Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Israeli - Palestinian conflict
| Message Board > Controversy and Quarantine > Israeli - Palestinian conflict |
| Tucan Sam User Info... | Well??? Lets hear it.... who's right, who's wrong, who's to blame, solutions.... - Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:19pm | ||
| D�ds anger User Info... | For us, un-informed comedy watchers who havn't a clue: Whats the situation? - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 1:04am | ||
| MonkeyWithNoBones User Info... | why bother even post if your a clueless moron? - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 1:06am | ||
| jackass User Info... | I'm gonna say that it's that bitch Hagar's fault. Or maybe Ibrahim? No...hmm, that can't be it. Anybody here actually know the biblical reason for all the hate between Islam, Jews and Christians?? - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 6:52am | ||
| Gman User Info... | Who is wrong: Adults, politicians. Who is right: Little kids with their arms and legs blown or shot off. Gman - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 7:19am | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | both sides are a fucking joke. They need to catch up to the rest of us in the real world instead of bitching and feuding like a buncha rednecks on Jerry Springer. - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:02pm | ||
| D�ds anger User Info... | "why bother even post if your a clueless moron? " You sound like tard bowl cut. *No offence tard! you kick ass!* - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 2:26pm | ||
| funbrain User Info... | No, he's right. If you don't any fucking thing about this, don't post, you fuckin' racist doink. - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 2:57pm | ||
| jackass User Info... | well it all boils down to something like this...keep in mind I'm no religious scholar, so I don't have all the details. Basically, this dude named Ibrahim married this broad named Hagar (this in itself is a story) and they tried to have some kids. Hagar apparently was barren, so she told Ibrahim that she could boink their housemaid or something, Leah. Leah gives birth to a son, and I think that was Joseph. Around the same time Hagar discovers she isn't barren after all and later gives birth to Ishmael. There is all sorts of strife and tension in the family because of Leah and the two brothers. Both born in the same place, to the same father. One goes on to become the founder of Judaism, the other Islam. This is why the Israelis and the Palestinians don't get along...they both feel they deserve to live in the holy land, but they have different beliefs in God. Y'know what else is fucked up? You guys ever learn anything about the Hajj? If not, look it up, it's fucked http://www.ummah.net/hajj/pics/index.html. Take a look at the Ka'bah thingy (a one-room, one-door building Ibrahim built according to plans that God gave Adam)..tell me that it doesn't look alien. That black stone, that supposedly fell from the stars, in the ornate silver thingy on the Ka'bah...that doesn't look alien, noooo. 2 million muslims circling the Ka'bah all at one time...that's not a sight to behold, noooo. Also, good ol' Ibrahim, he was told by God that he had to sacrifice his son (Ishmael) and the Devil is whispering in his ear the whole time not to. Just as he is about to, an angel (Gabriel maybe?) appears and says he passed the test and replaces his son with a lamb and so he sacrifices the lamb and everybody feasts. Yeeeaaaaah...ok, that's not bizarre or anything. So, like I said, I'm no scholar, but that's the main concept I think. Anybody have anything to comment? The whole religion concept in general is kinda flaky to me. - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 3:59pm | ||
| Shawn User Info... | This is a tough call. The Jews are robbed of their homeland countless times over history (Babylonians, Romans, Palestinians) but they always got back on their feet. Except for the Palestinians who came in 700CE and were there in majority up until 1948 when the US "gave" Israel back to the Jews. Now, the Palestinians have been there for 1200 plus years, long fucking time. The Jews NEED a homeland to prosper as a people. Except the Jews deffinately did not go about "reclaiming" Israel in a good way. They went through the Palestinian towns and villages burning and destroying property. They firmly established themselves in Israel and then the whole Middle East did not approve. Many wars were waged against the Jews, but they won every single time. The last will of a peoples can stand up to any opposition. Yet now the Palestinians have these angry nationalistic people who want to take over a land in which they have inhabited FOR GENERATIONS UPON GENERATIONS. SO you have a very tough situation. I wont even get into the US's influence and funding, but that doesn't exactly help anything (not to mention weapons from Guatemala). I can see both sides to it. Fundamentally it is the Jews' homeland, but also the Palestinians are FIRMLY rooted there too. I dont side with anybody but I don't exactly see a solution either. If anyone knows more about the US' role in all of this please expand. My knowledge is limited to History 12 and various tid bits of info. - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 4:15pm | ||
