Hezbollah Declares War On Israel...

[gaia.plateau]

Oil in "Palestine"... well, you'd never know that just by looking! Now why don't the Palis spend all their time, effort, and money into tapping into that oil instead of teaching their children hate... that'd just make too much sense.

You'd know that from looking back further than 15 years there has been plenty of oil extraction during the stable parts of Palestinian history.

And they probably wouldn't be teaching their children hate if we hadn't displaced 3/4 their population into refugee camps, mass graves, and the Gaza strip (concentration camp).

Hmmm the Middle Ages... again, it all goes back to religion and whose religion was there first. The three largest faiths in the world call that sliver of land their birthplace.

Now you're trying to create the holes for your peg, when an honest argument puts them were they fit

Religion had absolutely nothing to do with conflict in the middle ages for the ones waging it, and every academic source I've ever read supports this.

That and that alone explains the endless conflict.

It would if it were true or supported by reality. Edited February 22, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[raytrace]

Religion had absolutely nothing to do with conflict in the middle ages for the ones waging it, and every academic source I've ever read supports this.

Now I don't know if you are mistaken, deliberately misleading, or reading sources that are just completely wrong but...

From my Western Humanities Volume 1, sixth Edition. Authors Matthews & Platt. McGraw-Hill publications. Chapter 9: The High Middles Ages, page 259

A defining feature of the High Middles Ages was the crusading movement. To free the Holy Land, or Palestine, from the Muslims, whom Christians then regarded as unbelievers, the Christian church preached nine Crusades between 1095 and 1272, all of which failed in their goal. Attracted by a complexe set of motives - Christian zeal, the papal promise that all sins would be pardoned, and the anticipation of wealth from pluder - kings, bishops, and nobles, along with peasants, priests, workers, and prostitutes, sewed a cross on their garments (Crusader, "wearer of the cross") and walked and sailed the long, arduous, and dangerous journey to the Holy Land. Crusader victories proved to be temporary, as in the brief capture of Jerusalem from 1099 to 1187. Otherwise, the many sieges, saking of cities, and pitched battles that marked the Crusades heightened hatred between the two sides, which resulted in mutual atrocities. Still, the crusading movement led to economic, social, intellectual, and cultural interchanges, which made Europe less provicial and enhanced medieval thought and learning.

To say religion had nothing to do with the Crusades is a fallicy, if not an outright lie. If you instead said, religion wasn't the only reason, then yes you would be right. And to make the argument that the ones who "waged the war" were the kings and priests and that had nothing to do with religion but their own greed, I would have to ask if you or your historical resources are capable of traveling back in time to confirm with these kings and priests, their intentions for the Crusades?

[gaia.plateau]

Religion had absolutely nothing to do with conflict in the middle ages for the ones waging it, and every academic source I've ever read supports this.

To say religion had nothing to do with the Crusades is a fallicy, if not an outright lie. If you instead said, religion wasn't the only reason, then yes you would be right. And to make the argument that the ones who "waged the war" were the kings and priests and that had nothing to do with religion but their own greed, I would have to ask if you or your historical resources are capable of traveling back in time to confirm with these kings and priests, their intentions for the Crusades?

Key phrase, "for the ones waging it", as was bolded. As I said,

for the knights and paladins of the Cross, it was about securing glory for God and satisfying righteous indignation against those whom they were told were "savage heathens".

,
how you consciously manipulated that into my assertation that it had "nothing to do with religion" is the only deliberately misleading statement I can find in this thread.

The Crusades were galvanized and managed by the church, with support from Kings and Princes. I have to go to work, but perhaps afterward I'll pick something from the comphrensive academic common knowledge of Crusade motivations. Even the excerpt you posted, from a Eurocentric source, admits that the religious motivations in the Crusades were constructed (preached) by the ones waging it.

the Christian church preached nine Crusades between 1095 and 1272, all of which failed in their goal. Attracted by a complexe set of motives - Christian zeal, the papal promise that all sins would be pardoned, and the anticipation of wealth from pluder

[raytrace]

Religion had absolutely nothing to do with conflict in the middle ages for the ones waging it, and every academic source I've ever read supports this.

