Hezbollah Declares War On Israel...

[gaia.plateau]

I wonder how many Hezbullah doctors would perform life-saving surgery on Israeli kids...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_...stinian_surgery

LoL, yeah, because the Israeli doctors who helped the Palestinian doctors were from the Israeli government.

Hezbollah doesn't employ any doctors, so trying to insinuate that they wouldn't help an Israeli in need of surgery is not only ridiculous, it's dishonest. And even then, I think you're confused... Hezbollah is in Lebanon, Palestine is governed by Hamas.

All doctors must take the Hippocratic oath, to save and protect life wherever they can, whenever they can, regardless of economic, political or social issues. To politicize a medical procedure done by both Israelis and Palestinians by putting the Israeli up on a pedestal for doing his job is appalling... why couldn't you say, "hey, look at this example of Israeli-Palestinian co-operation! Maybe there's hope yet"?

It's this type of attitude that is largely responsible for the conflict to begin with.

None, never, nowhere, nohow.

But they would condone attaching remote control bombs to retarded women, and blowing them up in the market.

Except for the thousands of Palestinian doctors that work for Doctors Without Borders and in Palestinian hospitals? (Assuming of course that you mean Palestinian doctors, and not Lebanese politicians, as Oolatec said).

The percentage of Arabs that are radically militant is somewhere in the 0.00001% territory; your racist attitude toward Muslim people as all being suicide bombers that wouldn't help a dying child is naive and dangerous; good thing for all of us that you aren't in a position of influence Edited March 13, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

Some news just in overnight on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Love to see someone spin this into "typical Muslim aggression".

A bit of background/summation of this thread. Israelis and Palestinians have been shooting rockets at each other, murdering and assassinating various politicians, and breaking human rights laws across the board. I think the Palestinians are up a bit in the rocket department, and Israel has a commanding lead on human rights atrocities.

Hamas sets terms for Israeli truce

Dozens have been left dead in recent weeks by Israeli raids in the Palestinian territories [AFP]

Hamas has publicly laid out its conditions for a ceasefire with Israel, calling for a break in fighting that has left dozens dead in recent weeks.

...

The terms mirrored proposals by Egyptian mediators, who have been trying to broker a truce that would also end rocket attacks by Palestinian fighters from Gaza into Israel.

At the centre of the arrangement would be the deployment of officers loyal to rival Fatah at Gaza's crossings.

Haniya said: "There must be a commitment by Israel, to end all its aggression against our people, assassinations, killings and raids, and lift the [Gaza] siege and reopen the crossings."

A ceasefire deal, he said, should be "reciprocal, comprehensive and simultaneous" and apply both to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

...

A spokesman for Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, in response to Haniya's comments, said there was "no need for negotiations" on a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli leaders insist that they will not negotiate with Hamas, which the West has labeled a "terrorist" organisation.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B09...F2E52693830.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7292083.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7293498.stm

Both governments are terrorist, both sides have committed illegal acts of aggression, but the bottom line is, as I have been saying repeatedly, Palestine wants peace and Israel wants to continue fighting. This is why the UN has condemned Israel's actions in the conflict, and this is why they hold the greater culpability. Edited March 13, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Johnny_D]

Sorry Gaia couldn't disagree more.

And your bias is rather obvious here. 'a bit up on rockets' and 'commanding lead'

Try rockets every day into sderot. Those lovely fluffy bunny Palestians like to shoot rockets at a time of day
most school children and accessing/egressing school. Every day for years.

Israel tends to only go in and attack homes of known aggressors or terrorists.

I'll agree with your point that both sides have committed atrocities and there are sure to be crimes on both sides. But your views that Israel is totally evil and Palestains are fluffy is wrong.

I notice no one wants to take on the farfour issue.

JD

[dracnor]

Both governments are terrorist, both sides have committed illegal acts of aggression, but the bottom line is, as I have been saying repeatedly, Palestine wants peace and Israel wants to continue fighting. This is why the UN has condemned Israel's actions in the conflict, and this is why they hold the greater culpability.

