*sigh* Another Palestinian suicide bomber...

[Amused]

Darren, instead of screaming, try understanding that one day after Israel was formed, All the surrounding Arab nations, in conjunction with Palestinian forces attacked Israel, and haven't let up since. Secondly, I must question the sources of those quotes. You see, I've only seen them on fanatical Palestinian sites, and question their validity.

At any rate, is it not natural to come to hate those who constantly attack you, be it through conventional military forces, or bloody, murderous terrorist attacks?

As for the subject matter of the quotes, they contradict reality. There are one million Arab Israelis living in Israel with full equality and rights. They obviously have been VERY accommodating to Arabs who do not wish to wage war against them.

I repeat, they are NOT the aggressors here. Every war has been started by the surrounding Arab nations, and Palestinians. You can rip questionable quotes off of Palestinian propaganda sites all you want, but you cannot deny historical facts.

 

[darren]

In 1938, David Ben Gurion, regarded as one of the founders of Israel
"...in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us," but he said "let us not ignore the truth among ourselves..... we are the aggressors and they defend themselves..."

Menachem Begin (ex-prime minister of israel, and also once head of the IRGUN gang -- terrorist gang back in the day --), speaking the truth -awkwardly:
"If this is Palestine and not the land of Israel, then you are conquerers and not tillers of the land. You are invaders. If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who lived here before you came."
I suppose he was denying that Palestine was Palestine?

also regarding 1967 war, Begin said
"The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

These three quotes above are from Arabs & Israel: For Beginners by Ron David, ISBN 0863161618

quotes are fine and handy and dandy and great - but they do not educate. hopefully these quotes probe your interest and cause you to read up on the history of the conflict. that is the only way to really come to a better understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict (ATOT provideth not an education - often just random facts that spark interest)

darren

 

[darren]

amusedone,

in regards to arab countries surrounding israel and attacking em... etc.

i suggest you read the details of the history not just a few random facts that myself and yourself are posting.
its natural for you to question the sources when you are not in agreement with the statements. try looking em up.
you're right about online not being a good solid source. thats why we read books.

here are a few books ive read this past quarter that i thought were quite informative about the palestinian - israeli conflict specifically but a more general sense the region and its history and politics.

Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict - Charles D. Smith
History of the Arab Peoples - Albert Hourani
A History of the Modern Middle East - William Cleveland
The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality - John Esposito

what i'd call a toliet book (short enough to read on the toilet - an easy read FOR BEGINNERS)
Arabs & Israel For Beginners - Ron David

 

[Amused]

<< In 1938, David Ben Gurion, regarded as one of the founders of Israel
"...in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us," but he said "let us not ignore the truth among ourselves..... we are the aggressors and they defend themselves..."

Menachem Begin (ex-prime minister of israel, and also once head of the IRGUN gang -- terrorist gang back in the day --), speaking the truth -awkwardly:
"If this is Palestine and not the land of Israel, then you are conquerers and not tillers of the land. You are invaders. If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who lived here before you came."
I suppose he was denying that Palestine was Palestine?

also regarding 1967 war, Begin said
"The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

These three quotes above are from Arabs & Israel: For Beginners by Ron David, ISBN 0863161618

quotes are fine and handy and dandy and great - but they do not educate. hopefully these quotes probe your interest and cause you to read up on the history of the conflict. that is the only way to really come to a better understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict (ATOT provideth not an education - often just random facts that spark interest)

darren >>



Darren, what you fail to recognize is that I AM educated on the history of the conflict. Yet all you post are questionable quotes that contradict the reality of Israeli action. The 1967 war was started by an OBVIOUS act of aggression by SUPERIOR forces. Had Israel waited for Egypt to attack, they would not be here today.

If you're in a fight with a guy twice your size, do you let him have the first punch? Of COURSE they have no concrete evidence Egypt was about to attack, because Egypt did not telegrapgh their intentions, beyond amassing hundreds of thousands of troops along Israel's border and evicting the UN emergency forces at the very same time Syria did the same along the Golan Heights. What the hell do you think they were doing?

