$3 billion a year of your tax money is not enough!

[M.Dancer]

So why don't you tell me? Unless you don't know yourself.

The answer dear Gosthacked is rhetorical, the real question is why shit on the Jews for wanting their historic homeland when the arabs also seem to have the same claim, albeit, much more recent.

[GostHacked]

The answer dear Gosthacked is rhetorical, the real question is why shit on the Jews for wanting their historic homeland when the arabs also seem to have the same claim, albeit, much more recent.

Of course it is rhetorical. I mentioned about spoils of war. Historically the Jews were kicked out because the Arabs won. Now in modern times, it was another country that won, The Brits took it from the Turks, and gave some spoils to the Jews because they have been wanting a homeland even before WW1. Then when the 6day war hit, the Jews won spoils of that war .............. expanding their borders.

Both are laying claim. Only one will ever get it. Currently the trend is Israel will own and claim all that land, which includes the Gaza and the West Bank.

I also posed the question that if other land was offered to the Jews would they have taken it? Or is the historical tie the ONLY and the MAIN reason why the Jews wanted it back? If other land was offered on what basis was it rejected?

[Bonam]

Unfortunately that seems to be the case. I do not recognize Israel as a state, so I am labeled anti-semetic.

Criticizing some of Israel's actions can be fine, every state commits actions worthy of criticism and investigation. But not recognizing it as a state? History has proven time and again what happens to Jews when they are stateless. The existence of Israel is necessary for Jews to have any semblance of safety in this world. To oppose the existence of Israel is to support the alternative: Jews being a stateless people which are the subject of discrimination, hatred, and occasional extermination, while living in the lands of other peoples.

[GostHacked]

Criticizing some of Israel's actions can be fine, every state commits actions worthy of criticism and investigation. But not recognizing it as a state? History has proven time and again what happens to Jews when they are stateless. The existence of Israel is necessary for Jews to have any semblance of safety in this world. To oppose the existence of Israel is to support the alternative: Jews being a stateless people which are the subject of discrimination, hatred, and occasional extermination, while living in the lands of other peoples.

Jews have existed and continued to exist in spite of all the hardships they have endured.

[Bonam]

Jews have existed and continued to exist in spite of all the hardships they have endured.

Indeed they have, and that says something about the Jewish people. It does not, however, mean that they need to once again be made stateless and subjected to those same hardships.

[M.Dancer]

Historically the Jews were kicked out because the Arabs won.

Your string of errors continue. The Romans kicked out the Jews....about 350 years before the Arabs arrived.

Both are laying claim. Only one will ever get it. Currently the trend is Israel will own and claim all that land, which includes the Gaza and the West Bank.

Perhaps in your mind, which seems short of facts and context. You might remember that Israel captured along with the west bank, Gaza and the Sinai. Given that Sinai and Gaza are no longer under Israeli occupation, your claim lacks weight.

I also posed the question that if other land was offered to the Jews would they have taken it? Or is the historical tie the ONLY and the MAIN reason why the Jews wanted it back? If other land was offered on what basis was it rejected?

Other land was offered, and rejected. Are you saying if at the time the Zionist Federation accepted, you would be okay with the native population being displaced and denied their own nation? Keep in mind that Jews are native to Israel...

[DogOnPorch]

So why don't you tell me? Unless you don't know yourself.

Since you don't know...but like to comment on the situation...I'd suggest looking up four things: the life of Mohammed, the furthest mosque, Omar (aka Umar ibn al-Khattab) and the Siege of Jerusalem (637AD).

[Bonam]

Since you don't know...but like to comment on the situation...I'd suggest looking up four things: the life of Mohammed, the furthest mosque, Omar (aka Umar ibn al-Khattab) and the Siege of Jerusalem (637AD).

It's useless. GhostHacked is the guy who just a few months ago was still claiming that there were Israeli settlements in Gaza.

[DogOnPorch]

It's useless. GhostHacked is the guy who just a few months ago was still claiming that there were Israeli settlements in Gaza.

It's a bit confusing at first...the Jerusalem being sacred to Islam thang...but once one reviews the actual history of the affair it becomes clear what happened. A knowledge of the history regarding the Qiblah is also handy.