This sounds kind of off, considering that the Hamas charter points to the destruction of the State of Israel.

EDIT: Calls for, not points to. Edited March 13, 2008 by dracnor

[gaia.plateau]

This sounds kind of off, considering that the Hamas charter points to the destruction of the State of Israel.

EDIT: Calls for, not points to.

Absolution and destruction are very different things. The Hamas charter calls Israel illegitimate, and calls for the dissolution of the state by implicitly diplomatic means. It's wrong either way, but let's not spin reality.

[gaia.plateau]

Sorry Gaia couldn't disagree more.

Try rockets every day into sderot. Those lovely fluffy bunny Palestians like to shoot rockets at a time of day
most school children and accessing/egressing school. Every day for years.

And your bias is rather obvious here. 'a bit up on rockets' and 'commanding lead'

I'll agree with your point that both sides have committed atrocities and there are sure to be crimes on both sides. But your views that Israel is totally evil and Palestains are fluffy is wrong.

It's not bias, JD, it's balance. Nearly the entirity of the Western world, this forum notwithstanding, has exhibited unbelievable predjudice against Muslims over the past several years. If this thread was 90/10 supportive of the Arab-side or even 60/40 instead of 99/1 the other way, I would be arguing in Israel's defense. I've stated numerous times that both sides are equally to blame, there's no bias here.

I never said or implied that Israel is evil in any way, nor did I ever justify any actions of the Palestinians.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have been firing rockets every day, the Palestinians are ahead because that's pretty much all they can do, whereas the Israelis have militarily occupied the Gaza strip, routinely cut off water and electricity, and set up POW camps which equally abuse the human rights of both combatants and civilians.

The UN has taken Palestine's "side" in the conflict, if you want to call it that, by primarily criticizing Israel. I think this is wrong, that it's wrong to ever take a side in matters of conflict, but it does call into question the overwhelming support of Israel by the West.

Regarding the recent truce developments, it's true that months ago Israel started the peace agreements, but here's the catch. Israel's terms were that they get to continue occupying Palestinian territory militarily, which means that they get to legitimately continue the UN-condemned human rights atrocities. In the here and now, Hamas are the ones offering truce, on the condition that both sides stop fighting. Edited March 13, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

Sorry Gaia couldn't disagree more.

Try rockets every day into sderot. Those lovely fluffy bunny Palestians like to shoot rockets at a time of day
most school children and accessing/egressing school. Every day for years.

And your bias is rather obvious here. 'a bit up on rockets' and 'commanding lead'

I'll agree with your point that both sides have committed atrocities and there are sure to be crimes on both sides. But your views that Israel is totally evil and Palestains are fluffy is wrong.

It's not bias, JD, it's balance. Nearly the entirity of the Western world, this forum notwithstanding, has exhibited unbelievable predjudice against Muslims over the past several years. If this thread was 90/10 supportive of the Arab-side or even 60/40 instead of 99/1 the other way, I would be arguing in Israel's defense. I've stated numerous times that both sides are equally to blame, there's no bias here.

I never said or implied that Israel is evil in any way, nor did I ever justify any actions of the Palestinians.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have been firing rockets every day, the Palestinians are ahead because that's pretty much all they can do, whereas the Israelis have militarily occupied the Gaza strip, routinely cut off water and electricity, and set up POW camps which equally abuse the human rights of both combatants and civilians.

The UN has taken Palestine's "side" in the conflict, if you want to call it that, by primarily criticizing Israel. I think this is wrong, that it's wrong to ever take a side in matters of conflict, but it does call into question the overwhelming support of Israel by the West.

Regarding the recent truce developments, it's true that months ago Israel started the peace agreements, but here's the catch. Israel's terms were that they get to continue occupying Palestinian territory militarily, which means that they get to legitimately continue the UN-condemned human rights atrocities. In the here and now, Hamas are the ones offering truce, on the condition that both sides stop fighting.

