Muslim murders entire Jewish family!

[GostHacked]

What?...did you think all that Bible stuff was BS?

As an atheist .. like yourself ... the answer is yes.

Do you know how Jerusalem became 'sacred' to Islam?

Should I really care anymore?

[DogOnPorch]

As an atheist .. like yourself ... the answer is yes.

Aside from the supernatural aspects, the Bible is also a historical account of typical accuracy for its time.

Should I really care anymore?

Yes, if you're commenting on the situation...

[GostHacked]

Aside from the supernatural aspects, the Bible is also a historical account of typical accuracy for its time.

Which version of the Bible?

Yes, if you're commenting on the situation...

What is the situation again?

[DogOnPorch]

Which version of the Bible?

It doesn't matter.

What is the situation again?

Palestinian land, such as it were...or not.

Edited March 29, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

It doesn't matter.

Actually it does. Keep trying.

[DogOnPorch]

Actually it does. Keep trying.

No it doesn't...do you know what a myth is? Why are cows sacred in India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

[GostHacked]

No it doesn't...do you know what a myth is? Why are cows sacred in India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

So it matters what the bible says, but it does not matter what version of the bible, because it is a myth?

And to answer, it's a belief, not based on any real facts.

Maybe you are not atheist as you claim to be.

[Jonsa]

There was no 'Palestinian land' to 'steal' in 1967. Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank as it is now called was part of Jordan. Before that, it was under British administration due to WW1...and before that, Ottoman Turk going back to the late Middle-Ages. The only 'Palestinians' were the PLO and crew...and as I mentioned...Yasser was born in Cairo.

That is, unless your history book reads differently.

btw: variola = smallpox.

Actually your are wrong.

Egypt never annexed gaza and placed it under military rule in 1948. they also attempted to establish a palestinian government there. Cario attempted to leverage gaza in its political power struggle with damascus, as pan=arabism was taking shape.

Jordan announced annexation of the west bank, but this was only formally recognized by the UK and Pakistan. that annexation was later announced as temporary until a settlement was reached. the arab league was vehemently opposed to this move. Interestingly, Jerusalem was declared the second capital of the hashemite kingdom and the inhabitants of the WB were allowed to vote some 15 members of the jordanian parliament. Fast forward to 94 when the peace treaty was signed, how come Jordan didn't demand the wb be returned? Politics

In 1950, the arab league, and generally the rest of the world including ISRAEL considered the west bank to be part of a future independent arab state as per the partition plan.

Unless you read history books differently.

I realize that the partition plan was rejected by the arabs but even Israel believed that eventually a palestinian state would be established along the armistice lines, subject to negotiation, which due to arab intransigence and political machinations never happened.

[DogOnPorch]

So it matters what the bible says, but it does not matter what version of the bible, because it is a myth?

And to answer, it's a belief, not based on any real facts.

Maybe you are not atheist as you claim to be.

I gather you never bothered taking anthropology?

Edited March 29, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

I gather you never bothered taking anthropology?

There are plenty of subjects I did not take. Also, did not have much of an interest in it. How about you?

[DogOnPorch]

Actually your are wrong.

Egypt never annexed gaza and placed it under military rule in 1948. they also attempted to establish a palestinian government there. Cario attempted to leverage gaza in its political power struggle with damascus, as pan=arabism was taking shape.

Jordan announced annexation of the west bank, but this was only formally recognized by the UK and Pakistan. that annexation was later announced as temporary until a settlement was reached. the arab league was vehemently opposed to this move. Interestingly, Jerusalem was declared the second capital of the hashemite kingdom and the inhabitants of the WB were allowed to vote some 15 members of the jordanian parliament. Fast forward to 94 when the peace treaty was signed, how come Jordan didn't demand the wb be returned? Politics

In 1950, the arab league, and generally the rest of the world including ISRAEL considered the west bank to be part of a future independent arab state as per the partition plan.

Unless you read history books differently.

I realize that the partition plan was rejected by the arabs but even Israel believed that eventually a palestinian state would be established along the armistice lines, subject to negotiation, which due to arab intransigence and political machinations never happened.

The al-Husseinis and the Hashesmites were at odds with each other, going so far as to whack Abdullah I over the peace overtures with Israel. You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson trusting that same Mafia crew years later. As for the rest, what matters is that Gaza and the West Bank were used for military purposes and were full of Arab troops back in June 1967 after Nasser painted himself into a corner.

[Oleg Bach]

When people use "children" as the emotional lever ...then you know they are insincere...Humans - adult or other wise are important..beware of the creeps that insert the child factor...

[bud]

What?...did you think all that Bible stuff was BS? Do you know how Jerusalem became 'sacred' to Islam?

lols @ the self-proclaimed atheist using the bible as justification.

[Oleg Bach]

lols @ the self-proclaimed atheist using the bible as justification.