To say religion had nothing to do with the Crusades is a fallicy, if not an outright lie. If you instead said, religion wasn't the only reason, then yes you would be right. And to make the argument that the ones who "waged the war" were the kings and priests and that had nothing to do with religion but their own greed, I would have to ask if you or your historical resources are capable of traveling back in time to confirm with these kings and priests, their intentions for the Crusades?

Key phrase, "for the ones waging it", as was bolded. As I said,

for the knights and paladins of the Cross, it was about securing glory for God and satisfying righteous indignation against those whom they were told were "savage heathens".

,
how you consciously manipulated that into my assertation that it had "nothing to do with religion" is the only deliberately misleading statement I can find in this thread.

The Crusades were galvanized and managed by the church, with support from Kings and Princes. I have to go to work, but perhaps afterward I'll pick something from the comphrensive academic common knowledge of Crusade motivations. Even the excerpt you posted, from a Eurocentric source, admits that the religious motivations in the Crusades were constructed (preached) by the ones waging it.

the Christian church preached nine Crusades between 1095 and 1272, all of which failed in their goal. Attracted by a complexe set of motives - Christian zeal, the papal promise that all sins would be pardoned, and the anticipation of wealth from pluder

OK, so you claim to know, or that these historians you refer to happen to know, the true intentions of those who "waged the war".

I guess people today are stymied by modern politicians. That any politician today isn't a politician because he truely believes in something and want to make changes for what he deems good, he becomes a politician because he desires power.

That may be the case with the papalcy and Pope Urban II of the First Crusade. Or, it could be because of his zeal for Christianity and expanding the influence and power of the Christian church.

Taken from Wikipedia:

It was also felt that many of the Muslim lands had previously been Christian prior to their conquest by the Islamic armies, namely those which had formed part of the Roman and Byzantine empires - Syria, Egypt, the rest of North Africa, Hispania (Spain), Cyprus, Judaea. Finally, Jerusalem, along with the surrounding lands including the places where Christ lived and died, was understandably sacred to Christians.

In 1074, Pope Gregory VII called for the milites Christi ("soldiers of Christ") to go to the aid of the Byzantine Empire in the east. The Byzantines had suffered a serious defeat at the hands of the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert three years previously. This call, while largely ignored and even opposed, combined with the large numbers of pilgrimages to the Holy Land in the 11th century, focused a great deal of attention on the east. Preaching by monks such as Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless, which spread reports of Muslims abusing Christian pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem and other Middle Eastern holy sites, further stoked the crusading zeal. It was Pope Urban II who first disseminated to the general public the idea of a Crusade to capture the Holy Land. Upon hearing his dramatic and inspiring speech, the nobles and clergy in attendance began to chant the famous words, Deus vult! ("God wills it!")

Of course, I'm Agnostic and don't believe in any of the major religions, but I can understand an individuals desire to believe in something other than themselves.

[oolatec]

Oil in "Palestine"... well, you'd never know that just by looking! Now why don't the Palis spend all their time, effort, and money into tapping into that oil instead of teaching their children hate... that'd just make too much sense.

You'd know that from looking back further than 15 years there has been plenty of oil extraction during the stable parts of Palestinian history.

And they probably wouldn't be teaching their children hate if we hadn't displaced 3/4 their population into refugee camps, mass graves, and the Gaza strip (concentration camp).

So what happened to all the facilities? Surely the Palestinians were capable of maintaining a source of income for their people to build schools, hospitals and the like... What happened?

Refugee camps? Like the ones in Jordan? Egypt? Syria? Palestinains have more rights in Israel than in any of their surrounding "brotherly" nations.

The Gaza Strip a concentration camp? How so? Israel pulled out of there awhile ago. Ohhhh... you must mean the wall... I see... what of the wall Egypt put up to keep them out of Egypt? That must be Israel's fault too.

Don't you want the Palestinians to have their own state? I sure do. Then Israel wouldn't have to babysit them anymore.

Why is the well-being souly the responsibility of Israel? Shouldn't they start to take control of their own situation instead of spending all of their time and $$$$ figuring out how to best kill Jews or dig smuggling tunnels into Egypt?

For a people that want their own state, they sure have their priorities screwed up. I'm just sayin'...

