of its allies.
<!--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-->No, the UN helped to create Israel. So I would call it pro-Israel. If the UN is only trying to force Israel into meeting human rights standards such as the Right of Return. Oh no! Those Jew hating bastards!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Right of Return? There’s another thing that makes perfect sense in the world where everyone is happy and everything always works out. However this concept has no bearing in the realm of the real world and common sense.
<!--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-->Again, throwing around anti-semitism. The only racism I've seen in this thread has been directed towards the Arabs. Calling them all genocidal maniacs as an example.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I think it's pretty damn obvious what the Arabs goal was for the 6 day war. Oh I forgot just because they did <i>everything</i> but actually commit the genocide they had planned that makes them completely innocent. You have yet to give your scenario for what would have happened if the Arabs won the 6 day war.
Remember be realistic.
No one in here's saying that Jews are perfect, but you're acting like we are!
You're also missing some major facts in your case, such as the fact that the Jews never kicked the Palestinians out; it was the Palestinians that left when Israel was formed, and then lost their homes and land because of it. They didn't support Israel when it needed their support, they lost out.
You have such an idealistic view point of "war mongering." Were the Jews "war mongering" when they took out the nuclear power plant in Iraq in the 1980's? You know, the one that would have allowed them to really begin a nuclear weapons program? That's some heavy war mongering right there. Yep. Real heavy.
And us Americans, we're real war mongers. We just make war on anyone we can. Watch out France, you're next to be owned!
Israel has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Israel's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Muslim regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context.
Also, no one is being unfair to Muslims in this thread. Muslims attacked Jews over religion, nothing else. They labeled themselves as crazy Muslims through their actions. There are plenty of great Muslims out there who won't strap a bomb on their chest and kill schoolchildren. We're not bashing the religion, we're bashing the ignorant and arrogant Muslim regimes who tried invaded Israel and got whooped.
The U.N. once upon a time was an organization with potential. Then the anti-Jew/anti-American legion showed up and it all went down the tubes.
Please Jamil, respond to my post higher up in the thread. You are still using legality as though you respect the decisions of the UN - although you clearly dont respect their giving soveignty to the Israeli's. That's contradictory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At what point did I say I agreed with all of the UN's decisions? <span style='color:red'>Keep it civil.</span>
Israel is a signatory to the UN charter, so it's bound to adhere to UN mandate such as the right of return. That is universal legality. Otherwise, Israel is in breach of its agreement with the UN. There is no ifs and or buts about it.
Giving sovereignty to Israel, while I would tolerate it, I think was a grave miscalculation. The area was not ready to accept Israel, and further negotiations with the arab neighbours and Palestinian locals needed to be sought.
<!--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-->
You're also missing some major facts in your case, such as the fact that the Jews never kicked the Palestinians out; it was the Palestinians that left when Israel was formed, and then lost their homes and land because of it. They didn't support Israel when it needed their support, they lost out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh you mean the REFUGEES? The ones that don't want to be caught in the middle of a war zone!? Gee golly, serves them right to have their homes stolen.
<!--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-->
You have such an idealistic view point of "war mongering." Were the Jews "war mongering" when they took out the nuclear power plant in Iraq in the 1980's? You know, the one that would have allowed them to really begin a nuclear weapons program? That's some heavy war mongering right there. Yep. Real heavy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I consider Israel with nukes as much of a threat as Iraq with nukes. Both countries are/were crazy enough to actually use them. Iraq never got a nuclear program underway, but Israel has the nukes now. Do you realize how dangerous that is? If you think this is only my opionion, scroll up! You'll find numerous people who have agreed that Israel is willing to use its nukes.
<!--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-->And us Americans, we're real war mongers. We just make war on anyone we can. Watch out France, you're next to be owned! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq. Owned.
<!--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 has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Israel's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Muslim regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iran has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Iran's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Jewish regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context.
<!--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-->They should be stopped from doing this at all costs, and if Israel does it or India, I don't care, we don't need any more countries with nukes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, you don't care.
