PDA

View Full Version : Do you care about Israel conflict related info?


hypersensitiveZO6
06-29-2006, 06:29 PM
There more news about it everyday and am beginning to get sick of reading about it. It's in the headlines everyday and is beginning to bore me. I guess I just want the big picture. :shrug:

Do you care about Israel conflict related info?

memyselfI
06-29-2006, 06:31 PM
Well, if you care about the proliferation of radicalized and extremist Muslims then you should care about conflict here. You can't profess to be concerned about the WOT and then ignore one of the root causes of the problem.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 06:37 PM
I can't really answer yes or no.
Sometimes I am....sometimes I'm not! I also get tired of it as it's the same stuff happenin' there.
I do think this conflict is the original cause of ME terrorism and anti-semitism though.

SCChief
06-29-2006, 07:00 PM
Well, if you care about the proliferation of radicalized and extremist Muslims then you should care about conflict here. You can't profess to be concerned about the WOT and then ignore one of the root causes of the problem.

As sad as it makes me... I agree. The violence swirling around Israel is the true focal point of the WOT. Israel is not going to go away, and the Islamic peoples of the region will never accept Israel as a legitimate country. And since Israel really seems to be charmed when in a conventional conflict... guerilla tactics will always be used against them. Thus breeding more terrorists.

StcChief
06-29-2006, 07:30 PM
The Isreali's are the whole reason for all of it.

2000+ years of religious war.

They don't take Sh1t from anyone.

Amazing how quick Hamus is saying Uncle.

FAX
06-29-2006, 07:34 PM
I care, Mr. hyperliteZO6. I have friends over there.

I must say that, even those who oppose war in all its forms have to be impressed by their response to Hamas' actions this week. Hooah.

FAX

Mr. Laz
06-29-2006, 07:40 PM
do i care?

pretty much have to ..... it just effects the world too much not to.

go bowe
06-29-2006, 08:43 PM
I care, Mr. hyperliteZO6. I have friends over there.

I must say that, even those who oppose war in all its forms have to be impressed by their response to Hamas' actions this week. Hooah.

FAXwhich actions?

agreeing to implicitly recognize israel or praising the kidnapping?

Iowanian
06-29-2006, 09:22 PM
Israel is putting a new assault rifle into their military that looks pretty impressive.

FAX
06-29-2006, 09:41 PM
which actions?

agreeing to implicitly recognize israel or praising the kidnapping?

I succeeded in wording that post very poorly, Mr. go bo. My apologies. The "week" refers to the Israeli response. The "actions" refer to the kidnapping. I suppose I would also throw in the tunnel attack out of Gaza, the chemical weapon threat, and the execution of the captured Israeli soldier with a bullet to the brain.

As for Hamas' "recognition" of Israel. I thought that deal/statement was a tad confusing. Didn't you?

FAX

go bowe
06-29-2006, 11:15 PM
I succeeded in wording that post very poorly, Mr. go bo. My apologies. The "week" refers to the Israeli response. The "actions" refer to the kidnapping. I suppose I would also throw in the tunnel attack out of Gaza, the chemical weapon threat, and the execution of the captured Israeli soldier with a bullet to the brain.

As for Hamas' "recognition" of Israel. I thought that deal/statement was a tad confusing. Didn't you?

FAXall those things happened, to be sure, but i'm not persuaded that hamas (at least the political wing in palestine) took part in any of those events, even though some hamas palestinian legislators praised the kidnapping...

i think the kidnapping of the soldier was a ploy by radical palestinians to derail the hamas agreement regarding negotiating with israel and stop the peace process...

just like the prime minister who was assinated by some right wing settler, well actually just like the settler, there are extremists at both ends in this dispute...

personally, i think the incursion will set back any chance of negotiating a real peace for a long time...

as far as the agreement, at least they're showing some willingness to negotiate and in so doing, implicitly recognize israel's existence...

i thought it was a real achievement by the moderate faction in hamas to get that agreement done...

but it's all gone to naught by the extreme measures israel is taking, i'm afraid...

and the hardliners are running the show now...

it's going to get even bumpier on the me express...

go bowe
06-29-2006, 11:21 PM
all those things happened, to be sure, but i'm not persuaded that hamas (at least the political wing in palestine) took part in any of those events, even though some hamas palestinian legislators praised the kidnapping...

i think the kidnapping of the soldier was a ploy by radical palestinians to derail the hamas agreement regarding negotiating with israel and stop the peace process...

just like the prime minister who was assinated by some right wing settler, well actually just like the settler, there are extremists at both ends in this dispute...

personally, i think the incursion will set back any chance of negotiating a real peace for a long time...

as far as the agreement, at least they're showing some willingness to negotiate and in so doing, implicitly recognize israel's existence...

i thought it was a real achievement by the moderate faction in hamas to get that agreement done...

but it's all gone to naught by the extreme measures israel is taking, i'm afraid...

and the hardliners are running the show now...

it's going to get even bumpier on the me express...assinated?

man, that's good rum... :D :D :D

Tig O Bittys
06-29-2006, 11:40 PM
I do care about issues involving the sovereign state of Palestine and the occupied area known as Israel,

because of my strong convictions i will just say that one man's
"suicide bomber" is another man's freedom fighter- i always root for the underdog and whomever has been mistreated,

BOTH sides have done some seriously fuggd up shit

c'mon people end American funding to Israel and end the occupation of Palestine.

you wont win over ALL the Arabs with these actions, just as MLK did not convince or influence everyone to not be racist and treat people equally- but if Palestine free you would truly see " Peace In the Middle -EAST"

I'm out

FAX
06-30-2006, 08:38 AM
... it's going to get even bumpier on the me express...

Excellent points all, Mr. go bo. And, I'm pretty sure I see what you're getting at.

I have to tell you, though. There is a very low likelihood that there will be "peace" in the ME in our lifetimes. Or, our children's lifetimes. Or, even our grandchildren's. The ME is a very, very dangerous place.

