Oleg Bach Posted December 1, 2008 Report Posted December 1, 2008 Ummm yeah....because their neighbours made war on them and they lost. To those who have made peace with them, their lands have been returned. There is no expansionist policy. Relocate all of the inhabitants and shrink the boarder down to the size of a military base..leave the missle silos in place. Make it illegal to inhabit the area and burn down all the holy sites...then - import all the inhabitants to all the Arab states...Arabs are semites - they probably don't hate Jews - they just can't stand the idea of Israel. Who needs it...and why didn't they call it Palistine to begin with? Or call it Judea? The old Ben once said to me that Palistine was actually a Roman town in Italy Palistine never really existed as Palistine in a legitmate matter - He said it was a re-naming of a part of Israel by the Romans...so is this another justifying myth? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 1, 2008 Report Posted December 1, 2008 I love it how the fact the 3 major military attempts to remove Israel from the map are supposed to be ignored when it comes to where the border is located. As the posters in question are unwilling to respond to my inquiry RE: would you be supporting the state of Israel had it been destroyed or reduced in size in 1948, 1967 or 1973 (or '56 for that matter), I'll have to assume the answer is a solid "NO". So really, this is just a one way street where the Arabs can do no wrong...Jews R bad...Arabs = victims. Is that closer to the truth for y'all?? -------------------------------------------------------------- Crossin' the highway late last night He shoulda looked left and he shoulda looked right He didn't see the station wagon car The skunk got squashed and there you are! ---Loudon Wainwright III Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2008 Report Posted December 1, 2008 Ummm yeah....because their neighbours made war on them and they lost. To those who have made peace with them, their lands have been returned. There is no expansionist policy. Now why was war delcared?? Was it because of where and how Isreal was created?? Why are Israel's borders not 100% solidified at this time then? The borders along Gaza and the West Bank have yet to be finalized, from what I read. And if they make peace with Israel, will she give back the land she currently illegaly occupies? (aka settlements?) Dogonporch I love it how the fact the 3 major military attempts to remove Israel from the map are supposed to be ignored when it comes to where the border is located. As the posters in question are unwilling to respond to my inquiry RE: would you be supporting the state of Israel had it been destroyed or reduced in size in 1948, 1967 or 1973 (or '56 for that matter), I'll have to assume the answer is a solid "NO". So really, this is just a one way street where the Arabs can do no wrong...Jews R bad...Arabs = victims. Is that closer to the truth for y'all?? Don't assume anything when it comes to me, you might be surprised of the answer. As I have stated before, I am not a supporter of Israel. Quote
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2008 Report Posted December 1, 2008 Now why was war delcared?? Was it because of where and how Isreal was created?? Why are Israel's borders not 100% solidified at this time then? Because obviously the Arabs didn't recognise the Palestinian borders and had expansionist aims. The borders along Gaza and the West Bank have yet to be finalized, from what I read. And if they make peace with Israel, will she give back the land she currently illegaly occupies? (aka settlements?) No...Isreal is the legal occupier, according the Geneva Conventions anyway... DogonporchDon't assume anything when it comes to me, you might be surprised of the answer. As I have stated before, I am not a supporter of Israel. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2008 Report Posted December 1, 2008 Because obviously the Arabs didn't recognise the Palestinian borders and had expansionist aims.No...Isreal is the legal occupier, according the Geneva Conventions anyway... Why are the so called illegal settlements not officialy recognized by the UN then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement A number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but other legal scholars, Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League disagree with this assessment. (See Legal background) Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Oh right, I know this one, Article X, Section 4... of the Law of the Jungle!Meanwhile, back here in the civilised world, UN contradicted its own charter when it created the nation of Israel against the wishes of 2/3 of its inhabitants. Furthermore, Israel declared itself a state on May 14, 1948, several hours before the British Mandate for Palestine came to an end, therefore it imposed by force “a settlement” that was not in accord with the following paragraph of the resolution: Thank you for proving my point. Meanwhile, Israel continues to get huge funding from the West, Arabs continue to paint themselves as martyrs againt the so-called tyrant Jews... I wonder who gets all those American billion$ sent to Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine if not Egypt, Jordan, or Palestine? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Now why was war delcared?? Was it because of where and how Isreal was created?? Why are Israel's borders not 100% solidified at this time then? The borders along Gaza and the West Bank have yet to be finalized, from what I read. And if they make peace with Israel, will she give back the land she currently illegaly occupies? (aka settlements?) Israel has more international legitimacy than Canada or the United States if that be your standard. Got land claims? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 (edited) Gosthacked: Don't assume anything when it comes to me, you might be surprised of the answer. As I have stated before, I am not a supporter of Israel. Seems I assumed correctly, then. No worries, you have lots of company. ----------------------------------- You got yer Dead skunk in the middle of the road Dead skunk in the middle of the road You got yer dead skunk in the middle of the road Stinkin' to high Heaven! ---Loudon Wainwright III Edited December 2, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Rue Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 So I guess we are not moving Israelis to Mumbai. Quote
GostHacked Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Seems I assumed correctly, then. No worries, you have lots of company. I would actually nuke the whole area and deny everyone claim to the land. The fighting might stop over it. Bush Cheney I wonder who gets all those American billion$ sent to Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine if not Egypt, Jordan, or Palestine? I wonder what the ratio of aid given to said countries by the US. I wonder if the US also gives out as much military aid to those Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians as they do to Israel. They may have money, but Israel's big gun prevents them from putting the money to good use. Quote
moderateamericain Posted December 11, 2008 Report Posted December 11, 2008 I don't know if you understand the connotation that "revisionist" has when it comes to history... but whatever the case, it may surprise you to learn that the Jews were defeated and forced to disperse from what is now Israel about two thousand years ago. They lost the land, and just like any other losing nation is not entitled to it. Over the centuries, there were always some Jews living in the region, but it was not until the late 19th century that there was a drive to reclaim the lost homeland. That's fact, not revisionism. when then following that logic, then could we not say the same thing about the arabs of today? They fought and lost Palestine to the Jews. I mean if it works one way it has to work the other. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 when then following that logic, then could we not say the same thing about the arabs of today? They fought and lost Palestine to the Jews. I mean if it works one way it has to work the other. Correct...that is how it has always worked. Nobody has the right to land, just the opportunity to defend possession. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 I would actually nuke the whole area and deny everyone claim to the land. The fighting might stop over it. Bush Cheney I wonder what the ratio of aid given to said countries by the US. I wonder if the US also gives out as much military aid to those Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians as they do to Israel. They may have money, but Israel's big gun prevents them from putting the money to good use. Why, because they have to save up enough to cooperate in annihilating Israel? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Jerry Galinda Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Nobody has the right to land, just the opportunity to defend possession. Jews defend their possession. :angry: Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.