PDA

View Full Version : Hamas leader offers truce if Israel withdraws from 1967 lands



MTAFFI
04-21-2008, 05:20 PM
Hamas leader offers truce if Israel withdraws from 1967 lands

By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago

DAMASCUS, Syria - The leader of Hamas says his Palestinian militant group is offering Israel a 10-year truce if it withdraws from all lands it seized in the 1967 war.

Khaled Mashaal says he made the offer to former President Carter in talks on Saturday.

Mashaal says Hamas would accept a Palestinian state limited to the lands Israel seized in 1967 — an implicit acceptance that Israel would exist alongside that state.

But Mashaal says the group would never outright formally recognize Israel.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/...a_hamas_israel

3 things
1) Israel probably will reject this offer
2) What happens at the end of the 10 years?
3) Would all of the rocket attacks actually cease?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Keltoi
04-23-2008, 09:12 PM
I don't fully understand what withdrawing from pre-1967 lands would entail, but that kind of concession should get more than a supposed 10 year truce. Perhaps a good strategy for Israel would be to withdraw from portions of the occupied territory and test the good faith of Hamas. If Hamas holds their end of the deal then perhaps more concession can be made. However, the statement by Hamas that they will never recognize Israel will probably be a non-starter from the beginning.
Reply

snakelegs
04-23-2008, 09:34 PM
i don't think israel will ever withdraw to the 67 borders. they are building new settlements even as i type this.
i also don't think hamas will ever recognise the state of israel.
i don't think there is a genuine desire for peace among the powers-that-be on either side.
(sorry to be so cheerful)
Reply

Trumble
04-23-2008, 09:48 PM
I think any settlement must ultimately require Israel to withdraw completely to the pre-1967 boundaries, but they will only do that if essentially forced to by international pressure, principally from the US. That's unlikely enough anyway, but with the ceasefire limited to 10 years (as you say, why?) it would never happen.

It's pretty much a 'nothing' offer from Hamas. The recognition thing they might get around by just forgetting it as long as they don't actually start shooting, but the ten year limitation is ludicrous. You either want peace, or you don't. It seems Hamas don't.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
The_Prince
04-23-2008, 10:42 PM
Hamas are following the prophet Muhammad's example in the truce, the prophet made a 10 year truce with the qurayshi pagans, at hudaybiyah, which brought peace.

lets be honest, this is the MID-EAST, peace there never lasts for more than 2 years, so to get a 10 year deal is very good, and theres nothing to say the truce will not be renewed at the end of 10 years.
Reply

barney
04-23-2008, 10:57 PM
Pfft.
Why attack in 67 then?

Nahh, they simply want the Jews in the sea. They admit it openly to themselves. Nice ruse of war, but you try dismally to destroy someone four times, well big surprise, the fifth time they wait for you to stop shooting before talking.

Utter no-brainer. Hey! if I hand over my leg will you stop chopping me up!

Edit: to add the standard acceptance that the IDF are not saints and need to control their troops better.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-24-2008, 04:50 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Nahh, they simply want the Jews in the sea.
What a load of BS. Total twaddle. This is filthy Zionist propaganda at it's best and to be fair a frequently asked Zionist question which if rephrased reads like this:

"Why do Palestinians want to destroy Israel and drive Israeli Jews into the sea?"

Full answer:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/A.../Story417.html

And I quote a few excerpts:
Are you aware that Israeli Zionists, during the 1948 war, pushed over tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees into the sea? For a long time, Zionists have been propagating fear based propaganda to their followers, probably this picture can tell you a bit of the real story:


It's misleading and unfair to focus on what Palestinians might allegedly do in the future, while the past and present of Palestinians are filled with Israeli war crimes. These types of accusations are meant to deflect and confuse the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The core issues of the conflict are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people for the past five decades.

Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:

* In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims p. 144).


MORE ETHNIC CLEANSING QUOTES:
On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)


Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)


There is no denying the fact that some Palestinians think as many Zionists do (a Palestinian version of Zionism), and very possibly they do so because they were the victims of such treatment themselves. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, you have to agree that it is human nature to respond to terror with terror, and to racism with racism, these are facts that all decent people must accept and deplore simultaneously. No matter what the circumstances are (such as the urge to seek vengeance, revenge, reprisals, etc.), targeting civilians to achieve political or military objectives, in either war or non-war situations, is terrorism. It should be noted that the Palestinian people have been on the receiving end of Israeli terrorism (the chief aspect of which are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of 8.5 million Palestinians) for the past five decades.
Reply

Trumble
04-24-2008, 06:58 AM
Originally Posted by The_Prince
lets be honest, this is the MID-EAST, peace there never lasts for more than 2 years, so to get a 10 year deal is very good, and theres nothing to say the truce will not be renewed at the end of 10 years.
You might have a point if a truce/ceasefire was all that was involved. It is not. Hamas are asking for a lot in return for very little, and it would be totally politically unacceptable in Israel to accept anything short of a permanent settlement. It doesn't make that much all round.. if the 'deal' would be limited to ten years are Hamas agreeing that that Israel can move back into Gaza and the West Bank afterwards? Of course not.
Reply

barney
04-24-2008, 07:34 AM
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/200...alem-well.html

Hamas does want Gaza, they do want the West bank, but thats not their long term goal.
The "Driving the jews into the sea" although it has been said by many including PLO, Black september and Hamas leadership members, i dont envision as the palastinians herding the Jews into the waves at gunpoint. More as a plan that, when they have full political control of all of "palastine", the jews are going to want to leave.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-24-2008, 09:32 AM
Originally Posted by barney
The "Driving the jews into the sea" although it has been said by many including PLO, Black september and Hamas leadership members, i dont envision as the palastinians herding the Jews into the waves at gunpoint.
There is no denying the fact that some Palestinians think as many Zionists do (a Palestinian version of Zionism), and very possibly they do so because they were the victims of such treatment themselves.
Reply

Keltoi
04-24-2008, 11:45 AM
Then one must deal with reality. Israeli isn't going anywhere. The Palestinians, Hamas in particular, can either acknowledge that and seriously try to pursue a peace deal, or keep the status quo going and watch as more people die.
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 01:54 AM
I would grant Hamas these terms, draw back to the borders and recognize Palestine as a state. The second a rocket lad in Israel I would declare and fight a total war.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-25-2008, 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
I would grant Hamas these terms, draw back to the borders and recognize Palestine as a state. The second a rocket lad in Israel I would declare and fight a total war.
Sure BUT remember to pose this threat of full waged war during the agreement. And if a rocket does fall on Israeli soil, pls do an investigation to confirm whether Hamas was behind it or not. The crude rockets are not fired by Hamas, but by Al Aqsa martyrs, which are allied with the collaborationist Fatah movement.
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 03:30 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
Sure BUT remember to pose this threat of full waged war during the agreement. And if a rocket does fall on Israeli soil, pls do an investigation to confirm whether Hamas was behind it or not. The crude rockets are not fired by Hamas, but by Al Aqsa martyrs, which are allied with the collaborationist Fatah movement.
Did England check with Ireland to make sure it was the IRA blowing up buildings? Aren't Al Aqsa Martys palestinian?
Reply

mas
04-25-2008, 04:06 AM
isreal never keep promises who we lying to ! .. this how it is ,.. there will never be peace... cuz obviously when someone come to ur land n takes it.. then try to kill ya n take u out .. .. should they be happy about it. i dont think so.. this how i see it.. no major religion should rule pali .. it should be open for everyone.................... let them fight at the end there will be a winner... n death war will keep going on cuz no one wanna help.... ppl show wat they wanna show .. the only way to see the story from both sides .. i watch our arabic news channels ... like aljazeera or al alam.... unlike others.. u think like cnn there isnt any war going on.................... watever peace
Reply

barney
04-25-2008, 07:16 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Did England check with Ireland to make sure it was the IRA blowing up buildings? Aren't Al Aqsa Martys palestinian?
Bad analogy since the IRA were not the Government of Ireland. Hamas are the Govt of the Palastinians.

Hence Hamas is either ordering the attacks in which case they are at war with Israel and Israel has the right to Invade them and destroy the country.
Or they are failing to prevent the attacks , in which case Israel has the right to self defence which may include the above.

Israel wont of course do that! World opinion prevents it.
I'm Trying to think of another country in the whole world that has High Explosive missiles crashing into it evry day from across a border and is reacting with the same restraint as the bloodthirsty Jews.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-25-2008, 10:40 AM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Did England check with Ireland to make sure it was the IRA blowing up buildings? Aren't Al Aqsa Martys palestinian?
Your truce is with Hamas not with the entire Palestinian individuals. Pakistan just brokered a peace deal with Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistani Taliban yesterday. Today we had a car bomb exploding in the city of Mardan. SO, who is resposnible? Pakistan believes it's not the Pakistani Taliban and will carry out an investigation. Mostly it's believed it was the work of other splinter groups.

DID England had a truce with the IRA? I don't really know much about that conflict.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-25-2008, 10:48 AM
Originally Posted by barney
I'm Trying to think of another country in the whole world that has High Explosive missiles crashing into it every day from across a border and is reacting with the same restraint as the bloodthirsty Jews.
High explosive missiles??? Are you referring to home made crude rockets? Qassam rockets are symbolic. They do little or no damage. Israeli Defence Ministry Director-General, Yaakov Toran is quoted as saying, "We need to remember that Qassams are more a psychological than a physical threat. Statistically they cause the fewest losses. . . " I believe they have caused the death of 13-15 people since 2002. Israel easily triples the amount in a single day.

Qassam were first fired into Israeli housing projects in 2002, and are extremely inaccurate, short-range homemade rockets. They are not Hezbollah-style Katyushas. When they are fired from Gaza, they are generally fired toward the Israeli settlement of Sderot, located upon the ashes of the Palestinian village of Nadj. Jewish terrorists drove Palestinians out of Nadj in 1948. Najd is one of 418 ethnically cleansed villages. Not a trace of this peaceful farming community remains.
Reply

Keltoi
04-25-2008, 01:29 PM
Let's not pretend Qassam rockets don't kill people...
Reply

Trumble
04-25-2008, 05:44 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
DID England had a truce with the IRA? I don't really know much about that conflict.
Yes, at the end, but not on any sort of even footing. The IRA just ran out of enough people who thought that "armed struggle" would achieve anything more than lots of prematurely dead people on both sides. Those who were left were generally far more interested in preserving their potentially lucrative criminal rackets than in the cause. The Republicans realised that eventually demographic changes would prove a stronger weapon than bombs and bullets.. it might take a while, that's all.
Reply

barney
04-25-2008, 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Let's not pretend Qassam rockets don't kill people...
http://www.kh-uia.org.il/Crisisnew/a...6.6.07_eng.htm
Ahh yes, theyre Symbolic. They are filled with custard.
Just because Hamas is useless at fighting, even against unarmed civilians, it dosnt mean they are not trying. They have to resort to random rocket lobbing at civilians and cowardly suicide vests on bus's , Rifles in schools etc, because they know that if they were to take on someone who could vaguely defend themselves they would end up getting hammered....yet again.

Symbolic indeed! Its amazing how far some people will strech rather than condem deliberate targeting of innocents. Or are they combatants because theyre simply Jews?
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-25-2008, 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Bad analogy since the IRA were not the Government of Ireland. Hamas are

Israel wont of course do that! World opinion prevents it.
I'm Trying to think of another country in the whole world that has High Explosive missiles crashing into it evry day from across a border and is reacting with the same restraint as the bloodthirsty Jews.