Egypt then cut off all shipping to Israel through the Straits of Tiran. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil supplies into Israel.

On May 30. Egyption president Nasser then announced:

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map." On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Good gawd Talk about not knowing history.

Israel had two choices. Wait until a combined force more than twice the size of it's own military invaded, or strike first. What would YOU have them do???

 

[Amused]

Darren, BS. All one has to do is know the facts behind the 48 and 67 wars to know what the intentions of the Arab nations were, and are.

I don't need to read biased books to learn factual history... as you obviously have done.

Especially Ron David's tripe. It's so anti-Israel it's not even funny.

 

[darren]

EDIT: hey amused one- for refutation of arab military superiority and further discussion see 2 posts below (cited too). i've also read about the internal dialogue going on between the israeli and military gov't that indicated clear Israeli military superiority - i just dont currently recall the exact sources.
go ahead and call everything you dont like questionable. thats the way to leave the academic realm of understanding and enter the dogmatic realm - perhaps that is more suitable for ATOT

amusedone -

since you insist that israel/israelis are not the aggressors-

are the israelis indigenous to palestine?
............take a second to think about it

if not - wouldnt that make them foreigners - and therefore occupiers, imperialists if the indigenous folk did not welcome their presence?

are the palestinians indigenous to palestine?
if not where did they come from and where have they been living the past thousand years.











so the answer is this

yes of course palestinians are indigenous to palestine. (the area that israel now occupies)

israelis however are primarily immigrants or first and second generation kids of immigrants of jews of
1) middle eastern origin - other regions such as jordan, iran, iraq other states basically
2) western and eastern european - especially after the brutal murder of millions of jews by hitler in WWII
3) russian origin
4) african - even ethiopian jews migrate to israel
THE ISRAELIS ARE SETTLERS - no one denies that (some israelis; however, claim that they have a right to come back after 2000 years of exile)
a 2000 year old land claim? you're right perhaps i will never understand the validity of Israel under those grounds until i somehow become jewish- oh wait i cant become jewish i dont think their accepting converts - (well actually i think my chinese blood suits me fine for now)

so the point is that jews chose to come to israel cause they wanted to; however
the palestinians currently living in west bank, jordan, gaza strip, and everywhere else they have been dispersed to in the world did not CHOOSE to be dispersed - in fact they openly call for their right of return to their homes. those living in the state of israel did not choose the israeli gov't and state. it was imposed upon them.
jews migrate to israel cause they want to
palestinians end up in refugee camps in west bank and jordan and everywhere else cause they got kicked out - they didnt choose to become refugees - they want to come back but israel does not allow it. (some STRANGE logic about - if israel let palestinians return palestinians would outnumber jews and vote israel out of being a jewish state - well duh! in pre 1948 era palestinians always made up the majority of the population of the area.... to the degree that at the turn of the century - jews in palestine made up less than 8% of the population, or perhaps ISRAEL is for jews not palestinians or perhaps 'there isnt enough room for the both of us'... etc.)


currently israel has everything (in terms of military, land, soveriegnty, international aid, etc.), palestinians have nothing. israel just has to maintain the status quo in order to keep all the land it has already acquired through war.

 

[ArmenK]

<< Darren, BS. All one has to do is know the facts behind the 48 and 67 wars to know what the intentions of the Arab nations were, and are.

I don't need to read biased books to learn factual history... as you obviously have done.

Especially Ron David's tripe. It's so anti-Israel it's not even funny. >>



Darren has mentioned his sources and how he has educated himself on the issue. You call his sources "biased" but have you read the books yourself? Please post your own "unbiased" sources so we can all "learn factual history" as you have.