No, it's not balance, it's bias. You are 100% always on the anti-Israel side, 100% anti American... and call it balance, just keep kidding yourself, typical leftist method of repeating a lie until someone believes it. They elected a bloody terrorist for a leader and you are singing their virtues. That's not silly, that's tumbling into the "stupid-vat" head first.

The only thing Israel is doing wrong is to not find another Uzi Narkiss or Moshe Dayan and putting an end to the stupidity once and for all. If the Palestinians wanted any sort of peace they would elect someone with that goal in mind. Until such time they are just simple terrorists, nothing more.

The only "catch" is once the IDF withdraws the terrorists use that area to shoot rockets (mostly supplied by Iran) deeper into Israel, at civilian targets. Then the oh-so-masculine Muslim terrorists go hide behind women and children... there is no valour, or honor in such behaviour. In occupation the IDF may well be preventing civilian casualties on both sides... there is the honor, and valour.

[gaia.plateau]

No, it's not balance, it's bias. You are 100% always on the anti-Israel side, 100% anti American...

and call it balance, just keep kidding yourself, typical leftist method of repeating a lie until someone believes it. They elected a bloody terrorist for a leader and you are singing their virtues. That's not silly, that's tumbling into the "stupid-vat" head first.

This isn't true at all, and if it appears so on this forum, it's because the 100% pro-violence, pro-jinoists are the loudest. I'm 100% always on the side of objectivity and common sense - if those have come to appear left-wing and biased for you, you should seriously revaluate your perceptions and worldviews.

Who are you to criticize a population for electing a terrorist as a leader? Or did your country not vote for the Bush administration?

[TheScotsman]

No, it's not balance, it's bias. You are 100% always on the anti-Israel side, 100% anti American...

and call it balance, just keep kidding yourself, typical leftist method of repeating a lie until someone believes it. They elected a bloody terrorist for a leader and you are singing their virtues. That's not silly, that's tumbling into the "stupid-vat" head first.

This isn't true at all, and if it appears so on this forum, it's because the 100% pro-violence, pro-jinoists are the loudest. I'm 100% always on the side of objectivity and common sense - if those have come to appear left-wing and biased for you, you should seriously revaluate your perceptions and worldviews.

Who are you to criticize a population for electing a terrorist as a leader? Or did your country not vote for the Bush administration?

If that were true for even a half a second, why would you expose support on the side of a Arab government that took over through questionable means, then oppressed (literally to starvation) the people that were there first, until the people started fighting back... and you put the blame on those that were oppressed in favor of the Arabs.


Call it what you want, I'm going with liberal-nutcase, anti-Semitic biased.

[gaia.plateau]

If that were true for even a half a second, why would you expose support on the side of a Arab government that took over through questionable means, then oppressed (literally to starvation) the people that were there first, until the people started fighting back... and you put the blame on those that were oppressed in favor of the Arabs.


Call it what you want, I'm going with liberal-nutcase, anti-Semitic biased.

Could you clarify where I've "exposed support" of any Arab governments?

Thanks in advance.

Further, before you call me anti-Semetic, perhaps you should talk to some of the hundreds of thousands of Jews that oppose Zionism, or some of my many Jewish friends with whom I've celebrated dozens of Passovers, Purims, Pesachs, Yom Kippurs, Sukkots, Rosh Hashanahs, Shavouts, and Chanukuhs. Be sure to let them know that I hate them.

anti-Semitic
adj. Relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semitic Edited March 13, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Johnny_D]

rosh hashanah

You won't need cream

[gaia.plateau]

rosh hashanah

You won't need cream

We celebrate it with fire ants. It gets a little crazy.

[TheScotsman]

What about the Christian-Animist rebels and the Muslim government in Darfur? Wait, damn, Christians started it

Hmm... AS even the UN found, the original start of hostilities was the Muslim gov't oppressing the non-Muslim farmers, throwing them off their land, destroying homes and what little crops they had, condoning rape of non-Muslim women. So I guess, in your non-biased mind it's ok for an Arab gov't backed by Qaddafi can show up and do what ever they want! Any non-Arab is supposed to take it and keep smiling, or they get blamed for starting it. Ya, that's non biased.