In my heart, I would like to believe that there will be a time when the Arabs and Israelis can live side by side without hatred and conflict. (The Israelis will never relinquish their right to exist. That genie is completely out of the bottle). In my head, I know it's impossible. And, unfortunately, the "occupation" is only the tip of the iceberg. The great religious war is only beginning, Mr. go bo, and there are too many factions committed to war now to count.

True, some Hamas factions may be attempting to gain legitimacy and sympathy as a political organization, but others are not so inclined. The hatred on both sides is immeasurable.

So I respectfully submit that, while we wait for WWIII, the status quo is the best we can hope for. Therefore, one is forced to support actions that maintain a semblance of "order" in the region. Which I do.

FAX

the Talking Can
06-30-2006, 08:51 AM
honestly, it seems like the same back and forth warring that has been happening since before I was born...of course it is important, but following it daily in the press can be madness...

hypersensitiveZO6
06-30-2006, 09:01 AM
GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Friday demanded Israel halt a Gaza offensive if it wanted to free a captured soldier and said the Hamas-led government would not give way to force.

Israeli warplanes pounded Gaza, setting ablaze the Interior Ministry offices, on the third day of a military operation aimed at bringing home the army corporal who was seized in a cross-border raid last Sunday.

The crisis has sent Israeli-Palestinian relations to new lows and piled more pressure on the Hamas Islamist government, straining under a U.S.-led aid embargo to get it to renounce violence and drop its vow to destroy Israel.

Haniyeh, addressing the public for the first time since the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit, said at Muslim prayers in a Gaza mosque that Hamas would not be pressured by raids or the detention or killing of its leaders.

"No concessions will be made," he said, while adding that he was working with Egyptian mediators and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to end the hostage crisis.

"The aggression must stop in order not to make the situation more complicated," he said.

Hamas ministers have been keeping under cover after Israeli threats of assassination. Hamas's armed wing was among the groups that grabbed Shalit, although the government said it had no foreknowledge of the raid.

Voicing hope for mediation, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in a newspaper interview that Hamas had given "conditional approval" for Shalit's release, without saying what the conditions were.

Senior diplomatic sources said Israel had put an assault into the northern Gaza Strip on hold to allow more time for mediation. A poll published on Friday showed that most Israelis favored diplomacy before large-scale military action.

ISRAEL "WILL NOT NEGOTIATE"

Israel has already rejected a demand by militants to free Palestinian prisoners for information on Shalit's fate. A Hamas lawmaker, Mushir al-Masri, said on Friday the tank gunner would never be freed unless Israel released prisoners.

His captors have not said whether he is alive or dead.

"Make no mistake, we are not going to negotiate on the release of our soldier," cabinet minister Meir Sheetrit told Reuters.

Overnight, Israeli planes struck over 20 targets in the Gaza Strip. They included the office of the Hamas interior minister, a building used by Al-Aqsa Brigades militants, part of Abbas's Fatah movement, roads and zones used for firing rockets.

An Islamic Jihad militant was killed, the first death of the offensive, in what the army said was a strike on a rocket squad. Troops killed two gunmen in a clash that erupted during an arrest raid in the West Bank.

A day after seizing dozens of Hamas cabinet members and officials in the West Bank, Israel revoked the Jerusalem residency of four lawmakers linked to the group. The Interior Ministry said that was not connected to the offensive.

Israel is under international pressure to avoid the civilian casualties that could result from an offensive into densely populated Gaza, home to 1.4 million Palestinians.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Group of Eight foreign ministers urged Israel on Thursday to show restraint in Gaza, where Israeli strikes have knocked out bridges, water systems and a major power transformer.

The International Committee of the Red Cross called on Friday for Israel to allow urgent medical supplies into Gaza.

Al-Aqsa Brigades militants claimed to have kidnapped another soldier in the West Bank on Thursday, but presented no evidence that they had done. The army was checking the report. The group has made hoax claims before.

(Additional reporting by Corinne Heller and Jonathan Saul in Jerusalem)

banyon
06-30-2006, 09:03 AM
so, hyperlite you're sick of reading about Israel, but not sick of posting the material for others to read? :spock:

hypersensitiveZO6
06-30-2006, 09:05 AM
so, hyperlite you're sick of reading about Israel, but not sick of posting the material for others to read? :spock:

gotta keep the thread goin. :shrug: ROFL

hypersensitiveZO6
06-30-2006, 09:06 AM
As I read some of your guys comments, I become more and more interested.

Donger
06-30-2006, 09:11 AM
I only wish that we had the intel capabilities of the Israelis. They are truly daunting.

Rausch
06-30-2006, 12:30 PM
I only wish that we had the intel capabilities of the Israelis. They are truly daunting.

It's amazing.

But they also have a sense of pride and nationalism that we could only dream of at this point...

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 12:36 PM
It's amazing.

But they also have a sense of pride and nationalism that we could only dream of at this point...
I think a lot of those two points is due to being constantly surrounded by a dangerous environment. ( including the Holocaust and European pogroms) Look how this country was immediately after 9/11. Disasters do that to a people...unites them. Otherwise, we've been isolated by two large oceans.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 07:22 PM
I'm personally kind of bored with the whole subject of Israel. I'd be perfectly happy if someone would just drop a bomb into the heart of it and turn both Israel and Palestine into a parking lot. At least then we would be spared from the constant race to see who can play the victim card the most.

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 07:28 PM
I'm personally kind of bored with the whole subject of Israel. I'd be perfectly happy if someone would just drop a bomb into the heart of it and turn both Israel and Palestine into a parking lot. At least then we would be spared from the constant race to see who can play the victim card the most.

I'm guessing all those Jews living in Israel that lived through WWII have a bit of a chip on their shoulder.

Although maybe in hindsight it would have been better to give them California to rebuild the new Israel back in the 40's instead of the ME.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 07:51 PM
I'm guessing all those Jews living in Israel that lived through WWII have a bit of a chip on their shoulder.