| D�ds anger User Info... | "No, he's right. If you don't any fucking thing about this, don't post, you fuckin' racist doink" Wow theres no.2 Read my last post responding to your "racist" bullshit, don't come following me in here with your mindless shit, you fucking brainless twat! And get your real handle back on you pussy. --- UUgh... Back to the topic: Ahh this old deal again.. I don't know how you're susposed to decide whos right in a situation like this... One things for sure, these people need to stop the fighting, it's been going on for how damn long now??? Last I heard there was finally a little peace over there.. I diddn't know they were at it AGAIN.... Sick how meny people are still dying over gods and politics. Useually because some mongrel orders it... Youd think in this day and age people would learn how to settle things without mass slaughter... And what I gather from Jackass' post, the jews were there first and it was taken from them... I say let them have it back, if anything to stop killing... But yeah, I know, tell that to the Palestinians. And I too am curious as to the actions of the USA regarding this... I think they have done quite enough this year with bush at the helm.. - Tue, 28 Oct 2003 4:56pm | ||
| jackass User Info... | I don't actually know for sure which son of Ibrahim's was born first, the father of the Jews or the father of the Muslims...I don't think you can actually say who was there first. And, also...that's if you believe in this bible crap. I personally don't. - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 6:42am | ||
| korn koiler User Info... | If I were a Palestinian, Id be angry. - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 9:33am | ||
| Broccoli User Info... | Yeah, and if you were a spoiled little white kid you'd be agsty. - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:09am | ||
| D�ds anger User Info... | I hear ya there, Athiest ways for me... But the shit about the kids can't make me just say "go ahead, be morons, die over "god" because well, ahha I don't need to explain you know what I'm gettin at. - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 2:01pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | that the americans provide huge amounts of foreign aid to israel has everything to do with the conflict. esentially, israel is america's "fortress" in the middle east, allowing domination of the region's resources. this, as well as the obvious attainment of resources, is the reason that america waged war against iraq - iraq was the only military rival preventing complete american economic domination. in my opinion, the israelies and the palestinians both have land claims, but the u.s. should assume a neutral position to facilitate peace rather than fund one side. and what about that wall, eh??? holy shit! - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 3:45pm | ||
| jackass User Info... | that's what I was saying before too...Israel and US have strong economic links. It would not do for the Muslims to bomb the crap out of the Jews..the Christians wouldn't like it, it would really ruin their party. Knowwhadahmsay-say-say-eeeeerrrraaaaaayinnnn? - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 3:55pm | ||
| james User Info... | micoll, how does israel dominate the "resources of the middle east," jews in the western world had the money, and the justification for getting a state created in 1948, it was created by the west, therefore the Russians funded palestinians, and it has been like that ever since, you expect the United States to give aid to yasser arafat, when he officially condones terrorism? I think the arabs are getting fucked, but Isreal within fucking blinks of when there state got created, should the US just let them collapse, how do you sustain an economy of a country with a few million people without foreign aid, when you are getting incessantly attacked by terrorists and tyrants like saddam, the us took him out for economic, political, military reasons, whatever, your telling me the iraqi people aren't better off now? or won't be better off when the terrorists leave (if they don't i'm wrong), a fraction of the people who died EACH year under saddam were killed during the whole war, more are dying still, but that never will never approach the accumulative number of iranians, kurds, jews and IRAQis that saddam killed, the UN, which fucking hates isreal, has a resolution that says Isreal will get out of palestinian lands in exchange for peace, there's some fucking american and jewish hawks out there, but believe me, if arafat fucking did something, and syria and all those other tyrants did something, spent their money on real muslims not terrorists, then the jews would get the fuck out, most of them at least, there are some jews who are just as bad as the terrorists - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:16pm | ||
