Written 6 months prior to 1948 Arab-Israeli war ""As the Arabs see the Jews"His Majesty King Abdullah,"

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: flavio
Text

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

The difference between "2000 years ago" and "for the last 1300 years" is not 700 years.

Right. It's kind of a weak argument, but I ask why do we distinguish on basis of who's been there longer. Common sense would be to ask who was there first.

And that's just as ludicrous.

Who was there first is debatable but it's a silly road to go down anyway. Much of the problem began with the Zionist movement where Jews from all over the world moved to Israel and kicked Palestinians off their land. <<-----Links please!!!

Imagine some English guy buys land in Italy and his family lives there for many generations. Then I come over from the US and take their land from them because my ancestors where Italian.

That is not common sense at all.

You actually believe that somebody is going to let you make a statement without links to back it up???

He is actually right regarding the Jewish immigration, but "kicking off the lands" is a ignorant fools statement. If anything the Jewish settlers took desert and made it into farmland. The arabs than attacked them multiple times over fears of the Jewish settlers eventually outnumbering them.

The idea that Plaestinians were not removed from their land and Jews just came in a cultivated land nobody was using is an ingorant fools statement.

"For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished...I can't bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Beduins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming it for their own...I can't do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the whole lot go to hell without me." Israeli actress (and household name) Rivka Mitchell, quoted in Israeli peace movement periodical, "The Other Israel", August 1998.

"Nathan Chofshi - 'Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations"'...

"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."


Read more on the expulsion and ethnic cleansing here.

Oh 1940 after the riots and all the papers calling for a 2 land state..Yeah the two state idea was seen as a pretty good idea back than, it is too bad the Arabs didn't take it and instead wanted to wholesale slaughter the Jews. Too bad for you I guess the Jews won that fight and didn't roll over again like they did in Europe.

Both sides had people that wanted a totally solution for there side, the Zionists wanted there own nation, the Arabs wanted the complete extermination of the Jews. I find it funny you defend a people that wanted a genocide and only did not have it do too loosing a war.

That is a lie. The innocent Zions wanted their own nation and the evil Palestinains wanted to slaughter all the Jews? That's idiotic.

The Zions wanted their own nation free of Palestinians and kicked them off their land and slaughtered many of them. The Palestinians liked the land they had and weren't so interested in being refugees.

Oh so you deny that Palestinian riots of 1928 where the Arabs were slaughtering the Jews never happened huh? Yep, all one big Jewish conspiracy :roll: is jihadfront.com the only place you get history from?

The issue is a little more complicated than a bunch of jews riding in shooting the arabs in the ass going "my land!". :roll:

Pathetic.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
For anyone who doesn't get it, let's pretend the entire world sent the entire population of Mexico (~106,000,000 people) to disperse themselves around the United States. I'm sure all you defiantly pro-Israel people would be happy to greet them all with open arms, right?

Um isnt that already happening?

Yeah buddy.. and do you like it?

Why don't you like Mexicans?

 

[Lemon law]

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the USA, if we accept the fact that 1-2% of US residents are members alos members of the Jewish faith in the USA, then we are easily talking 4 to 8 million people.

The mistake we in the USA have not made is to assume we can't assimilate those minorities and many many more. Making us all Americans first, and then different religions, occupations, or whatever as minor
considerations.

And to assume Arabs, Israelis, and Palestinians in or around the vicinity of Israel are genetically incapable of the same tolerance demonstrates no understanding of human history or potential.

We can get too wrapped up in past wrongs, and to read from only the book of wrongs against Jews, or read only for from the book of Jewish wrongs committed against Arabs and Palestinians, as each separate book is is already infinitely long and getting bigger every day, which is somewhat a giant mistake that blinds us to our present dilemma.

What we need now is a new fair way forward, a break with the past, not an attempt to justify all groups into committing the same conflict driven acts of the past 60 + years.

We could take our inspiration from the former Yugoslavia, a land where Muslims and Christians have battled over for the past 1200 years, but when they had a common purpose, namely the defeat of Nazi incursions, Tito, was able to unite both and keep them united for a very long and peaceful time. Of course, as soon as various politicians played the religion card, everything went to hell after that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I have a few thoughts after reading this. It's difficult to challenge a work this old, because I doubt anyone could verify his sources, which is understandable. Nonetheless:

This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!

Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, "homeland" of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.

I think this paragraph enlightens me to the complexity of this conflict. Historic ownership is important, I grant. But even that ownership may have been granted by nefarious means up to and including conquest (as in the case of Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom of Israel.) And as we reach further and further back into history in the vain attempt of establishing the identity of the original owner, I can't help but realize the absurdity of it. By that premise, America should cede its territories to the Hawaiians and Native Americans, and they in turn should cede it to whatever ancestor preceded them, which could be anyone. It just seems ridiculous.