Although maybe in hindsight it would have been better to give them California to rebuild the new Israel back in the 40's instead of the ME.
It would have been better to not "give" them anything, and instead let them find, claim and build their own nation of their own making, just like every other country on the planet. Why we felt the need to uproot hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and steal land from nations that had nothing to do with the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust, based only on the fact that the Jews (along with several other groups of people) used to live there thousands of years ago, is a mystery to me. If they wanted to make up for the Holocaust, they should have given them land out of Germany and Austria. That would have made sense.

stevieray
06-30-2006, 08:19 PM
It would have been better to not "give" them anything, and instead let them find, claim and build their own nation of their own making, just like every other country on the planet. Why we felt the need to uproot hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and steal land from nations that had nothing to do with the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust, based only on the fact that the Jews (along with several other groups of people) used to live there thousands of years ago, is a mystery to me. If they wanted to make up for the Holocaust, they should have given them land out of Germany and Austria. That would have made sense.

Where do you find a nation in the 1940's?

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 08:26 PM
It would have been better to not "give" them anything, and instead let them find, claim and build their own nation of their own making, just like every other country on the planet. Why we felt the need to uproot hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and steal land from nations that had nothing to do with the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust, based only on the fact that the Jews (along with several other groups of people) used to live there thousands of years ago, is a mystery to me. If they wanted to make up for the Holocaust, they should have given them land out of Germany and Austria. That would have made sense.

Can't argue with much of that.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 08:30 PM
Where do you find a nation in the 1940's?Traditionally in war, the winners divide the spoils, including the land of the conquered nations, sometimes. Like I said, it would have made more sense for us to claim some land from Germany and Austria to make a new country for the Jews, than to take land from Jordan and Egypt. For one thing, Germany and Austria were our enemies during WWII, and we defeated them. For another, those were the countries where most of the Holocaust took place. Those were the countries where the Jews who we were ostensibly trying to help (before "Hollywood Jews" filled out the rest of the population) lost their homes. Jordan and Egypt had nothing to do with the Holocaust, nor did they fight against us during the war. And they are (and were) sovereign nations, to boot. Basically what we did was go into Jordan and Egypt, say, "We are big, bad and powerful, we just won the biggest war in history, and we're gonna take some of your land and make a new country for some people who were wronged during the war, people that you have always traditionally hated, by the way, and we have the guns and power to do it, so you're not going to have anything to say about it!" It's almost like the US and Britain were trying to insure that the war would never end.

stevieray
06-30-2006, 08:57 PM
[QUOTE=. Basically what we did was go into Jordan and Egypt, say, "We are big, bad and powerful, we just won the biggest war in history, and we're gonna take some of your land and make a new country for some people who were wronged during the war, people that you have always traditionally hated, by the way, and we have the guns and power to do it, so you're not going to have anything to say about it!" It's almost like the US and Britain were trying to insure that the war would never end.[/QUOTE]


That is incorrect...Jews started their efforts in the late 19th century.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 08:59 PM
Traditionally in war, the winners divide the spoils, including the land of the conquered nations, sometimes. Like I said, it would have made more sense for us to claim some land from Germany and Austria to make a new country for the Jews, than to take land from Jordan and Egypt. For one thing, Germany and Austria were our enemies during WWII, and we defeated them. For another, those were the countries where most of the Holocaust took place. Those were the countries where the Jews who we were ostensibly trying to help (before "Hollywood Jews" filled out the rest of the population) lost their homes. Jordan and Egypt had nothing to do with the Holocaust, nor did they fight against us during the war. And they are (and were) sovereign nations, to boot. Basically what we did was go into Jordan and Egypt, say, "We are big, bad and powerful, we just won the biggest war in history, and we're gonna take some of your land and make a new country for some people who were wronged during the war, people that you have always traditionally hated, by the way, and we have the guns and power to do it, so you're not going to have anything to say about it!" It's almost like the US and Britain were trying to insure that the war would never end.

I think what Stevie was imply was that there weren't all these nations in the area by 1940. There was no Jordan, Iraq, Palestine or Israel. These were under the British mandate since the end of WWII. But I have to say I love your post, I never thought of doing it like that and it punishes the right countries.

Just a few points I'd like to add: It wasn't really the US that thought we were big and tough. It was mostly England's doing. The area was under the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years and was dissolved as a direct result of WWI. The area was divided up among the Allied Powers, the victors mainly England and France. It was England that promised the Arab's the land back to their own rule if they would help them defeat the Ottomans. The Arabs fought side by side with the British. There was rising Arab nationalism at the time...one of the things that help to form a common identity that creates new nations.

So here we have Britain promising the Arabs self-determination with their land being freed from the Ottoman's, when Lord Balfour of England comes out with his declaration that there will now be a Jewish state after the Arabs fight on behalf of the British. That was the betrayal in the Arab world's eyes.

You can see it in the book or movie on Lawrence of Arabia. You just can't be making promises to two different groups of people that actually conflict with their goals and not expect a conflict. As far as I will ever be concerned we inherited the problem because Britain was broke at the end of WWII and couldn't handle the area directly anymore.

The end of WWII was supposed to spell the end of European colonialism, but it did not in the ME. Personally, I think if Great Britian used the idea of a Jewish state as part of the deal to engage the Arabs it may have had a better chance of pulling off. Afterall, during all the migrations up beginning as early as the late 19th century to this conflict, both Arab and Jew lived side by side peacefully with hardly any, if any at all, anti-semitism. Britain's betrayal imo opinion sparked it.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 09:01 PM
That is incorrect...Jews started their efforts in the late 19th century.If they did, it was ineffectual, and they did nothing with it. They have us to thank for the existence of their country. And it still makes no sense for us to have taken Jordanian and Egyptian lands to create it. The "historical precedence" argument that is favored by Christians simply doesn't wash, since they hadn't been there for centuries. If you dwell in a land, then leave it, you don't get to claim it in perpetuity. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, then I'm sure you'd have no problem with someone kicking you out of your house because they wanted to give it back to the Indians.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 09:05 PM
If they did, it was ineffectual, and they did nothing with it. They have us to thank for the existence of their country. And it still makes no sense for us to have stolen Jordanian and Egyptian lands to create it. The "historical precedence" argument that is favored by Christians simply doesn't wash, since they hadn't been there for centuries. If you dwell in a land, then leave it, you don't get to claim it in perpetuity. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, then I'm sure you'd have no problem with someone kicking you out of your house because they wanted to give it back to the Indians.