| korn koiler User Info... | what the heck is 'agsty' ? - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:20pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | james, the "terrorists" are the arabs themselves. simply because they lack modern military capabilities their warfare is deligitimized, whereas the israelies are justified because they can afford to shoot missles out of helicopters (at civilians). the term "terrorist" has increasingly become ideologically loaded (as in, maybe "soldier" would be more appropriate sometimes). the "terrorists" are not a bunch of lunatics as bush would have you believe, they are generally young, educated males like you or i who are hopelessly disempowered. they will never "leave." as for your statement that the iraqis might be better off now, this might truly be the case. however, the american intentions were never humanitarian. there rhetoric was so obviously false: GENOCIDE WAS BEING COMMITTED IN THE CONGO AT THE VERY TIME OF THE INVASION. aslo, by "exporting democracy" (forcing your values on an unreceptive population), the u.s. is just increasing arab militancy which will lead to increased conflict. should the u.s. withdraw from palestine: no, this would cause huge problems. they should not, however, support a state which is as militant and expansionary as sharon's. as for your argument concerning the "resources of the middle east", was there any? also, what about the jews "getting out"? - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:51pm | ||
| james User Info... | micoll, you cannot expect the united states to intervene in every conflict, we can both agree there reasons for war were self-motivated, of course, these motives have nothing to do with whether the war will help the majority of iraqis, if someone saves my life, I don't care if they are doing it out of altruism, or if they are doing it for the fame, I'll be alive either way,. first of all, there are dozens of countries with human rights abuses that rival those of saddam, but are any of these other rich countries doing anything about it? france, britain, germany? no, but we blame the US, they used the freeing iraq argument, because bush couldn't sum up enough support with just the WMD argument, but fuck man, we can't expect the US to go into the DEAD centre of africa, and solve a tribal war that has been going on for decades, just as there not going into burma or north korea, the risk is too great, how the hell could bush get the american population to support a war in burma? they had a case with saddam, everyone already hated him, he already tried to kill bush's dad, he used wmd on iranian citizens, and he was arab, and the US just got their two biggest buildings blown up, that's why they could pull of an invasion of saddam, I heard from this french book, that a fax went from the pentagon an hour after 9/11, which was already planning for the war in iraq, they knew 9/11 was a tool for Iraq, they had been trying to get saddam out ever since the gulf war, clinton couldn't pull off an assasination, young educated males are the terrorists? first of all, I'd call it brainwashing not education, I'm sure there are some decent schools in the middle east, these kids are taken in, and taught that islam fundmantelly opposes the united states, like it's in the qoran or something, were talking about 15 year olds being happy to kill innocen, people, how can you call that education? there is a difference between isreali and palestinian violence, palestians target anyone and everyone, isrealis don't, they've taken it far for sure, too far sometimes, but the onus is on the palestinians, they have usually been the ones to break the peace, and there leadership has given no indication they even want peace, if 100 isrealis die on a bus, innocent isrealis, they have the right to retaliate and take out a couple terrorists homes, and if a couple innocent citizens die, that's there problem - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 7:01pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | sounds like someones been watching a little too much fox news channel. you contradict yourself. you support america lying to its population and misleadng its soldiers, but call islamic propaganda "brainwashing". so, in essence, you're saying that the palestinians should shut up and take it? they should allow israel to their bulldoze towns? someone bulldozes your town- what are you going to do about it? are you going to accept it and not "break the peace" when they eventually build a settlement where your family once lived? - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 7:42pm | ||
| james User Info... | first of all, I don't wan't tv, i got this way from reading too much noam chompsky, i used to be a communist, we don't know the us lied to their population, we both think they did, we don't know, i never said it was a good thing, it will probably benefit iraqis that their country was invaded, that's it, sure man, the avergae palestinian is going to pissed off, so is the average isreali, its going to take some concessions by both sides, they can't just keep attacking each other, most of the people on both sides are willing to do this, but there are extremists on both sides who wont, like isrealis in palestinian territory who WONT leave, and palestinian territories who don't except and isrealis in palestine, or on the face of this earth for that matter, as of this point, it has been the palestinians breaking the so called truce, that they declared, so the isrealis knock a couple guys off, what is the average palestinian gonna wanna do, hit them back, that has to stop - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 8:44pm | ||