Man, you got some heroes there. Yep, I am going to have to agree with the radio kook... liberalism is a mental disorder.

[gaia.plateau]

Great job taking that out of context, too bad you aren't a mod, and can't edit the original post.

You mean like the Serbs and Albanians? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the Burmese protesters and the Burmese military government? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the Christian-Animist rebels and the Muslim government in Darfur? Wait, damn, Christians started it (take your pick from the rebels or the British colonials that planted the roots of the conflict). What about the United States military in Iraq? Wait, damn, Christians started it. I could keep going with this, so I will. What about the Columbian aggressors in Ecuador and Venezuela? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the riots in Kenya? Christians started it. The decades-long war in Uganda between the LRA and national army, just now in the middle of peace talks?

Even look back a bit, if you like. Christians started it. WWI, Christians started it. WWII, Christians started it. Vietnam, Korea, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, and now I'll begin to wind this down because it's just too bloody easy. Look at the conflict in question between the Israelis and Palestinians, which is most significantly caused by British colonial and post-colonial policies? Christians started it.

So every conflict you can think of was started by crazy, unreasonable Muslims, eh? I guess you weren't thinking of the nearly 2 dozen I just mentioned.

I was explicit that the conflict in Sudan is chiefly a result of the British colonials who installed an oppressive Muslim regime to govern the region, implicitly stating that the Muslim government was immediately at fault. I support the Christian-Animist rebels entirely in this matter (even though I'm a pacifist, like Thich Nhat Hanh I do believe that violence of liberation is sometimes necessary), and chagrin that the international community has sat idly by with their thumbs up their asses. Indeed, by trying to negotiate peace talks between the two parties and not inviting all the rebel factions, the UN has probably made matters worse.

Got any more? Edited March 13, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

Great job taking that out of context, too bad you aren't a mod, and can't edit the original post.

You mean like the Serbs and Albanians? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the Burmese protesters and the Burmese military government? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the Christian-Animist rebels and the Muslim government in Darfur? Wait, damn, Christians started it (take your pick from the rebels or the British colonials that planted the roots of the conflict). What about the United States military in Iraq? Wait, damn, Christians started it. I could keep going with this, so I will. What about the Columbian aggressors in Ecuador and Venezuela? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the riots in Kenya? Christians started it. The decades-long war in Uganda between the LRA and national army, just now in the middle of peace talks?

Even look back a bit, if you like. Christians started it. WWI, Christians started it. WWII, Christians started it. Vietnam, Korea, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, and now I'll begin to wind this down because it's just too bloody easy. Look at the conflict in question between the Israelis and Palestinians, which is most significantly caused by British colonial and post-colonial policies? Christians started it.

So every conflict you can think of was started by crazy, unreasonable Muslims, eh? I guess you weren't thinking of the nearly 2 dozen I just mentioned.

I was explicit that the conflict in Sudan is chiefly a result of the British colonials who installed an oppressive Muslim regime to govern the region, implicitly stating that the Muslim government was immediately at fault. I support the Christian-Animist rebels entirely in this matter (even though I'm a pacifist, like Thich Nhat Hanh I do believe that violence of liberation is sometimes necessary), and chagrin that the international community has sat idly by with their thumbs up their asses. Indeed, by trying to negotiate peace talks between the two parties and not inviting all the rebel factions, the UN has probably made matters worse.

Got any more?

great job changing your emphasis to fit a new spin.
Liberalism... a mental disorder.

[gaia.plateau]

You intentionally misunderstood me... big difference between that and changing emphasis.

keep trying to attack me personally though, so far it's working out a lot better for you than trying to attack my arguments.

[Texico]

Ok, attack your points it is, then.