I swear, you must be talking about another Israel. For, the Israel in your mind would have awarded a noble peace prize by know!
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-25-2008, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by barney
http://www.kh-uia.org.il/Crisisnew/a...6.6.07_eng.htm
Ahh yes, theyre Symbolic. They are filled with custard.
Just because Hamas is useless at fighting, even against unarmed civilians, it dosnt mean they are not trying. They have to resort to random rocket lobbing at civilians and cowardly suicide vests on bus's , Rifles in schools etc, because they know that if they were to take on someone who could vaguely defend themselves they would end up getting hammered....yet again.

Symbolic indeed! Its amazing how far some people will strech rather than condem deliberate targeting of innocents. Or are they combatants because theyre simply Jews?
You mean like the Brave soldiers that shoot little kids throwing rocks? getta outta here with that man! I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen to the Palestinians( as if there not already being punished) if we had the likes of you in power!
Reply

Izyan
04-25-2008, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
You mean like the Brave soldiers that shoot little kids throwing rocks? getta outta here with that man! I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen to the Palestinians( as if there not already being punished) if we had the likes of you in power!
Did not David slay Goliath with a rock?
Reply

nogod2006
04-25-2008, 10:19 PM
one quick question.
during the islamic conquests you muslims established an empire that spanned from spain to china...........but now when people are taking there land back you have a problem ................so please enlighten me why should we give the land that you stole from us in the first place........that we took back.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-26-2008, 01:57 AM
Originally Posted by barney
http://www.kh-uia.org.il/Crisisnew/a...6.6.07_eng.htm
Ahh yes, theyre Symbolic. They are filled with custard.
Just because Hamas is useless at fighting, even against unarmed civilians, it dosnt mean they are not trying. They have to resort to random rocket lobbing at civilians and cowardly suicide vests on bus's , Rifles in schools etc, because they know that if they were to take on someone who could vaguely defend themselves they would end up getting hammered....yet again.

Symbolic indeed! Its amazing how far some people will strech rather than condem deliberate targeting of innocents. Or are they combatants because theyre simply Jews?
When someone occupies your land, makes you a refugee in your own land, responds with armor piercing bullets when you resist; then maybe you would be able to understand their position. You are not as naive or stupid as you are pretending to be.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-26-2008, 02:00 AM
Originally Posted by nogod2006
one quick question.
during the islamic conquests you muslims established an empire that spanned from spain to china...........but now when people are taking there land back you have a problem ................so please enlighten me why should we give the land that you stole from us in the first place........that we took back.
Oh, GOD! You know what. Go to your Zionists chat room and have fun there but if you come here don't start crapping, alright. Here, read this and understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict For Beginners
http://www.palestineremembered.com/A.../Story725.html
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-26-2008, 02:01 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Let's not pretend Qassam rockets don't kill people...
Let's not pretend that there are NOT in retaliation to Israeli aggression and terrorism. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, you have to agree that it is human nature to respond to terror with terror, and to racism with racism, these are facts that all decent people must accept and deplore simultaneously. No matter what the circumstances are (such as the urge to seek vengeance, revenge, reprisals, etc.), targeting civilians to achieve political or military objectives, in either war or non-war situations, is terrorism.

It should be noted that the Palestinian people have been on the receiving end of Israeli terrorism (the chief aspect of which are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of 8.5 million Palestinians) for the past five decades.
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-26-2008, 06:29 AM
Originally Posted by nogod2006
one quick question.
during the islamic conquests you muslims established an empire that spanned from spain to china...........but now when people are taking there land back you have a problem ................so please enlighten me why should we give the land that you stole from us in the first place........that we took back.

who on earth is us? what stolen land are you talking about? Jews were allowed to live in the Muslims lands such as Palestine, zionists disrupted this balance by expelling thousands of people from their homes and then called russians, brits and germans, etc to come and occupy the land of palestine.....You will also find most Muslims don't live on stolen land, Pakistanis, Somalis, Indonesians, etc all live on the their ancestors. Nevertheless, if we to use this ridiclous analogy, then my friend most of the people in the world including Brits, Germans, Americans will have vacate their land, since man has been taking land from each other since the start of time!
Reply

Keltoi
04-26-2008, 06:42 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
Let's not pretend that there are NOT in retaliation to Israeli aggression and terrorism. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, you have to agree that it is human nature to respond to terror with terror, and to racism with racism, these are facts that all decent people must accept and deplore simultaneously. No matter what the circumstances are (such as the urge to seek vengeance, revenge, reprisals, etc.), targeting civilians to achieve political or military objectives, in either war or non-war situations, is terrorism.

It should be noted that the Palestinian people have been on the receiving end of Israeli terrorism (the chief aspect of which are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of 8.5 million Palestinians) for the past five decades.
Pointing to retaliation as a justification is pointless, no pun intended. This conflict has been a cycle of retaliation since it began, from both sides. When all the pointing fingers and self-righteous indignation has been exhausted, all that is left is peace or no peace. Throwing around words like "ethnic cleansing" may sound dramatic, but in reality that is all it is. A dramatic word without any basis in reality. The words "holocaust" and "ethnic cleansing" are thrown around so much these days that they have almost lost their meaning. Many people have died, on both sides.
Reply

barney
04-26-2008, 07:18 AM
Right so first theyre harmless symbolic figureheads of "resistance", then Ok...so they MIGHT kill a FEW people, but..<insert own side of story throwing out all other possibilities>

I can sit here and say with total confidence that there are some IDF soldiers who are violent callous scum. There are Israeli policies that are provocative and barbaric. Some IDF soldiers will have deliberatly shot dead unarmed kids. They hold the same sort of respect for me as a suicide bomber. Theres no difference what weapon you use, if its a JDAM guided bomb or a Quassam wobbly rocket. All that matters is intent.

Scummy Israeli murderers, (as opposed to the real soldiers in the IDF)

Okie, Ive slagged off the Israeli's. Now is it possible for anyone to condem the palastinians in unambigious terms, without fitting in words like justified response?

Nope.
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-26-2008, 07:55 AM
Nope!
Reply

Trumble
04-26-2008, 08:23 AM
Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Nevertheless, if we to use this ridiclous analogy, then my friend most of the people in the world including Brits, Germans, Americans will have vacate their land, since man has been taking land from each other since the start of time!
Quite true, of course, but in claiming that it is a 'ridiculous analogy' you are committed to putting some sort of time factor on it. At what point does land cease being 'stolen'? After a generation or two? A hundred years or a few hundred years? A thousand years? Would you accept that, however long it may be, the Israeli presence will be perfectly legitimate after that time expires? It's an uncomfortable question.. and one that suggests the analogy might not be quite so 'ridiculous' after all.
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-26-2008, 08:41 AM
^^The day 99% of Palestinians and other neighbouring people consider themselves as Israelis and speak adopt Jewish culture. If there was a seizable majority or even half of the population that belonged to native Indians, then today America would be a disputed land. Similarly, most of South America would be also be disputed land. It's not, because the settlers have either wiped out the indegenous, assimilated them to their culture and established cultural hegemony over large swathes of land. Jewish culture( or at least the Talmudic interpretation) is quite isolationist and clearly the state of Israel is built on the belief of cultural superiority and sheer armed force. In other words, Jewish caps aren't suddenly going to become popular fashion in the Middle East. How long that occupation can be sustained in it's current light remains to be seen...given the over reliance on military might alone...and the fact they have already withdrawn from South Lebanon and the Gaza.. ........The Chinese seem to be doing a more effective job( not praising them) of promoting their culture vis-a -vis Tibetan culture........
Reply

Keltoi
04-26-2008, 03:13 PM
Israel withdrew from south Lebanon and Gaza because they took control of it during a war waged against them, and occupying that territory wasn't popular with the Israeli people. They did not occupy that land in an attempt to assimilate anyone.

The Native American experience is similar, in that the tribes used terrorism(meaning the killing of civilians) in an attempt to "retaliate" against the U.S. government. All it did was give the U.S. military a free hand in its dealing with them. Meaning eradication to a large degree. When you lose the moral high ground it is almost impossible to get it back. The Palestinians have lost the moral high ground in my opinion. Now all we have is moral "low" ground on both sides.
Reply

nogod2006
04-26-2008, 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
who on earth is us? what stolen land are you talking about? Jews were allowed to live in the Muslims lands such as Palestine, zionists disrupted this balance by expelling thousands of people from their homes and then called russians, brits and germans, etc to come and occupy the land of palestine.....You will also find most Muslims don't live on stolen land, Pakistanis, Somalis, Indonesians, etc all live on the their ancestors. Nevertheless, if we to use this ridiclous analogy, then my friend most of the people in the world including Brits, Germans, Americans will have vacate their land, since man has been taking land from each other since the start of time!
well my dear son.....................its seems to me that you lack the ability to what people call " to read between the lines" and as such i shall, all in the sense of helping others, attempt to spell it out to you. so here it goes......
you(as in the muslims) took it by force.........then we took it back........and thats how the world is......so deal with it. furthermore, i would like to add that if the arabs stop blowing themselves up the jewish people would more then be happy to return the gesture and let you live in their land.
Reply

barney
04-26-2008, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Nope!
LOl...I knew it!
Theyre absolutly perfect arnt they!
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-27-2008, 05:04 AM
Originally Posted by nogod2006
well my dear son.....................its seems to me that you lack the ability to what people call " to read between the lines" and as such i shall, all in the sense of helping others, attempt to spell it out to you. so here it goes......
you(as in the muslims) took it by force.........then we took it back........and thats how the world is......so deal with it. furthermore, i would like to add that if the arabs stop blowing themselves up the jewish people would more then be happy to return the gesture and let you live in their land.
Where were you and your Jewish scumbags(Zionists) when the blood thirsty Crusaders captured Jerusalem. Did you come to it's defense? Where were you when they slaughtered every inhabitant of the city mercilessly? Where were you? It was us Muslims as in "Salahuddin" who reconquered Jerusalem from the bloody Crusaders.

If you return the land, there would be no suicide bombings in the first place. Occupation leads to terrorism. You keep on building settlements. Where is the right of return of the refugees? 1967 borders?
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-27-2008, 07:07 AM
Originally Posted by nogod2006
well my dear son.....................its seems to me that you lack the ability to what people call " to read between the lines" and as such i shall, all in the sense of helping others, attempt to spell it out to you. so here it goes......
you(as in the muslims) took it by force.........then we took it back........and thats how the world is......so deal with it. furthermore, i would like to add that if the arabs stop blowing themselves up the jewish people would more then be happy to return the gesture and let you live in their land.
I like you views, for the man who doesn't hide his real views should be applauded. Unlike the other Zionists on this forum who hide and obsfucate around all matter of ideas, in order to justify Zionism. Nevertheless, perhaps my history isn't good, but please do explain to me, when did Muslims forcefully take Palestine from you, ie as in the Jews? I seem to remember that Jews had long split into different tribes. Didn't the Romans control Jerusalem at the time of the Muslim takeover? Moreover, when Umar Bin Khattab entered Jerusalem he gave rights for the Christians and Jews to worship peacefully in the holy city. The treaties He signed are still up in that city. Then it was the turn of the Crusaders as you that u know Salahudiin liberated the city. Thus, there is no comparison between how the Muslims took over the holy city and the way you Russians, Germans, Italians and other European Talmudists entered that particular city and the awful manner in which you treat not only the Muslims but Christians too( till this day). Indeed, justice shall come once again, and I hope that you and I live to see it!
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-27-2008, 07:08 AM
Originally Posted by barney
LOl...I knew it!
Theyre absolutly perfect arnt they!
You mean the Zionists are perfect?
Reply

barney
04-27-2008, 01:20 PM
Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
You mean the Zionists are perfect?
No the Palastinians. Blowing up schoolbuses is "Justified resistance" and machinegunning shoppers is "blessed Jihad"
I'm saying it's easy for a non-muslim, even a jew, to berate the jews, condem their actions and speak out clearly against them.
Who can condem the palastinians? Few westerners unless they want to be labled neo-con facists.
No muslim can condem another it would seem?
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
04-27-2008, 01:39 PM
If you look in the right places, you'll find evidences of a plethora of condemnations, including those of high profile scholars. You'll find books, cassetes and debates on terrorism and refutations of suicide bombing, namely; from the some of the some of the major scholars in Saudi Arabia.