If it's simply Israels "treatment" of the Palestinians that drives them to terrorism, why aren't the Tibetans the world's most notorious, feared international terrorist group? Maybe China is nice to the Tibetans. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[r1v3th3ad]

Wikipedia isn't the best reference.
History is always being debated, the big reason is because: even though it may be documented word for word at that moment, you still have to get into their heads and figure out what was meant by the actions and what was quoted. History is purely achieved with evidence. There is the Thesis/ Conclusion and the evidence supported. Until new evidence is pulled to disprove, the other theories are just hearsay. Thats why you tend to see multiple edits to things.

[gaia.plateau]

That's not what I said, and frankly I'm not responsible for your intentional or unintentional misinterpretation.

No one "knows" anything for certain, we don't know that the earth is round, we don't know that 2+2=4, we don't know that water has a lower density than steel, and we sure as fuck don't know the minds and perceptions of every political and religious icon in history.

What we can do, is take historical accounts, memoirs, journals, letters, and etcetera and piece together highly probable conclusions. One of these highly probable conclusions is that the primary motivations for the wagers of the Crusades (the church), were for the augmentation of their power both through the acquisition of land and the conversion of new followers.

OK, so you claim to know, or that these historians you refer to happen to know, the true intentions of those who "waged the war".

I guess people today are stymied by modern politicians. That any politician today isn't a politician because he truely believes in something and want to make changes for what he deems good, he becomes a politician because he desires power.

That may be the case with the papalcy and Pope Urban II of the First Crusade. Or, it could be because of his zeal for Christianity and expanding the influence and power of the Christian church.

Edited February 22, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Texico]

No one "knows" anything for certain, we don't know that the earth is round, we don't know that 2+2=4, we don't know that water has a lower density than steel, and we sure as fuck don't know the minds and perceptions of every political and religious icon in history.

Off-topic, but I just had to laugh at this. Of course 2+2=4. The number system was invented by us (humans) and is purely symbolic. By laws which we (humans) created 2+2 MUST be 4. There is no doubt about this. Now, if you want to create your own number system then you could say that 2+2=/=4, but that wouldn't be universally recognized. Don't try to get 1984 on us. I don't feel like elaborating on this as my general point has been made.

On topic, we're arguing over a non-point. It doesn't matter whether the people in charge are motivated by lust for power over others or are truely waging war for purely religious reasons. I believe that the mindset of the soldiers in the field is the most important aspect. I don't think that it can be argued that they are not motivated by almost purely religious reasoning.

The fact of the matter is that the basic footslogger of both the Palestinian and Israeli forces is motivated by religion. Yes, the Palestinians are also fighting for their land, freedom, and lives, but the Israelis are fighting for the same ideals. As I said earlier, neither side is free from guilt, and both sides are responsible for the atrocities occurring in Gaza. You just can't argue that neither side uses propaganda on a nearly 24/7 basis. To not do so would be, to put it plainly, stupid. People are influenced by propaganda as is easily noticed by the large majority of the posts in this topic.

I think everyone can see the effectiveness of what's going on in Gaza and Israel. We've only had, what, 50 or 60 years of violence with no visible changes? Yep, both sides just need to continue what they're currently doing. Only through continued violence will they eventually exterminate each other and then we can stop pretending to care what's going on over there. Oh wait, that's probably only the way I feel about this...

Schadenfreude, my philosophy on conflict.

[gaia.plateau]

No one "knows" anything for certain, we don't know that the earth is round, we don't know that 2+2=4, we don't know that water has a lower density than steel, and we sure as fuck don't know the minds and perceptions of every political and religious icon in history.

Off-topic, but I just had to laugh at this. Of course 2+2=4. The number system was invented by us (humans) and is purely symbolic. By laws which we (humans) created 2+2 MUST be 4. There is no doubt about this. Now, if you want to create your own number system then you could say that 2+2=/=4, but that wouldn't be universally recognized. Don't try to get 1984 on us. I don't feel like elaborating on this as my general point has been made.

But we don't know that our understanding of matter, of physics, of dimensional quantification is correct. Take gravity for example - mathematically, we should be crushed into the ground, but we aren't. So our math is faulty, and our number system is fallible. You've missed the point completely.