| james User Info... | I meant I don't watch tv, not wan't it, - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 8:57pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | i think that the onus for change lies with the israelis, as they have the most cogent and centralized leadership. the likelihood that a population as fractured as that of the palestinians could make a decision to end the conflict is very small. also, the israelis are responsible for the fractured nature of the palestinian decision making process through their refusal to allow a palestinian state. the only way this conflict will end is through concrete changes in israeli and american policy towards the palestinians. for a peace process to even begin, a palestinian state must be created as step #1. - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 9:35pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | The only way to end the conflict is for the Palestinians to elect decent and responsible leaders. As much as I disagree with the politics of the current right wing government in Israel, I can understand why most Israeli citizens cannot stomach a independent Palestine with Arafat as its leader, given his track record in the past. One does not need to go back far in the history books to understand this mentality. And lets not forget another little tidbit of history, the fact that what was to become Palestine,under the U.N. partition plan of 1948, was swallowed up by Jordan in the first Arab-Israeli war (1948). Although Isreal fought off this Arab attack, It left Jordan in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it simply annexed to Jordan under the thin and dubious cover of "union" with Palestine. So much for the theory of Israel screwing the Palestinians out of a country eh? - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 9:57pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | 1) arafat can hardly be considered "elected"- his election was a complete sham. 2) in the 1948 war, israel annexed 3/4 of the land allotted to palestine. jordan annexed only east jerusalem. furthermore, israel has since occupied the west bank (including east jerusalem) as well as the remainder of the allotted palestinian land. so much for your brilliant argument. ...israel not screwing palestine *cough*... - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:26pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | also, lets not forget that jordan is essentially composed of the same ethnic group as the palestinians. - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:35pm | ||
| james User Info... | the first step is not to give them a state man, the isreali government couldn't get their people out of their if they tried without the palestinians doing something first, polling shows that most palestinians support suicide bombings, fine, that's the headling in the national post the other day, fuck the arabs, farther down in the article, it said that 80-85% of palestinians support an end to violence by both sides, i dont know how much faith to put in the poles, but for your to say the terrorists are the arabs themselves, like all arabs, even educated arabs support terrorism, is false, the isreali government was trying to work with the peace process, so was abu mazin, the palestinian pm, unfortunately, arafat still controls the security forces, and he decided to protract the conflict, and continue with suicide bombings, the truce was abolished, the palestinian pm, who was opposed to suicide bombings, resigned, because arafat, why is the onus on sharon to do something? we know most palestinians don't want the violence, and their leader didn't either, its arafats fucking falt, and syria, iran and other extremist arab nations fault for harbouring terrorist headquarters and funding operations in their countries, if those stopped, and arafat left, then there would be a chance for peace, then we would expect the jewish isrealis to get the hell of the palestinians land, - Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:53pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | bullshit. arab terrorism is not "top-down", but "bottom-up," driven by the arab people who live in refugee camps. try asking a refugee, fucked by the west, to accept his plight for some bullshit "roadmap." arab sentiment is not going to change until israel changes its expansionary policy. israel has the power - the onus lies with them. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:27am | ||
| Korn Koiler User Info... | I cant wait till the US invades Canada. Ill wake up, smoke some pot, play some video games, eat breakfast, go to work, come home, smoke pot, eat dinner, down a couple of beers, go RPG a few Humm-Vees, come home, smoke pot, play video games, go to bed, wake up , smoke pot, play some video games, go to work, come home from work, smoke pot, eat dinner, down a few beers, go snipe a few MP's, come home, smoke pot , play video games,etc etc etc etc - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 9:42am | ||