Though it must be said you'll also find arguments in support off. As, after all, all ideologies and religions are subject to different interpretations, including the Jewish treatment of " gentiles". But if you use simpleton arguments based on preconceived prejudices such as " No Muslim can condemn another Muslim: this information will probably be ignored and rendered irrelevant! I would have also thought the Muslims have been doing nothing but apologising and condeming since the events of that particular Tuesday morning( 9/11)!
Reply

barney
04-27-2008, 02:06 PM
Obviously some muslims condem palastinian terrorism. i've seen my share of it, and it is by searching in the right places. The conclusions that I draw are that when a small percentage of scholars, bless them, speak ot, theres usually a caveat to their condemnation. "This makes the bombers as bad almost as the Israelis" or "Responding to indescriminate death with indescriminate death is a mistaken tactic"

In my researches and indeed from speaking to people on these very forums. I havnt met a muslim who will just say,"Bombing townships is wrong. period"
Reply

nogod2006
04-28-2008, 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
Where were you and your Jewish scumbags(Zionists) when the blood thirsty Crusaders captured Jerusalem. Did you come to it's defense? Where were you when they slaughtered every inhabitant of the city mercilessly? Where were you? It was us Muslims as in "Salahuddin" who reconquered Jerusalem from the bloody Crusaders.

If you return the land, there would be no suicide bombings in the first place. Occupation leads to terrorism. You keep on building settlements. Where is the right of return of the refugees? 1967 borders?
my point was that the jewish people are more then willing to let the muslims live in israel if they refrain from all acts of terror.furthermore, why would the jewish people give the land back if they took over it the way you muslims took over it.
Reply

SATalha
04-28-2008, 12:45 AM
No No the Israelis are doing a fine and dandy job at promoting peace in the region. Much better then the Muslims ever did in history.
Reply

جوري
04-28-2008, 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by barney

In my researches and indeed from speaking to people on these very forums. I havnt met a muslim who will just say,"Bombing townships is wrong. period"
well it is all patently wrong!.. that is just not good warfare, at least not khalid ibn ilwaleed style and far are we from the days of chivalry!

Be that as it may, we are at war with the colonial settler zionist state and view them as the enemy.. they simply won't dissolve into our land and all is forgot..
There is really nothing to apologize for or condemn.. I don't even see why there is room for discussion?
you should have these topics on Israeli forums, ask them of the U.S.S liberty, the bombing of king David hotel the British 'good will ambassadors' that helped them with their illegal state, ask them of the Lavon affair, ask them of the Haganah irgun and stern gang.. ask them why since the U.S is their greatest friend and ally, not to mention major funnler of tax payers money while loads die of starvation every day in Africa, do they still feel the need to spy http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/
FBI looks at Pentagon worker in Israel spy probe

and then we can speak of Muslim disapprobation of these vile acts..


cheers
Reply

SATalha
04-28-2008, 12:57 AM
Hey can someone let me occupy their house.............they can get the toilet? Yeah they can live in the toilet...while i occupy their house. Good deal for me, we should be able to live in peace.
Reply

The_Prince
04-28-2008, 02:35 PM
Originally Posted by nogod2006
well my dear son.....................its seems to me that you lack the ability to what people call " to read between the lines" and as such i shall, all in the sense of helping others, attempt to spell it out to you. so here it goes......
you(as in the muslims) took it by force.........then we took it back........and thats how the world is......so deal with it. furthermore, i would like to add that if the arabs stop blowing themselves up the jewish people would more then be happy to return the gesture and let you live in their land.
you stupid zionist you think you sound smart with your Condescending language?

just today 4 palestinian children were killed, offcourse thats okay right? keep talking too big for your head because the zionist down fall will come one day, and indeed that is how the world works, the oppressed rise and kick the a$$ of the savage barbaric oppressor and occupyer who murder children and mothers on a daily basis then turn around and act like they are the peaceful ones and the victims.

secondly you peon with a worms brain the land isnt theirs, get me one of these zionists and I CHALLENGE YOU TO ASK THEM WHERE THEIR GRANDFATHER AND GREAT GRANDFATHER WERE BORN, not one of them will say palestine, it will either be Iran, Morroco, or somewhere in Europe.

the land was never yours, and never will be yours, and we will take it back one day from you scum bag phsyo muderers, so dont worry keep talking like a jacka$$ we will see who has the last laugh when ur face is under our boots.
Reply

S_87
04-28-2008, 02:47 PM
ok they have asked so cant go back but after this i dont think they should ask for any truce. they have asked before enough and israel has been ruling the roost so before it becomes begging they should tell israel bascially ......... you we dont and cant have peace. no more asking.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-29-2008, 05:47 AM
Given how censor happy this board has been in the past, I am shocked that this thread has not been closed. People are starting to make threats in here...

As for me, I can see fault on both sides. I've got no horse in this race, so I can look at this objectively and see that both Israel and Palestinians are acting poorly and shoulder their share of blame.

I can't respect palestinians so long as they engage in terrorist activity.

I can't respect Israel so long as it has a population of people contained in concentrated areas and not given equal status and voting rightsl Either give Palestine its own country or make all palestinains equal citizens. As it is now, this is complete repression and its shocking that the media manages to warp people around the world into thinking otherwise.
Reply

Keltoi
04-29-2008, 01:45 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Given how censor happy this board has been in the past, I am shocked that this thread has not been closed. People are starting to make threats in here...

As for me, I can see fault on both sides. I've got no horse in this race, so I can look at this objectively and see that both Israel and Palestinians are acting poorly and shoulder their share of blame.

I can't respect palestinians so long as they engage in terrorist activity.

I can't respect Israel so long as it has a population of people contained in concentrated areas and not given equal status and voting rightsl Either give Palestine its own country or make all palestinains equal citizens. As it is now, this is complete repression and its shocking that the media manages to warp people around the world into thinking otherwise.
On the issue of citizenship, why would a state grant that status to a segment of the population who are obviously hostile to that state? It would be like giving Hamas IDs and an open window to attack Israeli citizens in Israel proper. Not exactly a smart strategy in the context of protecting Israeli citizens.

Of course, the Palestinians want their own state(supposedly), so granting them citizenship wouldn't solve much except to create the problem I mentioned above.
Reply

islamirama
04-29-2008, 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I can't respect palestinians so long as they engage in terrorist activity
.

.









Reply

MTAFFI
04-29-2008, 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
what a sad image

what a sad excuse

you as a muslim should know that suicide is not justifiable, it goes against our beliefs

Life is precious and is a gift from Allah (swt) and should not be taken lightly

Someday the oppression will end, but your graphic will not be the path to that
Reply

islamirama
04-29-2008, 02:52 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
what a sad image

what a sad excuse

you as a muslim should know that suicide is not justifiable, it goes against our beliefs

Life is precious and is a gift from Allah (swt) and should not be taken lightly

Someday the oppression will end, but your graphic will not be the path to that
I don't believe in suicide bombing but sadly that was the only image i had that fit well as are response. The last picture should be of a hamas member, armed to fight back as legitimate resistance and not "terrorism" as the occupiers call it.
Reply

barney
04-29-2008, 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
well it is all patently wrong!.. that is just not good warfare, at least not khalid ibn ilwaleed style and far are we from the days of chivalry!

Be that as it may, we are at war with the colonial settler zionist state and view them as the enemy.. they simply won't dissolve into our land and all is forgot..
There is really nothing to apologize for or condemn.. I don't even see why there is room for discussion?
you should have these topics on Israeli forums, ask them of the U.S.S liberty, the bombing of king David hotel the British 'good will ambassadors' that helped them with their illegal state, ask them of the Lavon affair, ask them of the Haganah irgun and stern gang.. ask them why since the U.S is their greatest friend and ally, not to mention major funnler of tax payers money while loads die of starvation every day in Africa, do they still feel the need to spy http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/
FBI looks at Pentagon worker in Israel spy probe

and then we can speak of Muslim disapprobation of these vile acts..


cheers
Not "Your Land" You used to share it. The "World Government" gave it to Israel.
Fine , your at war. Then attack. Get attacking the IDF. Fight like soldiers and not like terrorists.
I do ask those questions on Jewish forums actually. I am a spammer of many forums. They can no more justify the Stern Gangs actions than they can bulldozing a house they know has a family in it, or a Palastinian can justify shooting up a school.

Starvation in Africa? Whats that got to do with the subject?? Whilst you mention it, who is Africas biggest donator of aid? What do the Muslim Nations do for africa?
America spys on everyone. Evryone spys on Evryone. Potrugal spies on Venuzuala, Egypt spys on Sweden. Crikey! Get some geopolitical knowlage already.

What you could condem is the slaughtering of innocent kids. With a nice easy simple, no-caveat condemnation. Can you do that?
Reply

جوري
04-29-2008, 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Not "Your Land" You used to share it. The "World Government" gave it to Israel.
'world government' has no jurisprudence over Muslim land!


Fine , your at war. Then attack. Get attacking the IDF. Fight like soldiers and not like terrorists.
that is funny ain't it? considering whether elected or not, they are deemed terrorists.. I think you got your wires crossed.. Hamas are what the people want.. that is democracy so deal with it!
I do ask those questions on Jewish forums actually. I am a spammer of many forums. They can no more justify the Stern Gangs actions than they can bulldozing a house they know has a family in it, or a Palastinian can justify shooting up a school.
lol.. alot of good that does.. they can't justify it, but do it anyway and on daily basis.. surely you can find yourself some vids from youtube that will not make it to fox.. or would you like some samples of daily atrocities??

Starvation in Africa? Whats that got to do with the subject?? Whilst you mention it, who is Africas biggest donator of aid? What do the Muslim Nations do for africa?
gee I don't know.. seems oxymoronic to receive aid and still be starving no? what does it have to do with the subject?.. I say plenty, for starters a conundrum really why my tax money gets funneled to foster an illegal settler state, while averting responsibility toward poorer countries, that are actually in need of aid!
as for doing charity, last I am told, it counts more when you are quiet about it, not by wearing a negligé and flaunting it on an award show for benefaction.

America spys on everyone. Evryone spys on Evryone. Potrugal spies on Venuzuala, Egypt spys on Sweden. Crikey! Get some geopolitical knowlage already.
You are a funny 'man' I don't think you are suited for anything save hosting children's parties, if you can actually manage not to send the little tots afright! I think you are clueless as to what is going on in your own backyard, let alone the rest of the world!