There is no such thing as an atheists...and atheist is not a person who has lost faith in God but a person who has lost faith in humanity.

[DogOnPorch]

lols @ the self-proclaimed atheist using the bible as justification.

To me, the Bible is just another collection of myths...just like Zeus & crew. And like all myths, there are very worldly reasons for them...just like why cows are sacred in India. It's a major area of study in anthropology. That you and Gosthacked find anthropology, archeology, sociology, et al, to be unimportant in terms of Israel and the Jews isn't my problem.

[Jonsa]

The al-Husseinis and the Hashesmites were at odds with each other, going so far as to whack Abdullah I over the peace overtures with Israel. You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson trusting that same Mafia crew years later. As for the rest, what matters is that Gaza and the West Bank were used for military purposes and were full of Arab troops back in June 1967 after Nasser painted himself into a corner.

I'm not sure why it matters that egypt and jordan moved more troops into both areas prior to the Israelis pre-emptively attacking. Everyone knows that Nasser was going to attack and that Israel inexplicably surprised him by attacking first. It sure does help when your enemy are bumbling incompetents.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not sure why it matters that egypt and jordan moved more troops into both areas prior to the Israelis pre-emptively attacking. Everyone knows that Nasser was going to attack and that Israel inexplicably surprised him by attacking first. It sure does help when your enemy are bumbling incompetents.

It matters because that's why the areas were important to the Arabs back then...as springboards to Israel rather than a homeland for 'Palestinians'. Nasser crammed two divisions into Gaza and was working on a third when the Israelis struck.

One version of events has Nasser not wanting a shooting war...but rather wanting to force Israel to mobilize its reserves which it couldn't afford to do for any great length of time. Nasser's firey speeches calling for the destruction of Israel, however, whipped-up the entire Arab world. They now wanted and expected war. To back away at that point would have been political death for Nasser.

[Jonsa]

It matters because that's why the areas were important to the Arabs back then...as springboards to Israel rather than a homeland for 'Palestinians'. Nasser crammed two divisions into Gaza and was working on a third when the Israelis struck.

One version of events has Nasser not wanting a shooting war...but rather wanting to force Israel to mobilize its reserves which it couldn't afford to do for any great length of time. Nasser's firey speeches calling for the destruction of Israel, however, whipped-up the entire Arab world. They now wanted and expected war. To back away at that point would have been political death for Nasser.

Don't believe that version of him not wanting a shooting war. Syria was also cranked up.

I also don't think that being able to launch attacks from the territories were the reason they were important. IMHO they were more important used as political tokens and symbols and propaganda fodder. Given the terrain, there was no real strategic benefit for launching from gaza, other than being a couple of miles closer to the border which would have been more than offset by the urban environment.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jonsa

[DogOnPorch]

Don't believe that version of him not wanting a shooting war. Syria was also cranked up.

Well, sure...no doubt partly thanks to Nasser...but Nasser was the mouthpiece and the fellow the West saw on the 6 o'clock news calling for war. He and the Syrians had their brand new Soviet supplied army/air force (free o' charge...kind of...free in the typical Cold War, Warsaw Pact proxy fashion, that is.)...and they wanted to show them off. The Jordanians while given a chance to back-off came back with the heroic but ultimately stupid comment "The die is cast."

Apparently not 'cast' enough, though, as the WB is still in limbo.

I also don't think that being able to launch attacks from the territories were the reason they were important. IMHO they were more important used as political tokens and symbols and propaganda fodder. Given the terrain, there was no real strategic benefit for launching from gaza, other than being a couple of miles closer to the border which would have been more than offset by the urban environment.

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about armored warfare knows that you fight mechanized battles from the bottom of your fuel tank, not the top. Every mile your tank is riding its treds rather than the carrier it came on is a huge factor. Not just in fuel use, either...but breakdowns and such. So yeah...a 'couple of miles' (or so) counts.

Edited March 29, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Jack Weber]

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about armored warfare knows that you fight mechanized battles from the bottom of your fuel tank, not the top. Every mile your tank is riding its treds rather than the carrier it came on is a huge factor. Not just in fuel use, either...but breakdowns and such. So yeah...a 'couple of miles' (or so) counts.

Quite true....

It was the fuel issue that "fueled" Operation Barbarossa and the NAZI rush for the oil in the Caucuses...

[DogOnPorch]

Quite true....

It was the fuel issue that "fueled" Operation Barbarossa and the NAZI rush for the oil in the Caucuses...

In 1942, definitely. All Axis efforts swung south.

[GostHacked]

That you and Gosthacked find anthropology, archeology, sociology, et al, to be unimportant in terms of Israel and the Jews isn't my problem.

You do make a lot of assumptions. And you do like to take things out of context. Because the above quote is a reaction to the below quote.

There are plenty of subjects I did not take. Also, did not have much of an interest in it. How about you?