| micoll User Info... | another point: arafat is a militant prick, but so is sharon. anti-arab bias is very evident when saying that "palestinians have no rights until they elect a reasonable leader." what about israel's leadership? - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:44am | ||
| james User Info... | sharon was democratically elected, arafat was not, bottum up? you actually believe most arabs support terrorism? your the one succumbing to the apparent anti-arab bias, there's no fucking way that most of them support it, not if the isrealis stopped, isreal has no expansionary policy, sharon called the isreali occupation and occupation, he made it clear that everyone in his government must accept the palestinians right to statehood, the occupied territories are territories of terrorist activity, when the terrorist activities stop, the isrealis get out, how the fuck does sharon get re-elected if just lets the terrorists breed and attack innocent isrealis, watch the cbc, or any left-wing broadcast station, it's anti-isreali, right wing publications like the post are pro-isreal for sure, but not anti-palestine, - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 1:04pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | i don't know what it is that you're spouting, but it sure isn't good stuff. what exactly is your point? that the israelis were just doing their own thing until those pesky arab terrorists came along? that if the arabs would just listen to some good ol' common sense c/o george w. bush this whole nasty conflict could be avoided? so, ariel sharon isn't expansionary? oh, my mistake, that whole wall protecting those illegal settlements must just some kind of public works project or something. -sharon is a far-right hawk, buddy. ps. you didn't quite understand my "bottom-up" argument. i was not saying that a majority of palestinians support terrorism, but rather that the campaign is "grass-roots." - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 4:33pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | So the Jordanians only annexed East Jerusalem but not the West Bank???? So who did Israel sieze it from in 67, the Mongolians??? Perhaps you need to get your history knowledge from something other than sugar packs. And try telling a Palestinian that they are the "same" as a Jordanian. If you have all your teeth left after, then I'll be surprised. I'm sure they all look the same to you though.Damn sugar packs... An occupation is an occupation. Whether its Jew over Arab or Arab over Arab, it really doesnt make any difference to those being oppressed. Funny how you rationalize one but not the other. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 5:03pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | east jerusalem is in the west bank, idiot. El Ray: "Perhaps you need to get your history knowledge from something other than sugar packs." -what's your problem? think about this, would the palestinians rather be occupied by a related cultural group or by an unrelated one? would the tsou-ke people rather be dominated by the esquimalt people, or by europeans? i am not condoning any occupation, but stating that occupations are bad in different degrees. and speaking of sugar packs (or the national post), i thought i'd bring this up again: El Ray: "...what was to become Palestine,under the U.N. partition plan of 1948, was swallowed up by Jordan in the first Arab-Israeli war (1948)." -this is just plain wrong, buddy. thanks for coming out. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 6:21pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | Hey! get back to work! (those shoes don't sell themselves you know) - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 6:49pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | who did that? - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:10pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | Zorro, who did you think? - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:16pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | Still reading those sugar packs eh? I suggest a trip down to the library to brush up on your history knowledge. Ignorance is one thing, plain stupidity is another. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:23pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | hmmm. well go ride lightning or something. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:24pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | ride lightning! that's a good one. i like that. hasta luego - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:29pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | HISTORY 1947 November 29: The UN recommends to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab, leaving both parties with approximately equal territory, but the best parts with the Jews, even if Jews were in a clear minority and most of the land for the new Jewish state was owned by the Arabs. According to this plan Jerusalem would become international territory under UN protection. 