What you could condem is the slaughtering of innocent kids. With a nice easy simple, no-caveat condemnation. Can you do that?
Are they innocent only when they are israeli? frankly, it is very difficult to arouse any feelings short of complete disgust for folks who fancy they are the only ones to be regarded as human beings!

cheers
Reply

MTAFFI
04-29-2008, 08:07 PM
Originally Posted by islamirama
I don't believe in suicide bombing but sadly that was the only image i had that fit well as are response. The last picture should be of a hamas member, armed to fight back as legitimate resistance and not "terrorism" as the occupiers call it.
i can agree with that, thank you for the clarification :)
Reply

barney
04-29-2008, 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
'world government' has no jurisprudence over Muslim land!



that is funny ain't it? considering whether elected or not, they are deemed terrorists.. I think you got your wires crossed.. Hamas are what the people want.. that is democracy so deal with it!

lol.. alot of good that does.. they can't justify it, but do it anyway and on daily basis.. surely you can find yourself some vids from youtube that will not make it to fox.. or would you like some samples of daily atrocities??



gee I don't know.. seems oxymoronic to receive aid and still be starving no? what does it have to do with the subject?.. I say plenty, for starters a conundrum really why my tax money gets funneled to foster an illegal settler state, while averting responsibility toward poorer countries, that are actually in need of aid!
as for doing charity, last I am told, it counts more when you are quiet about it, not by wearing a negligé and flaunting it on an award show for benefaction.


You are a funny 'man' I don't think you are suited for anything save hosting children's parties, if you can actually manage not to send the little tots afright! I think you are clueless as to what is going on in your own backyard, let alone the rest of the world!


Are they innocent only when they are israeli? frankly, it is very difficult to arouse any feelings short of complete disgust for folks who fancy they are the only ones to be regarded as human beings!

cheers
So Muslims are exempt from the Decisions of the rest of the world? Yeah, I know Israel is breaking UN resolutions. Thats to be condemned too. At least theyre putting up excuses for it rather than saying "Who is the world to tell us anything...we are not party to their rulings" as you say.

As i have said before, They are being deemed terrorists because the alternative is to accept that the Government of a forign nation is making war on them.
The time honoured way to do that is to retaliate with the countrys military.
If israel does that then we would have a five or six day campaign with thousands of muslim dead and the palastinians would be back over the border into Jordan and eygpt. Jordan kicked them out years ago for all the trouble and deaths they caused. Your saying you want a proper war. its a war that would end in disaster for the palastinians. easy to say if your not a palastinian, but the whole nation exists on israels restraint.Despite being attacked by a foriegn power.
If France was lobbing symbolic rockets of resistance against the UK, we wouldnt simply take out the Government ministers as they drove home from work with guided missiles. There would be landings on the beach and regime toppeling.

Israel cant justify the bulldozing of a house with kids in it. They can justify the buldozing of a house if they havnt got a UN resolution forbidding it.
They however pulled out of several settlements last year. Did that stop the attacks? Not a jot. I refuse to support any israeli atrocity. I support their right to defend themselves.

The Starving palastinians. Who is starving them? The israeli's who for years have provided them with everything. They have provided themselves with pretty much nothing except ammo. The USA,UK, Germany etc will give $1200 of money for each $1 the Arab nations give. Iraq , Syria, Iran, Saudi, they all gave aid to palastine. $20000 to families of suicide bombers. Hey! Become a martyer, gain paradise and your family get 200 years pay in one lump sum.
Hungry palastinians? Dont worry! Your brothers will give you all the 7.62mm ammo you can eat. Stick the brass cartriges together and make a school!

My attempts at Kids parties failed badly after i ate the cake and then the Kids in rapid sucession, I intend to stick to my career of being live bait at Gator world.

Palastinian Kids are innocent victims, even when from morning time they are preached hatred, go to school to read about murdering, stop for prayers to kill the jews and come home to relax to the Pioneers of Tommorow on TV. Despite this , its the Adults fault for feeding them hatred. Take a look at comparisons between Israeli kids schoolbooks and the pallys books. See for yourself what they are taught. Getting fed this diet is no excuse for an IDF mistake killing them. It's no good saying "isnt their blood worth as much", when you beleive a jewish childs is worth less.
Reply

جوري
04-29-2008, 09:34 PM
I read alot of preachy blah blah blah from a clueless man.. I think the best response for posts like these are equally voluminous ones with some actual fact in lieu of your subjective opinion..

Myths and Realities about Israel



Myth No. 1: About UN Partition Resolution
The UN voted in 1947 to create the State of Israel in the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Israel accepted the compromise while the Arabs rejected it.

REALITY: The 1947 UN resolution is a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council resolution. The UN General Assembly can only make recommendations. Recommendations have no obligatory character. Member states are free to accept or reject them.
Israel’s apologists are quick to say that Israel accepted this compromise. The Partition Plan granted 52% of Palestine to the Jews who were 30% of the population and owned no more than 6% of the land. This is a net gain on the part of Israel, not a compromise.
Israel’s apologists are quick to claim that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Ben-Gurion himself in Rebirth and Destiny of Israel wrote: “Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad” (p. 530). Israel’s military activity started well before any attack by the Arab armies.
Israel’s apologists are quick to accuse Jordan of occupying and annexing what is now called the West Bank. While not a single Arab soldier entered the area allotted to Israel in the UN resolution, Israel occupied and annexed areas in excess of what was allotted to it in the UN Partition Plan. These areas include, among other areas, the Arab cities of Nazareth, Jaffa, Acre, Lydda and Ramleh. Thus Israel expanded from 52% to 78%.
Moreover, according to the UN Partition Plan, 49% of the population of the Jewish state was supposed to be Arabs. Through a war of ethnic cleansing this percentage was reduced to 12%. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was the result of a deliberate master plan, code named Plan Dalet.
In light of all the above, it is ludicrous to pretend that Israel accepted UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947.



Myth No. 2: About Annexation
The military occupation of Palestinian territories has never been converted by Israel into an annexation.

REALITY: Immediately after the 1967 war, the Israeli government issued an order declaring that an area comprising the Old City of Jerusalem and some adjacent territory should be subject to the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel. Thus Israel expanded municipal East Jerusalem from 6 km2 to 73 km2 of the West Bank. Furthermore, Jewish colonization of East Jerusalem went beyond the extended municipal boundaries to include what Israel calls Greater and Metropolitan Jerusalem comprising 330 km2 and 665 km2, respectively.
The Annexation of the Old City of Jerusalem was carried out under the Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11 of June 27, 1967). Not only did Israel annex East Jerusalem but it also feverishly worked toward the judaization of its population by expropriating Arab land to build Jewish settlements.
As for the rest of the occupied territories, the real reason for not annexing them is the racist nature of the Zionist state. The only way for Israel to annex the occupied territories is by cleansing them of their indigenous inhabitants, following the pattern of 1948 (see Myth No. 1 above).
Furthermore, on December 14, 1981, Israel officialy annexed the Golan Heights. The legislation, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights was adopted by the Knesset by a majority of 63 against 21.



Myth No. 3: Jordan attacked first
Israel in 1967 notified Jordan that it wished to maintain non-belligerent policy between the two states and that Jordan nevertheless attacked Israel.

REALITY: “The pretence that Israel would not attack Jordan is belied by the secret decision adopted by the Israeli cabinet on June 4, 1967 (which was made public on June 4, 1972) to attack Egypt, Syria and Jordan on the following day” (Henry Cattan, Jerusalem, p.69).
Also, Israel was well aware that Jordan signed on May 30, 1967 a defense pact with Egypt, allowing Egyptians to take command of the Jordanian army.



Myth No. 4: Recognizing and making peace with Israel
When Egypt recognized and made peace with Israel in 1979 the entire Sinai was returned to Egypt.

REALITY: The purpose of such a statement is to give the impression that Israel is willing to withdraw from the land it occupied in exchange for peace. The return of the entire Sinai would be a proof of that. In this context, the name of Anwar Sadat is mentioned.
Jimmy Carter’s memoirs: Keeping the Faith: Memoirs of a President shatters this impression. Menachem Begin did not want to withdraw from the entire Sinai. For Israel to come to it senses, it necessitated the pressures that only an American President could have applied.
For Israel’s apologists to say that when the Palestinian Authority agreed to recognize and negotiate with Israel, Israel began to “transfer control of West Bank lands” is further evidence that Israel’s goal is not to achieve with the Palestinians a peace resembling the peace with Egypt, (the withdrawal from the entire occupied territories, similar to its withdrawal from the entire Sinai), but to establish another form of occupation.
Israel's defenders claim that by mid-2000 more than 90% of the Arab population of the West Bank and more than 25% of its land were under complete Palestinian control. This only demonstrates what Israel is really after: an indigenous authority controlling its indigenous population, while Israel continues to build Jewish settlements in the remaining 75% of Palestinian land. The result of such policy is the establishment of numerous disconnected Palestinian enclaves (bantustans) in a sea of settlements rendering the free movement of the Palestinians difficult, if not impossible.



Myth No. 5: Barak’s “unprecedented offer”
Israel made an “unprecedented offer” consisting of giving back 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Jerusalem itself would be partitioned into Israeli and Palestinians sectors.

REALITY: The Jerusalem that is being referred to here is just the Old City of Jerusalem, not the entire East and West Jerusalems. Not only will Israel keep West Jerusalem but it also wants to partition East Jerusalem. The Palestinians, by the way, accepted to give Israel sovereignty over the Jewish holy places, something that the Israelis refused to give to the Palestinians. They rather talked about “religious sovereignty” over Haram al-Sahrif, and “autonomy” over the Christians and Muslims quarters.
The 95% of the West Bank referred to is in fact 95% minus the expanded municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, that Israel has already annexed (see Myth No. 2 above), which makes Barak’s offer more like 85% of all the West Bank.
Furthermore, the so-called Palestinian state that would have been created according to the “unprecedented offer” would have control neither over its natural resources nor over it air space (For more details see: Camp David mythology)



Myth No. 6: Israel never target civilians
Israel does not deliberately target civilians.

REALITY: How else can we qualify dropping a 2,000 pound bomb on an apartment building in a civilian neighborhood supposedly to kill one “terrorist leader”?
Also, a Jan. 3, 2003 editorial in The Washington Post had this to say: “Israeli paramilitary forces have reportedly been operating something they call ‘the lottery,’ in which they detain Palestinians and order them to choose from pieces of paper labeled with punishments such as ‘broken leg’ and ‘smashed head.’ The practice was reported by an Israeli newspaper on Dec. 22, more than a week before Amran Abu Hamediye was beaten to death.” This is what a self-censorship press revealed. What is not being reported must be even worse.



Myth No. 7: The “only democracy”
Israel is the “only democracy” in the Middle East.

REALITY: How many times have Israel’s apologists repeated this slogan? In fact, Israel is not a democracy by Western standards. Not a single Western democracy occupies another people’s land, rules another people and subjects them to all kinds of humiliations, torture and mistreatment. Israel indeed is a democracy, but a democracy by Zionist standards, just as South Africa, under the White minority rule, was a democracy by apartheid standards. It is true that Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have the right to vote in Israel. So are all the citizens of the Arab countries. This however doesn’t make them democracies. In Israel, there is no equality between Jews and non-Jews. In a Jewish state, Jews are more equal than non-Jews. It has always been that way and unless Israel becomes the country of all its citizens, it will lack the characteristics of a Western democracy.




No justice in Israeli peace plan

presented at Camp David by Ehud Barak





It has been repeatedly said, as Dean Ungar put it in his Aug. 16 letter, that “the Palestinians rejected the most sweeping peace proposal ever offered by an Israeli government.”

Israel and its supporters should understand that the peace proposal whether it was the most sweeping or not is not the issue. The issue is that of justice. The issue is that Israel should comply with UN resolutions. But this is the last thing Israel wants. “Justice” never crossed Barak’s mind in Camp David. “Justice” is never mentioned in his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (July 30, 2001). As for complying with UN resolutions, Barak wrote that his offer “would have satisfied UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 as interpreted by the international community.” In his mind, the international community is probably made up of columnits like George Will, Cal Thomas or Charles Krauthammer.