Geesh..you guys are way ahead of my last post and on another page.

They have Great Britain to thank for it nightwish and us to keep it.

The early migrations didn't involve Jews creating a state, they simply came and lived side-by-side there as the area was under the Ottoman Empire (Turks) at those times.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 09:09 PM
Geesh..you guys are way ahead of my last post and on another page.

They have Great Britain to thank for it nightwish and us to keep it.

The early migrations didn't involve Jews creating a state, they simply came and lived side-by-side there as the area was under the Ottoman Empire (Turks) at those times.
Don't worry, I saw your post, but not until after I had already made mine. I guess I'll have to go back and change "stolen" to something else, but the main point still stands, I think.

By the way, by "us," I mean the combined US and British effort, not just the US.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 09:13 PM
Don't worry, I saw your post, but not until after I had already made mine. I guess I'll have to go back and change "stolen" to something else, but the main point still stands, I think.

By the way, by "us," I mean the combined US and British effort, not just the US.


I absolutely agree with ya' 100% that the gist of it is correct.
And yes we are now an extension, imo, of the former British Empire and due to our being such good allies. But good cannot come from that way of operating.

stevieray
06-30-2006, 09:22 PM
If they did, it was ineffectual, and they did nothing with it. They have us to thank for the existence of their country. And it still makes no sense for us to have stolen Jordanian and Egyptian lands to create it. The "historical precedence" argument that is favored by Christians simply doesn't wash, since they hadn't been there for centuries. If you dwell in a land, then leave it, you don't get to claim it in perpetuity. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, then I'm sure you'd have no problem with someone kicking you out of your house because they wanted to give it back to the Indians.

No they don't. They have us to thank for support, which is what we are about, helping people achieve freedom. They started migrating back in the latter part of the nineteenth century and in 1923, England supported them. It wasn't until many flocked during WWII that the tensions began to escalate. The UN voted for two seperate states in 47, and as we know declared a State in 48.

By whom?

So it appears it did work that way, in spite of your right to disagree.

As for the Indians, I don't remember them ever leaving. Even still, I'd oblige, it's a big country.



Indians, Africans, unborn children...are Christiians and Jews next?

Jesus
06-30-2006, 09:27 PM
There more news about it everyday and am beginning to get sick of reading about it. It's in the headlines everyday and is beginning to bore me. I guess I just want the big picture. :shrug:

Do you care about Israel conflict related info?

Yeah, news about the old neighborhood is of concern to me. Yes.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 09:29 PM
No they don't. They have us to thank for support, which is what we are about, helping people achieve freedom. They started migrating back in the latter part of the nineteenth century and in 1923, England supported them. It wasn't until many flocked during WWII that the tensions began to escalate. The UN voted for two seperate states in 47, and as we know declared a State in 48.The Jewish population in that area was minimal until after WWII, after the announcement of the Partition Plan. Only then did this large influx of Jews that you're speaking of happen. Prior to that, it was a trickle. During WWII, there was an exodus of Jews from Germany and Austria, but it wasn't to the Middle East. Many of them came to America, most went to Russia and other allied European nations. By whom?What? I have idea what you're referencing there.So it appears it did work that way, in spite of your right to disagree.No, it didn't. They left the land long ago, they did not have a perpetual right to it. Once they left, others came in and took it over. If they wanted it back, they needed to earn it back. They didn't. That's why so much of the Middle East (and a number of people here) don't see them as legitimate.As for the Indians, I don't remember them ever leaving. Even still, I'd oblige, it's a big country.Don't insult my intelligence. You'd be screaming bloody murder, and you know it. And although they didn't leave the country (which didn't exist at the time), they definitely were forced to leave their "nations," or haven't you read that part of history?Indians, Africans, unborn children...are Christiians and Jews next?For what?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 09:39 PM
They were kicked out by the Romans under Titus for rebelling.
Except for a few, they fled in what is known as the "diaspora" to different countries around the world.

Another reason why they are considered illegit by Arabs is because the Jews that were from ancient Israel originally were descendents of Abraham and were semites just as the Arabs. Some returned under the persecutions under Isabella during the Inquisition and they were also semites. Sephardic Jews. They lived peacdefully among the Arabs.

After WWII, the large migrations were mostly Jews of European white stock: German Ashkenazi' Jews. Allegedly these are not descendents of the original Abrahamites to some, they are more recent converts to Judaism....so Arabs tend to see those migrations as European colonialization.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 09:50 PM
Another cog in the gears is that the Palestinians believe (and nobody can really prove otherwise) they are the descendents of the Canaanites, who were the original inhabitants before the arrival of the Hebrews. So their claim on the land may be just as legimate as that of the Jews, and possibly moreso, since the strongest claim to the land would be by those who were actually living there of their own accord at the time the land was partitioned without their consent. And that was the Palestinians.

Jesus
06-30-2006, 09:55 PM
Another cog in the gears is that the Palestinians believe (and nobody can really prove otherwise) they are the descendents of the Canaanites, who were the original inhabitants before the arrival of the Hebrews. So their claim on the land may be just as legimate as that of the Jews, and possibly moreso, since the strongest claim to the land would be by those who were actually living there of their own accord at the time the land was partitioned without their consent. And that was the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians weren't such pussies, maybe they could do more than whine about "it's MYYYYYYY land."

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 09:57 PM
Another cog in the gears is that the Palestinians believe (and nobody can really prove otherwise) they are the descendents of the Canaanites, who were the original inhabitants before the arrival of the Hebrews. So their claim on the land may be just as legimate as that of the Jews, and possibly moreso, since the strongest claim to the land would be by those who were actually living there of their own accord at the time the land was partitioned without their consent. And that was the Palestinians.

Really? That's interesting. That's something I'd love to read more about.
You know I got into studying this history only after 9/11 because I was sick of getting educated,or a lack thereof from the news. I bought a book on Arab history.

Then one night I got on the web to just add up all the years of who had that land longest. I'm sure I was not perfectly accurate but it was so close, within 50 years that it seemed like both should live there and have one pluralistic govt with elections. Some Jews actually support that but Zionists don't because they want something that keeps a Jewish identity so they can never be persecuted again.