 

[darren]

concerning military superiority in 1967,
and i quote Charles Smith

"Soviet supplies to Egypt, Syria, and Iraq clearly outweighed Israel's in quantity and probably contributed to Nasser's confidence during the initial stages of the 1967 crisis. Qualitatively, however, the Israelis had a clear edge. Each Soviet weapons system had been balanced by a Western one, and the ofensive capability of the Israelis' weapons especially aircraft, far outdistanced that of the Arabs'. It seems likely, given the increasing potential for American-Soviet involvement in the region, that once the United States became an arms supplier of Israel, the Soviets wished to avoid a direct confrontation. Moscow provided weapons designed for defensive or limited offensive purposes, but not sufficient "to allow contemplation of successful first strike or total victory." In contrast, Israeli aresenal possessed significant offensive capabilities, including long-range attack bombers, and its personnel were capable of handling advanced wepons technology, a characteristic that the Arab military, especially the air force, lacked in abundance. Once the possibity of war developed in May 1967, the Israeli military leadership had little doubt they could demolish the Egyptians in the Sinai. The question was whether the Eshkol (current Israeli leadership) government would permit them to do so."
pg 194-195

so this is how I come to believe and say that Israeli military superiority in 1967 was clear
(the aftermath of 1967 - Israel's occupation of sinai, golan, west bank are indications of its military superiority. they have yet to return the golan or give up west bank)

 

[Texmaster]

Using your warped logic about settlers Darren, everyone is a settler.

Since we all came from a different location than we are now, everyone is a settler. Life did not begin in Palestine, people moved there. Even the Ancient Greek which are the first recorded settlers in modern day Israel moved there. Some vikings conquered England and moved there. Modern day Americans kicked Native Americans off their land. After all the wars over centuries of fighting you cannot pick and choose modern day resettlement and only apply that to a land that has seen the owner change hands countless times over thousands of years. Not to mention the holy signifigence of the land to 3 major religions.

Once you and the Palestinians stop the blame game of who has a "right" to live there then perhaps there could be peace in that corner of the world.

 

[darren]

amusedone,

concerning,

<<<On May 30. Egyption president Nasser then announced:
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."
>>>>

i do not know of this specifc quote but it does not surprise me.

if you have an education in this history of the conflict, i believe you would understand the dynamics of arabism - and how talking big meant everything - and arab talk was only backed up when arab leaders were forced by public opinion to do so.
this WAS the case for 1948 and arab politics since then.
for a better understanding of this try

Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order - Michael Barnett (hopefully this one isnt also on your biased list - if it is im surprised; you've read a lot of books - or do you just call books biased without reading them? )


but one point that you do make that i agree is that - if the arabs had their way at that point - meaning nasser, others (perhaps not Jordan's Husain in the same manner) - the state of israel WOULD be destroyed and a Palestinian state put in its place. This should not be surprising either if consider how Israel came to being - and where they were quickly headed. illegal immigration of jews into palestine, the massacre and expulsion of palestinians, the annexations of neighboring lands, the acquisition of land by war, etc.

theres a lot to write and read bout how and (understandbly) why arabs call for the destruction/dismantle of israel

(something i myself do not advocate today, but probably would have in the context of 1950)

darren

EDIT:
Texmaster - its not warped logic - there IS a difference between a people that have lived in a place for a thousand years in which time they have built houses and towns - and a people who just come in to settle at the EXPENSE of the people currently living there.
how bout the native american indians - wouldnt you say that european settlers should have treated them better since they were here for more than a thousand years before the european settlers came? or are you gonna call the native indians settlers as well and say that its warped logic to differentiate between european settlers and the native american indians that have been there for over a thousand years.
there are plenty of palestinian people in west bank, gaza, jordan, united states, england - basically everywhere - these 50 year old, 60 year old, 70 year old folks that still have deeds to their houses that are now either occupied by jews or have been demolished and new tract housing for jews built over them. we do what we can to help people and try to do whats fair... not just shrug or shoulders and say "its past so get over it." in this sense history and present policy are linked.

also, FYI i got some of these details readily available cause ive been studying this stuff for the past quarter and am currently preparing for the final.