Instead of just referring to this “offer” and characterizing it as “generous” or “unprecedented,” as some other apologists of Israel put it, it would have been more fitting that they tell us what this offer consisted of. But this is something they dare not do because it would expose its true nature: another form of occupation. Ed Krauss’s letter of Aug. 18 is a case in point.

First of all, this “most sweeping peace proposal” was never presented in writing, let alone accompanied with any maps. It was orally conveyed, which is a strange way of conducting serious negotiations.

Second, this “generous” offer consisted of dividing the West Bank into three separate cantons surrounded by Israel. So not only would the Palestinians have to cross Israel to go from the West Bank to Gaza, but also to go from one canton to another within the West Bank. Such an arrangement would have made the future Palestinian state less viable than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government. See map drawn up according to information from the Palestinian delegation. See map drawn up according to information from the Israeli delegation.

Third, according to this “unprecedented” offer, Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank in exchange of 1 percent of its own territory. In addition, it would control 10 percent of the West Bank in the form of a “long-term lease.” This area would mainly be located along the Jordan River, which meant that Israel would also control Palestine’s international borders. Furthermore, Israel “offered” to control the air space and the water resources of the new Palestinian state.

On the sensitive issue of the refugees, the proposal spoke only of a “satisfactory solution.” On East Jerusalem, the proposal allowed Palestinian sovereignty on isolated Palestinian neighborhoods, which meant that these neighborhoods would not only be separated from each other but also from the Palestinian state. As for the Haram al-Sharif, the Palestinians would only have custody over it.

By what measure can these proposals be considered fair? As Robert Malley, member of the American team in the Camp David summit, put it in his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (July 8, 2001), “the measure of Israel’s concessions ought not be how far it has moved from its own starting point, but how far it has moved toward a fair solution.” Given the above, these proposals are anything but fair. They perpetuate the occupation, albeit under another form, they do not allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and they sow the seeds of another conflict.

Another point that is often made is that the Palestinians didn’t make any concessions. This is not true. The Palestinian made the ultimate compromise, which is to recognize Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine. What the Israelis wanted them to do is to compromise the compromise, to compromise the remaining 22 percent. What the Palestinians could not have done was to compromise their fundamental rights and the establishment of a viable state.

Moreover, the Palestinians accepted that Israel annex parts of West Bank territories to accommodate the settlements in exchange of an equivalent amount of Israeli land. They accepted that Israel exercise sovereignty over Jerusalem’s Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall. They accepted that refugees exercise their right of return in a way that would not affect Israel’s demographic and security interests. Barak, however, declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem and its solution.

It is utterly wrong, misleading and unseemly to suggest that the Palestinians at Camp David kept saying “no” or did not present any concession. It is up to the Israelis, the party that holds all the cards, to decide whether they want a genuine peace based on justice or an indefinite conflict.

August 30, 2001


2. U.S. should see to its own needs
Even though the analysis of Ellen Singer (a member of the executive board of American for a Safe Israel) (letter of February 9), according to which "Israel gets only about $800 million to bolster its economy," is, at best, questionable, and, at worst, completely erroneous, let us, just for the sake of argument, suppose it is right. Ms. Singer's line of reasoning is that "more than 80 percent" of the military aid to Israel is "spent largely in the United States" and thus "responsible for creating thousands of jobs for Americans at U.S. corporations."

In 1985, Israel mobilized its U.S. lobby to block F-15 aircraft sales to the Saudis. They turned to the U.K. to buy instead the Tornados. In the same period, U.S. unwillingness (guess why?) to sell the short-range Lance missile led directly to Saudi purchase of the intermediate-range DF-3A (CSS-2) ballistic missile form China. Not only, because of Israel, did the United States lose billions of dollars and "thousands of jobs for American at U.S. corporations" but, more importantly, it lost whatever leverage it might have had since the Saudis purchased more dangerous equipment with fewer constraints attached.

As for the concept of Israel as a "strategic ally in the Middle East," if it had ever been true, it will soon be obsolete or irrelevant when the process of democratization in Eastern Europe becomes a permanent reality. In any case, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel reduces its ability to be a strategic asset.

The main purpose of foreign aid is to promote and serve U.S. interests in the world, not that of the Saudis or the Israelis. U.S. and Israeli interests cannot possibly be identical; if they were, Israel would have been the 51st state of the Union.

March 1, 1990

9. Alliance with Israel a liability
The $3.5 billion Israel receives from the United States, which is actually $4 billion, is not part of a loan on which Israel pays interest. It is an outright grant. The larger figure results from the 43 special laws Congress has passed solely for the benefit of Israel. Two reports by Congressional Research Studies published in the Congressional Record of May 1 give a full picture of all the special deals that benefit Israel.

In spite of all the good things Joy Greenhouse is telling us about Israel in her September 16 letter, Israel is still a liability in this crisis because the moment it takes a military action, the equation will change and chances are that the whole Arab world will rally behind Saddam Hussein.

David Menashi tries hard in his September 19 letter to perpetuate the myth that Israel is "the United States' only reliable ally in the region." Let's look at the facts:

In 1954, Israel agents firebombed American diplomatic establishments in Cairo and Alexandria to undermine the relations between the U.S. and Egypt; in the mid-1960s, Mossad was responsible for diverting uranium from the Nuclear Materials and Equipments Corp. in Apollo, Pa.; in 1967, Israeli war planes attempted to sink the U.S. intelligence ship Liberty, causing the death of 34 American seamen and 171 injuries; in 1986, Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy counterintelligence specialist, was caught after stealing thousands of highly classified documents for Israel; and finally, Victor Ostrovsky's book, By Way of Deception, states that Mossad knew about terrorist plans in 1983 to bomb the barracks in Beirut where 241 American Marines died, but failed to give proper warning, saying: "We're not there to protect Americans. They're a big country."

What kind of an ally is that?

September 28, 1990

my bad.. my computer crashed before I could ammend this.. but you get the general pic.. get read up first and then we can talk...
cheers

L i n k s

Organizations
UN Information System on the Question of Palestine: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF?OpenDatabase
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: http://www.washington-report.org
American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee: http://www.adc.org
Americans for Middle East Understanding: http://members.aol.com/ameulink/index.html
Council for National Interst: http://www.cnionline.org
Arab American Roman Catholic Community: http://www.albushra.org
Mid-East Realities: http://www.MiddleEast.org
Bat Shalom of the Jerusalem Link: http://www.batshalom.org
The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: http://www.btselem.org
Middle East Research and Information Project: http://www.merip.org
USS Liberty: http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty

Individuals
The Edward Said Archive: http://www.leb.net/tesa
The Chomsky Archive: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm
Norman Finkelstein: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com
Truth, Justice and Human Right in the the Middle East: http://www.mideastfacts.com
Ali Abunimah: uncovering media myths about the Middle East: http://www.abunimah.org/
Reply

barney
04-29-2008, 09:59 PM
The Voluminaritiness of posts is best not compared. I bow to your cut and paste skills and I thank you for the inclusion of your My Favorites Folder.

Chomsky is on my faves too as is the Hamas website and several other Palastinian ones.

I wasnt wishing to debate the validity of Israel or the lack of practical ummah support.
I was simply seeing if a straight "yeah, killing kids is bad" response could be gained.
Since it can't, theres not much more to be typed. :(
Reply

جوري
04-29-2008, 10:02 PM
Originally Posted by barney
theres not much more to be typed. :(
except for this 'agreed'!
Reply

Trumble
04-30-2008, 07:00 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
'world government' has no jurisprudence over Muslim land!
There is no such thing as "muslim land" any more than there is Christian land or Jewish land. There are only people the people who live on it at a particular point in time who may or may not be muslims, Christians, Jews or whatever. Like it or not (and I don't, in many cases) jurisdiction resides with those it always has resided with - those with the power to exercise it. That includes 'muslims' in many places and at many times.

The pretense that this is a primarily religious conflict and not a political one has done immense damage to any realistic chance of a settlement - which is, of course, exactly what those who try to portray it as such on both sides want. But the gullible rush onboard.. at the first mention of 'God's people', 'God's will' or whatever, reason circuits are disengaged and extreme self-righteousness amplifies the existing distrust and hatred.
Reply

islamirama
04-30-2008, 01:58 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
There is no such thing as "muslim land" any more than there is Christian land or Jewish land. There are only people the people who live on it at a particular point in time who may or may not be muslims, Christians, Jews or whatever. Like it or not (and I don't, in many cases) jurisdiction resides with those it always has resided with - those with the power to exercise it. That includes 'muslims' in many places and at many times.
There is no such thing as an "islamic land" because no one is ruling according to Islam. But there IS a thing as Muslim lands. All of the arab world and part of SE Asia is Muslim land. Turkey is Muslim land with 99.9% muslims being there. There is a christian land as well, all of Europe and UK is christian land.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2008, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
There is no such thing as "muslim land" any more than there is Christian land or Jewish land. There are only people the people who live on it at a particular point in time who may or may not be muslims, Christians, Jews or whatever. Like it or not (and I don't, in many cases) jurisdiction resides with those it always has resided with - those with the power to exercise it. That includes 'muslims' in many places and at many times.

The pretense that this is a primarily religious conflict and not a political one has done immense damage to any realistic chance of a settlement - which is, of course, exactly what those who try to portray it as such on both sides want. But the gullible rush onboard.. at the first mention of 'God's people', 'God's will' or whatever, reason circuits are disengaged and extreme self-righteousness amplifies the existing distrust and hatred.
lol you are hilarious.. what is Israel then? was it not an establishment of a "jewish state for God's chosen'
pls man go stick some pretty yellow flowers on your buggy, you are not suited for politics!

cheers
Reply

barney
04-30-2008, 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
except for this 'agreed'!
No...this! Ha!
**Closes Thread**
Reply

Roasted Cashew
05-01-2008, 04:56 AM
Originally Posted by nogod2006
my point was that the jewish people are more then willing to let the muslims live in israel if they refrain from all acts of terror.furthermore, why would the jewish people give the land back if they took over it the way you muslims took over it.

We never kicked the inhabitants out. We never made the people who lived there refugees in their own land. Idiot. Get your facts straight. And Palestinian are ready to live in peace if you agree to the 1967 borders, stop settlements, give the refugees right to return, etc. When the occupation stops, terrorism will stop too.
Reply

Keltoi
05-01-2008, 01:28 PM
Refugees will never get the right to return. Israel has made that very clear. Unless of course the Palestinians develop their own state...then they can invite whoever they want...excluding terrorists of course. That is why a peace deal with a two-state solution is seen as the only course, particularly by the U.S. and U.K.

If the Palestinians do get a state of their own, millions upon millions of international aid money will flow into that state. Unless there is Arafat style corruption, this Palestinian state will be propped up and functional in little time at all. Which is why it makes no sense to me why Hamas is supported at all. All Hamas are achieving is more suffering for their own people and stopping any chance of a true Palestinian state. Ask yourself why that is. What organization stands to lose influence when Palestine needs professionals, doctors, diplomats, etc?...that would be Hamas.
Reply

Gator
05-01-2008, 02:27 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
And Palestinian are ready to live in peace if you agree to the 1967 borders, stop settlements, give the refugees right to return, etc. When the occupation stops, terrorism will stop too.
hmmm5,
How bout this.

1) 67 borders with some adjustments (to be discussed).
2) Stop settlements.
3) withdraw from some permanent and all wildcat settlements.
4) stop existing settlement expansion.
5) Refugees return only to new palestinian state.
6) Compensation to Refugees.
7) Palestinians stop resistance and terrorist acts.
8) Amnesty for most Palestinians held in Israeli jails and return of kidnapped soldiers, etc.