It's highly probable that 2+2=4, but the mentality of certainty about our understanding, our beliefs, our opinions, and our side to be "right" is the most dangerous threat facing the world today. Samuel L. Huntington predicted that this era would be characterized by a clash of civilizations, but he was wrong; closer to the Mark is Richard J. Bernstein, with his Clash of Mentalities theory.

I believe that the mindset of the soldiers in the field is the most important aspect.

Why? Edited February 23, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[oolatec]

Nobody is even sure what caused the dude's car to blow up... but I'd put my money on the rumored "work accident"... apparently he was helping to assemble a few car bombs to send out as presents to those mourning the assassination of Hariri 3 years ago... But don't let that stop The Party of God from blaming Israel anyway.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/02/22/45993.html

Bleh.

[Texico]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I hadn't elaborated on my point.

I believe that the mindset of the average "grunt" is more important because the average follower is 99% of the time the person who is carrying out any kind of action. This means that for the same percentage of the time this average follower is generally in control of the situation at hand. Regardless of what the higher ups want to occur or are trying to achieve the person on hand during the unfolding of the operation will be forced to make some on the spot decisions

Now, the average person, in my experience, will tend to make decisions based on his beliefs and not those of his superiors. For instance, in WWII the United States of America was bound by the Geneva Convention of 1929 (relative to the treatment of prisoners of war). In spite of signing the Convention, there are many instances in both the Pacific and European theater of soldiers killing those of the enemy attempting to surrender. In fact, there are cases in most of the countries which participated in the war of soldiers killing the enemy instead of taking them prisoner. There are many reasons for these events, but many are due to heat of the moment decisions from witnessing their comrades die only feet away at the hands of these same people trying to surrender.

In a war like the one occurring in Gaza and Israel the heads of state are the policy-makers, but the average foot soldier is the headline-maker. Not often is it seen that those in charge order the people below them to murder innocents (at least that's what the media leads us to believe). However, if those in charge are truly ordering atrocities to occur then they fail to grasp the need to be accepted by the world community. After being shunned by a significant portion of the world community, it is easy to see that Cuba has grown strong, eh? It is not possible for the leaders of a nation seeking to be accepted as legitimate to foster good will with other countries when their soldiers are committing atrocities in the name of their religion.

This is where it becomes a religious war. The average person is indeed fighting to protect his home and family. However, a greater part of the motivation among the population of the Middle East comes from the religious leaders, namely the Ulama and the Ayatollahs. I'm not saying that the reasoning of the leaders is not important, but when they lose the ability to hold back their militants because those soldiers are out rampaging in the name of God the war ceases to exist as an economic or political struggle. It's now largely religious.

[Muhammad]

It is not motivated by religion. Ask yourself this simple question, if the palestinians happened to be athiest and a group of german athiest came along and started taking land, would the situation have been any different? The answer is NO!

Not often is it seen that those in charge order the people below them to murder innocents

For this comment of yours I suggest you take a look at the iraq war where this is exactly what is happening! (Don't mean to go slightly off topic) Edited February 23, 2008 by Muhammad

[r1v3th3ad]

once again...its pretty much over land, religion is a factor, mainly to the Israelis because of Jerusalem, but its mainly land, they want a state and the Palestinians want theirs back.

[Texico]

Yes and in the Iraq war they're killing those same people whom they are attempting to get to stop supporting the US. Hardly a sound tactic, eh? "You need to stop supporting our enemy and join us. Until you do so we are going to bomb you." I mean, I may not be the most intelligent person, but that would make me want to kill those people as opposed to join them. And even then, in Iraq you have things being done under the guise of a religious war, so these people don't care about building an internationally accepted nation. They are not the commanders to which I was referring.

--edit--

I'm not saying that the whole thing is motivated by religion. I'm saying that religion is "a" galvanizing force behind the basic soldiery of both sides. The problem is that the greater part of the world is secularized now, and the fact that they are using religion as an influence is not helping either side (of the Isreali-Palestinian conflict). Edited February 23, 2008 by Texico

[gaia.plateau]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I hadn't elaborated on my point.