This conflict centers around the very nature of ownership. That is, it questions if ownership is defined by who had it first. And the answer must simply be no, if only because that's a very poor premise to establish, for the reasons mentioned above.

So then where does that leave us?

My only certainty: It's wrong to kill innocent civilians, no matter what your grievance. If Palestine and the Arabs want their claim taken seriously, they must begin with the basics. Conduct yourself civilly. If war is to be waged, use your warriors against the enemy's warriors.

I'd be willing to bet that many Americans, myself included, ignore Palestine's plight 100% because of their tactics. Don't expect to be treated like a human until you act like a human.

Admit that the same number of Americans would 100% ignore the plight of Palestenians if the terrorist acts and rockets stopped tomorrow.

Look at the many periods they've stopped and the fact that nothing was done to address their situation, as Israel continued the illegal expansions and other repressions.

The bottom line is that for nearly all these people, their position is based on 'Israel is an important nation in the bible's predictions and/or they're our ally, so I'm on their side'.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Dari
Might = Right.

Sorry, but Jews can claim whatever they want. However, so long as they have the force to backup their claims, no one is going to stop them. It is the victor who gets to write history.

So far this is the only non-retarded argument I've seen explaining what happened. It's pretty funny to see see other people attempts in this thread trying to justify what amounted to stealing Arab land to create a jewish state.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the USA, if we accept the fact that 1-2% of US residents are members alos members of the Jewish faith in the USA, then we are easily talking 4 to 8 million people.

The mistake we in the USA have not made is to assume we can't assimilate those minorities and many many more. Making us all Americans first, and then different religions, occupations, or whatever as minor
considerations.

And to assume Arabs, Israelis, and Palestinians in or around the vicinity of Israel are genetically incapable of the same tolerance demonstrates no understanding of human history or potential.

We can get too wrapped up in past wrongs, and to read from only the book of wrongs against Jews, or read only for from the book of Jewish wrongs committed against Arabs and Palestinians, as each separate book is is already infinitely long and getting bigger every day, which is somewhat a giant mistake that blinds us to our present dilemma.

What we need now is a new fair way forward, a break with the past, not an attempt to justify all groups into committing the same conflict driven acts of the past 60 + years.

We could take our inspiration from the former Yugoslavia, a land where Muslims and Christians have battled over for the past 1200 years, but when they had a common purpose, namely the defeat of Nazi incursions, Tito, was able to unite both and keep them united for a very long and peaceful time. Of course, as soon as various politicians played the religion card, everything went to hell after that.

Fascism was one of the fastest growing political ideologies in the 20's and 30's. Just because it is getting popular does not make it right.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: piasabird
You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

That would be beside the point and an ignorant argument. Jews and Arabs both lived on the land before 1948 in relative peace.

How would that possibly justify the forceful expulsion of arabs from the land during the zionist movement?

I live in an area with many cultures right now. Does that mean I can expel the other cultures from my city?

I will call your argument idiotic.

Has your city lost a war to a foreign power and is now considered that foreign power's terrirtory? Are you a leader of that foreign power? If so then you can expel those other cultures as you see fit.

Since I doubt that you meet those qualifications your analogy sucks.

Considering the expulsion happened before the war you really have no point here.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jonks
There's a dozen arab countries with plenty of empty space in them living under islamic law, plenty of places for them to go. The jews had just been massacred, yet again, and the world finally said, lets give these fucking people one small piece of land to call their own and some guns so they have a chance at surviving.

That is a ridiculous premise. We'll kick these people off their land to make room for Jewish people and expect other countries that had no part in anything to take in the displaced people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I didn't say it was right. In the next sentence of mine which you conveniently deleted I allowed that it might have been a poor location for a state for the jews. But my premise is that it was 60 years ago and that continuing to deny the right of Israel to exist will get Hamas and the palestinians nothing and only prevent an armistice.

Peace will never be theirs until they allow for Israel's existence. How can Israel in good conscience make the slightest concession to a group who would be their neighbor but who publicly states it is their intention to destroy Israel? Why have a cease fire with a group who publicly states that a cease fire is merely opportunity to rearm and continue fighting? Why grant free and open access to land in dangerous proximity to its capital city and airports to a group which has shown no compunction about targeting civilians and who would merely view such land as a better vantage point from which to launch attacks? It would be suicidal on Israel's part to do so.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
For anyone who doesn't get it, let's pretend the entire world sent the entire population of Mexico (~106,000,000 people) to disperse themselves around the United States. I'm sure all you defiantly pro-Israel people would be happy to greet them all with open arms, right?