 

[Aelus]

The phalangists were just another army unit of the IDF, they were trained and armed like normal israeli soldiers, and they were used when the IDF thought it was needed.

a couple of days before the massacre happened, a treaty was signed inbetween PLO and israel, so the PLO would leave libanon and move to syria. Right after that, the commander of the phalangists was murdered by a PLO activist. This was revenge for cruelties by the phalangists in the past towards palestinians. Then, after the explicit demand of minister sharon, the phalangists were sent into the camps to insure all the PLO fighters had left.

if we go back a bit in history, the phalangists were also used in conquering a part of libanon, but then, when they were going to come in contact with the local population, sharon had them removed because of the danger they presented towards the locals. Nevertheless, sharon thought the phalangists presented no danger to the palestinian refugees, even though one of their leaders had been murdered the day before.

The fact that the phalangists were send in to create a massacre is confirmed by their low numbers, only hundred or so phalangists entered the camps, why on earth, if they suspected several hundred opponents, were they only going in with 100 soldiers.

A couple hours after the start of the massacre, an israeli soldier overheard 2 commanders of the phalangists saying in his radio to kill every single person. The soldier asked his commander what he had to do: the commander said that he didn't have to do anything at all.

watch the bbc documentary if you don't believe this, but hey, maybe the bbc is biased too...

THAT kind of person is what sharon is.

You, amusedone, believe that the solution to this problem is deportation, how many times must history repeat itself before people will realize that deportation/genocide is never a human answer to a problem. Deportation/genocide was used by the nazis, by turkey, by the USA, by the USSR, and by countless other nations, and i think you'd agree it was bad then, well, explain me what difference there is between the deportation of the jews during WW2, when they were portrayed as evil-doers in germany, and with the palestinian population which is portrayed as evil doers now.

don't let history repeat itself.

Aelus

 

[Texmaster]

<< EDIT:
Texmaster - its not warped logic - there IS a difference between a people that have lived in a place for a thousand years in which time they have built houses and towns - and a people who just come in to settle at the EXPENSE of the people currently living there.
how bout the native american indians - wouldnt you say that european settlers should have treated them better since they were here for more than a thousand years before the european settlers came? or are you gonna call the native indians settlers as well and say that its warped logic to differentiate between european settlers and the native american indians that have been there for over a thousand years.
there are plenty of palestinian people in west bank, gaza, jordan, united states, england - basically everywhere - these 50 year old, 60 year old, 70 year old folks that still have deeds to their houses that are now either occupied by jews or have been demolished and new tract housing for jews built over them. we do what we can to help people and try to do whats fair... not just shrug or shoulders and say "its past so get over it." in this sense history and present policy are linked.

also, FYI i got some of these details readily available cause ive been studying this stuff for the past quarter and am currently preparing for the final. >>


And the mess with the Albanians and Cheteyans? (sp) How about their situation? Its certainly more recent than the Israelie situation.

You keep forgetting that on top of the contstant claims to Israel there is the holy land conscern

 

[Aelus]

imho, all claims except for place of birth are irrelevant, otherwise it just depends on how far you go back in history.

religious stuff is irrelevant too, otherwise you could just invent your own religion and claim half the world. (note to self: interesting...)

Aelus

 

[b0mbrman]

imho, all claims except for place of birth are irrelevant, otherwise it just depends on how far you go back in history.

Well that's not really fair. On average, Arab Israeli families have 7 or 8 kids while Jewish Israelis have 2 or 3...Are you saying that therefore, 3/4 of Israel should belong to Palestine?

 

[Aelus]

democracy also has a nasty thing called equality for all. I'm not saying there should be an arab state which has a % of the ground of the total of israel equal to the % of the people. I'm just saying that the refugees who are currently living in horrible circumstances (and have been for 30+ years) should get a decent place to live. I'm pretty certain most don't care if they'd live in israel, palestine or whatever, as long as they have equality, a decent place to live, and have a goal in life.

btw,if jewish families feel they should get more influence, then they should get more babies, they're free to do that.