I believe that the mindset of the average "grunt" is more important because the average follower is 99% of the time the person who is carrying out any kind of action. This means that for the same percentage of the time this average follower is generally in control of the situation at hand. Regardless of what the higher ups want to occur or are trying to achieve the person on hand during the unfolding of the operation will be forced to make some on the spot decisions

The average grunt may be the person carrying out the action, but 10 tens out of ten in war they aren't taking action of their own volition. The ones organizing them, galvanizing them with propaganda and fervour, and sending them into battle for their own agendas are the ones whose motivations matter. The particular style of propaganda doesn't really matter, whether its Nazism, radical Islam, Zionist Judaism, or American Jingoism.

Now, the average person, in my experience, will tend to make decisions based on his beliefs and not those of his superiors. For instance, in WWII the United States of America was bound by the Geneva Convention of 1929 (relative to the treatment of prisoners of war). In spite of signing the Convention, there are many instances in both the Pacific and European theater of soldiers killing those of the enemy attempting to surrender. In fact, there are cases in most of the countries which participated in the war of soldiers killing the enemy instead of taking them prisoner. There are many reasons for these events, but many are due to heat of the moment decisions from witnessing their comrades die only feet away at the hands of these same people trying to surrender.

What makes you think it wasn't the officers and superior commanders who were ordering these things? Look at Guantanamo, where brutal acts of torture are have been documented as not only condoned but encouraged by the superior officers. Look at the Holocaust, look at Vietnam, look at Hiroshima, look at the Gaza strip, look at Latin America death squads, look at the Crusades and Inquisitions... shall I go on?

Not often is it seen that those in charge order the people below them to murder innocents (at least that's what the media leads us to believe).

See my last sentence for response. You're right, often the media casts such attrocities as being the culpability of the soldiers on the field, like the innumerable massacres of innocent villagers by both sides in the Vietnam war. In many cases it's the truth, and in many cases it isn't. Israeli concentration camps and Palestinian RPG campaigns aren't individual acts however, they are policy.

However, if those in charge are truly ordering atrocities to occur then they fail to grasp the need to be accepted by the world community.

I think that the illegal Iraq war demonstrates that this isn't an important issue for everyone.

This is where it becomes a religious war. The average person is indeed fighting to protect his home and family. However, a greater part of the motivation among the population of the Middle East comes from the religious leaders, namely the Ulama and the Ayatollahs. I'm not saying that the reasoning of the leaders is not important, but when they lose the ability to hold back their militants because those soldiers are out rampaging in the name of God the war ceases to exist as an economic or political struggle. It's now largely religious.

Again, the expounded propaganda for war isn't a significant factor for the actual reasons for war. The jingoist, fascist belief of Nazi soldiers that they were fighting to secure a world superior to the one they were living in was superfluous, what mattered were the motivations of the party to secure territory, resources and power.

[gaia.plateau]

*Whistles Ominously*

[thetopproducer]

in my honest opinion, most of whats happening in the middle east is political. religion is just the thing that flares it up and it gets you motivated. look at Iran, they wanted a revolution to kick out the horrible shah. he was a sell out and killing just as much people as the current government just to stay in power. they got a revolution turned bad, because of the ayatollah. religion is what helped them get even more motivated for the revolution. but ya it went awry. Palestine is a touchy subject, because the Zionists use religion as their stronghold to keep Palestine. the Palestinians honestly want security and their land back that was taken from them, religion just gives them "motivation". anyways if anyone wants to see "the truth movement". take a look at this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6759022809518563654

[TheScotsman]

in my honest opinion, most of whats happening in the middle east is political. religion is just the thing that flares it up and it gets you motivated. look at Iran, they wanted a revolution to kick out the horrible shah. he was a sell out and killing just as much people as the current government just to stay in power. they got a revolution turned bad, because of the ayatollah. religion is what helped them get even more motivated for the revolution. but ya it went awry. Palestine is a touchy subject, because the Zionists use religion as their stronghold to keep Palestine. the Palestinians honestly want security and their land back that was taken from them, religion just gives them "motivation". anyways if anyone wants to see "the truth movement". take a look at this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6759022809518563654

I guess that is why they yell "Allah Akbar" before they blow themselves up, shoot tied hostages, or hack someones head off with a rusty knife.

Don't fool yourself, the average stooge in the trenches has religion on his mind.

After all, the Jews just want their land the Palestinians have been occupying.

[oolatec]

Egypt and the Palestinians are brothers, remember!