International law is a joke. If it truely were law then someone should be able to uphold it. Where is this all-powerful nation? It doesn't exist. Therefore Israel is a legitimate country because it was able to take its land by force. It didn't take its land by force in the first place, though. It bought the land and the tenant Arab farmers couldn't adjust to the idea of being forced off of their land by the new owners. This is a failure by the Arabs, not an infringement by the Jews. The Jews can hardly be blamed for ousting the Arabs from their newly acquired land.

The Arabs were mad about this, understandably. It was a change in their customs which they were, obviously, not used to. They attacked the Jews, and the Jews attacked back. Landless tenant farmers can be a dangerous force. Just look at the United States during the Great Depression. Migrant farm workers were a group feared by the landed estate owners in California.

The British attempted to end the buying of land by the Jews, but the Arabs were still angry about the land which was bought legally by the Jews already. This caused them to instigate the violence. The violence that the Arabs started while the territory was still under the British protectorate has endured until today.

You have yet to argue against my points that the Arabs are in the wrong for revolting against legal land purchasing by the Jewish immigrants. This is the root of the problem. I know you want to ignore what I said, but you can't do that. I won't let you. The others on this forum might be influenced by what you said, but you have yet to address the points made by my previous post. Until you rebuke my points I will assume that I am correct in my beliefs. Being correct in my beliefs merely reinforces everything I have read, though, and makes me view with skepticism anything you have posted.

I love the way everyone has ignored what I have said because it has historical truth in it.

[Brownman18]

Ok, attack your points it is, then.

International law is a joke. If it truely were law then someone should be able to uphold it. Where is this all-powerful nation? It doesn't exist. Therefore Israel is a legitimate country because it was able to take its land by force. It didn't take its land by force in the first place, though. It bought the land and the tenant Arab farmers couldn't adjust to the idea of being forced off of their land by the new owners. This is a failure by the Arabs, not an infringement by the Jews. The Jews can hardly be blamed for ousting the Arabs from their newly acquired land.

The Arabs were mad about this, understandably. It was a change in their customs which they were, obviously, not used to. They attacked the Jews, and the Jews attacked back. Landless tenant farmers can be a dangerous force. Just look at the United States during the Great Depression. Migrant farm workers were a group feared by the landed estate owners in California.

The British attempted to end the buying of land by the Jews, but the Arabs were still angry about the land which was bought legally by the Jews already. This caused them to instigate the violence. The violence that the Arabs started while the territory was still under the British protectorate has endured until today.

You have yet to argue against my points that the Arabs are in the wrong for revolting against legal land purchasing by the Jewish immigrants. This is the root of the problem. I know you want to ignore what I said, but you can't do that. I won't let you. The others on this forum might be influenced by what you said, but you have yet to address the points made by my previous post. Until you rebuke my points I will assume that I am correct in my beliefs. Being correct in my beliefs merely reinforces everything I have read, though, and makes me view with skepticism anything you have posted.

I love the way everyone has ignored what I have said because it has historical truth in it.

I'll bite, but it didn't matter either way, theirs a few points you fail to neglect.


Israel did not defeat the arabs, Israel armed by the United States destroyed the arabs plain and simple.


Had they not had all the hand outs they would have lost long ago (im not picking any sides, they obviously needed the backing they had no chance otherwise, they had no way to defend themselves, the industries were not in place, generally speaking a group of countries is always > a single country unless its aided by a super power)



And theirs also a few other points you fail to neglect, like Israel's covert war which lit the flame in the region to begin with was the use of chemical weapons on Arabs in the region by way of poisioning their water supplies and in general doing what the settlers did to the natives on a larger scale.

it was a dirty war plain and simple on both sides.


The end result is perpetual fighting, since both sides are both mentally retarded in my point of view as they are both controlled by religious assholes to begin with.

Their is no solution to this conflict plain and simple.

All the peace loving arabs in palestine died long ago, and their kids will only remember the fact that Israel's tanks killed their parents long ago, and well they grew up on the streets.