Um isnt that already happening?

No, the entire population isn't being dispersed and their not being welcomed with open arms. There's actually considerable discussion on how to keep them out and send the ones here back.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

As for the palestinians: Why don't they just fukk off with the violence and make love, not war? Why do you ask? Let Israel assimilate the occupied territories. Let them require true democracy in voting rights. And then when the palestinians outnumber the jews in terms of citizenship? LEt's see israel keep its "jewish" character.

As I understand, the Jewish people of Israel are keenly aware of the possibility of Muslims outnumbering them, and determined to prevent it. It's why they're for a 2-state solution.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

Where did you get 1300 years? Arabs have been around considerably longer than Islam.

As for claim to the region when the Jewish establishment was exiled by the Romans, those left in the area the rest of the Jews who later became Christians and then some Muslims, as well as other Semitic people who we now know today as Arabs. Those are the people who have been living on the land for nearly 2000 years.

Those descended from the Jewish establishment who was exile by the Romans, along those descended from the many Jews who never returned after Babylonian exile, as the ones who started just over 100 years began colonizing the region while driving out the existing population and establish the ethnic nationalist state of Israel.

I hope that helps you understand the man's point.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Also, on a side note, I can't help but ask: Assuming everything said here is true, does it justify terrorism? Can arabs legitimately hold innocent jews to task for this?

No, not at all, and nothing can. Those who belive otherwise are delusional.

However, neither does terrorism justify stripping the right to an independent nation from all the rest of the Palestinian who take no part in terrorism. Those who belive otherwise are delusional too.

We have delusional extremists on both sides perpetuating this conflict, but it is the extremist on our side who hold all the power, and they keep public opinion focused on fighting the effects of the ongoing colonization to distract us from that cause. Only once we depose those extremists on our side, will we have the power end thier cause which is what fulles extremism on the other side. That is our only path out of this madness.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
By the late 1940s, there were essentially an equal number of Jews and Arabs living in the disputed territory.

Not even close. Acording to the figures used for the U.N. Partion plan in 1947, Arabs outnumbered Jews two to one in Palestine. Also, Jews owned less than 10% of the land.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Perhaps the root of the problem, from either a Arab or Jewish standpoint, is the simple division of residents in a given area into groups of 'US' and 'THEM' With a somewhat implicit assumption that the two groups are like oil and water, simply incapable of mixing. And that sadly, can act as a self fulfilling prophesy.

Even as a kind of world armpit of the universe backwater, Palestine saw somewhat of an improvement and a Renaissance during the late 19'th and early 20'th centuries, thanks to an infusion of Russian Jews fleeing extreme anti-sematism. I am of course referring to the Saul Hertzog back to the land movement, as Jewish communities all over Russia pooled money to send in a few people to buy some land in Palestine.

And like most non-violent cultural mixing, the Russian Jews brought back the ancient practice of irrigation to the benefit of the whole region. And in many cities in the region, Arabs and Jews got along very well as a rising tide lifted all boats.

And with the possible exceptions of Afro American, the same has been by in large true. We soon assimilate our immigrants, and in two or three generations, the 'Thems' simply become part of 'US'. And part of the root of the Israeli problem is their unwillingness to assimilate or accept anything but their own religion, and to too great of an extent, Israel has built an Apartheid society, that can only be propped up by an inordinate and exhausting amount of military force.

Once again, IMHO, we can only have peace in Israel when various groups share it.

Dude you seriously need to look around the world. Everywhere Muslims reside from Southern Thailand to London England it's "oil and water" For every active conflict which involves secular forces e.g. Columbia/FARC I can name 10 which have Muslim participants. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with it it's the only faith I know in which your entry into Heaven is assured by killing those of another faith in a holy war. Until we come to this salient fact we will be unable to defend ourselves.

Many Wars have Christian and Jewish participants. It's like you're trying to make it out like it's the Muslims against non-religious people all the time. Really all religions are kind of screwed up. Until you come to this salient fact you are going to continue to completely misunderstand the world around you.

Ultimately you are trying to justify the actions of Israelis with bigotry. "I don't like Muslims so do whatever you want to them."

Not really all religions are screwed up in the sense that there is simply no worldwide terrorist networks today that finds its justification in the scriptures of the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon. It is not bigotry to note that the Qur?an is inspiring terrorists, they admit it themselves.

I am not saying that Muslims are inherently bad people. Most Muslims are like most people everywhere. I am saying that there are elements in Islam that incline some adherents to commit terror.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Also, on a side note, I can't help but ask: Assuming everything said here is true, does it justify terrorism? Can arabs legitimately hold innocent jews to task for this?

The OP is using all sorts of propaganda to justify terrorism and to beat us upside the head if we even DARE to defend ourselves against our killers. Given all his sympathizing, he might as well be one of them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not really all religions are screwed up in the sense that there is simply no worldwide terrorist networks today that finds its justification in the scriptures of the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon. It is not bigotry to note that the Qur?an is inspiring terrorists, they admit it themselves.

I am not saying that Muslims are inherently bad people. Most Muslims are like most people everywhere. I am saying that there are elements in Islam that incline some adherents to commit terror.

Two questions:

1. Do you approve the use of force to defend your land if a foreign power takes some of it to create a new nation?

2. Do you think that if the Palestenians had the military might of the US that they would use the military for attacking the invader (in their view) instead of terrorism, if it worked?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not really all religions are screwed up in the sense that there is simply no worldwide terrorist networks today that finds its justification in the scriptures of the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon. It is not bigotry to note that the Qur?an is inspiring terrorists, they admit it themselves.

I am not saying that Muslims are inherently bad people. Most Muslims are like most people everywhere. I am saying that there are elements in Islam that incline some adherents to commit terror.

Two questions:

1. Do you approve the use of force to defend your land if a foreign power takes some of it to create a new nation?

2. Do you think that if the Palestenians had the military might of the US that they would use the military for attacking the invader (in their view) instead of terrorism, if it worked?

1) Yes - however, do not complain if you get slapped around when doing so. And this is what is happening! People feel that the Palestinians should not be slapped around.
And the same happened with Israel from '48 onward. A foriegn power (the Arabs then Palestinians) have been attempting to take their land by force/war.

2) Yes

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: flavio
Text

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

The difference between "2000 years ago" and "for the last 1300 years" is not 700 years.

Right. It's kind of a weak argument, but I ask why do we distinguish on basis of who's been there longer. Common sense would be to ask who was there first.

And that's just as ludicrous.

Who was there first is debatable but it's a silly road to go down anyway. Much of the problem began with the Zionist movement where Jews from all over the world moved to Israel and kicked Palestinians off their land. <<-----Links please!!!

Imagine some English guy buys land in Italy and his family lives there for many generations. Then I come over from the US and take their land from them because my ancestors where Italian.

That is not common sense at all.

You actually believe that somebody is going to let you make a statement without links to back it up???

He is actually right regarding the Jewish immigration, but "kicking off the lands" is a ignorant fools statement. If anything the Jewish settlers took desert and made it into farmland. The arabs than attacked them multiple times over fears of the Jewish settlers eventually outnumbering them.

The idea that Plaestinians were not removed from their land and Jews just came in a cultivated land nobody was using is an ingorant fools statement.

"For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished...I can't bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Beduins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming it for their own...I can't do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the whole lot go to hell without me." Israeli actress (and household name) Rivka Mitchell, quoted in Israeli peace movement periodical, "The Other Israel", August 1998.

"Nathan Chofshi - 'Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations"'...

"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."


Read more on the expulsion and ethnic cleansing here.

Oh 1940 after the riots and all the papers calling for a 2 land state..Yeah the two state idea was seen as a pretty good idea back than, it is too bad the Arabs didn't take it and instead wanted to wholesale slaughter the Jews. Too bad for you I guess the Jews won that fight and didn't roll over again like they did in Europe.

Both sides had people that wanted a totally solution for there side, the Zionists wanted there own nation, the Arabs wanted the complete extermination of the Jews. I find it funny you defend a people that wanted a genocide and only did not have it do too loosing a war.

That is a lie. The innocent Zions wanted their own nation and the evil Palestinains wanted to slaughter all the Jews? That's idiotic.

The Zions wanted their own nation free of Palestinians and kicked them off their land and slaughtered many of them. The Palestinians liked the land they had and weren't so interested in being refugees.

Oh so you deny that Palestinian riots of 1928 where the Arabs were slaughtering the Jews never happened huh? Yep, all one big Jewish conspiracy :roll: is jihadfront.com the only place you get history from?

The issue is a little more complicated than a bunch of jews riding in shooting the arabs in the ass going "my land!". :roll:

Pathetic.

I never said anything about Palestinian riots in 1928 and they really don't have muchh to do with the discussion. Also I have never visited jihadfront.com.

The issue is certainly complicated.

Were you trying to make a point or just posting a bunch of nonsense? There's really not much intelligence shown in your post.

 

[Mxylplyx]

How arrogant is really must seem to some people that we Americans and Westerners sit in our enclaves of safety and security, which is really the fruits of brutal conquest passed down from our ancestors that we blissfully enjoy without any thought to the ways of which it was won. Land and resources have always been won and held by force. Even in our modern days of transactions via contract, the threat of force is the underlying guarantor of said contract. The Israelis have the basic right to defend the land they hold, and the Palestenians, if they wish, have the right to try to take said land, though they should be prepared to reap the consequences of provoking the regions most powerful military. If this were a few thousand years ago, such a relatively strong regional power would march into Gaza and the West Bank and kill every male, and enslave every woman and child, and the dispute would be settled. While I dont advocate this, I recognize that our modern sensibilities actually prolong conflict, because the underlying reasons for said conflict never get resolved. Israel is the dominant power in the region. Dont shoot at them and then cry foul when they come and punch you in the mouth.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
By the late 1940s, there were essentially an equal number of Jews and Arabs living in the disputed territory.

Not even close. Acording to the figures used for the U.N. Partion plan in 1947, Arabs outnumbered Jews two to one in Palestine. Also, Jews owned less than 10% of the land.

I stand corrected, but Jews owned about 1/4 the land in Palestine, not <10%. It also doesn't change my point -- Neither of these groups got along and there is a LONG history of both mutual and forcible partitions of land.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Israel is the dominant power in the region. Dont shoot at them and then cry foul when they come and punch you in the mouth.

Ah, you act as if this all started when someone shot at Israel conveniently ignoring all of history. As if Israel has never shot at anyone and then cried foul when they got punched in the mouth back.

The current situation is a cycle of revenge for something the other side has done. If the US started colonizing and ousting people from areas in Mexico I would expect Mexicans to fight back. Just because the US is the dominant power in the region means squat.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Israel is the dominant power in the region. Dont shoot at them and then cry foul when they come and punch you in the mouth.

Ah, you act as if this all started when someone shot at Israel conveniently ignoring all of history. As if Israel has never shot at anyone and then cried foul when they got punched in the mouth back.

The current situation is a cycle of revenge for something the other side has done. If the US started colonizing and ousting people from areas in Mexico I would expect Mexicans to fight back. Just because the US is the dominant power in the region means squat.

Except that Jewish people have been in the region for thousands of years, while people from the US have no history of living within Mexico's borders.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Israel is the dominant power in the region. Dont shoot at them and then cry foul when they come and punch you in the mouth.

Ah, you act as if this all started when someone shot at Israel conveniently ignoring all of history. As if Israel has never shot at anyone and then cried foul when they got punched in the mouth back.

The current situation is a cycle of revenge for something the other side has done. If the US started colonizing and ousting people from areas in Mexico I would expect Mexicans to fight back. Just because the US is the dominant power in the region means squat.

Except that Jewish people have been in the region for thousands of years, while people from the US have no history of living within Mexico's borders.

That means nothing to the argument. "Being in the region" is not an excuse to take land from people. Are you implying that Mexicans with native American ancestry have a right to take land from the US?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: flavio
The current situation is a cycle of revenge for something the other side has done. If the US started colonizing and ousting people from areas in Mexico I would expect Mexicans to fight back. Just because the US is the dominant power in the region means squat.

Ironically enough - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: flavio
The current situation is a cycle of revenge for something the other side has done. If the US started colonizing and ousting people from areas in Mexico I would expect Mexicans to fight back. Just because the US is the dominant power in the region means squat.

Ironically enough - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas

:thumbsup:

That state certainly has one of the more effed up histories.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Israel is the dominant power in the region. Dont shoot at them and then cry foul when they come and punch you in the mouth.

Ah, you act as if this all started when someone shot at Israel conveniently ignoring all of history. As if Israel has never shot at anyone and then cried foul when they got punched in the mouth back.

The current situation is a cycle of revenge for something the other side has done. If the US started colonizing and ousting people from areas in Mexico I would expect Mexicans to fight back. Just because the US is the dominant power in the region means squat.

If I take a shot at someone across from me, and then he raises his weapon to shoot back, all the history behind my reasons for shooting dont mean shit, because he's about to try and kill my ass. We in America live in peace because we conquered the native Americans, and subdued them to a point to which they simply gave up. The remaining tribes, if you want to call them that, have every right to try to rise up and retake what they believe is theirs, but they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. The Palestenians are beaten, but they refuse to surrender and lay down their arms, so they in turn live in misery. Now their cause might eventually prevail due to favorable demographic changes, or some other unforseen event, but if that is what they are holding out for, they have a long life of suffering to endure before that becomes a reality. This isnt a might makes right argument, it is a reminder that our modern system of mediating conflict and creating short term solutions to long term problems only glosses over the fundamental fact that the one with the might sets his own rules.