From doing all that research, I found out that I had Canaanite in me as well. Being Sicilian we have a mix of peoples from that region in us. Did you know that historians stopped calling them Canaanites after a certain date? They were also the Phoenicians and the Carthagians that Rome fought with. I thought that was interesting.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:08 PM
If the Palestinians weren't such pussies, maybe they could do more than whine about "it's MYYYYYYY land."Somehow, I just don't see the real Jesus calling people "pussies." ROFL

Interesting Jesus story, by the way: I know a guy who was institutionalized for a short period of time, just a month or so, if I remember right. We always called him Jesus, because he looked exactly like the usual conceptualization of Jesus, with the long hair, beard, sandals, and he favored wearing a white robe because of it. Anyway, there was this women who was in the hospital with him who had a disorder that compelled her to eat things out of ashtrays. She saw him and thought he really was Jesus, started following him around and calling him "Lord" and all that. Finally, one day he turned around to her, annoyed at her always eating things from the ashtray, and said, "I command you to stop doing that!" From what I hear, she never ate anything from the ashtray again after that!

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:10 PM
From doing all that research, I found out that I had Canaanite in me as well. Being Sicilian we have a mix of peoples from that region in us. Did you know that historians stopped calling them Canaanites after a certain date? They were also the Phoenicians and the Carthagians that Rome fought with. I thought that was interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting. I hadn't heard about the Phoenicians and Carthagians (or Carthaginians, whichever is the proper term) being the same people as the Canaanites. That would make it easier to trace the line.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2006, 10:14 PM
I just found this:

While the term Carthaginian is used by many modern writers, many ancient writings used the adjective Punic to describe anything to do with Carthaginian civilization, because of the Latin term Punius (earlier Poenius), itself borrowed from Greek ???????, "Phoenician."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage

Can you tell I'm bored?

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:16 PM
I just found this:

While the term Carthaginian is used by many modern writers, many ancient writings used the adjective Punic to describe anything to do with Carthaginian civilization, because of the Latin term Punius (earlier Poenius), itself borrowed from Greek ???????, "Phoenician."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage

Can you tell I'm bored?
Hehe, obviously!

stevieray
06-30-2006, 10:25 PM
[QUOTE=Nightwish]The Jewish population in that area was minimal until after WWII, after the announcement of the Partition Plan. Only then did this large influx of Jews that you're speaking of happen. Prior to that, it was a trickle. During WWII, there was an exodus of Jews from Germany and Austria, but it wasn't to the Middle East. Many of them came to America, most went to Russia and other allied European nations.
_________________________________________________________

I've already stated most of that, but the point was they were there way before WWII, with support from England, not with John Wayne and the Green Berets.

__________________________________________________________
No, it didn't. They left the land long ago, they did not have a perpetual right to it. Once they left, others came in and took it over. If they wanted it back, they needed to earn it back. They didn't. That's why so much of the Middle East (and a number of people here) don't see them as legitimate.
________________________________________________________

Yes it did, they became a State, no matter how much it bothers you, it is legitimate.
________________________________________________________
Don't insult my intelligence. You'd be screaming bloody murder, and you know it. And although they didn't leave the country (which didn't exist at the time), they definitely were forced to leave their "nations," or haven't you read that part of history?
________________________________________________________


Interesting, you accuse me of insulting your intelligence when responding to a question that you asked my opinion on, regarding a hypothetical, then claim to know how I would react? is this deflection? IIRC, your point was Israel didn't have a right because they left. The Indians were forced to move onto reservations, not leave the country. How can indians be forced to leave something that you say ddn't exist?

Let's try to keep this discussion civil.
_____________________________________

For what[?
___________________________________

I don''t know, you tell me. You've already stated in so many words that you don't put much value on Jewish llife, or at least it appears rhat way.

Boyceofsummer
06-30-2006, 10:33 PM
The Jews ain’t leaving. Mankind will never be able to slaughter them again without an enormous price in blood and death. The Arabs in the region have always punked the Palestinians. The Jews will defend their small strip of land. PERIOD!


Let's move on.

stevieray
06-30-2006, 10:34 PM
Another cog in the gears is that the Palestinians believe (and nobody can really prove otherwise) they are the descendents of the Canaanites, who were the original inhabitants before the arrival of the Hebrews. So their claim on the land may be just as legimate as that of the Jews, and possibly moreso, since the strongest claim to the land would be by those who were actually living there of their own accord at the time the land was partitioned without their consent. And that was the Palestinians.


Isaac and Ishmael.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:35 PM
[QUOTE=Nightwish]Yes it did, they became a State, no matter how much it bothers you, it is legitimate.
I'm pointing out why so much of the Middle East doesn't consider it a legitimate State. Statehood is more than just something on paper. To the Middle Eastern world, Israel's statehood doesn't legitimately exist beyond the paper. They didn't "earn" their statehood the way everyone else does. It was handed to them on a silver platter.

Interesting, you accuse me of insulting your intelligence when responding to a question that you asked my opinion on, regarding a hypothetical, then claim to know how I would react?
Because I don't see any American just quietly rolling over and letting someone kick them out of their home with the argument that someone else has a rights claim to it based on "historical precedent."

IIRC, your point was Israel didn't have a right because they left. The Indians were forced to move onto reservations, not leave the country. How can indians be forced to leave something that you say ddn't exist?
The Jews were also kicked out or left because of strife, same as with the Indians. The Indians didn't leave the United States, because the United States didn't exist at the time. However, they did have their own settlements and "nations," and they did leave those. It's no different than with the Jews.

I don''t know, you tell me.
I don't know, because I don't know what card you're trying to play, there.