[jbg]

False yet again. Only two nations were created, Israel and Palestine and the arabs blew their load and lost it.

Jordan and Syria became independant in 1946..the borders were not drawn by the UN but by the League of Nations

Lebanon in 1943

Egypt in 1922

Israel and Palestine....1948

Transjordan was separated from Palestine in 1922.

[jbg]

JBG, I got some questions to bounce off you. And yes they are hypothetical.

Do you think the Jews would have accepted another piece of land somewhere else in the world if it was offered at that time? Would it have been rejected because it was not the ancient homeland of the Jews?

Quite likely not. It is hard to imagine any power giving up prime land without strings and with total independence. While there is nothing "prime" about the real estate Israel occupies there is the ancient tie, and continuous habitation by Jews.

Is the ancient tie the only real reason they have for creating Israel where it is today?

No. I gave the most important reasons in the text you quoted. Another thing is that from the late 1800's on, but with gathering force after WW I there was a growing nationalistic tendency for cultural groups to demand and get their states. Thus, Poland was created, Hungary was created from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czechoslovakia was hived off the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Baltic states were severed from the Russian Empire. Similarly, future national Arab homelands were severed from the Ottoman Empire.

The impetus towards a Jewish state arose from the confluence of the growing nationalism as described above, and the growing mistreatment of the Jews in Russia and in parts of Europe where Jews formally had equal rights but were in fact being persecuted, for example, Germany and France. This was further fueled by the violent pogroms in Russia and the inaction of the authorities. This made it clear to intelligent Jews that it was time to get out of Europe while the getting was good. While Jews had a rich European heritage the history was heartbreaking. It was a chapter best closed.

[bud]

It's useless. GhostHacked is the guy who just a few months ago was still claiming that there were Israeli settlements in Gaza.

there may not be any settlements, but gaza, by definition is still under occupation by israel.

[bud]

Quite likely not. It is hard to imagine any power giving up prime land without strings and with total independence. While there is nothing "prime" about the real estate Israel occupies there is the ancient tie, and continuous habitation by Jews.

argentina was also heavily considered.

No. I gave the most important reasons in the text you quoted. Another thing is that from the late 1800's on, but with gathering force after WW I there was a growing nationalistic tendency for cultural groups to demand and get their states. Thus, Poland was created, Hungary was created from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czechoslovakia was hived off the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Baltic states were severed from the Russian Empire. Similarly, future national Arab homelands were severed from the Ottoman Empire.

the people of poland/hungary/etc. that you have mentioned all lived in the regions before they became official states. before the mass zionist movement, less than 10% of the population of palestine was jewish. which is what the area was called at the time. the jews and arab muslim and christians lived side by side and mostly in peace. they're all semites and many shared a lot more similarities than the russian jews that immigrated to the region.

The impetus towards a Jewish state arose from the confluence of the growing nationalism as described above, and the growing mistreatment of the Jews in Russia and in parts of Europe where Jews formally had equal rights but were in fact being persecuted, for example, Germany and France. This was further fueled by the violent pogroms in Russia and the inaction of the authorities. This made it clear to intelligent Jews that it was time to get out of Europe while the getting was good. While Jews had a rich European heritage the history was heartbreaking. It was a chapter best closed.

so therefore, the palestinians had to suffer and give up their land because of how europe was treating the jews.

[M.Dancer]

there may not be any settlements, but gaza, by definition is still under occupation by israel.

That's interesting. Does that mean Egypt is still occupying it too?

[bud]

That's interesting. Does that mean Egypt is still occupying it too?

interesting that you can't comprehend the difference.

egypt does not have control over gaza's air, sea, trade and movement of the people. israel does and this makes israel the occupier. do you get it now?

egypt part is the control of the border between gaza and egypt. the amount of money that mubarak receives from the U.S. tax payers is good for something besides buying american weapons, right? like completing the open air prison wall that they've created for the gazans, by shutting the door between egypt and gaza.