33 countries voted for, 13 against the resolution. Britain abstained, while USA and the Soviet Union voted in favour. � The Palestinians react by performing guerrilla attacks on Jewish settlements. � Jewish armies manage to stall the Palestinians, but the Transjordanian Arab Legion besieges Jerusalem � the intended international zone. 1948 April: Haganah, the strongest Jewish army, has clear victories giving them control over northern Palestine, Jaffa and Jerusalem. � May 15: As the British intend to leave this day, the state of Israel is declared in Tel Aviv. Arabs respond by joining forces: Palestinian Arabs joins with foreign volunteers, troops from Transjordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. � June 11: A 4 weeks truce is declared, by the interception of UN. � July 9: The Arabs refuse to renew the truce, fights restart. Israel gains important victories, where the ending of the siege of Jerusalem is the most important. Later the same month, Israel gains ground in Galilee and in Negev. 1949 January: End of the war, as the UN manages to settle 4 armistice agreements between Israel, and Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, respectively. Israel's territory was by this point enlarged by about 5,000 km� compared to what was granted by UN in 1947. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:29pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | The West Bank formed the nucleus of what was to become Palestine. Jordan was left in control of it, and did nothing to propell it toward statehood. There could have been a Palestinian state in 1949, but the Arabs didn't allow it to happen. Also, your dubious assumption that an occupation is somehow tolerable when it is done by people of similar culture or ethnicity is just plain sad. I guess Ukrainians didn't mind years of domination under the Russians because they're all slavs, right? Or the people of China loved living under the thumb of the Japanese during the 30's and 40's because they were of similar ethnicity right?Give me a break, I've heard better arguments out of todlers. So put down your first year history text book and maybe dig a little deeper into the "facts" you claim to state. If you had a hair on your ass, you'd hang yourself with it. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:32pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | or ride tonto la novia. arriba! - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:53pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | what are you saying- that the arabs were too lazy too form a state? there could NOT have been a state in 1947- the israelis took all the land but the west bank. an argument could be made that the transjordan army was not an occupying force, but a military representing the arabs as an overarching ethnicity which was being attacked by another "civilization". - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 7:54pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | I just re-read my last post, and, funny, no where does it say anything about Arabs being lazy. Keep grasping that straw though, it makes for good reading. My point was..., Despite playing heavily on the rhetoric and propaganda about the cause of a Palestinian homeland, and pan- Arab nationalism, King Abdulla of Jordan was more eager to sieze the West Bank and Jerusalem and incorperate it into his kingdom. He never, repeat, never, had any intention of creating a Palestinian state. His ambitions in the region had been known for years, even before the existance of Israel King Abdulla could have formed an Independant Palestinian state in the West Bank,with it's Capital in East Jerusalem. Granted, smallerthan the U.N mandate, but still a viable, independent state. He simply chose not to. Maybe if the Palestinians had just accepted Partition in the first place none of this bullshit would have happened and we would not be having this debate. But I guess that's somehow Israels fault, right?Hmmmmm....(scatches head, confused look on face) - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 8:00pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | I just re-read my last post, and, funny, no where does it say anything about Arabs being lazy. Keep grasping that straw though, it makes for good reading. My point was..., Despite playing heavily on the rhetoric and propaganda about the cause of a Palestinian homeland, and pan- Arab nationalism, King Abdulla of Jordan was more eager to sieze the West Bank and Jerusalem and incorperate it into his kingdom. He never, repeat, never, had any intention of creating a Palestinian state. His ambitions in the region had been known for years, even before the existance of Israel King Abdulla could have formed an Independant Palestinian state in the West Bank,with it's Capital in East Jerusalem. Granted, smallerthan the U.N mandate, but still a viable, independent state. He simply chose not to. Maybe if the Palestinians had just accepted Partition in the first place none of this bullshit would have happened and we would not be having this debate. But I guess that's somehow Israels fault, right?Hmmmmm....