You've already stated in so many words that you don't put much value on Jewish llife, or at least it appears rhat way.
I haven't said one word about Jewish life. I've spoken about Israel, the political state, not about the religious identity of the majority of its inhabitants. So if you're trying to play the anti-semetic card, you might as well stop before you even start.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 10:39 PM
Isaac and Ishmael.
Yes, the ethnic Jews and the Canaanites (who the Palestinians claim to be) are blood brothers, so to speak, albeit enemies, with an equal right to the "historical precedent" claim. But, as I said, that claim is worthless if you don't actually stick around to hold onto the land in the first place. If you leave it, whether by choice or by force, once somebody else moves in to take your place, your claim to the land is dead.

stevieray
06-30-2006, 10:54 PM
Gotta spend some time with the wife, both kids are gone...hehehe

I'll respnd later.

patteeu
07-01-2006, 06:56 AM
I'm guessing all those Jews living in Israel that lived through WWII have a bit of a chip on their shoulder.

Although maybe in hindsight it would have been better to give them California to rebuild the new Israel back in the 40's instead of the ME.

They've already got Hollywood, might as well give them the rest, eh? ;)

patteeu
07-01-2006, 07:00 AM
It would have been better to not "give" them anything, and instead let them find, claim and build their own nation of their own making, just like every other country on the planet. Why we felt the need to uproot hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and steal land from nations that had nothing to do with the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust, based only on the fact that the Jews (along with several other groups of people) used to live there thousands of years ago, is a mystery to me. If they wanted to make up for the Holocaust, they should have given them land out of Germany and Austria. That would have made sense.

Giving them land out of Germany and Austria wouldn't have been much different than what we did.

Traditionally in war, the winners divide the spoils, including the land of the conquered nations, sometimes.

Right. And that's why the British, French, etc. ended up controlling the middle east and creating nations like Jordan, Iraq, and Israel.

Like I said, it would have made more sense for us to claim some land from Germany and Austria to make a new country for the Jews, than to take land from Jordan and Egypt.

Jordan is just as much of a figment of western imagination as Israel is. Did Egypt sacrifice land to the Israeli project? I wasn't aware of that if it is the case.

hypersensitiveZO6
07-01-2006, 07:30 AM
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Palestinian militants holding an Israeli soldier issued a new set of demands Saturday, calling for the release of 1,000 prisoners and a halt to Israel's military offensive in Gaza. But Israel rejected them

Meanwhile, the Palestinian deputy minister of prisoner affairs, Ziad Abu Aen, said mediators had told him the Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was injured in the Sunday raid in which he was captured but was alive. "He has three wounds. I guess shrapnel wounds," Abu Aen said, adding that Shalit was in stable condition.

The latest militant demands were issued as Israel kept up military pressure on the Palestinians, launching new airstrikes throughout Gaza for a fourth straight night and firing artillery rounds at the southern and northern parts of the coastal strip from tanks and navy gunboats. One of the targets was a Hamas training camp. There were no reports of casualties.

Concerned about the rising tensions, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting Friday to discuss the standoff. The Palestinians asked the council to condemn Israel's actions and order a halt to the offensive, but no resolution was circulated — apparently because of opposition by the United States.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday urged both sides to continue diplomatic efforts, calling the next hours "critical, sensitive and serious."

The new call for a prisoner swap was issued by the militant wing of the ruling Hamas party and two smaller militant groups with ties to Hamas — the Popular Resistance Committees and the Army of Islam. The three groups have claimed responsibility for Sunday's abduction of Shalit, 19, in a cross-border raid.

In a joint statement, the militants condemned Israel for launching a military operation while diplomatic efforts were continuing. Egyptian mediators have been trying to find a resolution for days.

"Despite the efforts of the mediators, who quietly tried to quickly resolve this humanitarian case, the enemy and its political leadership is still under the influence of their military and security commanders, who know nothing but the language of invasion, destruction and killing," it said.

The militants called for the release of 1,000 prisoners, including non-Palestinian Muslims and Arabs held by Israel. The gesture appeared to be aimed at boosting support in the Arab world.

The statement also repeated a demand made earlier this week for the release of all Palestinian women and minors held in Israeli prisons — an estimated 500 people — in exchange for information about Shalit. The militants did not promise to release the soldier.

Israel rejected the latest demands. "The Israeli position is that (Shalit) should be released immediately and unconditionally," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.

The fate of the prisoners held by Israel is an emotional issue in Palestinian society. Palestinian leaders routinely call for their release, and the militants' calls for a prisoner swap have won widespread support among the general public. Israel has ruled out a swap.

Israel sent troops into southern Gaza on Wednesday — the first major raid into the territory since Israeli soldiers pulled out last year after a 38-year occupation — and began a wave of airstrikes across the coastal strip. Israeli officials postponed a planned invasion of northern Gaza on Thursday, though troops remain massed on the border.

In addition to its clampdown in Gaza, Israel has detained eight Palestinian Cabinet ministers and revoked the Jerusalem residency rights of four senior Hamas officials.

The offensive has left many residents without electricity or water. The United Nations on Friday warned the territory is on the edge of a humanitarian crisis, and the international Red Cross said it was working to get aid shipments into the area.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said Friday that the Israeli offensive is aimed at toppling the Hamas-led government, which took office in March after winning legislative elections.

"This total war is proof of a premeditated plan," he said.

Haniyeh said he was in contact with Arab, Muslim and European leaders to try to resolve the crisis, "but this Israeli military escalation complicates matters and makes it more difficult."

Israel considers Hamas, which has killed more than 250 Israelis in suicide bombings, a terrorist group, and has helped lead an international economic boycott against the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview published in Egypt's Al-Ahram newspaper Friday that his government had been holding talks with Hamas leaders, who agreed to conditionally release Shalit, but Israel had not yet accepted the agreement. He gave no details on the conditions set forth by Hamas.

He said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had promised not to rush into a military offensive, but to "give additional time to find a peaceful solution to the problem of the kidnapped soldier."

Israeli officials said they knew nothing of an agreement and denied cooperating in any talks.

With negotiations appearing to bear no fruit, Israel has continued its air assault on Gaza. Airstrikes late Friday and early Saturday targeted militant training grounds in northern and southern Gaza as well as access routes in central Gaza, the army said.