Hence why you have "terrorists" or in common sense terms Freedom Fighters. Either way this world is long gone, world war three started right after September 11 by way of economic warfare.


Now all thats left is for the right asshole to stir the hornet nest in any conflict in the following to truly get it started!


-middle east (israel (the west) vs well you already know))
-Latin America (chavez/democratic leftist regimes in the region vs the west)
-Pakistan/India conflict which will fuck up the balance and peace in that region
-North Korea anyone ? lol

I think its safe to say Afghanistan is the only place that couldn't stir a ww3, but then again everyone has forgotten about them already anyway.

[gaia.plateau]

International law is a joke. If it truely were law then someone should be able to uphold it. Where is this all-powerful nation? It doesn't exist. Therefore Israel is a legitimate country because it was able to take its land by force. It didn't take its land by force in the first place, though. It bought the land and the tenant Arab farmers couldn't adjust to the idea of being forced off of their land by the new owners. This is a failure by the Arabs, not an infringement by the Jews.

If you really want to digress into the validity of international law, I'll be happy to pursue

I happen to agree with you that international law is a joke, but it's almost too complex an issue to discuss on a message forum. A few weeks ago I was invited to speak on a local radio show about international and human rights laws, and I basically said that they're examples of good intentions paving the road to hell, expanded into 40 minutes. But if you want to go down that road it will expand and expand and we'll lose more and more people and it will just get ugly.

For example, you have to look at the Westphalian structure of the international system and address its validity; are states legitimate users of force? Are they the only legitimate users of force? You have to look comparably at the 19th and 20th centuries; was the 20th century really defined by collective security, or has it simply been a continuation of the Great Powers system which has defined the international order for centuries? You have to ask if collective security is possible, and if it should be facilitated by international laws, and you then have to ask who should decide those laws and uphold them.

That's not even the tip of the iceburg, that's like the ripple on the top of the water from the tip approaching it. So for the time being, let's just understand that we have international law, at least ostensibly, and that the international community has decided that it's a good thing. If international law really was "a joke", as you say, I guarantee you that Iran would have been nuked by now.

The Jews can hardly be blamed for ousting the Arabs from their newly acquired land.

They can when the Arabs have lived there for centuries, and have nowhere else to go, no water, no shelter, no way to live.

You have yet to argue against my points that the Arabs are in the wrong for revolting against legal land purchasing by the Jewish immigrants. This is the root of the problem. I know you want to ignore what I said, but you can't do that. I won't let you. The others on this forum might be influenced by what you said, but you have yet to address the points made by my previous post. Until you rebuke my points I will assume that I am correct in my beliefs. Being correct in my beliefs merely reinforces everything I have read, though, and makes me view with skepticism anything you have posted.

What evidence have I given you to suggest that I think the Arabs were right? And what did you say? Was it even in this thread? Are you drunk?

I've made dozens of posts in various threads on this forum and others that, I believed, made important points, and have been missed or ignored for whatever reasons - this doesn't give us the right to throw a tantrum about it. If you want your post to be replied to, specifically by me, please quote it, and I will indulge you.

[Johnny_D]

Gaia,

Just to quickly pick out one point

(Texico @ Mar 15 2008, 12:01 AM) *
The Jews can hardly be blamed for ousting the Arabs from their newly acquired land.

They can when the Arabs have lived there for centuries, and have nowhere else to go, no water, no shelter, no way to live.

The Jewish residents purchased the land legally at the time...

If you purchased a 300year old house I'm fairly sure you would expect the residents to leave once you had purchased said property. I'm fairly confident this is the piont made by Texico.

JD Edited March 15, 2008 by Johnny_D

[gaia.plateau]

Gaia,

Just to quickly pick out one point

(Texico @ Mar 15 2008, 12:01 AM) *
The Jews can hardly be blamed for ousting the Arabs from their newly acquired land.

They can when the Arabs have lived there for centuries, and have nowhere else to go, no water, no shelter, no way to live.