[dre]

Perhaps in your mind, which seems short of facts and context. You might remember that Israel captured along with the west bank, Gaza and the Sinai. Given that Sinai and Gaza are no longer under Israeli occupation, your claim lacks weight.

Actually the claim is pretty strong. Israel hasnt formally annexed the west bank yet, but they describe some of their own settlements their as "permanent" so one can assume they dont plan on giving them back. Also Israel isnt just occupying the west bank in the tradition sense of the word. They are DEVELOPING it. They are building key components of their national infrastructure there, and they are using the resources there.

My guess is (and you can verify this simply by looking at a map) that Israel will build walls, settlements, security corridors etc, that will permanently secure their access to resources, and then they will say "Ok... you guys can have all the shitty fragmented land thats left over".

Theres a difference between a military occupation, and conquest. Israeli behavior has all the signs of conquest. They are settling the land, pumping out 1/3 of their water supply from it, and controlling the resources there. They are treating it as land that belongs to them, not as land temporarily siezed to address security concerns.

[M.Dancer]

interesting that you can't comprehend the difference.

egypt does not have control over gaza's air, sea, trade and movement of the people. israel does and this makes israel the occupier. do you get it now?

egypt part is the control of the border between gaza and egypt. the amount of money that mubarak receives from the U.S. tax payers is good for something besides buying american weapons, right? like completing the open air prison wall that they've created for the gazans, by shutting the door between egypt and gaza.

How can they not have control if they../cough*/ have control?....why for the 19 years that Egypt occupied the Gaza, did they not allow the palestinians to have sovereignty?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Theres a difference between a military occupation, and conquest. Israeli behavior has all the signs of conquest. They are settling the land, pumping out 1/3 of their water supply from it, and controlling the resources there. They are treating it as land that belongs to them, not as land temporarily siezed to address security concerns.

Yep...just like Canada and the United States. Go Israel!

[dre]

Yep...just like Canada and the United States. Go Israel!

Yes. Quite similar to Canada and the United States.

[bud]

How can they not have control if they../cough*/ have control?....why for the 19 years that Egypt occupied the Gaza, did they not allow the palestinians to have sovereignty?

they have control over what? the wall that they've built on the border? even though they're assisting israel in keeping the gazans in a cage, what they're doing is legal (if the legality of a blockade is not in question) and has nothing to do with being an occupier. israel is the occupier and egypt is not.

stop wasting time with your bs.

Edited October 8, 2010 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

From 1948 to 1967, Gaza and the West Bank of Jordan were under Arab control. Not Israeli. No Palestinian state was formed at that time.

[jbg]

My guess is (and you can verify this simply by looking at a map) that Israel will build walls, settlements, security corridors etc, that will permanently secure their access to resources, and then they will say "Ok... you guys can have all the shitty fragmented land thats left over".

Perhaps the Arabs should have thought of this at the 1967 Khartoum conference (link):

3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

[DogOnPorch]

they have control over what? the wall that they've built on the border? even though they're assisting israel in keeping the gazans in a cage, what they're doing is legal (if the legality of a blockade is not in question) and has nothing to do with being an occupier. israel is the occupier and egypt is not.

stop wasting time with your bs.

The Grand Mufti and his gang of merry men rejected the UN Partition and opted for war...which they lost. You and others like you seek to reward a fascist movement for losing a war they started.

[dre]

Perhaps the Arabs should have thought of this at the 1967 Khartoum conference (link):

Yeah theres all kinds of things both sides in CONFLICT: DIRTPILE could have and should have done differently. Those people DESERVE each other... I just hope they can keep their idiotic struggle for their piece o' shit "holy land" as far away from me as possible. I dont even want them on my TV set anymore.

Edited October 8, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

the people of poland/hungary/etc. that you have mentioned all lived in the regions before they became official states. before the mass zionist movement, less than 10% of the population of palestine was jewish. which is what the area was called at the time. the jews and arab muslim and christians lived side by side and mostly in peace. they're all semites and many shared a lot more similarities than the russian jews that immigrated to the region.

Complete BS, as usual. Jews were being killed in pogroms by Arabs in the region for a long time before there was even any prospect of forming Israel.