CACashRefund Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 And in 1940' date=' before we came to the rescue, you could say the same about the Nazis conquest of most of Europe... "thats not occupation thats "you got your ass kicked deal with it".[/quote'] by your logic, then no nation in any part of the world is a legitimate entity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 it was given back to them by the british and the un recognised them. from what i understand the palestinian people are made up of many different tribes(?) of arabs and currently are not welcome anywhere else, with maybe the acception of jordan. as far a definition of occupation ill go with: Illegal seizure of land by a foreign military force. so what exactly make a seizure of land "illegal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I did not make any definitions and said nothing of stealing. But yes' date=' I recognize the fact that Native Americans were here long before the English, French, and Spanish landed on this rock of earth. I think they actually conquered them, not just stole the land. But I don't think that holds much relevance to the topic at hand.[/quote'] See... well, I see... Your argument has a couple big flaws, not ones that truly affect what you're trying to get across but I would still call them GLARING errors. The Americas were claimed by "Right of Discovery". The Europeans 'discovered' the new world and claimed it in the names of their various monarchs. Israel, or more accurately the land that is now Israel and a bunch more surrounding it, was claimed by the British by "Right of Conquest" long before they gave the land to the Israelites. The British owned and maintained said ownership with the gun and oppression. The Palestinians never seemed to have a problem with that but when the Jews moved in suddenly it was 'there goes the neighborhood' and the Syrians and Egyptians (mainly) decided to take the Israelites land (again 'right of conquest') and FAILED. In the past (including WWII) such failures always resulted in reparations outlined in the various peace treaties negotiated throughout time. It was in fact war reparations that bankrupted Germany after WWI and led to the conditions that set up Hitler's rise to power. In Israel, after the 6 day war, the Israelites laid claim to conquered lands they felt were vital to their defense. The Golan Heights are a nice example because it shows both sides. In '67 the Israelis took the Golan Heights because they had been used (by virtue of their elevation) to launch artillery attacks into Israel. There was another battle in '73 and, except for a brief victory, the Syrians were sent on home again. In '75 the US brokered a deal which gave the Syrians ONE city close by (I forget the name) and that treaty was signed by both sides. Later, sometime in Begin's rule the Israelis annexed the entire area and placed it under Israeli law as well as control. As far as I know, no country in the international community has ever recognized that annexation. It is apparent to me, though, that the strategic neccessity of the annexation is sound and since they won it, they keep it, imho. I think Israel has been exceedingly generous in recent years by setting up a process to return Israel to the pre-'67 borders. If I took something, then fought for ownership, then kept it for nearly 50 years, no matter what 'it' is, I doubt I'd give it back if it brought me pleasure (security) and served as a constant reminder that I'm not to be fucked with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Here's the thing. There's always going to be 2 sides to a story. And whoever wins a war usually gets to write the history books that get taught in schools. 200 Years from now, Bush will probably go down as some kind of hero for what happened in Iraq and it will most likely just be quickly mentioned that some people opposed the war. It's no different with this palestianian situation. I don't know much about it personally, but i'd like to invite my palestinian freind who is very knowledgeable about this to join this discussion. I really don't like to enter into arguments and pigheadedly add my opinion when I have the real possiblity of not knowing what i'm talking about. (historically) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Is it not true that the Jews were "given" Isreal (by Europeans) because they are nomadic tribes that had no home and weren't even entirely welcome in Europe? Aren't we being a little hipocritical now? No. They where given it because they were from there and jews have always had a presence in Israel throught history. There were always Jews in Israel. And aren't the Jews a foreign military force that (Illegally by the Palestinians law) seized their land? Well if you want to go by palestinian law Israel doesnt exsist; so no. If you want to go by international law, well, no again. You see britan was given control of the land from the turks who got their control from the romans who got it from the jews. so whos land is it? Well technicly at the time, the british, and they decided to make two states one jewish one arab. well the arabs didnt like that so much, so after israel was declaired, they attacked, (they meaning all the surrounding nations and some). The jews managed to win even though according to all military stratagist they should have been wiped off the face of the earth or pushed into the sea as the arab chant went. Fast forward. Jews attacked again, win again, gain more land. They give some back, unconditionally, a move never done in the history of war. They keep some land as a buffer zone between them and syria, because syria was shelling their people dayly, this area is known as the galil and golan. The jews in 67 had a chance to kick all the remaining foriegn arabs out of israel but in a peaceful move by moshe dayan they let them stay. These are the people that seek to destroy the Jewish people and thier homeland and have tried to overthrough arab governments, lebonon most notably, they are an unwanted people. and Smart . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 There is a difference here' date=' and it is that the Palestinians who are now trying to lay claim on Isreal are not the Palestinians of when Israel was granted that land. And there was no U.N. in the 1600's. And America was not even imaginable until the Westerners landed on it, whereas the Middle East had long since been mapped, colonized, and divided into nations by the time of 1948. And the Palestinians are still around, so they have not been wiped off the face of the earth, or conquered. You're really picking the wrong arguments.[/quote'] Exactly they're still around. They're still alive and kicking and are fighting for their shit. And when were the Native Americans whiped off the face of the Earth? They're still here they just gave up fighting for their land along time ago. I'm not picking an arguement just speaking the unbiassed truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 by your logic' date=' then no nation in any part of the world is a legitimate entity[/quote'] No, I'm just saying that if the locals are fighting back then they are in the right. If you're gonna invade another country don't cry when the natives aren't having it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 No. They where given it because they were from there and jews have always had a presence in Israel throught history. There were always Jews in Israel. Well if you want to go by palestinian law Israel doesnt exsist; so no. If you want to go by international law, well, no again. You see britan was given control of the land from the turks who got their control from the romans who got it from the jews. so whos land is it? Well technicly at the time, the british, and they decided to make two states one jewish one arab. well the arabs didnt like that so much, so after israel was declaired, they attacked, (they meaning all the surrounding nations and some). The jews managed to win even though according to all military stratagist they should have been wiped off the face of the earth or pushed into the sea as the arab chant went. Fast forward. Jews attacked again, win again, gain more land. They give some back, unconditionally, a move never done in the history of war. They keep some land as a buffer zone between them and syria, because syria was shelling their people dayly, this area is known as the galil and golan. The jews in 67 had a chance to kick all the remaining foriegn arabs out of israel but in a peaceful move by moshe dayan they let them stay. These are the people that seek to destroy the Jewish people and thier homeland and have tried to overthrough arab governments, lebonon most notably, they are an unwanted people. and Smart . You're grabbing for straws. Your bending over backwards for excusses. I don't even care enough to fully argue with you. Bottom line is I'm just giving an unbiassed view. If anything Isrealies and Arabs are both dispicable peoples generally but I'm not gonna get into that. I'm just saying that you can't blame the locals for defending their turf. Your people never actually won the land because the palestinians never actually gave up fighting for it. You can't claim to have won a fight when your opponent is still throwing punches. That's like saying we already defeated Iraq when the fact is that Americans are still being killed every day by the Iraqis and other Arabs in Iraq that refuse to give in. You can't blame them or try to label them as being in the wrong when they kill you and your people while you're attacking, invading and basically taking their land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 And you can bash Hamas and call them terrorists all you want but the fact is that they are now an ellected legitimate government.:biglaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Smart, that's sort of what I was going for, but not as informed as what you wrote. Dawood, what Bush's reputation 50 years from now is depends on whether or not the rest of the politicians in D.C. do the right thing and impeach him for treason, lying to the public, and illegal survaliance on the American people. It's funny that they actually ran impeachment trials on Clinton for lying about sex (not that he was justified), but when Bush gives up the identity of an American secret operative of the CIA--aiding the enemy, the exact definition of treason, a crime in this country that used to be punishable by death--no one is saying anything. If he finishes this term, he will not be considered one of the greatest presidents, but there will be no stigma on the man like their was on Nixon. The only other thing that would do this would be if he plummets us into another world war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 You're grabbing for straws. bullshit. Israel/the jews has every right to be there. The land was never the palestinian's, so how could they claim it as thiers? And since there have always been jews there how can you call them the natives anymore than the israelis, even more so because the vast majority of the so called palestinians arent even native to that area. Thats like saying the spanish and french dont own all of their contries because you have basque still attacking them. goverment or not hamas will alway be terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---> Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 bullshit. Israel/the jews has every right to be there. The land was never the palestinian's' date=' so how could they claim it as thiers? And since there have always been jews there how can you call them the natives anymore than the israelis, even more so because the vast majority of the so called palestinians arent even native to that area. Thats like saying the spanish and french dont own all of their contries because you have basque still attacking them.[/quote'] What jews? How many? A handfull? Who cares? You're still grabbing at straws. And how can you say that the Palestinians aren't even native to the area?:haha: You're full of shit. You're making this up as you go along aren't you?:haha: goverment or not hamas will alway be terrorist. And so is the Isreali government. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Bottom line is I'm just giving an unbiassed view. If anything Isrealies and Arabs are both dispicable peoples generally but I'm not gonna get into that. I'm just saying that you can't blame the locals for defending their turf. I think he's got you stumped Mar... His twin pronged attack using bigotry and historical ignorance is gonna be a tough one to beat. And despite his continued rants he also claims he doesn't "even care enough to fully argue with you" so, imagine what he's actually capable of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 What jews? How many? A handfull? Who cares? You're still grabbing at straws. And how can you say that the Palestinians aren't even native to the area?:haha: You're full of shit. You're making this up as you go along aren't you?:haha: hardly anyone who calls themselves "palestinian" is native to israel. Most immagrated to the country in the late 1800's to early 1900's looking for work after the israelis made the country bloom again. Check british cencus reports from that time, the numbers of "native palestinians" (who btw recorded themselves as other people) is very small, and the reports show that there was a sizable presence of jews before the first aliyah. Israel was a shit hole before the jews changed it, if you dont believe me how about mark twain? http://www.shechem.org/machon/mtwain/52.htm But what would you know other than you copy paste, liberal, no thought, underdog bullcrap. Come at me with facts then we can talk. I think he's got you stumped Mar... His twin pronged attack using bigotry and historical ignorance is gonna be a tough one to beat. And despite his continued rants he also claims he doesn't "even care enough to fully argue with you" so, imagine what he's actually capable of... yeh I know right...kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 "goverment or not hamas will alway be terrorist." i wont butt in to much on this, because i really am not into this subject but i think both of you are right. hamas is a "legitimate" government. and a government can be "terrorist." (as i think hamas to be) but i think it goes to show the evil of "democracy." what some of those countries over there is not pure democracy, but a nice decentralized political state like we still somewhat have in america. liberty should be a priority, not democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 well im going to do something i dont do to often, defend the palestinian people. The palestinian government has always been corrupt. Hamas went door to door literally telling people that they would change that and provide for the people, improving the quality of life. This might have been possible had it not been for thier extreme views. Life in the palestinian controlled areas is not easy because of the terrorist action. The terrorists have made it very hard for the israelies to trust the palestinians and therefore the borders are tight. In my oppinion the general palestinan people do not want to kill jews, they maybe upset with the rules but what can you expect there is a war going on. So the reason hamas is in power is because the alternitive wasnt much better. That said, it would be foolish of me to say they didnt know their other policies. So do i think that all palestinians are killers? no. But their gov't is and thats something they are going to have to deal with, or change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 No' date=' I'm just saying that if the locals are fighting back then they are in the right. [/quote'] the israelis have as much a right to be there as the palestinians i doubt israel is crying about the palestinians fighting back, theyve been sitting on that land for the past 50+ years now and i doubt theyre gonna leave anytime soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I think it is is worth mentioning here, that the Palestinian issue is an Islaamic issue from the beginning (right through) to the end. Although, the enemies of Islaam have strived to distance it (this issue) from the Islamic path and convey to the non-Arab Muslims that this is an Arab issue, and that it does not concern the non-Arab muslims. It appears they've succeeded in this to a certain extent. This is why I feel it's not possible to reach a solution regarding this issue unless it is deemed an Islaamic issue, and the Muslims support one another in salvation, and make jihaad against the Jews in an Islaamic manner, until the land (of the Palestinians) is returned to its (rightful Palestinian) owners and the trespassing Jews return to their own lands where they came from, thereby leaving the true Jews to remain in their lands under the rule of Islaam, and not communism and nor secularism. So, truth can be plain to see and falsehood will be abandoned, and all rightful owners can return to their lands under Islaamic rule, and not under any other (rule). that is the solution to the palestinian Issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Thats all well and good dawood. But when you have Fatah and Hamas having gunbattles with each other, it kind of undermines the whole solidarity thing you hear so much about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Fuck that RIGHT OF CONQUEST, go suck on a bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 .....and make jihaad against the Jews in an Islaamic manner' date=' until the land (of the Palestinians) is returned to its (rightful Palestinian) owners and the[u'] trespassing[/u] Jews return to their own lands where they came from.... oh and should we jump back into the death camps too? You must be pretty brainwashed. The Jews come from Israel, its our country of origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I didn't say anything about deathcamps, I just said that the Law there should be the Shariah and the Jews can live under it peacefully. What I said was "the trespassing Jews return to their own lands where they came from, thereby leaving the true Jews to remain in their lands under the rule of Islaam" the true Jews who are from there should have the right to stay, not the trespassers who come there to support the occupation of the palestinian people. There will never be peace in that land until the law is Islaamic. that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 So, why does Islam rule the land? It wasn't Islamic to start with, land has no religion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 the religion