(scatches head, confused look on face) - - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:05pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | Man, it must get loud in that head of yours, Micoll.So many voices! Thanks for re-writing my post though, I guess if you got nothing relevent to say you can always repeat someone else. - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:13pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | sorry, i was just quoting your brilliant post. hahahaha. ok. no. i copied your post so i could have easy access to it while i wrote mine, and after accidentally posting and "editing" the server "got bored." also a little drunk. here goes: - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:38pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | you know what? i couldn't paste my actual post, and i'm going to bed, so i'll just quote a website: http://www.cactus48.com/partition.html "Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest." - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:42pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | But I guess that's somehow the palestinians fault, right?Hmmmmm....(scatches head, confused look on face) - - Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:45pm | ||
| METALNECK User Info... | Why don't we let all the palestinians move to canada? We got the space, we have the resources. Hell they can take Quebec. - Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:51pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | The Arabs would have never agreed to any solution in the region that would have resulted in a Jewish state. Even before partition, in 1947, the U.N. appointed a special committee on Palestine. The Arabs boycotted it from day one. Pretty hard for them to complain about the outcome when they refused to even sit down at the table and discuss ANY deal. In August 1947 the committee reported that Palestine should be partitioned into an Arab and Jewish state, but that the economic unity of Palestine should be maintained. THe committe also suggested that for another two years Britian should continue to administer Palestine under the auspices of the United Nations. the possibility that the transitional period might be extended was also envisaged. This would have enabled partition to procede peacefully and fairly. Unfortunatly, no deal had any chance of acceptance in the face of unrelenting Arab hostility. Once again, the Arabs were screwed over by their own inept and incompetant leadership,with the rank and file Palestinian left holding the bag. Perhaps if they had been willing to sit down and discuss Partition instead of refusing to compromise on even the most basic and simple of issues, they could have won a "better" deal. And judging by the content and inconsistancies of some of your posts, I'd already gathered that you were a "little" drunk. - Fri, 31 Oct 2003 1:44pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | it is incredibly naive to think that the u.n. had anything but forgone conclusions. also, the partition plan, in the end, meant very little. israel simply took what land it wanted using its western funded military. certainly the arabs tried to crush the state of israel in 1948, but this war was simply used as an excuse by israel to seize more territory. El Ray, you sure seem to smoke all you can of something. - Sat, 1 Nov 2003 2:07pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | now we can argue all day about israel's history- but lets look instead to today. both sides are bloodthirsty, but we are going to see no change until israel corrects some of the injustices perpetrated against the palestinians. - Sat, 1 Nov 2003 2:20pm | ||
| El Rey User Info... | The quote in my bio is from William Van Horne, director of the CPR and a huge player in the building of the trans-continental railway. Seeing that you wouldn't find the quote in most first year history books, I'm not really that suprised you'd never heard it. You quote "Israels western funded military machine". That may be true now, but not in 1948. Actually, Soviet support was critical in the first days of the state of Israel. The Jewish state, during the early weeks of the conflict, were desperate for arms. The Israeli's possessed not a single aircraft, and no heavy military equipment.Because of this, the Soviets encouraged the Czechs to transport weapons and an airlift was begun which delivered them just in time.One can only speculate about the reason the Soviets threw their suppoprt to the Jewish state. Possibly the Soviet leadership calculated that the creation of Israel would undermine Western relations with the Arab states and thus provide for the Soviet Union a means of entering the Middle East or even that a socialist Israel would was likely to become a natural ally>we will probably never know. However, the American State Department and the British Foreign Office were well aware of these dangers and were doubly anxious now that middle east oil was becoming a crucial factor in Western industrial development.They wanted to avoid a policy that was bound to arouse Arab hostility. Despite their apparently hopeless position, confronted by almost the ENTIRE Arab world, the Jews astonished