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gg6Sqr...VfoO_mSRfZT9EPw

EL-ARISH, Egypt (AFP) — Egypt has started building a concrete wall along its border with Gaza, a security official said Thursday, even as it speaks to Hamas about improving the dire situation in the increasingly isolated enclave.

"Egypt has started work on a three-metre (ten foot)-high wall along the border with Gaza," the official said, adding that a three-kilometre (two mile) section of the wall had already been built.

"It is a preventative measure. There is no threat of another border breach at the moment," the official said.

Gaza-based militants in January blew up the previous border, allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to enter Egypt and stock up on supplies after a crippling Israeli blockade aimed at ending militant rocket fire.

Despite the withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Strip in 2005, the situation there has grown steadily worse since Hamas won Palestinian elections the following year.

That's what they get for electing terrorists to lead them.

[azcoyote]

"That's what they get for electing terrorists to lead them."

Indeed. Can anyone point out for me an international boundary anywhere in the middle east that was settled in negotiations between warring parties? Haven't most if not all boundaries been established by colonial powers and adopted unchanged by states as they became independent? Isn't this the core problem in Iraq today? What about Syria and Lebanon? The inability find viable compromises to conflict just seems endemic to the region. Let's consider that.

Jews started resettling in Palestine, as an organized movement of national liberation to escape miserable and oppressive condtions in Europe and Russia in the late 1800's. It turns out they were smart to move, as time was not on their side.

The drive for statehood really came about as a result of two forces: Displaced Persons - holocaust survivors needed someplace to go. They were not embraced by the communities from whence they came, nor did the United States or other WWII allies want to settle all those filthy refugees at home. And second, the fact that Jewish refugees in Palestine was already under violent attack.

Why were they attacked? Nobody had been driven from their lands. Up to that point all settlement lands were purchased. There are land deeds to back up that statement, no arguments please. Local Islamic culture appears simply incapable of accepting a compromise of any kind - as this is seen as an admission of fault or weakness and undermines the fundamentalist myth of infallibility.

It was simply insupportable to clerics to admit Jews as equals in Palestine. It should surprise nobody that calls for attack came first from the mosque pulpits. After all, for centuries Jews in the caliphate were registered "Dhimmis" or protected ones. And it worked like any other protection racket, except you were born into it, lived it and died, handing over the next generation to be duly registered. taxed and controlled. It's truly ironic it is to be called racist by such people.

The growing Jewish presence in Palestine was very threatening to locals. Why? These European Jews were mighty upity, not good ni@@ers willing to put up with living in a ghetto. Several majors massacres and incessant sniping along main roads are well documented facts. Let's be clear when and whom was the first to pick up arms and mete out death to innocent civilians in this conflict.

In contrast to their tormentors, Jews are famous for relentless self-examination and debate. Everything is open to fearless analysis. Looking at both sides is in the DNA. It may surprise many readers that Jewish laws not only impose dietary restrictions, but are concerned largely with the how people deal with each other according to ethical principles. Husbands and wives. Employers and employes. Providing for the poor and the widows and orphans in society. That sort of thing, you know, equity, justice and above all the sanctity of human life.

AS outsiders, Jews have become, of necessity adept at dealing with compromising situations while preserving core values. I guess that goes a long way to explain why Israel has always said yes to "land for peace" deals. But their enemies did not have the experience of living within a dominant culture and have clung to an attitude of primacy and infallibility. Chauvinism. Incremental victory. Grind them down. Take what you can today and demand more tomorrow. This is the road to ruin. There comes a point where Israelis ask,

"where is ANY of the peace my land was traded for?"

I think it was the sage Hillel who put this question best.

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? if I am only for myself, what am I?"

This is a balanced view of the world. Good words to bear in mind by all sides in the next round of peace talks.

God willing there will be some progress. Shalom y'all

[gaia.plateau]

The drive for statehood really came about as a result of two forces: Displaced Persons - holocaust survivors needed someplace to go. They were not embraced by the communities from whence they came, nor did the United States or other WWII allies want to settle all those filthy refugees at home. And second, the fact that Jewish refugees in Palestine was already under violent attack.