<!--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-->And what "war mongering" are you referring to? It is evident throughout this thread that Israel was not the aggressor in the 6 day war, you have yet to provide reliable proof that they were.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evident? Where is the evidence? I haven't seen it yet, or I wouldn't still be discussing this. My smoking gun is "hey look, Israel attacked first". Yours is, "Nasser was being a meanie and calling Jews bad names". Your evidence pales in comparison.
<!--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 guess what, every single American is technically living on "stolen" land, do you think it bothers 99.9% of the population?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. Thanks for bringing it up. It helps my point.
<!--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-->
Where do you live Jamil? What country do you live in, what race of people do you descend from that has not "stolen" the very land your home is built on from some other group of people at some point in history?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of your damn business again. Stay objective.
<!--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-->
Again your concept of land ownership is very nice, and I'm sure in your head it makes perfect sense, in some imaginary universe where everyone is happy, it might work.
But as I said before the real world doesn’t work that way. Land is owned by the country that can control it and enforce that control by itself or with the help of its allies.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds like it should be on a nazi ad. Imperialism should die.
<!--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 I think it's pretty damn obvious what the Arabs goal was for the 6 day war. Oh I forgot just because they did everything but actually commit the genocide they had planned that makes them completely innocent. You have yet to give your scenario for what would have happened if the Arabs won the 6 day war.
Remember be realistic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Before or after Israel attacked? If before, the 6 day war would never have happened , because Israel was the aggressor! After, Israel would have probably had a regime change. Egypt was nice enough to ask UN workers to leave the area, and I fully believe they would have complied with UN standards of human rights.
I hope you will take your time to read my answer to your last post, because you certainly did not do so when replying to my last one.
<!--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-->You have such an idealistic view point of "war mongering." Were the Jews "war mongering" when they took out the nuclear power plant in Iraq in the 1980's? You know, the one that would have allowed them to really begin a nuclear weapons program? That's some heavy war mongering right there. Yep. Real heavy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Israel should be allowed nucelar weapon capability becasue of?
Do you ever consider the Idea that the surrounding nations actually feel intimidiated by Israels nukes?
I remember a big "good" nation in panic because there were some nukes close to its boardes on a small "evil" island a few miles to the south.
However, the same nations had nukes on the border of the big "evil" ally of that "evil" island state for several years at that time. In conclusion, both nations, the "good" and the "evil" agreed on removing these weapons from their boarders.
<!--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-->The U.N. once upon a time was an organization with potential. Then the anti-Jew/anti-American legion showed up and it all went down the tubes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but the UN is not inefficient because of "antiamerican" sentiments or whatever. Its inefficient because the vitory nations of WW II implemented a veto for themselves, which is sufficient to cancel every descision. This veto was frequently used by the UDSSR during cold war, now, its mostly the USA that that deter and delay UN decisions. The only occation I remember, where a majority of States disapproved with US actions, was the recent Gulf war.
<!--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-->You are delusional if you actually believe what you are saying, Legat. The U.N. is the most disgustingly pointless organization ever created. They do nothing when they need to, and everything when they don't need to. In the case of Israel they do everything possible to harm that little nation whenever possible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said before, the UN is fighting a lost cause, and the entire Idea is, in my eyes, is a failure. I also said I don't intend to discuss that matter. Thats off topic, open an "UN is useless" thread if you wish to debate this.
However, just for the record:
It is not the UNs fault, but that that of its memberstates, which twist the principles stated by the UN as they see fit for the moment.
Especially The U.S. are quite selective with their support for UN missions. Thus, the UN was able to liberate Kuwait, while in Africa, they let hundreds ot thausands of people die in civil unrests, because the U.S. feared another Somalia incident.
Also, The U.N approved in ending the Balcany(spelling?) conflict but actually don't intervene in Palestina.
In case you don't know, the Yugoslavian civil war had many similarities to the Israel/Palestina conflict.
A supperior military force invaded the land of the neighboring minorities and ethnically clensed these areas. Massive violence against civilans occured on both sides.