How bout that?

Thanks.
Reply

Trumble
05-01-2008, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
lol you are hilarious.. what is Israel then? was it not an establishment of a "jewish state for God's chosen'
Actually, no it wasn't. Although there certainly were some religious Zionists, the primary motivation was the establishment of a home for the Jewish people whether they happened to believe themselves "God's chosen" or not.

pls man go stick some pretty yellow flowers on your buggy, you are not suited for politics!
I don't say this casually to one of your undoubted intelligence, but I'm afraid before making comments that that you really need to get a clue what you are talking about.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
05-02-2008, 07:21 AM
Originally Posted by Gator
hmmm5,
How bout this.

1) 67 borders with some adjustments (to be discussed).
2) Stop settlements.
3) withdraw from some permanent and all wildcat settlements.
4) stop existing settlement expansion.
5) Refugees return only to new palestinian state.
6) Compensation to Refugees.
7) Palestinians stop resistance and terrorist acts.
8) Amnesty for most Palestinians held in Israeli jails and return of kidnapped soldiers, etc.

How bout that?

Thanks.
I agree with all the points except for no.1. What are these adjustments?
Reply

Gator
05-02-2008, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
I agree with all the points except for no.1. What are these adjustments?
I don't know but they are always talked about. Its usually based on "defendable" borders.

I'd say what every adjustments are made they have to be territory neutral. Whatever israel takes in one place they give in another and the land has to be of the same quality and not additionally detrimental to the Palestinians. It also can't be a material change to the shape of the 1967 borders.

http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
Reply

Mukafi7
05-02-2008, 07:39 PM
I like to be optimistic, but unfortunately this ill never hold. We all know Israel does not want peace. Yes, they hav mastered the art of looking like the victim, but they incite a lot of the havoc. I know some will read this and think I'm crazy, but I know it is true. I you closely monitor the actions taken by the IDF (that is if we can call them that), you will see what I am talking about.
Reply

barney
05-02-2008, 07:54 PM
Worth watching.
The Truce isnt for peace. It's buying time says Hamas leadership.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1750.htm


Kind of blows much of the above comments by members out of the water.
Reply

Gator
05-03-2008, 03:16 AM
Originally Posted by Mukafi7
I like to be optimistic, but unfortunately this ill never hold. We all know Israel does not want peace. Yes, they hav mastered the art of looking like the victim, but they incite a lot of the havoc. I know some will read this and think I'm crazy, but I know it is true. I you closely monitor the actions taken by the IDF (that is if we can call them that), you will see what I am talking about.
An interesting article on this...

Israel’s Tactics Thwart Attacks, With Trade-Off

By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: May 3, 2008
NETANYA, Israel — Suicide bombings in Israel have dropped off so significantly that the nation’s security officials now dare to speak openly of success. But the very steps they are taking to thwart bombers appear to collide head-on with the government’s agenda of achieving peace with the Palestinians.

It is a classic military-political dilemma. The progress in stopping suicide bombers, the vast majority of whom cross into Israel from the West Bank, has brought enough quiet for Israel to resume peace talks with the Palestinian leadership there.

But the current calm is fragile, and to maintain it Israeli security officials say they must continue their nightly arrests and sometimes deadly raids in the heart of the West Bank — tactics at odds with a peace effort that envisions a separate Palestinian state, an eventual Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank and, in the meantime, a gradual transfer of authority to the Palestinian police.

link - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/wo...israel.html?hp
Reply

Mukafi7
05-09-2008, 02:55 PM
Salam All,

I wish if I can optimistic, but when it comes to this topic one cnnot forget the past. If we look at history, it becomes evidently clear that they will never be peace in that region. Bany Yahood are fighting a long war which they are bound to lose!
Reply

Mukafi7
05-09-2008, 03:37 PM
خان يونس: الجيش الاسرائيلي ينسحب من عبسان مخلفاً 3 شهداء وخمسة منازل مدمرة

كتب محمد الجمل :
أكملت القوات الإسرائيلية انسحابها بصورة كاملة من بلدة عبسان الواقعة شرقي محافظة خان يونس وبعض المناطق المحيطة بها، في ساعة مبكرة من فجر أمس، مخلفة ثلاثة شهداء بينهم أم لسبعة أطفال، وكذلك هدم خمسة منازل، إضافة إلى دمار كبير طال الأراضي الزراعية ومرافق البنية التحتية.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-09-2008, 07:12 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
lol you are hilarious.. what is Israel then? was it not an establishment of a "jewish state for God's chosen'
pls man go stick some pretty yellow flowers on your buggy, you are not suited for politics!

cheers
You rock sis! Thank you for opening some eyes when it comes to this new round of "church and state" politics. Oh, and the 1967 borders are still illegal according to the Torah. Hamas should push this issue. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to do it for them!

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Gator
05-10-2008, 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Oh, and the 1967 borders are still illegal according to the Torah.
Please source from the Torah and the actual Israeli law that says you can't go back to 1967 borders.

Also, we're talking political reality here so there would be broad international pressure and a large portion (polls conflict on whether its a majority or minority) of Israelis support concession.

Thanks.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-10-2008, 03:05 PM
My position on this subject intends to refute the "claim" made by certain Muslim groups that accuse Judaism (the religion) of being responsible for the creation of the state the people have called Israel. To begin:

Abu Omar al Baghdadi from his address "Religion is the Advice" stated:

Second: Israel is founded on a religious basis, it is a religious state, and he is a liar he who claims that it is a secular state exploiting the religion. It is a malignant bacterium sowed in the body of the Ummahs and it must be plucked out even if the traitors signed with it thousands of surrender treaties.
I took offense to the accusation that Judaism (the religion) had caused the creation of this state they now call Israel because the state does not recognize Torah laws that governed Israel, among several other violations. The most notable are as follows:

The Lot and the Prenuptial Agreement: The land of Israel was divided into 12 regional territories in accordance with the will of God. To avoid confusion in the event inter-marriages should occur between the 12 tribes of Israel, a prenuptial agreement was put in place, as follows:

Book of Numbers, Chapter 36, verses 1 - 9:

and they said: 'The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the children of Israel; and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters. And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then will their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong; so will it be taken away from the lot of our inheritance. And when the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then will their inheritance be added unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong; so will their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.' And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying: 'The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaketh right. This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying: Let them be married to whom they think best; only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married. So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel be removed from tribe to tribe; for the children of Israel shall cleave every one to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may possess every man the inheritance of his fathers. So shall no inheritance be removed from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave each one to its own inheritance.'
The new state that has been called Israel, claimed by the sons of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, does not recognize or honor this law. They have claimed all 12 of the tribal lands of Israel even though, according to Torah, they are only entitled to two of them, those of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. If fact, when Ezra led his return from Babylon, he only claimed the lands of Benjamin and Judah ~ and not a single square inch more... because of this law.

The Nephalim:

When Ezra was informed that there were mixed marriages between the Jews and the Am Ha'Aretz (local people), he ordered them to divorce because intermarriage was forbidden, even between the tribes of Israel itself (see above), and as follows:

Book of Ezra, Chapter 9:

Now when these things were done, the princes drew near unto me, saying: 'The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations... snip... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this faithlessness.'
The new state recognizes the products of mixed marriages so long as their mother was a Jew. To add insult to injury, this new state not only breaks the laws of Torah concerning land, inheritance and lawful right to same, it calls itself Israel (when it is not), and it collected Nephalim (offspring from mixed marriages) from all around the world to add to their numbers and they had the nerve to do this in Ezra's name:

Operation Ezra and Nehemiah

From 1950 to 1952, Operation Ezra and Nehemiah airlifted 120,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel via Iran and Cyprus. By 1968 only 2,000 Jews remained in Iraq. Today less than 100 Jews remain, all of whom live in Baghdad.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...a_and_Nehemiah
I have offered these very citations to the scholars of ISI to prevent further accusations against Judaism (the religion) and I should mention that there are quite a number of Jews who do not recognize the new state that is called Israel for similar reasons. Please remember, this is MY position concerning the new state and the citations I provide are only offered to explain my reasoning for that position. Personally, I believe what they have done was enough to wake the dead.

The Ninth Scribe

Originally Posted by Gator
Please source from the Torah and the actual Israeli law that says you can't go back to 1967 borders.

Also, we're talking political reality here so there would be broad international pressure and a large portion (polls conflict on whether its a majority or minority) of Israelis support concession.

Thanks.
Reply

barney
05-10-2008, 03:49 PM
The Nephiliem are Giant supernatural demi-angels living in Cannan about 3000 BC.

Nephilim (nēfĭl`ĭm), in the Bible, Hebrew word of no known meaning, denoting peoples of gigantic stature with superhuman strength. The term is translated as "giants" in the Authorized Version. The Book of Genesis refers to Nephilim as the offspring of marriages between "daughters of humans" and "sons of God."
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-10-2008, 04:13 PM
Originally Posted by barney
The Nephiliem are Giant supernatural demi-angels living in Cannan about 3000 BC.

Nephilim (nēfĭl`ĭm), in the Bible, Hebrew word of no known meaning, denoting peoples of gigantic stature with superhuman strength. The term is translated as "giants" in the Authorized Version. The Book of Genesis refers to Nephilim as the offspring of marriages between "daughters of humans" and "sons of God."
That's from a Greek mistranslation. Demi angels? Hahahahahaha! And I suppose you believe the Holy seed were angels who mated with humans? Please! I like the fairy tales, but they have nothing to do with Law. Ezra spoke of the Law and when he spoke of the Zerah Kodesh, he was addressing the human men of a specific lineage, as was Genesis and the Book of Deuteronomy 14:1 ~

You are the sons of God, you shall not cut yourselves nor make any baldness on your heads on acount of the dead.

The bene Elohim were 'men' and the Am Ha' Aretz were the 'people of the land' (eg: local products).

However, the myth and the matter agree on one point... the unions are unlawful:

Book of Ezra:

And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; and that whosoever did not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity.

All these had taken foreign wives; and some of them had wives by whom they had children.

And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them: 'Ye have broken faith, and have married foreign women, to increase the guilt of Israel.

There have been quite a number of mistakes that were made. If you listen to most encyclopedias, they're still circulating the myth that Azrael is the Angel of Death named in the Book of Tobit. Fact: The only angel named in that book is Raphael - and he wasn't an Angel of Death. I could cite thousands of others, but not on this forum.

Some things you might want to know about Nephalim:

Since the days of Genesis, inter-marriage outside the Zerah Kodesh had become a known cause of war, especially when children were born into the unions. Parental conflicts surrounding how the children would be raised, what language they would speak and which God they serve, caused domestic disputes that travelled quickly from parents, to families and often spread throughout entire neighborhoods, creating dissent among the people. The children who were born into the conflicts created by the mixed unions, would often refuse both parent's Gods when they came of age. They became a selfish and ungodly race, without morals, caring only for themselves.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

barney
05-10-2008, 04:32 PM
Soloman married Pharohs Daughter. Mixed marrages diddnt bother him.
The conversations over dinner would have been great.
"Hey honey, can you explain the Passover holiday again to me?"
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-10-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Soloman married Pharohs Daughter. Mixed marrages diddnt bother him.
The conversations over dinner would have been great.
"Hey honey, can you explain the Passover holiday again to me?"
It doesn't matter what Solomon thought. The issue is whether the mixed marriage was unlawful.

Book of Nehemiah, Chapter 13 verse 26:

Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, and he was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless even him did the foreign women cause to sin.

You're confusing the issue of Israel's borders with a selection on non-related ones. Maybe we should bow from the spotlight so we can take this "other" discussion up in private? I'd welcome this type of dialogue, but not in a thread concerning Israel's lawful or unlawful borders.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Gator
05-11-2008, 04:03 AM
9th,
Would you be ok with the compromise as outlined earlier.
Thanks.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by Gator
9th,
Would you be ok with the compromise as outlined earlier.
Thanks.
I will only defend the tribal lands of Benjamin and Judah by delivering a forgiveness and obtaining a permission from EVERY muslim group and scholar, al Qaeda's included. I will not consider the matter closed until it is fully agreed upon by all parties concerned and they are satisfied with the resolution.

Hamas could try to present their resolution but their group does not speak on behalf of all Palestinians and the state of Israel will not accept the offer because of that (Hamas cannot promise an end to all attacks - only their attacks).

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Gator
05-11-2008, 05:09 PM
Based on your answer, I'll put you down as a no. Thank you.
Reply

wth1257
05-13-2008, 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
When someone occupies your land, makes you a refugee in your own land, responds with armor piercing bullets when you resist; then maybe you would be able to understand their position. You are not as naive or stupid as you are pretending to be.
The targeting of civilians is always a war crime, dosen't matter if it's an Israeli soldier in the OTs, America dropping a neculear bomb on civilian cities, or Hammas lobbing rockets into Israeli civilian housing, it's wrong, all descent people should condemn it, no moral excuses can be made.
Reply

Izyan
05-13-2008, 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by wth1257
The targeting of civilians is always a war crime, dosen't matter if it's an Israeli soldier in the OTs, America dropping a neculear bomb on civilian cities, or Hammas lobbing rockets into Israeli civilian housing, it's wrong, all descent people should condemn it, no moral excuses can be made.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.
Reply

barney
05-13-2008, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.
They were, but a demonstration explosion off the coast would have been more humane.
Reply

MTAFFI
05-13-2008, 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by barney
They were, but a demonstration explosion off the coast would have been more humane.
but the explosion on the land ended the war... do you think one off the coast would have done the same? Keep in mind that our country has exploded hundreds upon hundreds of these bombs... a good reference is the movie Trinity and Beyond, really awesome documentary
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-13-2008, 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by wth1257
The targeting of civilians is always a war crime, dosen't matter if it's an Israeli soldier in the OTs, America dropping a neculear bomb on civilian cities, or Hammas lobbing rockets into Israeli civilian housing, it's wrong, all descent people should condemn it, no moral excuses can be made.
Yes, but the U.N. and other world powers don't intervene on behalf of Palestine, and when they condemn Israel for it's unlawful behavior, it's only a verbal statement. When Iran threatens Israel, it's told it will be "obliterated" so there is a double standard here. That's why I don't count on them to produce a solution. Even if they did, there is a question of dignity.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Izyan
05-13-2008, 03:39 PM
Originally Posted by barney
They were, but a demonstration explosion off the coast would have been more humane.
The Japanese were letting their people starve to death during the blockade. Even after the US dropped the bomb military leaders were planning on usurping the emperor's power. No one really knew the power of an A bomb and I doubt an exposion off the coast would have persuaded the Japanese. Just my opinion.
Reply

wth1257
05-13-2008, 03:47 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.
how so?
Reply

wth1257
05-13-2008, 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Yes, but the U.N. and other world powers don't intervene on behalf of Palestine, and when they condemn Israel for it's unlawful behavior, it's only a verbal statement. When Iran threatens Israel, it's told it will be "obliterated" so there is a double standard here. That's why I don't count on them to produce a solution. Even if they did, there is a question of dignity.

The Ninth Scribe
of course, I woulden't disagrea with anything here, all I would like to see everyone here agrea upon is that targeting civilians is wrong.
Reply

barney
05-13-2008, 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
The Japanese were letting their people starve to death during the blockade. Even after the US dropped the bomb military leaders were planning on usurping the emperor's power. No one really knew the power of an A bomb and I doubt an exposion off the coast would have persuaded the Japanese. Just my opinion.
The Japs were starving because of the US Navy Blockade. Well thats war, and i'm not condeming it. The war needed to be ended quickly.
The US did know that the bomb was going to have thousands of times more powere than the largest conventianal Grand Slam bomb then in existance. They tested one prior to Hiroshima.

I think one off the coast and a two day deadline to surrender. Yeah, I know even after the first one went off it was two more days before Nagasaki, but the yanks diddnt know that at the time.

Anyway, it ended a war that would have carried on for another 6 months and caused another million deaths.
Reply

Izyan
05-13-2008, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by wth1257
how so?
During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
Reply

wth1257
05-13-2008, 04:12 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
by that rational woulden't Gaza be a military target?

I understand why the city had military signifigance, however military signifigance dosen't give a country a blank check to take it out, irrespective of civilian presence.
Reply

Izyan
05-13-2008, 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by wth1257
by that rational woulden't Gaza be a military target?

I understand why the city had military signifigance, however military signifigance dosen't give a country a blank check to take it out, irrespective of civilian presence.
Actually yes Gaza would be a legit target. So would Tel Aviv, Chicago, Beruit, Paris, Rammestein, London and so on. You want to talk about a senseless bombing in WWII Dresden would be it.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-13-2008, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Actually yes Gaza would be a legit target. So would Tel Aviv, Chicago, Beruit, Paris, Rammestein, London and so on. You want to talk about a senseless bombing in WWII Dresden would be it.
The type of discord humanity feels whenever holy law is disobeyed. People sometimes view divinity as some outside element, but it's really more involved than that. So you turn and tell your child: Don't stick your hand in the fire because it will get burned. The child does it any way because he doesn't know WHY fire will burn his hand.

Well, there is a reason why the most ancient of books didn't promote war as an annual sport. There are reasons why the religious scholars were appointed. We may not understand the reasons, but that changes nothing. So here we have it, fully unleashed like a lightning storm, and where on Earth is it supposed to actually end? It's like the scene from that movie, Men in Black, where "J" let's the flying disk loose.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Gator
05-13-2008, 05:12 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Yes, but the U.N. and other world powers don't intervene on behalf of Palestine, and when they condemn Israel for it's unlawful behavior, it's only a verbal statement. When Iran threatens Israel, it's told it will be "obliterated" so there is a double standard here. That's why I don't count on them to produce a solution. Even if they did, there is a question of dignity.

The Ninth Scribe
The U.N. and the other world governments threatened to obliterate Iran?
Reply

MTAFFI
05-13-2008, 05:59 PM
Originally Posted by wth1257
by that rational woulden't Gaza be a military target?

I understand why the city had military signifigance, however military signifigance dosen't give a country a blank check to take it out, irrespective of civilian presence.
why is it that in todays world the US and other world powers must have respect for civilian presence? Did the attackers of 9/11 have respect for such? Do any of the suicide bombers in the mid east today practice the same? Has any war in history, prior to the liberal media, had to try to distinguish between friend and foe in a war zone? I dont think so... I am not condoning innocent civilian death, it is a horrible, irreparable thing that happens, but war is hell and thus the loss of civilian life is guaranteed. If a country goes to war, if its citizens wish to not die, they should either leave or stay far far out of harms way.

As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki went, they were both legitimate targets and because of the death that was spread in those areas, millions of others have survived. The Japanese were an enemy that would rather die than lose, so death is what they got, and if they hadnt conceded to the loss many more would have died and so on, until surrender was the only option.
Reply

Trumble
05-13-2008, 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
When Iran threatens Israel, it's told it will be "obliterated" so there is a double standard here.
I think you will find that was only said by Hilary Clinton not "the UN and other world powers"! Not quite the same thing (even in her own mind) .. and even then she was talking specifically about the consequences of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

Even if they did, there is a question of dignity.
'Dignity' in this context just means 'pride'. Of the sort that gets a great many people killed needlessly.
Reply

barney
05-13-2008, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
why is it that in todays world the US and other world powers must have respect for civilian presence? .
Because we have moved on in our civilisation since WW2.
Warfare will always be bloody and horrific but take a look at some you-tube video's of American Marines under fire. They will sit there with bullets spraying off the concrete around them, because they can't positively with certainty identify where the Gunfire is coming from.

Once they do, then the target gets hammered, but only if its clear of any visible civilians.

This is the Yanks, and theyre much more trigger happy than most other western forces I served with. Simply put, If we wanted war to be waged with totality like WW2, then Baghdad would have been turned to literal ashes on day one.
Just because your enemy is fighting with torture, suicide weapons and massacering civilians, like the Japanese in WW2 did, dosnt mean you have to stoop to their medieval disgusting methods.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
05-14-2008, 12:36 PM
Well, then I guess the Pentagon and the WTC were also legit targets. Someone needs to stop American and Western interventionist and imperialist foreign policies. I have always condemned 9/11 but now thanks to u guys, I think it was a legit target.
Reply

Izyan
05-14-2008, 01:30 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Yes, but the U.N. and other world powers don't intervene on behalf of Palestine, and when they condemn Israel for it's unlawful behavior, it's only a verbal statement. When Iran threatens Israel, it's told it will be "obliterated" so there is a double standard here. That's why I don't count on them to produce a solution. Even if they did, there is a question of dignity.

The Ninth Scribe
What action has the UN taken against Iran or Palestine for harsh rhetoric against Israel?
Reply

Izyan
05-14-2008, 01:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
The type of discord humanity feels whenever holy law is disobeyed. People sometimes view divinity as some outside element, but it's really more involved than that. So you turn and tell your child: Don't stick your hand in the fire because it will get burned. The child does it any way because he doesn't know WHY fire will burn his hand.

Well, there is a reason why the most ancient of books didn't promote war as an annual sport. There are reasons why the religious scholars were appointed. We may not understand the reasons, but that changes nothing. So here we have it, fully unleashed like a lightning storm, and where on Earth is it supposed to actually end? It's like the scene from that movie, Men in Black, where "J" let's the flying disk loose.

The Ninth Scribe
Once agian I was never really good at riddles.
Reply

Izyan
05-14-2008, 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
Well, then I guess the Pentagon and the WTC were also legit targets. Someone needs to stop American and Western interventionist and imperialist foreign policies. I have always condemned 9/11 but now thanks to u guys, I think it was a legit target.
Since when was Al Queda a government body? Sure they were legit targets but understand once you hit those targets you must be prepared what comes back onto you. You can't be crying about women with thongs and being too cold in Cuba.
Reply

MTAFFI
05-14-2008, 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Because we have moved on in our civilisation since WW2.
Warfare will always be bloody and horrific but take a look at some you-tube video's of American Marines under fire. They will sit there with bullets spraying off the concrete around them, because they can't positively with certainty identify where the Gunfire is coming from.

Once they do, then the target gets hammered, but only if its clear of any visible civilians.

This is the Yanks, and theyre much more trigger happy than most other western forces I served with. Simply put, If we wanted war to be waged with totality like WW2, then Baghdad would have been turned to literal ashes on day one.
Just because your enemy is fighting with torture, suicide weapons and massacering civilians, like the Japanese in WW2 did, dosnt mean you have to stoop to their medieval disgusting methods.
I agree with you to a point.. I certainly dont want any civilians to die, much less slaughtered and even worse my Muslim brothers and sisters... At the same time when a country is at war with another, I dont see any reason that any respect should be given to the opposition, since war is, by design, supposed to be the most horrific act possible to commit upon a countries enemy. A last resort used to pummel an enemy into a submissive state where the conflict is ultimately resolved in the winners favor.