of Islaam has commanded respect for the rights and preservation of people in terms of wealth, property and the self, and it has commanded peace making at times of war, as well as the prohibition of killing women and children. Islaam is far removed from terrorism, and ascribing terrorism to Islaam is a major injustice. also waging war against the weak Muslims in Palestine is (Israeli) terrorism and oppression. Islaam is the seal (finality) of all the religions. Islaam has given each and every person their rights and has honoured them by freeing them from the worship of false gods to the worship of the true Lord, Allaah. The enemies of Islaam offer a false culture and civilisation which (negatively) differentiates between mankind, and nullifies (all) agreements, offering all types of weaponry to destroy mankind". These days the Muslim nation is passing through a severe phase which requires it to take a close look at itself so that it can become a single Ummah defending and protecting it's beliefs and way of life. The bad image and weakness of Islam these days is as a result of sins and weakness of faith in addition to the presence of political and religious partisanship and differing in the religion; and the last of this Nation will never be corrected except by that which corrected the first of this nation by returning to the correct Islam". That is precisely why Islam should rule the land, because that is exactly what Allah revealed his religion for, So that Allah would be worshipped alone without worshipping false Gods and so that justice according to the Book of Allah would prevail in the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 No, I didn't ask you to justify Islam, I asked you what is inherent in the land that makes it the PROPERTY of Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 fuck thsi terrorist government talk, how many early Israeli politicians were from the stern gang and hagganah? i have mad respect for a lot of members of thsoe groups as well as freedom fighters from palestine because they both stood up for what they were entitled to (liberty) against tyrants (like the british not letting fleeing jews from europe into palestine, and the israelis keeping palestinians in one big concentration camp). Israelis ARE entitled to live there and govern themselves as long as they respect the other occupants. unfortunately the palestinianans along with other arabs had t ogo and try to take what was the israelis. Now if i was an Israeli id probably be spiteful abotu all thsoe arabs tryign to kill me and my family and 'drive us into the sea'. however if the Israelis want to be able t ochill a bit more and not worry about palestinians blowig themselves up outside their hosues they should jsut get the fuck out of the occupied territories and let the palestinians fend for themselves. I do wonder though that if the tables were turned and the palestinians had an overwhelmign military superiority whther they wouldnt just kill all the israelis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 and the israelis keeping palestinians in one big concentration camp). You made some interesting points. They only problem I have with what you have said is the quote above. The palestinians are where they are because they choose to live there. The Palestinian governed areas are being controlled as if the territory is a seperate country. Since the palestinains and israelis are effectively at war the borders are strictly governed. Truthfully I dont see any reason why the Israelis should have to let palestinians into israel, but since they do the border is controlled. Its not a camp, its a border. Something that bothers me is the palestinians demand for a state since they cant opperate on thier own. Way more than half thier population works within israel (not including the self governed areas) somewhere. If they were to delcare independence they would starve within weeks. What do they expect to live in palestine but work in israel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man with the Answers Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 palastinians refers to any body who lives in palastine, whether they be jews, muslims or christians... its a geographic designation...this is not a islam vs. jewish issue... current reaserach is showing taht all palstinian people are ethnically the same people, some just have diffrent religions... the main issue really is two groups of foreigners (or three) trying to control the land: Arab muslims, and caucasian whites jews (mostly from Russia, thus slavs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man with the Answers Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I think it is is worth mentioning here' date=' that the Palestinian issue is an Islaamic issue from the beginning (right through) to the end. Although, the enemies of Islaam have strived to distance it (this issue) from the Islamic path and convey to the non-Arab Muslims that this is an Arab issue, and that it does not concern the non-Arab muslims. It appears they've succeeded in this to a certain extent. This is why I feel it's not possible to reach a solution regarding this issue unless it is deemed an Islaamic issue, and the Muslims support one another in salvation, and make jihaad against the Jews in an Islaamic manner, until the land (of the Palestinians) is returned to its (rightful Palestinian) owners and the[u'] trespassing[/u] Jews return to their own lands where they came from, thereby leaving the true Jews to remain in their lands under the rule of Islaam, and not communism and nor secularism. So, truth can be plain to see and falsehood will be abandoned, and all rightful owners can return to their lands under Islaamic rule, and not under any other (rule). that is the solution to the palestinian Issue. palstinian muslims are not arabs.. they are all semites but not specifically arabs... see my above post^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 and caucasian whites jews (mostly from Russia' date=' thus slavs)[/quote'] Thats like saying that people from india that moved to america are native americans. I thought you were smarter than that.:shakehead: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.