The UN Attacked the agressor (Serbia) and ended the conflcit. The peacekeeping mission is still ongoing iirc. The Kosovo conflict was the latest disturbance in the area.
So, whats your problem? The UN started 2 major pacification missions in one hotspot. Yet, they did not intervene in Israel did they? And why didn't they? Because of The US did not approve.
<!--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 took territory during a war and refuses to give it back because giving that terrority back to hostile neighbors is simply asking to be attacked again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read before posting. Or even better, infor yourself. The land in question, Gaza and Western Jordan, was NOT taken by right of war. Neither was it taken during war. Neither was it attacked by Israel, not did it ever pose a thread. It was claimed <i>after</i> the six days war as "uninhabited" land, because the inhabitants had abandoned it to hide from said war.
<!--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-->
Oh yeah, Israel definitely terrorizes civilians. Not. The entire Palestinian population is in camps, so where do Palestinian terrorists come from? Palestinian refugee camps. So, when they're "terrorizing civilians," they might actually be taking down terrorists.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Buddy....there are still regular palstinensian settlements and towns in Palestina. Not every palstinensian is a refugee...yet. I don't know the exact numbers but I think there are quite a lot more arabs In the land than Jews.
They have actually Houses you know? and private property. And not every last one of these refugees in these camp is a terrorist. You really should reconsider your stereotypical view of these people.
Also, there is a difference in seeking and arresting "Terrorist" and Attacking them in Broad daylight on frequented marketplaces with Air to ground missles.
Also, there is really no reason why you move in with buldozers and systematically lay wastes to entire towns.
<!--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-->
Stop acting like Israel is the problem here. You love forgetting the fact that just a few years ago the Israeli Prime Minister practically gave Arafat a BJ, along with a whole new state for Palestine. What'd Arafat do? He refused. But of course you won't remember that, because it hurts your viewpoint that maybe the Palestinians really are just tools of the Arab nations to harm Israel.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do remember that. And other than you seen to, I do not have a "viewpoint". Instead of your generalisations, I make diffences and look on both sides of the street.
Arafat made the historical mistake by refusing that offer, but that was not the point of the recent direction this discussion was leading to.
It was about the UN "discriminating" Israel and my point is, that Israel has no right to complain, as long as they act like barbarians.
Any other Nation would get scolded for simial behavior, too. Thats the point. I don't give a **** if the other guy did burn houses first, it still is wrong to do so as retaliation. If you don't accnowledge that I am very, very sorry for you.
<!--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 want to fight everyone. They want peace more than you do, but they won't give up National Sovereignty to make the surrounding nations happy. Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend herself. End of story, end of discussion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of, I do not need glasses so please keep your fontsize down, you are actually violating forim rules. Just to let you know....
secondly, excuse my couriosity, but what do you mean by "wants peace more than you" ?
Do you accuse me of warmongering or want to imply that I approve war?
Buddy you should really reconsider your words.
Also, I do approve that Israels <i>people</i> want peace. However, I am not certain about its leaders. Sharon is an old warrior, like Arafat. They both waged war against each other since decades. This a war of old men, and as long as they are not dead, this war will not end.
Also, If Israel wanted peace, they had the means to achieve it. All you need to preserve peace is strengh. They have it. They have Nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. No country in the surrounding can oppose Israel simply because that and because of their US allies.
The last option left for the old warriors on arabian side is terror and guerrillia warfare.
The only justification for the arabs to do this is the Palestina.
End that conflict, and they have no justification to attack Israel.
If they still did, Israel would be free to attackt them in self defense, because the palestinensians would now be considered the attackers. Why do you think Arafat did not sign the treaty back then? Because he could not do so. Because the old warriors wanten to fight.
<!--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-->End of story, end of discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, I think I will not reply to your discussion posts as long as you rethink your choice of words.
This thread has gotten 6 pages without being shut down. That is no easy task for ANY thread concerning the middle east, and israeli/palestinian issues.
Nerves, however, have gotten frayed and it will eventually reach a breaking point (if it hasn't already). While I have opinions on the matter, they are just that: opinions. The issue of israel/palestine has been a touchy one since the creation of the nation, and the deeper issue of Arabs and Jews goes back even farther. Nobody, from the highest diplomats, to average joe with an opinion, has been able to come to a reasonable compromise that worked, or "solved" the matter thusfar. While I highly doubt a resolution to the issue will go down in history as being discovered by some people in the natural selection forums, I am here to give you a reminder to keep it civil. I have read several borderline insults, and this is not tolerated no matter how heated the opinions of the other side gets you.
Go cool off if you're frustrated. Don't post something that will get the thread shut down, or yourself temporarily suspended. If that means not posting in this thread at all, then that makes you one step closer to gaining a certain wisdom about debates such as these.</span>
Well considering Israel well only use its nukes defensively, I don't see a problem.
If you don't want to get your country nuked, don't invade Israel. It's not hard to understand. However if Israel’s neighbors had not been so hostile to Israel I would agree with you that they should not have nukes ether. It's pretty much the ultimate way of saying "leave me alone".
<!--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-->Iran has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Iran's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Jewish regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please state one example where Israel has threatened Iran, other then threats to destroy its nuclear facilities? Give me one good example where Israel has threatened Iran to the point that it should need nukes to save itself from Israel?
I want one, do not dodge this question.
<!--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-->Exactly, you don't care.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I do care if they have the nukes, however I don't care how they are stopped and who does it.
<!--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-->Evident? Where is the evidence? I haven't seen it yet, or I wouldn't still be discussing this. My smoking gun is "hey look, Israel attacked first". Yours is, "Nasser was being a meanie and calling Jews bad names". Your evidence pales in comparison.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must have lead eyelashes then. There is no smoking gun, Mr. Fleischer, and I'm not reposting my evidence for this again. It's there go read it.
Oh so we should excuse Nasser for what he said? When the leader of a country threatens to destroy another country we should ignore it?
Now pay attention:
But it wasn’t just the comments, Israel said that if Egypt blocked off it's trade routes they would go to war, well guess what Egypt did it. They got what they asked for. It's their fault. Your wrong, end of the discussion about that point. Move on.
<!--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-->Agreed. Thanks for bringing it up. It helps my point.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how, unless you're going to say the US has no right to exist because it "stold" land from the Indians.
<!--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-->None of your damn business again. Stay objective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not asking for your home address, just tell me what country you live in. I don't see why you wouldn't, unless you have something to hide, or your worried it will damage one of your already very contradictory arguments.
<!--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-->That sounds like it should be on a nazi ad. Imperialism should die.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm then I guess Nazi ad's are the way the real world functions then? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the way the world works? Just because you don't like it doesn’t mean you can shove your fingers in your ears and yell "lalalalalala".
Ah, so its okay for nations to break 100 UN rules if you happen to disagree with them, but woe betide Israel should they break any of the same? That doesnt strike you as a little odd? Applying different standards to different sides does not lend hand to your credibility.
<!--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 is a signatory to the UN charter, so it's bound to adhere to UN mandate such as the right of return. That is universal legality. Otherwise, Israel is in breach of its agreement with the UN. There is no ifs and or buts about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, and Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and friends ARENT signatories, so they dont have to listen to the UN, so you can sweep their breaches of UN charter under the carpet? I really wish I'd known this earlier.....
<!--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-->Oh you mean the REFUGEES? The ones that don't want to be caught in the middle of a war zone!? Gee golly, serves them right to have their homes stolen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd have more sympathy had their Muslim neighbours tried to help them - instead of leaving them to rot. During the 1948 war, many Jewish cities eg Haifa pleaded with the Palestinians not to flee, but after the Irgun massacre, nothing they said or did could make the Palestinians stay. And why would they - many palestinians had thrown in their lot with bloodthirsty Arabs bent on genocide, it only made sense to them that the Jews would respond in kind. Most Palestinians left without seeing an Israeli soldier, although portions were forcibly removed as they would harass zionist soldiers from behind.