My main point to making the post was to get people to think, is the US actually at war with Iraq? Is the US in Iraq to occupy and steal Iraqi territory? I would say no, I would say the US is a police force in Iraq and that is about it... Basically 150,000 man SWAT team trying to rid the country of the beasts that were allowed to infest it when the real war was fought and won in a matter of a month.

Dont get me wrong, when all is said and done I am sure the US will get a discount on oil, and probably get a few military bases set up as well. The alternative, however, is the Iranians taking Iraq, which in my opinion they are working very aggressively to do and they will likely nationalize the oil and fail horribly at redistributing the wealth just as they have done to their own people. They will also no doubt setup military installations and if anyone thinks for one second the Saudis or Egypt will let this go smoothly, I would disagree. But I suppose only time will tell, right? :?
Reply

barney
05-14-2008, 08:10 PM
Of course the US isnt at war with Iraq.
They are there at the behest of the Iraqi Government who are elected by the majority of the Iraqi people. Read my signiture :)

It's instructive to note that the US bought more oil from Saddam than they buy now from Iraq. Iraq is seventh on the list of US oil imports, well below venuzaula and dwarfed by Saudi and Canada. The "war for oil" TM, sounds fantastic, but it simply takes a tiny bit of research to blow that fallacy apart. Few people bother to find out.

Back to topic, I'd advise people to watch the Vidieolink i posted earlier in the thread. Hamas basically admit they are trying to buy time and there will be no peace till "victory".
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-14-2008, 08:20 PM
Originally Posted by Gator
The U.N. and the other world governments threatened to obliterate Iran?
No, that came from hillary clinton.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-14-2008, 08:27 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Of course the US isnt at war with Iraq.
The U.S. isn't at war with Palestine either. Come to that, the United States hasn't actually fought a real war. It just sells arms and bets on the winner. Way to take a stand, lol. What a joke.
Reply

Gator
05-15-2008, 04:25 AM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
No, that came from hillary clinton.
So you acknowledge your incredibly exaggerated statment and that you were wrong to make it.

Thanks.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-15-2008, 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by Izyan
Once agian I was never really good at riddles.
Well, you would have had to have watched the movie... but it was quite funny, despite the damage. All I'm saying is one event caused a chain reaction. One war is becoming many different wars. It's not the first time this happened either. Probably won't be the last. Bottom line is this. Where's the solution? I'd like to see this resolved before every country in the world has to get dragged into the Israel-Palestine one.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
05-15-2008, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by Gator
So you acknowledge your incredibly exaggerated statment and that you were wrong to make it.

Thanks.
Well, her brazen statement represents the mind-set of a great number of people... who, of course, wouldn't dare to actually come right out and say it the way she did. Even she had to do damage control afterward. But naturally, the powers that be are all concerned with Iran taking action against their beloved Israel. They are not very concerned however with Israel taking action against other nations. I'm not worried about this because it's all in the history books - I mean, it isn't like this is new news. I've watched Israel's walls go up and get blown down so many times over, it's almost amusing.

I'm not going to apologize for history. The only difference between 2500 years ago and today is that 2500 years ago, the Assyrians were hired as hit-men by the Jews to wipe out Israel and today it's the Americans who are hired by the Jews to wipe out the Palestinians. It's not the first time the Palestinians suffered either. When the Jews decided to stop payment on the Assyrians for their services, they convinced Palestine to follow suit... and look where that got them? Way to spread the sunshine, but here we all are. Right back where we started. Nothing ever changes here does it?

Same s--t, different day.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Air Jordan
05-15-2008, 11:53 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
Well, then I guess the Pentagon and the WTC were also legit targets. Someone needs to stop American and Western interventionist and imperialist foreign policies. I have always condemned 9/11 but now thanks to u guys, I think it was a legit target.
Either your knowledge of modern history stops in the early 20th century or your are being spoon-fed anti-Western pablum. Please cite a recent example of "Western imperialism". I can't think of one since perhaps the Suez Crisis or the civil war in Algeria.
Reply

wth1257
05-16-2008, 01:00 AM
Originally Posted by Air Jordan
Either your knowledge of modern history stops in the early 20th century or your are being spoon-fed anti-Western pablum. Please cite a recent example of "Western imperialism". I can't think of one since perhaps the Suez Crisis or the civil war in Algeria.
Anglo-Iranian Oil, Operation AJAX and America's propping up of the Shah, our operations in Chile, Cuba, Nicuragra, Indonesia, France's attempted reconquest of Indo-China, Britain maintaining control of Egypt, India, France's states in Africa, Western Support of the Apartide state in South Africa, Supporting Israel's landgrabs and control over Gaza, West Banks etc, Regan's attempt to maintain control of the Panama Cannel, America's control of Gitmo, etc?

Those are the most blatant I can think of.
Reply

Air Jordan
05-17-2008, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by wth1257
Anglo-Iranian Oil, Operation AJAX and America's propping up of the Shah, our operations in Chile, Cuba, Nicuragra, Indonesia, France's attempted reconquest of Indo-China, Britain maintaining control of Egypt, India, France's states in Africa, Western Support of the Apartide state in South Africa, Supporting Israel's landgrabs and control over Gaza, West Banks etc, Regan's attempt to maintain control of the Panama Cannel, America's control of Gitmo, etc?

Those are the most blatant I can think of.
Excellent. I am pleased to see someone make the effort.

Let's take the examples you cite that I would agree are imperialistic in their tone.

French Indochina after WWII....yes, but Dien Bien Phu was in 1954, Suez was in '56

France's states in Africa...yes, that's why I mentioned Algeria as a cut off.

Britain maintaining control of Egypt...I would say Empire Interruptis..and definietly before Suez. That was the whole point of Suez

Britain maintaining control of Inida.....definetely the sunset of Imperialism,,,Indian independence was granted in 1950.

Guantanamo Bay?...that is a serious stretch. It is a vestige of former US imperialsim (Spanish American War), but we do have a valid lease by treaty and there are no Cubans under American control and it has no economic value. The whole point of Imperialism is for the imperialist power to be enriched by it's subserviant state.

Reagan trying to retain control of the Panama Canal?....again, that is stretch. The Panama Canal was another vestige of Imperialism but the US honored the treaty language and turned the thing over without a fight, a fight which we could have easily won. The handover was a done deal when Reagan took office. Simply grousing about it is not Imperialism :)

The rest are not imperialistic by any sensible definition. Most are the Cold War relics of attempts to thwart Soviet expansionism. You may disagree with them or feel that Third World people were pushed around (which is probably true), but it's still not Imperialism.

BTW..it just occurred to me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 70's is perhaps an example as Russia is a partly European power. Of course, that doesn't count as they were the good guys, eh?:)
Reply

wth1257
05-17-2008, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by Air Jordan
Excellent. I am pleased to see someone make the effort.

Let's take the examples you cite that I would agree are imperialistic in their tone.

French Indochina after WWII....yes, but Dien Bien Phu was in 1954, Suez was in '56
You asked about recent imperialism, if 50 years ago is quite recent, though yes, it was after Suez.

France's states in Africa...yes, that's why I mentioned Algeria as a cut off.
Algeria wasen't the only one I don't think.

Britain maintaining control of Egypt...I would say Empire Interruptis..and definietly before Suez. That was the whole point of Suez
Alright, howeveer it is in the lifetime of many, all this is ignoring that the major anti-colonial movements began in the middle east a quite a bit earlier, it simply really erupted, for various reasons, in the 20th century.

Britain maintaining control of Inida.....definetely the sunset of Imperialism,,,Indian independence was granted in 1950.
Sure

Guantanamo Bay?...that is a serious stretch. It is a vestige of former US imperialsim (Spanish American War), but we do have a valid lease by treaty and there are no Cubans under American control and it has no economic value
It was a rather forced lease to begin with, the current Cuban government has ordered us off quite a few times and has not cashed any of the checks we send for payment.

The whole point of Imperialism is for the imperialist power to be enriched by it's subserviant state.
that may be a genral, ideal goal, that dosen't mean that any act that does not meet that idea is not imperialism.

Reagan trying to retain control of the Panama Canal?....again, that is stretch.
I beleive William F Buckely put it well.

"Should or shoulden't the Panamese people be allowed to exercise sovreiginity over their own territory"


The Panama Canal was another vestige of Imperialism but the US honored the treaty language and turned the thing over without a fight, a fight which we could have easily won. The handover was a done deal when Reagan took office. Simply grousing about it is not Imperialism :)
of course, that was clearly the weakest example.

The rest are not imperialistic by any sensible definition.
If Anglo-Iranian Oil was not blatant imperialism the term has no substantive meaning.

Most are the Cold War relics of attempts to thwart Soviet expansionism. You may disagree with them or feel that Third World people were pushed around (which is probably true), but it's still not Imperialism.
Overthrowing a sovreign government and instilling a former Nazi sympathiser, and propping up the authoritarian Shah aghinst the will of the Iranian people isin't imperialism?

Perhapse you can find a way to skate around it, however I think in a colloquial sense, as the anti-colonialist movement in the ME would understand it anyway, it certianly is.

BTW..it just occurred to me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 70's is perhaps an example as Russia is a partly European power.
As Dostoevsky said, Asians say Russians are Europeans, Europeans say they are asians.

If you want to count Russia/USSR as well then there is quite a bit more, Iran for instance.

According to you, however I beleive, Imperialism must have a distinctly economic goal of exploiting the substanance of the subjected people, in which case Afghanistan was not imperialism, again however, I feel it was in any common sense of the world.

Of course, that doesn't count as they were the good guys, eh?:)

The USSR?

Hardly
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
05-17-2008, 09:39 PM
Has it happened then...?
Reply

Fishman
05-17-2008, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by wth1257
imperialism
:sl:
I love imperialism! :statisfie


J/k, of course...

Anyway, I think that Israel shouldn't take the deal unless they get rid of the ten year bit. I know from civ-related experiences that ten-year peace treaties proposed by the agresssor (who is the agressor is a bit blurred in this conflict) are usually just excuses to regroup without facing attack from the enemy.

And Hamas shouldn't take it either. Israel would just go back on their word and break the treaty anyway, so there is no point them trying to regroup.
:w:
Reply

snakelegs
05-18-2008, 03:01 AM
[QUOTE=Air Jordan;944086]
BTW..it just occurred to me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 70's is perhaps an example as Russia is a partly European power. Of course, that doesn't count as they were the good guys, eh?:)[/QUOTE]

are you simplistic enough to believe that being critical of u.s. foreign policy = commie, or soviet union fan?
Reply

Air Jordan
05-18-2008, 04:57 AM
[QUOTE=snakelegs;944397]
Originally Posted by Air Jordan
BTW..it just occurred to me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 70's is perhaps an example as Russia is a partly European power. Of course, that doesn't count as they were the good guys, eh?:)[/QUOTE]

are you simplistic enough to believe that being critical of u.s. foreign policy = commie, or soviet union fan?
Ummm...no..I'm not simplistic enough. That is why there is a winking face afterward. WTH got the joke. Relax. Soviet Union jokes are fun.
Reply

snakelegs
05-18-2008, 06:00 AM
[QUOTE=Air Jordan;944413]
Originally Posted by snakelegs

Ummm...no..I'm not simplistic enough. That is why there is a winking face afterward. WTH got the joke. Relax. Soviet Union jokes are fun.
ok. thanks for answering!
Reply

Air Jordan
05-18-2008, 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
ok. thanks for answering!
No problem....but the way you framed your question was highly insulting. Most people would not like to be described as 'simplistic".
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 06:19 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 08:23 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-2006, 07:07 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-01-2006, 12:54 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-16-2006, 09:41 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!