Aelus

 

[darren]

<<Well that's not really fair. On average, Arab Israeli families have 7 or 8 kids while Jewish Israelis have 2 or 3...Are you saying that therefore, 3/4 of Israel should belong to Palestine? >>

no i think he's saying that since palestinians were born there while jewish israelis are immigrants, the palestinians have more right to the land.

darren

 

[jjones]

<< no i think he's saying that since palestinians were born there while jewish israelis are immigrants, the palestinians have more right to the land. >>


Yes, but as i understand it, the Jews have been emmigrating to Palestine in numbers since the mid-1800's. This means that they too have established themselves and have 3rd generation children born in the land.

 

[glen]

jjones, email me gsutherland@sc.rr.com

 

[darren]

the vast majority of the jewish migrations took place in the post WWI and WII eras - (the first aliya - first mass migration - did not take place till the end of the 1800's)
and its true those that have migrated there and established themselves should not just be expelled from the region.

but if you want to weigh claims to the land in terms of numbers of people (palestinian or jew) and numbers of generations residing there - (a game that i dont care too much for) the palestinians have got the jews beat. hands down.

its not necessary to crunch out the numbers - but what is necessary is to understand the general concept and why the RIGHT OF RETURN of the palestinian refugees is a very valid claim - a claim that to this day Israel has yet to acknowledge.

many of the palestinians, understandbly yet naively so, refuse to acknowledge the state of israel - but acknowledgement is a smaller issue, especially when palestinians live under de facto israeli occupation and within the israeli state.

palestinians and others (like myself) may adamantly claim that palestine was stolen from the palestinians by the israelis.
do the israelis claim that the palestinians are trying to STEAL israel from them? no - thats ridiculous because no one with even a basic understanding of the history of the region would venture to say such - there is just no historical or logical justification for such a statement. the same cannot be said of the former statement.

darren

well let me edit my statement - no one with even a basic understanding of the history... that isnt intentionally lying - because i recall reading this.

"a country without a people for a people without a country"
Chaim Weisman, President of the World Zionist Congress

in this, Weisman denies the existence of the palestinians (perhaps on the grounds that because modern palestinian statehood did not exist and therefore palestinians had no claim) and claims the land of palestine (israel) for the jewish people - he implies that the jewish people do NOT have a country. if they did not have a country before; yet they have one today, where did they get it from?

 

[darren]

AmusedOne-
i just reread one of you earlier posts - you are sick.
<<I guess the option of deportation completely slipped your mind? This is what Israel should have done immediately following the 67 war, but no... They decided to try and live in peace with a people who have shown they are completely unwilling to do so.>>

you're sick. deport all the palestinians?

HEY EVERYONE READ THAT ONE. AmusedOne ADVOCATES DEPORTING PALESTINIANS. thats the mentality that i've/we've been arguing against this whole time - and you are at the center of it.

i dont know if i can continue a civil discussion with you any longer.
the deportation option soooo out there. the last person i recall advocating such was ze'evi (i think thats his name) and he got assassinated.

darren

 

[dlrsuperman]

Just put yourself in the Palestinian's shoes. After WWII, the State of Isreal is made in your homeland. You as a Palestinian are thrown out of your home, and put on a refugee camp. Your job, role in society, and home you worked so hard for are gone. How would you feel? Would you not want your home back?

 

[dlrsuperman]

Almost two times more Palestinians have been killed than Isrealis. Then tell me how can you call the Palestinians terrorists without calling Isreal terrorists as well? Its such an obvious contradiction. I'm not saying that the suicide bombings are right. Is the killing of Palestinian children right? Are you saying that the Palestinian people are sub-human, and don't count as casualities? Well, I'll just leave you to God if you believe that. The instrument of murder does not matter. The murder is what matters.