the world by winning the opening round. The Arab armies proved less formidible than their rhetoric. It was nevertheless a desperete struggle at all points of the compass against far greater numbers. Its funny how you paint a picture of a beleagured arab world in 1949 againts this mighty military power of Israel. This argument is flacid. For one,one part of the Arab armies was quite formidable,the British trained and led Arab Legion from Jordan, a first rate fighting force, fully equiped with heavy weapons and aircraft.Up againts a rag tag jewish army who, as I mentioned above, was starving for even light infantry weapons. For two, the Arabs outnumbered the Israelis at least 10 to 1 in terms of military personell. Leave passion and propanganda out of the debate, and it is plain to see that Israel was the one who was beleagured and totally out numbered and underequiped, surrounded by a half dozen hostile states determined to drive them into the sea and divide the area up for themselves. The only way for any peace plan is for the Palestinians to elect responsible leaders ,breaking the chain of inept and corrupt leaders that have plagued the hopes of Palestine and it's people since day one.Leaders that will dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in their areas and allay the genuine fears of the Israeli population about the security of their nation with a Palestinian state right next door.. Without this, no government in Israel would survive politically by conceding any peace plan to a leadership that is unwilling to do so. - Sun, 2 Nov 2003 9:34am | ||
| micoll User Info... | regardless of the israeli odds of winning in 1948, they used the war to increase their territory. you argue that, for peace, palestine must elect responsible leadership, but why do you not hold israel accountable? how is a palestinian elected leader to survive politically when making concessions to an expansionary and hostile israel? both sides need to come around, with israel making the first steps as the israelis hold the power. - Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:48am | ||
| El Rey User Info... | Micoll wrote,"Regardless of the Israeli odds for winning in 1948, they used the war to increase their territory". But the Arabs started the war in the first place. Feeling sorry for them because their agression didn't go the way they planned is like feeling sorry for a bully in a schoolyard who picked a fight and then cried when he got all his teeth knocked out. And I do hold Israel accountable. If you read my first post you will see that I do not agree with right wing policies of the Israeli government under Ariel Sharon. I do not agree with the shooting of unarmed civilians. I do not agree with the settlement of Jews on occupied Palestinian lands,an act illegal under international law.I do NOT believe that Israel has a historical right to the biblical region of "Judea and Sumeria" (what the Israeli right calls the occupied territories).I believe that if Israel had not allowed the settlements to begin there in the first place,they would have a much easier time disengaging themselves from the area and returning it to the Palestinians. I only seek to show that, contrary to contemporary left wing opinion, the Arabs and Palestinians,because of their leadership and policies over the last 50 years, must share a signifigant amount of blame for the situation they're in. If they had done things differently from day one, they would not be in this situation, and they would be living in their own state, not living under occupation.This pattern of inept leadership continues to this day, further ruining the hopes of Palestinians. To blame it all on big bad evil Israel is to place blame without analysing all of the relevant historical facts that have made the situation what it is today. - Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:34am | ||
| micoll User Info... | i read an interesting essay in the new harpers discussing this issue. basically, it was a discussion between two leftist israelis in which they decry the contemporary nadir of leadership in both palestine and israel. one of them terms the leadership "sharafat," which i thought was very appropriate. the analysts go on to state that (to paraphrase)"the dawn of peace is, for these leaders, a dusk." - Sun, 2 Nov 2003 3:51pm | ||
| created to kill User Info... | i thought i had too much spare time - Sun, 2 Nov 2003 9:21pm | ||
| micoll User Info... | i don't have any spare time. - Tue, 4 Nov 2003 8:20am | ||
| Rollerballs User Info... | I've got an idea (wow another one, that'll make two this year!) We kill anyone that doesn't run their business or company as an co-op, then we kill everyone that believes in boarders. Yes it is that simple. Oh yah, all religions based on Domination (as most religions tend to be) will have to be destroyed, they suck. - Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:07am | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
Haute Curations
We sell original giclee canvas art prints to businesses
Victoria BC
Open / Operational
Arts On View Society
The Arts On View Society continues to operate Hermann's Jazz...
753 View Street Victoria BC
Open / Operational