<!--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-->Iran has a right to exist. That's what this whole thread is based around. Iran's right to exist is threatened on so many levels by a homicidal Jewish regime with WMD's, particularly nuclear weapons. That is a simple fact, completely in context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Jews have never threatened genocide, never declared intentions of wiping their neighbours out. The Iranians cannot make the same claim with a straight face. Iran's right to exist is threatened, because the Jews are going to take away that right if they face largescale muslim assualt.
<!--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-->Evident? Where is the evidence? I haven't seen it yet, or I wouldn't still be discussing this. My smoking gun is "hey look, Israel attacked first". Yours is, "Nasser was being a meanie and calling Jews bad names". Your evidence pales in comparison.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont understand you Jamil. This is unbelieveable. The Egyptians had assualted Israel 2 decades ago in 1948 pledging genocide, the Israeli's had attacked the Egyptians in 1956 and since had remained on extremely hostile grounds with them. They committed several acts of war in blockading Jewish shipping. The signed military deals with other nations also screaming about how they were about to wipe the Jews out. They took every single damn last action a nation should take before it goes to war. Nasser did not call the Jews "stink faces", he told them he was going to kill the lot of them - and went about setting up to do so. I see a huge difference between insults and promises of genocide.
Requoting myself as no attempt has been made to reply to this line of reasoning:
Not argueably defensive purposes. <b>Making repeated statements that you are about to attack a country, while signing military deals with other nations promising to do the same, whilst blocking off shipping to that nation, at the same time as massing military on their borders - is not, never will be and never has been argueably a defensive gesture.</b> They talked offence and genocide, they took every single measure a country would take as if it was going to war, they had the clearly superior military position - I cant comprehend the intellectual dishonesty that would lead a man to conclude this was all for defence. Any nation in the world would consider this overt aggression.
<!--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-->Before or after Israel attacked? If before, the 6 day war would never have happened , because Israel was the aggressor! After, Israel would have probably had a regime change. Egypt was nice enough to ask UN workers to leave the area, and I fully believe they would have complied with UN standards of human rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thats right. They asked the UN workers/defence personel to get the hell out of the way... for... uhhh... defence purposes right? Cause according to you the Egyptians were just having a few military exercises right? And when they said they were going to exterminate the Jews, well, they were just kidding werent they? I'm sorry, but if you want to talk genocide, then the world should be forced to believe that you are going to carry it out.
I can't believe I didn't pick up on that, I'm glad you noticed it.
Yes, why was it necessary to ask UN workers to leave Israel, if in fact Egypt was not planning to attack them?
Do you accuse me of warmongering or want to imply that I approve war?
Buddy you should really reconsider your words.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must be skimming my posts. I made a point that no one can even try to refute. The nation of Israel's leader was practically <i>begging</i> the Palestinian's corrupt leadership to accept a plan that would give the Palestinian's a state and all kinds of wonderful peace.
Arafat refused. In response, the nation of Israel elected Sharon, a guy who said "if you screw with me, I will take you down so fast you won't know what hit you."
They tried diplomacy <i>and it didn't work.</i> Yep, those nasty, evil Jews are so bad to the Palestinians.
Jamil, I have a real interesting analogy for you. It's a school, somewhere in a poorer area. There's a kid with funny hair and a wierd accent that just walked in; he's new, but the area tough guys were taught to hate people with "funny hair" and "wierd accents." The second he walks in, he's surrounded and the punching starts. All of the sudden, the two or three lead guys start crying; the new guy seems to have given them all a bloody nose.
Flash forward a few months. The tough guys never forgot what happened, and even though some skirmishes have occurred over time the "funny hair" has been around, there has not been a major fight like the first. The tough guys have started banding together again with a common cause: give funny hair a real beating.
They starting talking smack about the guy who just wants to be left alone, to his face, to his friends, to their friends, talking about doing things to him with knives, to his mom, to his sister, threating the people he chills with. The lead tough guy and funny hair have a small "discussion" in the halls in front of everyone. Basically, funny hair says straight up "I know what you're up to, but if you go after my girlfriend, you are done."
That weekend, there is a party. The lead tough guy sees funny hair's lady chilling with some friends, goes over, gives her a nice tap on thie behind, feels her up forcefully, etc. The girl is too shocked to really do anything, and all of the rich kids at the party don't care what some poor boy does to a poor girl.
Tough guy gathers his crew for Monday. Funny hair walks in, looking generally ****. They start to surround funny hair, laughing at him, show off their knives to him, talk about what they're going to do to him with the knives, so on and so forth. They close in, moving around him, packing in, closing in for the kill.
But funny hair strikes first. He goes straight for the lead man, knocking the knife from his hand, upper cutting him, and then getting him right in the sac. He takes down the resulting big guys in similar fashion. The crowd dispurses, leaving our aggressor, funny hair, alone, glared at around the halls.
Now, Jamil, that's an analogy for what happened during the 6th Day war. Israel struck first, because she had a right to live. She wasn't willing to wait for something to happen. She took initiative. If she had let them strike force, would she have survived? Maybe, but the chances still aren't high enough to warrant even discussing it.
Of course, this to you is unacceptable. But this is reality. What Israel did was something that any nation would have done, at least any nation that wanted to survive. Make no mistake about it, Israel wants to be left alone. To even act like it's the fault of Israel that the 6 Day War occurred is simply pointing out your own personal bias.
Also, why are you treating the Israeli government as though it is on the same level or lower than the Iranian government? The two are not equal; one is free, one is not. Israel wants to be left alone, to live in peace. The Iranian government does not want peace. They are motivated by a perverted form of a peaceful religion to seek destruction of the only Jewish state in existence, and call upon the surrounding Muslim nations to the same cause.
We are not saying that Israel is some high and mighty state, incapable of doing wrong, but we're being realistic here. To say that Iran is trying to defend itself against a state that seeks peace is rediculous. The problem is that in your logic, the Jewish state is not capable of doing right, of being right, and of existing.
I don't support Israeli action against Palestinians that are honest civilians. I strongly condone it, in fact. There are many Palestinians that live inside Israel, with all of the same rights as any other citizen. It would be great if the Palestinians got their own state, but the reality is that it will not happen. The Palestinian leadership is controlled by the surrounding Arab governments who do not want the Palestinian problem solved. The Palestinians are being used as a simple pawn in a sick game contrived by sick people to help destroy a free nation. They are a weapon, and they don't even know it. If only they knew....
In any case, negative press on Israel is usually hyped to unbelievable portions, particularly in the strongly anti-Semetic portions of Europe. The Israeli government does not regularly support and participate in genocide against unarmed Palestinians.
Don't think that all Americans are blind to France's almost election of a known racist. Don't think that all Americans are blind to the rise of neo-nazism in Europe; after all, it's becoming a movement over here as well, it just has taken longer to get a grip here.
Many of us know and understand the world around us (must to the dismay of many nations) and understand the reality of the situation in Israel. I personally condemn the Israeli government on any and all extreme action it has taken against unarmed civilians, but I support the right of Israel to defent herself, including through preemptive air strikes against destabilizing nuclear weapons programs initiated by a regime that is likely to utilize them and/or give access to them to certain groups known to fly civilian airliners into civilian buildings.
Arafat refused. In response, the nation of Israel elected Sharon, a guy who said "if you screw with me, I will take you down so fast you won't know what hit you."
They tried diplomacy and it didn't work. Yep, those nasty, evil Jews are so bad to the Palestinians<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already approved to that point as Arafat made a historical mistake in the diplomatic poker.
I do not understand why, however, because Rabin had chances of succes in his negotiations before he was assasinated by israelian hardliners, although his offer was far less attractive.
However, a setback in diplomatic negotiation is not a reason for Sharon to dump it and restart the settlement policy, which was the actual spark that revoked the conflict and lead to the second intifada.
There is a difference in not giving in and completely dispatch the negotiations.
I am aware that Israel could not offer more than what they did without losing face and ground. Yet, they must have not end the negotiations by that.
Arafat is an Arab. Arabs barter for life, don't forget that.
----I will go for more, but right now I have no time to write----