I did/do not have an interest in those subjects. That does not mean I think they are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But if we both agree the bible is fiction, then it is really irrelevant.

Edited March 29, 2011 by GostHacked

[Bob]

this is according to israel, which no one else agrees with. according to the UN, the united states, canada and the rest of the world, israel is still occupying gaza due to the control of movement, border, air and waters.

I don't care what anyone says about it. It serves political objectives to describe Gaza. The reality is simple, Israel controls ITS side of its border with Gaza, as any country does with respect to borders it shares with another state (or in this case, a territory). On the other side, it's under complete Gazan control. Yes, Israel does control the airspace and sea border of Gaza, as is required given the current conflict between Israel and Gaza. it would be irresponsible to do otherwise, it's security necessity. Yes, these are components of an occupation, but they certainly do no qualify as an occupation. An intelligent person should realize that the term "occupied", just as "sovereign", is subjective and certainly they both exist on a continuum - perhaps they each exist on opposite poles of that continuum/spectrum. And certainly Gaza is much closer to a sovereign state than it is to an occupied territory. In other words, if we were to examine the situation in Gaza honestly, there'd be many more components compatible with sovereignty than with occupied-stated.

[Bob]

So Gaza isn't occupied. Okay, do the gazans have control of their borders? do they have control of their air space? do they have freedom of movement? does Israel reserve the right to intervene militarily? are you suggesting that gaza is a sovereign entity?

http://www.cjpme.ca/documents/41%20En%20Gaza%20still%20Occupied%20v.2.pdf

I addressed this just a moment ago. Certainly Gaza isn't completely sovereign or occupied, but it is much much much closer to sovereignty than to occupation. And yes, Gaza controls its side of its borders. Just as Canada controls what happens on our side of the border with the USA. The restrictions placed on Gaza by Israel via the transfer of goods and people across its shared border with Israel, and its sea border do not constitute an occupation. Neither does control of its airspace.

I suggest nothing of the sort. I am well aware of the history of the region. Of course violence doesn't begat violence. I suggest only that the existing arab population of palestine resented the intrusion of european jews in what they considered their land. I am sure you can at least understand that kind of feeling.

What about the other half of the Israeli Jewish population that isn't European? Why did you even mention "European"? Would things have been different if the early Zionist pioneers were primarily from Morocco or Argentina? You and I both know why you mentioned that. The countries from which the Jews in modern Israel returned (from all over the world), is completely irrelevant.

What transpired at the end of colonialism and the collective guilt of Europe wrt the jews, created the idiotic and completely unworkable partition plan. Didn't go over with any side.

What do you mean? The 1947 Partition Plan was accepted by us. Even though yes, it was unworkable from a security perspective.

do you really think that arabs should have welcomed the jews with open arms? that watching zionism take root on the lands they had lived on for many generations, they should have simply rolled over and give it to the jews? do you know anything about human nature?

No, I don't expect that from them. In fact, I expect an eternal rejection from Arabs that this is our land and always will be. I know them very well. You also seem to be indicating that you recognize the irreconcilability of this conflict. If that is your perspective, we're in agreement.

In all the wars Israel has fought perhaps 15,000 killed. Terrorism from inception perhaps 3,000. Development of a military industrial complex as a primary economic engine. A disciplined highly trained citizenry. Considering the length and frequency of conflict, versus what Israel has achieved and in comparison to other wars, its small price.

No, it's a heavy price. Considering that you don't know what the price is, and never made any payments towards this price, it's quite arrogant of you to be telling us what's a steep price. Was it worth it and does it continue to be worth it? Yes. But centuries of persecution, millions of murdered and oppressed martyrs, and all of the modern history of the Jewish people intertwined with Israel is certainly not a small price. Take a walk through any of Israel's military cemeteries and tell us it's a small price to pay for independence, freedom, and self-determination.

And if anything my bias in this conflict is toward Israel. The one thing that I think is absolutely wrong is Israel's settlement program. I happen to think (and the bulk of international opinion and law agrees) that Israel settlements are "illegal" in other words, Israel is stealing the land. Really sorry if you don't like that.

Whatever. People who use meaningless terms like "international opinion" and "international law" never really know what they're talking about. What's next, the "international community"?

Edited March 29, 2011 by Bob

[jbg]

And certainly Gaza is much closer to a sovereign state than it is to an occupied territory. In other words, if we were to examine the situation in Gaza honestly, there'd be many more components compatible with sovereignty than with occupied-stated.

Lest one forget, Gaza could, at any time, request true peace with Israel, request ambassadorial and commercial exchange, reduce armaments to that necessary to maintain domestic tranquility, and start seeking out productive, peaceable economic activities.

With a bit of financial help from other wealthy Arab countries it could probably desalinate water and sell it to Israel for hard currency. But no, plotting to blow up buses and asking for U.N. aid in the process is more lucrative. For the leader's Swiss bank accounts, that is.