Overnight, militants fired a mortar shell at southern Israel and an anti-tank missile at Israeli forces, the military said. No injuries or damage were reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

SCChief
07-01-2006, 08:41 AM
Yes, the ethnic Jews and the Canaanites (who the Palestinians claim to be) are blood brothers, so to speak, albeit enemies, with an equal right to the "historical precedent" claim. But, as I said, that claim is worthless if you don't actually stick around to hold onto the land in the first place. If you leave it, whether by choice or by force, once somebody else moves in to take your place, your claim to the land is dead.

I can see your point here... somewhat. But in the history of nation building, the country with the military savy has often defined its own borders. And let's be honest... Israel established their right to exist when they demolished 3 military powers in the region in 7 days. Whether the initial formation of Israel was by legitimate claim or precedent or not became moot when they demonstrated their ability to take control of their lands.

Which is why no country in the world wants to screw with them in any overt military manner... they are united by a strong sense of nationalism and relatively-common religion. There aren't clans or tribes... Israel views all of their people as Israelis. And as such, they will never lose control of those lands. And neither will the terrorism stop. It really is a vicious cycle.

banyon
07-01-2006, 09:17 AM
Isaac and Ishmael.

Actually it started one notch earlier with Jacob and Esau.

stevieray
07-01-2006, 09:36 AM
Actually it started one notch earlier with Jacob and Esau.
Actually , that would be impossible, considering Jacob was the son of Isaac.

banyon
07-01-2006, 09:46 AM
Actually , that would be impossible, considering Jacob was the son of Isaac.

It's been a while since I was in sunday School.

Without bringing a silver Delorean into play, you are correct. :redface:

Nightwish
07-01-2006, 10:59 AM
I can see your point here... somewhat. But in the history of nation building, the country with the military savy has often defined its own borders. And let's be honest... Israel established their right to exist when they demolished 3 military powers in the region in 7 days. Whether the initial formation of Israel was by legitimate claim or precedent or not became moot when they demonstrated their ability to take control of their lands.
You mean they "demonstrated their ability" to use American equipment, American training, and the backing of US and British forces to take control of their lands. We propped them up from the word go. They've never had to stand on their own.

stevieray
07-01-2006, 11:21 AM
1. It doesn't matter whether you and the ME consider it illegitimate. Personal opinion, nothing more.

2. Personal opinion, not one of us can speak as what others would due under this circumstance.

3. I guess the US Calvary was just a made up name. Semantics.

4.Not playing a card, showing examples of people in this country being dehumanized. Christians are under assault now. I was asking for an opinion, not an answer, sorry I wasn't more clear..

5.Didn't you say you'd like to see a bomb dropped on the region? That doesn't sound like value of life.

stevieray
07-01-2006, 11:26 AM
You mean they "demonstrated their ability" to use American equipment, American training, and the backing of US and British forces to take control of their lands. We propped them up from the word go. They've never had to stand on their own.

So, because they used American equipment, it invalidates their victory?

I don't think this is about land with you, rather more about a race of people you really really need to invalidate because you don't approve of their existence in Israel, and because someone helped them with that existence.

didn't someone prop you up until you were able to stand on your own?

Nightwish
07-01-2006, 11:30 AM
So, because they used American equipment, it invalidates their victory?
American equipment, American training, and US/British forces. They didn't do it on their own.

I don't think this is about land with you, rather more about a race of people you really really need to invalidate because someone helped them.
Why do you keep trying to make this about race and religion? I've not said anything about either race or religion. Please learn the difference.

didn't someone prop you up until you were able to stand on your own?
Eventually I was able to stand on my own. Unlike Israel, I haven't been spoon-fed in a long time. Israel has never had to stand on their own. They're about the only country I can think of that can say that.

stevieray
07-01-2006, 11:34 AM
American equipment, American training, and US/British forces. They didn't do it on their own.


Why do you keep trying to make this about race and religion? I've not said anything about either race or religion. Please learn the difference.


Eventually I was able to stand on my own. Unlike Israel, I haven't been spoon-fed in a long time. Israel has never had to stand on their own. They're about the only country I can think of that can say that.

so what? didn't the french help us? didn't the white man help african americans achieve freedom? I guess the the emancipation is just a piece of paper, and not legitimate.


so only you get the benefit of the doubt of eventually?

Then back to insulting Jews. No offense, but you are appearing racist.

Adept Havelock
07-01-2006, 11:36 AM
I'll agree with Nightwish's statement about Israel never having had to stand on it's own.

Oy Gevalt! Does that make me anti-semetic too? ROFL

Nightwish
07-01-2006, 11:41 AM
so what? didn't the french help us?We've stood the test on our own since then. Israel hasn't.
didn't the white man help african americans achieve freedom?
Liberia is a similar situation to Israel, but not identical. Liberia was a nation created for freed slaves, but unlike Israel, they've stood the test on their own since their creation. We didn't have to prop them up in perpetuity.
Then back to insulting Jews. No offense, but you are appearing racist.Again, not a word was said about the Jews. Israel and "the Jews" are not synonymous terms. I suggest you learn the difference, and learn it quick. Obviously you're dying to play the anti-semetic card on somebody, but you're going to have to do it elsewhere. It ain't gonna wash here. So grow up.

stevieray
07-01-2006, 12:00 PM
We've stood the test on our own since then. Israel hasn't.

Liberia is a similar situation to Israel, but not identical. Liberia was a nation created for freed slaves, but unlike Israel, they've stood the test on their own since their creation. We didn't have to prop them up in perpetuity.
Again, not a word was said about the Jews. Israel and "the Jews" are not synonymous terms. I suggest you learn the difference, and learn it quick. Obviously you're dying to play the anti-semetic card on somebody, but you're going to have to do it elsewhere. It ain't gonna wash here. So grow up.


I'm not playing anything, maybe I misunderstood your meaning... cause it appears to me that you think you can validate or invalidate the existence of a Nation. You've implied they are weak, therefore don't deserve land or help.You've also implied that because you think they can't stand on thier own, you can decide what they deserve or don't deserve.

If you are going to continue to resort to insults and parenting, this conversation is over. I was hoping we could deabte this without them.

Nightwish
07-01-2006, 12:07 PM
I'm not playing anything, maybe I misunderstood your meaning...Obviously.cause it appears to me that you think you can validate or invalidate the existence of a Nation.I didn't say they are or aren't legit. I said they have never had to prove themselves without our aid, like other countries have, and that's why so many countries in the Middle East, as well as many other people abroad, don't see them as legit. They haven't earned it. That's not to say that they would fall flat without our constantly propping them up, but we've never given them the chance.You've implied they are weak, therefore don't deserve land or help.I've implied nothing of the sort. I've made no comment about how strong or weak Israel may be in the absence of our constant mothering. I can't make a comment about that, because it remains hypothetical, as we've never let them try to do it on their own.You've also implied that because you thin they can't stand on thier own, you cab decide what they deserve or don't deserve.Again, nothing of the sort was implied. I've made no judgement as to whether or not they could stand on their own. I said they've never had to. If you inferred something else, that's on you.If you are going to continue to resort to insults and parenting, this conversation is over. I was hoping we could deabte this without them.If you would stop just clinging to the tired old mantras that anyone who dares to criticize the political entity of Israel is also criticizing the Jewish religion and is an anti-semite, I wouldn't have to keep correcting you. As for "parenting and insulting," I was doing neither. My comment was meant to be read as a warning. I have very little patience for people who steadfastly refuse to understand the difference between criticizing a political state and criticizing a religion, and I have even less patience for people who try to play the anti-semite card against me, when I'm not even in the same ballpark as an anti-semite.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:11 AM
Yes, the ethnic Jews and the Canaanites (who the Palestinians claim to be) are blood brothers, so to speak, albeit enemies, with an equal right to the "historical precedent" claim. But, as I said, that claim is worthless if you don't actually stick around to hold onto the land in the first place. If you leave it, whether by choice or by force, once somebody else moves in to take your place, your claim to the land is dead.

Then I take it that you support Israel's refusal to grant a right of return to Palestinians who fled their ancestral homes during the birth of Israel? If so, good for you.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:16 AM
I care about news of the Israeli conflict with Hamas because it is another aspect of the same world war in which we find ourselves. Hamas is just another brand of militant islamist and even though their stated goals differ from al Qaeda, they are cousins in their war against the west.

Nightwish
07-02-2006, 08:06 PM
Then I take it that you support Israel's refusal to grant a right of return to Palestinians who fled their ancestral homes during the birth of Israel? If so, good for you.
Sure. I also support the right of those Palestinians to fight to get their homes back. If Israel had earned their land that way, I'd have a much different opinion of them. Right now I just see them as arrogant, spoon-fed children who haven't yet had to earn their own keep.

patteeu
07-02-2006, 08:28 PM
Sure. I also support the right of those Palestinians to fight to get their homes back. If Israel had earned their land that way, I'd have a much different opinion of them. Right now I just see them as arrogant, spoon-fed children who haven't yet had to earn their own keep.

I think all out war might be the worst/only solution. Half measures and peace offerings on the part of the Israelis don't seem to be doing much good.

Nightwish
07-02-2006, 08:39 PM
I think all out war might be the worst/only solution. Half measures and peace offerings on the part of the Israelis don't seem to be doing much good.
That's probably true. I'd just like to see it being done by the Israelis, using their own equipment that they either manufactured or purchased (as opposed to using an arsenal they never had to pay or trade for, as they did in the 6-Day War), and their own troops, rather than having us do it on their behalf. I'm tired of coddling them. We coddle them shamelessly, and always have, and our thanks for it is that Israel feels free to thumb their noses at international law and UN resolutions (don't make the mistake of assuming Iraq was the only, or even the worst offender, in that regard - I once saw an itemized list comparing all the resolutions Iraq had broken, versus the number that Israel had broken, and it wasn't even close). Now is the perfect time for them to stand up on their own and finally do the work themselves to earn the respect they think they deserve.

listopencil
07-05-2006, 04:37 PM
Bump.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2006, 04:47 PM
listopencil,
Are you getting goosebumps or sumthin? :p

listopencil
07-05-2006, 04:49 PM
listopencil,
Are you getting goosebumps or sumthin? :p


Hee hee, I just wondered if the forum would be better withouth every other thread on the front page being one that was started by jAZ. "Goosebumps", huh? You crack me up.

alnorth
07-05-2006, 09:44 PM
All I know about this situation is that Hamas has got to be smoking dope.

Ignore the history and look at the present situation objectively. Israel is not going to go away - ever. A Jewish government is pretty much going to be in Israel for the forseeable future, if not until the end of time.

Militarily speaking, the Palestinian people, and the entire Arab world for that matter, is hopelessly outgunned. In any combat, Israel would win.

Logistically speaking, the Palestinians are dependant upon Israel. With very little effort, Israel could utterly cut off their aggressive neighbor from the outside world, from power, and cause mass starvation.

Economically speaking, the Palestinians are dependant upon Israel for employment, and upon the outside world for aid. With little effort, Israel could shut off both, and their local economy would become a disaster.

In terms of a poker game, Israel is holding a nut Flush against a pair of sevens. Whoever is right or wrong, Israel has the ability to pretty much destroy the Palestinian people forever even as they idiotically try to wipe out the Jews (how?!?), and the world pretty much couldn't and wouldn't do anything to stop them.

Someday, Hamas is going to push Israel too hard one too many times, and the problem in the middle east will basically resolve itself.

Like I said, the leadership of Hamas has got to be smoking dope.

Rausch
07-05-2006, 10:37 PM
The international law of land ownership is simple: if you can kick their ass, take it, and keep it, it's yours.

It's how America became America, how the UK became the UK, how the USSR became the USSR, and how every other nation became a nation.

Right now Israel is the bully on the ME block. Many surrounding nations don't like it but they can't do $#it about it.

If it weren't for America putting pressure on Israel they'd own 1/2 the ME by now...

Nightwish
07-06-2006, 12:56 AM
If it weren't for America putting pressure on Israel they'd own 1/2 the ME by now...
If it weren't for the US propping them up, they probably wouldn't be half as belligerent as they are toward the rest of the Middle East. And it weren't for the US propping them up, the rest of the Middle East might well have wiped them off the map. And until the US stops propping them up, we'll never know whether they can survive on their own or not.