I had always understood that there was no Jewish presence in Palestine, other than that of thousands of years ago, until November 1917 and the Balfour Declaration, which was a very brief occupation by Zionist forces. I'm getting this from 2 textbooks, one from a history course and one from a theology course, as well as a few academic journal articles. Here's 3 seconds of searching's worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Decla...Arab_opposition

Uses mostly the text of the declaration and other scholarly sources, so it should be reasonably accurate.

The need to establish a Jewish state was a result of centuries of pressure from Zionist Jewish factions, motivated most significantly by, as you say, the oppressive conditions for Jews in Russia and Europe following the enlightenment period. I don't think it's accurate to characterize it as being the need for a place to put Holocaust survivors, as the grotesque majority of Holocaust survivors resettled in Europe. Note that in the summer of 1917 before the Balfour Declaration, parts of Europe were offered to the Jews as a homeland, but Zionist factions refused it for religious reasons.

Evidence doesn't support your assertion that the choice of Palestinian land for a Jewish state was a result of Jews in Palestine being under attack... do you have a source for this perception?

Local Islamic culture appears simply incapable of accepting a compromise of any kind - as this is seen as an admission of fault or weakness and undermines the fundamentalist myth of infallibility.

Now, I couldn't immediately conjur any particular situation where "Islamic culture" compromised, but then I couldn't think of any situation where any Christian or Judaic culture compromised either - look at the situation with the afforementioned Zionist Jews, refusing the gift of any territory as a homeland except for Israel. Then I literally googled "Islamic + compromised" and got a few things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041401279.html
http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/...mar12a2001.html
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_...3712_index.html

Food for thought I guess.

Several majors massacres and incessant sniping along main roads are well documented facts. Let's be clear when and whom was the first to pick up arms and mete out death to innocent civilians in this conflict.

I think it's fair to say that the Palestinians were the initial aggressors, but Israel had the option to stop the conflict and they chose to keep on conquering. Bloody good warriors, those Israelis, always have been.

Just to defend the "other side" in the discussion you've proposed, when the Arabs win against the Israelis, you see fair compromises and the establishment of peace. When the Isralies win against the Arabs, on the other hand, you see outright butchering of POWs and civilians. Look at the Gaza strip today, where the Israeli's are effectively running concentration camps, spreading propaganda, and making Palestinians wear the equivilent of the star of David.

In a 16 August 1995 interview for Israel Radio, Aryeh Yitzhaki of Bar Ilan University, who had worked previously in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) history department, accused a reconnaissance unit, known as Shaked (Almond), of which then housing minister in the Labour government Binyamin Ben-Eliezer had been acting commander, of killing hundreds of Egyptians who had abandoned their weapons and fled into the desert during the 1967 war. Yitzhaki claimed that after the war, he conducted a study proving that in six or seven separate incidents, approximately 1,000 unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war were killed by IDF units. He told Israel Radio that he "submitted the study to then chief of general staff Yitzhak Rabin, but he, as well as the upper echelons of the army, knew and swept it under the rug." It emerged subsequently that Yitzhaki was a member of Rafael Eitan's TsometMeir Pa'il, who had employed him as an assistant during research in the IDF archive, speculated that Yitzhaki was seeking to divert public attention away from revelations by retired general Arye Biro^[129][130] Yitzhaki said "It annoys me that everyone is making an issue about that one case, when everyone knows there were so many events like it".^[131] The allegations received widespread attention in Israel and throughout the world and later resurfaced in a book called Body of Secrets (pp. 201-202) by James Bamford.^[132] Party. concerning his and Eitan’s involvement in the killing of 49 PoWs in the 1956 war.^[133]

Israel has always said yes to "land for peace" deals.

They agree to them when they lose territory, but not when they win it.

the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is not a valid test case because Israel is continuing its "occupation" and despite having withdrawn its settlers, there are still ground forces

Now I'm not saying in any of this that the Arabs are justified in any way for their part in the conflict, but you seem to be seeing the situation through rose-coloured glasses in regard to the position of the Israelis. Both sides are equally to blame, both sides are equal victims and equal aggressors. Both sides are wrong, both sides are right.

Can we agree to just blame the UK for the whole mess?

Edit: By the way, I really liked this point that you made:

"That's what they get for electing terrorists to lead them."