The Jewish residents purchased the land legally at the time...

If you purchased a 300year old house I'm fairly sure you would expect the residents to leave once you had purchased said property. I'm fairly confident this is the piont made by Texico.

JD

That's not the greatest analogy... because 1) you're not forced to sell the house, and 2) you presumably have somewhere else to live, or at the very least can become homeless and beg for food and water.

When a government displaces and forces from territory a civilian population with no access to basic human rights like water and shelter, I think that they certainly can be blamed. When they hold said population in POW camps where they are abused daily, I think they can be blamed. We did it in 1944, at any rate.

[Scoop]

Gaia,

Just to quickly pick out one point

(Texico @ Mar 15 2008, 12:01 AM) *
The Jews can hardly be blamed for ousting the Arabs from their newly acquired land.

They can when the Arabs have lived there for centuries, and have nowhere else to go, no water, no shelter, no way to live.

The Jewish residents purchased the land legally at the time...

If you purchased a 300year old house I'm fairly sure you would expect the residents to leave once you had purchased said property. I'm fairly confident this is the piont made by Texico.

JD

That's not the greatest analogy... because 1) you're not forced to sell the house, and 2) you presumably have somewhere else to live, or at the very least can become homeless and beg for food and water.

When a government displaces and forces from territory a civilian population with no access to basic human rights like water and shelter, I think that they certainly can be blamed. When they hold said population in POW camps where they are abused daily, I think they can be blamed. We did it in 1944, at any rate.

uhh sorry, this post is just wrong. they did not own the land. the ottoman's sold the land...

dude, this is true today. if you cant pay your mortage the bank takes over and you get ousted. they dont care if you dont have a place to live...wtf...

[guyt]

+1 for Scoop.

Palestinians have no more of a legitimate claim than the Israelis. Why is everyone getting so pissy at the Israelis when almost no arabic country will grant Palestinians, which they pretend to care about, the right to apply for citizenship. Many states, including Lebanon which sparked this thread, will not let palestinians have jobs much beyond manual labor and service industry stuff.

Israel treats the Palestinians much better than any most other countries in the middle east.

[Brownman18]

the other arabs could care less about Palestine, the same with their leaders.


They only care about palestine when it suites them, and that means when they are "pushing the jews into the sea"



That's probly something that the arabs need to come to terms with but never will.

[gaia.plateau]

uhh sorry, this post is just wrong. they did not own the land. the ottoman's sold the land...

dude, this is true today. if you cant pay your mortage the bank takes over and you get ousted. they dont care if you dont have a place to live...wtf...

Were you referring to Texico's quoted post, where he referred to the land as being owned by the Palestinians, to JD's quoted post, where he referred to the land as being owned by the Palestinians, or my quoted post, where I referred to the land as being owned by the Palestinians?

The Ottoman Empire's land was acquisitioned most significantly by the British following the First World War, following the collapse of the Ottoman empire, and continued to be occupied by Palestinians, and following the Second World War it was divvied up mostly to what are now Israelis.

You guys seem to feel more comfortable relating this Middle Eastern situation to Western situations, eg JD's reference to buying a house, Scoop's reference to a mortgage, and I'm sorry but these are just useless.

You have no idea (implicitly an assumption, please pardon and excuse me if I'm wrong) to know what it's like to live in a developing country, to be absolutely uncertain if you and your family will find food, water, and shelter the next day, to have literally billions of people who prey on you and your desperation constantly, and very frequently make you a late-modern serf. Nothing in life is as bad as total uncertainty.

Losing a home in the global North is an inconvenience, it means that we have to find somewhere else to live. It is not comparable in any way to losing a home in the global South, which means having nowhere to live, and often death for you and your family. Surviving on 15 cents a day or, usually, less. Living in the gutters of active war. Existence without faintest hope. To treat these situations as analogous to Western property dealings is, conceivably, naive and impudent.

Edited for typo. Edited March 16, 2008 by gaia.plateau