Indeed. Can anyone point out for me an international boundary anywhere in the middle east that was settled in negotiations between warring parties? Haven't most if not all boundaries been established by colonial powers and adopted unchanged by states as they became independent? Isn't this the core problem in Iraq today? What about Syria and Lebanon? The inability find viable compromises to conflict just seems endemic to the region. Let's consider that.

9am edit: in regard to the position on the Israelis = in regard to the position *of the Israelis. Edited March 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

All the support for any Arab positron pretty well goes out the window when one of them yells Allah Akbar, and runs into a religious school, starts shooting 17 year old guys reading the bible. (then gets his head splatted by one of the students from across the street)

Show me an instance of such action on the part of the IDF in say, the last 30 years. Show me some American troops running into a mosque full of juveniles, and opening up while chanting a "Hail Mary". I'll be here waiting, and thinking you the fool in the mean time.

Damn, Gaia, you should just move over there, and see how long it takes them to hack your head off and set it on your back for the cameras. Prove your point about how great, and understanding they are! Show us how wrong we are!

Hell, I'll buy the ticket. I'll even make it a round trip, in case you get lucky, somehow surviving, and come back with a place to put you tuque. (other than in your pocket).

[gaia.plateau]

Show me an instance of such action on the part of the IDF in say, the last 30 years. Show me some American troops running into a mosque full of juveniles, and opening up while chanting a "Hail Mary". I'll be here waiting, and thinking you the fool in the mean time.

Let's play, "choose your response"!

1) You have this habit of rambling off various outrages against something I've said, without quoting what it is you're responding to. Is this regarding my most recent post? Because American troops had absolutely nothing to do with it, which you will discover if you read it.
2) "[A wise man cannot know himself wise until thought a fool by a fool]" - Lao Tzu
3) Show me some Iraqi insurgents running into a Church full of juveniles, opening up and chanting "Allah Akbar". It has to be that exact set of circumstances or you are a fool.

Damn, Gaia, you should just move over there, and see how long it takes them to hack your head off and set it on your back for the cameras. Prove your point about how great, and understanding they are! Show us how wrong we are!

Hell, I'll buy the ticket. I'll even make it a round trip, in case you get lucky, somehow surviving, and come back with a place to put you tuque. (other than in your pocket).

Well, that is the plan, as I'm going into conflict journalism after imminently acquiring my BA in International Conflict and Co-operation. I'll consider your promise a verbal contract, PM me and I'll give you the address to send the ticket to I'll be able to pay off my loans a little faster because of you, buddy!

Edited for typo. Edited March 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

I didn't say Iraqi, why would I, this is about ISRAEL (take a look at the little "subject" line, eh hoser?)

And as for a militant Muslim doing such, I am not going to even begin to look it up for you, waste of time to try to show someone so ill informed about the news from yesterday. Go google it yourself, but if you need a hint try "Mercaz Harav yeshiva" or 8 dead 35 wounded. Hmmm... Ill match your Chinese quote... "When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger". Quit looking at my finger, damit. Note Israel says it won't affect peace talks. I seem to see one side willing to talk, the other willing to shoot-up a bunch of juvenile divinical school students. Tell me again who is the promoter of violence here?

I don't think American soldiers have a damn thing to do with Israel, or Hezbolah, at least not at this point... You are rambling off topic maybe? Or I am I just failing to connect the dots?

good thing tickets are cheap!

[gaia.plateau]

I didn't say Iraqi, why would I, this is about ISRAEL (take a look at the little "subject" line, eh hoser?)

I don't think American soldiers have a damn thing to do with Israel, or Hezbolah, at least not at this point... You are rambling off topic maybe? Or I am I just failing to connect the dots?

If it's about Israel, why are you challenging me about Arabs shooting up Christian schools, and why are you talking about Americans running into Mosques? Did you forget what you wrote?

I know the subject line, I wrote it, and the post you responded to at 1am was about historical Arab-Israeli relations, propounding the argument that it was a two-sided conflict. Did you actually read what you were responding to?

It's a bit ridiculous to state that Americans have nothing to do with Israel, when they're probably your firmest nuclear ally in the world and a major reason for the US imperative to maintain geopolitical control in the Middle East (you may have heard of the Iraq war).

Edit: and where were you going with your point about Arab antiparticles? Edited March 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau