Muslims and Tolerance

[Army Guy]

Sami:

I mean for the most part military.

Are there not more ME countries that have invited western troops into thier countries than have not.

Am having a difficult time seeing how the ME people are seeing this as a second crusade, And can only see Iraq as an example of western interferance, unless you are also taking into account Afgan. And did they not think that Sadam's regime was a threat ,or for that matter the Talibans regime. Was there a ME plan to look after these problems, If there was then it was not made public to the west.

There is a lot of money and opportunity in the ME.

Yes there is, and yet we have seen most of these ME countries use this wealth to build massive armies, invest in Nuke wpns, for what reasons, to combat the Israelis, to fight each other, or to stop western influence in the area. they have not chosen to improve thier peoples quality of life but rather chase the dream of destruction of the Israelis and punsh the west. I've been to the Uof E and it is a fantasic country, richer than most western nations by far. The quality of life for thier citizens is light years ahead of the rest of the ME. Is this the fault of western countries or thier own rulers.

Less war and more business has a way of moderating people. Also, positive US influence can help promote democracy.

I will not argue that business beats war any day. But the nations interest must be on business and in the ME it is not. They are focused on Israel and the US militarily, only a few nations in the ME are concentrating on Business but even the U of E and Egypt have been steadily increasing it's military forces.

But again this will not happen overnight and extremism will go out kicking and screaming.

This extremism is a ME problem, that should be solved at their level, The west needs to see that the ME is at least taking steps to curve it. but it is not. Religion rules the ME it's Clerics educate the people as they see fit. it only takes a few bad apples to spread the hate as you called it. The ME governments are control to a great extent by religion. when they learn to control religion then they can concentrate on bringing everyone to the same page and bring about change for the better.

Ahh. But wait. The US did support that greedy elf of shah in Iran. Who’s reign of terror and utter greed in sucking his people dry gave rise to the Islamic revolution. The US has made bad choices in the past, maybe out of shear bad luck or ignorance of the situation in the ME

Yes they did, but even that did not work out that well did it, are you saying that Iranians are better off now, that the Iranian government is not oppresive. The US has made bad chioces in the past i believe all nations have and i also believe that we in the west are ignorant of the Situation in the ME. So educate us, not terrorize us. It would be alot more cost effective.

I said the west has some ownership of the issue, not all. Once again getting back to the topic of religion. I don’t understand where the notion comes from that the religion spurns the hatred when it is obvious that the hatred uses the religion to it’ own ends.

I stand corrected, i agree. The muslim religion itself is not spreading hatred, but clerics are using thier religious services to spread hate, giving quotes from the Koran to back thier message. I've just started reading the Koran to try to understand more about the religion so i'm no expert.

You will find Muslims born in the west will tend to be a lot less hateful and violent.

And why is that, and what does that say about ME muslims.

If you are taught hate you will hate regardless of where you live.

I agree totally, but with so much hate of the west do ME muslims think this will further their cause and improve thier lives. hatred only breds hatred.

[newbie]

Hate to pick on the Catholics, but there is that nasty bit about the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Pius XII refusing to mention and express disgust over Jewish extermination, and of course Benedict XV Nazi past.

Benedict XV was a grand humanitarian and strong critic of war. Where is this Nazi past? He died in 1922?

Are you just making this stuff up now?

Oops, my bad. Meant Benedict XVI

[lost&outofcontrol]

Hate to pick on the Catholics, but there is that nasty bit about the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Pius XII refusing to mention and express disgust over Jewish extermination, and of course Benedict XV Nazi past.

Benedict XV was a grand humanitarian and strong critic of war. Where is this Nazi past? He died in 1922?

Are you just making this stuff up now?

Oops, my bad. Meant Benedict XVI

he was part of the hitler youth which after 1938, was a compulsory organization, mandatory for all young German men.

[sami]

Are there not more ME countries that have invited western troops into thier countries than have not.

Am having a difficult time seeing how the ME people are seeing this as a second crusade, And can only see Iraq as an example of western interferance, unless you are also taking into account Afgan. And did they not think that Sadam's regime was a threat ,or for that matter the Talibans regime. Was there a ME plan to look after these problems, If there was then it was not made public to the west.

These issues are very complex and layered and unfortunately I feel I may not be covering everything in my responses. I am not sitting here put blaming the west of the all the faults of Muslim countries, many of these countries have created their own problems. What I am saying is we haven’t helped either. Coming from Pakistani background, a country which was once a secular nation. I got to see the rise of extremism and wahabiism during the Afghan war. The US and ISI turn a blind eye to the arab fighters streaming into the country and the thousands of madressa they started building across the border. This because they knew fanatics fought well against the soviets. We trained, armed, and promoted them as ‘freedom fighters’. When the war was over the transition of Pakistan had already began. It was the worst mistake that country had ever made in its short history and they are still paying for it today. But I can’t completely blame Pakistan without stating that if the US had not decided to use Pakistan and would have fought the Soviets directly, maybe we would have not had the stream of Arab fighters coming in and maybe today Bin Laden would be some insignificant rich boy in Saudi Arabia or better yet in some Saudi prison. This just an example, I am not saying that this excuses ME countries from ownership of their problems.

Yes there is, and yet we have seen most of these ME countries use this wealth to build massive armies, invest in Nuke wpns, for what reasons, to combat the Israelis, to fight each other, or to stop western influence in the area. they have not chosen to improve thier peoples quality of life but rather chase the dream of destruction of the Israelis and punsh the west. I've been to the Uof E and it is a fantasic country, richer than most western nations by far. The quality of life for thier citizens is light years ahead of the rest of the ME. Is this the fault of western countries or thier own rulers.

I don’t think any Muslim country besides Iran has any interest in pursuing war with the Israelis. And with Iran it is mostly rhetoric.

Yes Dubai is fantastic. I think a UAE is a good example of what ME countries can realistically strive for. Democracy for the most part is still down the road.

I will not argue that business beats war any day. But the nations interest must be on business and in the ME it is not. They are focused on Israel and the US militarily, only a few nations in the ME are concentrating on Business but even the U of E and Egypt have been steadily increasing it's military forces.

I doubt that UAE or Egypt’s increased army ( if true) has anything to with Isreal and more to do with terrorists.

This extremism is a ME problem, that should be solved at their level, The west needs to see that the ME is at least taking steps to curve it. but it is not. Religion rules the ME it's Clerics educate the people as they see fit. it only takes a few bad apples to spread the hate as you called it. The ME governments are control to a great extent by religion. when they learn to control religion then they can concentrat

[Army Guy]

Sami:

We trained, armed, and promoted them as ‘freedom fighters’. When the war was over the transition of Pakistan had already began. It was the worst mistake that country had ever made in its short history and they are still paying for it today. But I can’t completely blame Pakistan without stating that if the US had not decided to use Pakistan and would have fought the Soviets directly

So what is Pakistan action plan to deal with these "freedom Fighters". The NATO including the US has repeatily asked them to take action again'st Terrorist EX Taliban fighters, And they have somewhat. And we both know that the Pakistan people or thier government will not allow the west to go in thier and clean them out. So that leaves Pakistan to come up with a plan to drive them out , or have them put down thier wpns.

With Afgan land locked US troops would have had to enter from somewhere, and that country would have been allied with the US in other words subject to Soviet aggresion as well. It is my opinon that any confrontation with Russia would have spread quickly around the globe. That whole area would have been one smoking hole for years to come. So madebe the indirect role was the best chioce in regards to lives lost.

I don’t think any Muslim country besides Iran has any interest in pursuing war with the Israelis. And with Iran it is mostly rhetoric.

There are many facts pionting in that direction.

A majority of ME countries have refused to recongize Israel as a nation, Most ME countries have a defense pact with palistine to deter attacks from Israel, Most ME countries have in the past vowed to push Israel into the sea, and have taken military action on serveral occasions. Some ME countries have sponsored terror activities in Israel.

I doubt that UAE or Egypt’s increased army ( if true) has anything to with Isreal and more to do with terrorists.

Egypts ground forces alone are well over 300,000 and continues to grow at a rapid pace.

UAE ground forces are over 100,000 with a defense budget over 18.3 bil or 13 % of GDP. (which of all the ME countries is one of the smallest Militaries)

Thats alot of money put out for just fighting terrorists, yes terrorist are a problem but nothing on this scale.

In fact Egypt holds regular military exericises where it's objectives are Israel.

[scribblet]

Regarding 'tolerance': Don't remember where I got it, but had it saved.

Quote:

Intolerance Is a Beautiful Thing

It is common these days to hear the word, "tolerance." It is the politically correct buzzword of the day. However, many people will be surprised to discover that tolerance does not mean what it used to. In the past, tolerance has meant, "the acknowledgment of the views, beliefs, and practices of others that differ from one's own." It includes the attempt to understand others, to respect them as human beings--without agreeing with their every thought or opinion. This is an honorable character trait, part of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which has long been taught and practiced in many sectors of American society.

The new tolerance, however, has gone much further. Today, when the word tolerance is used, it means, "viewing all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equal."

The new tolerance goes beyond respecting a person's rights; it requires praise and approval of that person's beliefs, values, and lifestyle.......

In fact, the new definition was designed to exclude Christians. " unquote

[Michael Hardner]

The new tolerance, however, has gone much further. Today, when the word tolerance is used, it means, "viewing all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equal."

The new tolerance goes beyond respecting a person's rights; it requires praise and approval of that person's beliefs, values, and lifestyle.......

In fact, the new definition was designed to exclude Christians. " unquote

Used by whom ? Who says it requires praise of these beliefs ? Who is excluding Christians.

You've posted a phantom. If somebody did/said this, then we can criticize that person. If there's some organization, governmental or otherwise, then we examine what they said.

What we have is somebody saying "this is what people say", then criticizing that. That's nothing to go on.

[Black Dog]

A majority of ME countries have refused to recongize Israel as a nation, Most ME countries have a defense pact with palistine to deter attacks from Israel, Most ME countries have in the past vowed to push Israel into the sea, and have taken military action on serveral occasions. Some ME countries have sponsored terror activities in Israel.

Actually, every Arab regime has recognized Israel's existence. What's more, while regimes such as Syria and Iran work with "terrorist" organizations to undermine Israel, Israel has not been above such behaviour themselves. It's a complex arraingment of mutual antagonism that all parties feed on: let's face it, as much as many Muslim regimes use Israel for a scapegoat, Israel uses the "threat" to advance their own agenda of expansion and internal religious/ethnic hegemony.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Actually, every Arab regime has recognized Israel's existence.

32 countries do not recognize Israel, mostly majority Muslim nations in the Middle East and Africa

My Webpage

What's more, while regimes such as Syria and Iran work with "terrorist" organizations to undermine Israel, Israel has not been above such behaviour themselves.

lets call a dog a dog, you don't have to go back that many years and your list of ME countries that supported terrorists to undermine Israel would have been as long as my arm.

If you mean have Isrealis citizens strapped explosives onto themselfs and dentonated themselfs in a crowded plaza, church, I'd like to read about that..

If you mean an Isrealis citizen walking into a crowded place armed with a machine gun ,yes there has been a few, but they are rare when compared how often it was done by PLO or Hamas or for that matter any known muslim terrorist organization.

But if you mean that Israel hunted down terrorists and killed them regardless of the cost ...I'd say YES when your surrounded, out gunned, out manned, go on the offensive.

It's a complex arraingment of mutual antagonism that all parties feed on: let's face it, as much as many Muslim regimes use Israel for a scapegoat, Israel uses the "threat" to advance their own agenda of expansion and internal religious/ethnic hegemony.

I will agree with you, that i don't think both sides actually know just how it all started, nor care. what they do know is the hate that this has brought to both sides.

[Black Dog]

AG, from your own link:

Most important are Israel's ties with Arab states. In addition to full diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania, Israel now has ties of one kind or another with Morocco, Tunisia, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain.

But if you mean that Israel hunted down terrorists and killed them regardless of the cost ...I'd say YES when your surrounded, out gunned, out manned, go on the offensive.

No, I mean Israel has launched at least two invasions against its neighbours (the 1967 war and the invasion of Lebanon), violated the soverignty of surrounding nations (such as bombing the Osirak reactor in Iraq), backed terrorist groups like the Lebanese Christian militias which slaughtered hundreds of innocents during that countries civil war, and even abused its allies (for example, the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, the use of Canadian passports by Mossad agents). And please: spare me the underdog schtick. Israel has the largest military in the region; its survival is not in question, only its soul.

[Army Guy]

Most important are Israel's ties with Arab states. In addition to full diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania, Israel now has ties of one kind or another with Morocco, Tunisia, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain.

I did say most not all, your forgeting Algeria,Iran,Iraq,Libya,sudan,syria,Yemen, and i'm not sure about the UAE or Saudi Arabia which i think just did so in 2005 i can't remember. And this is just the ME countries what about the other Muslim countries there is 32 nations after all.

No, I mean Israel has launched at least two invasions against its neighbours (the 1967 war and the invasion of Lebanon), violated the soverignty of surrounding nations (such as bombing the Osirak reactor in Iraq), backed terrorist groups like the Lebanese Christian militias which slaughtered hundreds of innocents during that countries civil war,

I'm not saying Israel is not capable of dealing from the bottom of the deck. but this is a nation that has been handed lemons from day one. And despite the muslim nations constant aggresion it is still there. That is what pisses them all off. and from hundard years from now it will still piss them off.

1967 war, BD your reading to many muslim web sites..Yes Israel did invade lebanon, but then again who did'nt but that conflict was spilling over into Israel. The Osirak bombing another good one, in fact one could bet that if they had'nt the chances of Bush finding that magical WMD would have been increased.

Lets not forget killing a Canadian Citizen because he was in charge of Sadams long range arty projects.

And please: spare me the underdog schtick. Israel has the largest military in the region; its survival is not in question, only its soul.

Not even close , Egypt has over 300,000 ground troops alone, even Syria has more combat troops than Israel. Survival is the question, and sometimes it baffals me just how they manged to survive to this piont.

[Michael Hardner]

Not even close , Egypt has over 300,000 ground troops alone, even Syria has more combat troops than Israel. Survival is the question, and sometimes it baffals me just how they manged to survive to this piont.

I have very limited knowledge, but even I know that it's the hardware that makes Israel's armed forces the best in the region.

Just thought I'd add that....

[geoffrey]

Not even close , Egypt has over 300,000 ground troops alone, even Syria has more combat troops than Israel. Survival is the question, and sometimes it baffals me just how they manged to survive to this piont.

I have very limited knowledge, but even I know that it's the hardware that makes Israel's armed forces the best in the region.

Just thought I'd add that....

Among the most elite in the world. Israeli has its defense covered and then some.

Plus they have nuclear weapons and are crazy enough to use them if attacked.

[Black Dog]

I'm not saying Israel is not capable of dealing from the bottom of the deck. but this is a nation that has been handed lemons from day one. And despite the muslim nations constant aggresion it is still there. That is what pisses them all off. and from hundard years from now it will still piss them off.

Handed lemons? They were handed a country, a country which a whole bunch of other people happened to already occupy, a people who were subsequently driven out by an army backed by the west. Has it occurred to you that maybe it was the circumstances of Israel's creation that make it suich a festering wound for the Muslim world?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Handed lemons? They were handed a country, a country which a whole bunch of other people happened to already occupy, a people who were subsequently driven out by an army backed by the west. Has it occurred to you that maybe it was the circumstances of Israel's creation that make it suich a festering wound for the Muslim world?

Did'nt we already go through this.

Yes i said lemons, Jewish people already in the region at the same time that your muslim brothers occupied the land were under constant attack by our muslim brothers you know the ones that are so toleratant of other religions, customs, Israel has been under siege since it's inception. In fact Israel is still at a constant state of readiness.

Correct me if i'm wrong but Israel was not the only nation that was created at the time. Why is it that those muslim countries have no problems accepting the land that was given to them. They don't, they are happy with that, thier problem is that they will not tolerate Jews in any form, And those so called people you stated, that occupied what is now called Israel were part of what nation, what flag. In fact whose flag were they governed under. was it the British flag, and before that was it turkey. They have no more claim to that land than squatters in your backyard.

Did we give a shit when we ejected the Indians from what is called Canada. Nope in fact we rounded them all up and put them in reservations...sound familar...What gives us a right to judge them when we ourselfs share the same history.

I will agree that the division of land was not the best solution to the problem. But it's not the cause of a festering wound that divides the region. It's the fact they are jewish period. The muslim countries that were created at the same time even sharing the same borders do not have any problems with each other. Why is that because they are not Jewish that is why.

[Black Dog]

Yes i said lemons, Jewish people already in the region at the same time that your muslim brothers occupied the land were under constant attack by our muslim brothers you know the ones that are so toleratant of other religions, customs, Israel has been under siege since it's inception. In fact Israel is still at a constant state of readiness.

The Jewish population of what is now Israel was the minority prior to 1947. Suddenl;y, a bunch of powerful countries decide that the world's Jews need a hom eof their own (god forbid any of these countries actually accept the Jewish disapora into their own nations, of course), so they hand the land to Israel despite the fact that it was already occupied by tens of thousands of Arabs who were driven out. So don't expect me to shed any tears or feel any sympathy for a country founded by, essentially, imperial decree, conquest and ethnic cleansing.

Correct me if i'm wrong but Israel was not the only nation that was created at the time.

Actually you're probably thinking of Jordan, which was established by Britsh decree much earlier.

Why is it that those muslim countries have no problems accepting the land that was given to them.

Because they already lived there?

They don't, they are happy with that, thier problem is that they will not tolerate Jews in any form, And those so called people you stated, that occupied what is now called Israel were part of what nation, what flag. In fact whose flag were they governed under. was it the British flag, and before that was it turkey.

I don't see how governance is relevant when there's such a clear case for ownership by settlement. I also doubt many of the Jews who settled Israel after its founding could trace their lineage to the Holy Land. So what claim does Israel have that justifies the occupation and expulsion of an entrenched population.

They have no more claim to that land than squatters in your backyard.

And yet Israel has even less of a claim, since most of its people came from Europe and North America.

Did we give a shit when we ejected the Indians from what is called Canada. Nope in fact we rounded them all up and put them in reservations...sound familar...What gives us a right to judge them when we ourselfs share the same history.

The genocide of North America's nativ epeoples is one of history's great crimes. No doubt about that. But perhaps you're familiar with the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right".

I will agree that the division of land was not the best solution to the problem. But it's not the cause of a festering wound that divides the region. It's the fact they are jewish period. The muslim countries that were created at the same time even sharing the same borders do not have any problems with each other. Why is that because they are not Jewish that is why

So, you figure if Israel was, say, Episcopalian, they'd be problem free? I highly doubt it. Let's put it this way: if you were evicted from your house by a religious zealot who says his holy book gives him the right to take your land, your home and send you and your family packing, would you come away with a particularily positive view of that religion?

The muslim countries that were created at the same time even sharing the same borders do not have any problems with each other. Why is that because they are not Jewish that is why.

Right, Mulsims never kill each other. That whole Sunni/Shiite thing is so overblown.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

The Jewish population of what is now Israel was the minority prior to 1947. Suddenl;y, a bunch of powerful countries decide that the world's Jews need a hom eof their own (god forbid any of these countries actually accept the Jewish disapora into their own nations, of course), so they hand the land to Israel despite the fact that it was already occupied by tens of thousands of Arabs who were driven out. So don't expect me to shed any tears or feel any sympathy for a country founded by, essentially, imperial decree, conquest and ethnic cleansing.

Actually you're probably thinking of Jordan, which was established by Britsh decree much earlier.

No i'm not thinking of Jordan. If you had read The Balfour declaration of 1917 then the palestine mandate of 1921 you would clearly see that the British were in fact trying to make both sides happy, Jewish and Muslim by creating countries for both sides. and if you follow all the documents since the balfour you'll clearly see that in thrying to appease the muslims that the terroritory finally granted to Israel shrunk to but a small chunk of the orginal agreement.

You mention that Muslims were displaced, yes they were but again if you had read the a history that followed the agreements you would clearly see that so were the Jewish forced to moved from Trans jordan into what is now called Israel. Both sides were uprooted,

But because thier were more Muslims to be moved they again agreed to change the rules. No jewish settlers were allowed into muslim Trans jordan. But those Muslims that refused to move to Jordan could stay in what is known as Israel. "sounds fair to me" In fact perhaps you can tell me how many jews are in jordan today, how many are in Syria, Iraq, or any of the other nations that were created just after WW I. Are the numbers comparable with the Arabs living in Israel as Israelis citizens. In fact lets just for shits and giggles include ALL NON- Muslims that are citizens of a muslim country.

My Webpage

Why is it that those muslim countries have no problems accepting the land that was given to them.

Because they already lived there?

Not true, many were trans planted into the area.

I don't see how governance is relevant when there's such a clear case for ownership by settlement.

You mean like our own case of the american indian, Governance is important because it clearly shows who actually owns the land or it's title. for example land in Canada is either own by a person, corp, or the government. you can't just find a vacant lot and set up shop, and call it yours,"well you could " but you would not have any legal claim to it.

The genocide of North America's nativ epeoples is one of history's great crimes. No doubt about that. But perhaps you're familiar with the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right".

Yes i am, but then again i'm sure you've heard that people in glass houses should not throw rocks. And what gives us the right to judge another nation for acting the same way we did.

Besides when Canada was being settled, it was not because we were forced out of our countries, nor was it because nobody else wanted us, nor was it because we were being slaughtered by the millions and stuffed into ovens. It was because of the chance of getting rich,adventure, starting over."much better reasons than that of the jewish population.

I also doubt many of the Jews who settled Israel after its founding could trace their lineage to the Holy Land.

How far back can you trace your lineage, So i doubt even the Muslims can trace thier linage back to thier claims. So now we are at a stalemate, we have historical text that state that everyone involved could have a claim against the HOLY LAND, at one time or another. which one do you want to use. because if you go back far enough you'll find that niether the jews or muslims were the orginal owners .

So what claim does Israel have that justifies the occupation and expulsion of an entrenched population

Thier claim is spelled out in those acts and agreements we've been talking about. Israel does not want to expand it's terroritories it wants to be left alone. It wants what ever nation wants peace.

So, you figure if Israel was, say, Episcopalian, they'd be problem free? I highly doubt it.

Actually i mean NON muslim, if Israelis were muslims i doubt there would be such a stink.

Right, Mulsims never kill each other. That whole Sunni/Shiite thing is so overblown

Ive never said that, but has all the muslim nations said "we will not stop until all sunni/shiite is wiped off the map. have they all banded together and tried to wiped them out.

[Black Dog]

No i'm not thinking of Jordan. If you had read The Balfour declaration of 1917 then the palestine mandate of 1921 you would clearly see that the British were in fact trying to make both sides happy, Jewish and Muslim by creating countries for both sides. and if you follow all the documents since the balfour you'll clearly see that in thrying to appease the muslims that the terroritory finally granted to Israel shrunk to but a small chunk of the orginal agreement

And yet Jews were never in the majority in the Britsish Mandate on either side of the River Jordan.

You mention that Muslims were displaced, yes they were but again if you had read the a history that followed the agreements you would clearly see that so were the Jewish forced to moved from Trans jordan into what is now called Israel. Both sides were uprooted,

There were 700,000 Arabs uprooted by Israel in 1947-48, part of a organized campaign of ethnic cleansing.

But because thier were more Muslims to be moved they again agreed to change the rules. No jewish settlers were allowed into muslim Trans jordan. But those Muslims that refused to move to Jordan could stay in what is known as Israel. "sounds fair to me" In fact perhaps you can tell me how many jews are in jordan today, how many are in Syria, Iraq, or any of the other nations that were created just after WW I. Are the numbers comparable with the Arabs living in Israel as Israelis citizens. In fact lets just for shits and giggles include ALL NON- Muslims that are citizens of a muslim country.

Again: two wrongs don't make a right. The transfer of Jewish populations from Arab nations does not justify the transfer of Arabs from Palestine. And I know we've had this discussion before: but what gives anyone anywhere the right to tell someone to leave their own land based on their religion or ethnicity?

Not true, many were trans planted into the area.

What area? How many? Where did they come from?

You mean like our own case of the american indian, Governance is important because it clearly shows who actually owns the land or it's title. for example land in Canada is either own by a person, corp, or the government. you can't just find a vacant lot and set up shop, and call it yours,"well you could " but you would not have any legal claim to it.

Even if you go by that, most of Palestine was occupied by force, not through the legal aqusistion of title.

Yes i am, but then again i'm sure you've heard that people in glass houses should not throw rocks. And what gives us the right to judge another nation for acting the same way we did.

Because what we did was wrong, whether it was considered so at the time or not.

How far back can you trace your lineage, So i doubt even the Muslims can trace thier linage back to thier claims. So now we are at a stalemate, we have historical text that state that everyone involved could have a claim against the HOLY LAND, at one time or another. which one do you want to use. because if you go back far enough you'll find that niether the jews or muslims were the orginal owners .

That's my point. I'd rather base claims to ownership on who is currently living on the land than some religious text. Really, if any Jew anywhere can settle in Israel the Jews' right to "return" to Israel because they populated the area two thousand years ago, surely Palestinian ARabs are entitled to return to the land that was there's just over half a centurty ago.

Thier claim is spelled out in those acts and agreements we've been talking about. Israel does not want to expand it's terroritories it wants to be left alone. It wants what ever nation wants peace.

Does this look like a country that doesn't have expansion on its mind? Are you familiar at all with Zionism and the belief in Eretz Yisrael (the Biblical Israel, which streches from the Nile to the Euphrates)? And really: if they aren't interested in expansion, why does Israel keep absorbing land?

Actually i mean NON muslim, if Israelis were muslims i doubt there would be such a stink.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's academic.

Ive never said that, but has all the muslim nations said "we will not stop until all sunni/shiite is wiped off the map. have they all banded together and tried to wiped them out.

ALL the Muslim nations? Source?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

And yet Jews were never in the majority in the Britsish Mandate on either side of the River Jordan.

Regardless of who was the majority, the bulk of the Muslims had taken up the british offer and had no problems setting up what is today called Jordan, The land set aside for all muslims to call thier own. Why is it we do not hear about those muslims that already lived in jordan that were displaced to make room for the many that did take the offer and move. And they also fail to mention the many jews that were evicted from these lands .

There were 700,000 Arabs uprooted by Israel in 1947-48, part of a organized campaign of ethnic cleansing

That number is also questionable, as both sides declare different numbers depending on the site.

Also included in those numbers were those fleeing the upcoming war, those that had taken up the advise from other Muslim countries to leave. I'm not contesting that some forms of ethinic cleansing did not take place, but not in these numbers. And this cleansing was also done on both sides.

Again: two wrongs don't make a right. The transfer of Jewish populations from Arab nations does not justify the transfer of Arabs from Palestine. And I know we've had this discussion before: but what gives anyone anywhere the right to tell someone to leave their own land based on their religion or ethnicity?

This whole history of these agreements are one sided, muslims were given everything they asked for, and in the end still refused because they wanted it all. Coming back to the orginal question did the jews deserve a homeland or a nation. And do you think that the sides would have been reversed if the jews had gotten nothing.

Even if you go by that, most of Palestine was occupied by force, not through the legal aqusistion of title.

Yes, but in those times land captured in battle was acceptable, for example look at germany after WWI or WWII, historically that is what made nations. The only nation not subjected to this had been Israel it has been forced.

[Black Dog]

Regardless of who was the majority, the bulk of the Muslims had taken up the british offer and had no problems setting up what is today called Jordan, The land set aside for all muslims to call thier own. Why is it we do not hear about those muslims that already lived in jordan that were displaced to make room for the many that did take the offer and move. And they also fail to mention the many jews that were evicted from these lands .

Do you have any evidence any Arabs were displaced by Arabs moving from the "Jewish" portion of the mandate? What's more, the fundamental point remains that the universally recognized right of self-determination means that no foreign power should have the ability to move people like pawns on a chess board.

That number is also questionable, as both sides declare different numbers depending on the site.

Nope: that's the number used by most credible historians (I'm citing Benny Morris, the Israeli historian and population transfer advocate).

Also included in those numbers were those fleeing the upcoming war, those that had taken up the advise from other Muslim countries to leave. I'm not contesting that some forms of ethinic cleansing did not take place, but not in these numbers. And this cleansing was also done on both sides.

It's impossible to determine how many Arabs left with the intention to return and how many were forced out. But I'm not sure why the distinction matters.

This whole history of these agreements are one sided, muslims were given everything they asked for, and in the end still refused because they wanted it all. Coming back to the orginal question did the jews deserve a homeland or a nation. And do you think that the sides would have been reversed if the jews had gotten nothing.

I'm not sure how you can claim that the Arab population got everything they wanted when, under the original 1948 partition plan, they, as a majority, would be alloted less than 50 per cent of the land, not to menton the fact that the partition plan was implemented against the wishes of the majority of the population.

As to the question of whether the Jews deserve a homeland, I don't think anyone "deserves" anything except justice. Frankly, I don't believe that the cause of justice is served by disadvantaging one group to provide redress to another, which is exactly what happened in 1948.

Yes, but in those times land captured in battle was acceptable, for example look at germany after WWI or WWII, historically that is what made nations. The only nation not subjected to this had been Israel it has been forced.

Actually no: the aquisition of land by conquest is prohibited by international law as specified in both the Hague Regulations (1907) and UN Charter (1945). In other words, Israel is only entitled to that territory allotted under the original partition plan or territory willingly surrendered to them by the relevant authorities.

[Smithers]

Passonate eye is commie CBC propaganada problaby terrorrists themself.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Do you have any evidence any Arabs were displaced by Arabs moving from the "Jewish" portion of the mandate?

I can not find anything on the Net, and will conceed..that being said i find it hard to believe that those that did move to Trans jordan just found an empty space and set up shop.

What's more, the fundamental point remains that the universally recognized right of self-determination means that no foreign power should have the ability to move people like pawns on a chess board.

It's done every where in every country, normally done in the exchange of money or goods but even in Canada we have done it . Example just last week there was CBC snipe on those farmers moved from thier lands around the Montreal airport during it's expansion some time ago.

Nope: that's the number used by most credible historians (I'm citing Benny Morris, the Israeli historian and population transfer advocate).

Here is why i said what i did , those numbers do vary depending on with site or lititure you read.

My Webpage

This number has grown to include over 4.6 million displaced Palestinians today, about 3.7 million of whom are currently registered as refugees with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA). Of these, somewhat over a million live in camps run by UNRWA. Generally, refugees living in the camps live in conditions of abject poverty and overcrowding. They constitute a monumental humanitarian and political problem, and no resolution of the conflict can ignore them.

The refugee problem has been at the heart of peace negotiations since 1949. Refugee camps are located in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and house somewhat over a million refugees. About 100,000 Arabs living in Israel were displaced from their own villages by force by Israeli forces

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1331172.stm

Numbers disputed

The numbers of people displaced in the conflict are also hotly disputed.

About 1,300,000 Arabs lived in Palestine before the war, and estimates of the numbers displaced from their original homes during the period from December 1947 to January 1949 range from about 520,000 to about 1,000,000.

More than half a century later, there are some four million Palestinian refugees.

Events marking the Nakba in the occupied territories and neighbouring Arab states will concentrate on pressing for their right to return to their homes - a right enshrined in UN Resolution 194, but rejected by successive Israeli governments.

It's impossible to determine how many Arabs left with the intention to return and how many were forced out. But I'm not sure why the distinction matters

And at the same time it would be impossiable to say how many left with no intention of returning. so it does play a role in determining numbers.

I'm not sure how you can claim that the Arab population got everything they wanted when, under the original 1948 partition plan, they, as a majority, would be alloted less than 50 per cent of the land, not to menton the fact that the partition plan was implemented against the wishes of the majority of the population.

And just when do you stop, giving them land, the orginal document intended to give the jews all of trans jordan, and the 2 and and 3 rd agreements the jews were left with just 23 % of the orginal deal. and at this piont in time the Muslims are still not satisfied. WHY the want it 'ALL".

My Webpage

As to the question of whether the Jews deserve a homeland, I don't think anyone "deserves" anything except justice. Frankly, I don't believe that the cause of justice is served by disadvantaging one group to provide redress to another, which is exactly what happened in 1948.

And whom was going to give them justice, The British. americans, hell the Canadians . nobody wanted them, and do you really blame the jews for wanting to flee europe. after 6 million of them were slaughtered. What justice did the jews get anyway, if that had been 6 million brits or US citizens germany would have been erased from our history. much like the indians in NFLD. It was a sound decision to give the jews some place to go, since nobody else wanted them, and the fact Trans jorden still had a large jewish population in the area, plus it's historical ties.

Both sides were being compasated for thier troubles, in the promise of land, and a chance to build a nation.

Actually no: the aquisition of land by conquest is prohibited by international law as specified in both the Hague Regulations (1907) and UN Charter (1945). In other words, Israel is only entitled to that territory allotted under the original partition plan or territory willingly surrendered to them by the relevant authorities

Actually Yes, perhaps you can explain the division of germany's lands or the Turks lands after WWI ending in 1919 (slightly after 1907) and why it was upheld after WW II. And yet when you look at a map these lands lost by germany are not marked "occupied" nor are the new boundries in bosina marked Occupied nor are the lands that nations have won in combat be it for what ever reason. Just Israel is so divided.

After many hours of research i found this article which supports more of your aggument than mine but i found it very interesting. But his solutions to correct this problem are not feesiable. bringing everything back to square one.

My Webpage

[Black Dog]

I can not find anything on the Net, and will conceed..that being said i find it hard to believe that those that did move to Trans jordan just found an empty space and set up shop.

Or, given that Arab communities were already established, the newcomers simply joined them. No displacement necessary.

It's done every where in every country, normally done in the exchange of money or goods but even in Canada we have done it . Example just last week there was CBC snipe on those farmers moved from thier lands around the Montreal airport during it's expansion some time ago.

And tell me, were those farmers compensated? Were the Palestinians?

And just when do you stop, giving them land, the orginal document intended to give the jews all of trans jordan, and the 2 and and 3 rd agreements the jews were left with just 23 % of the orginal deal. and at this piont in time the Muslims are still not satisfied. WHY the want it 'ALL".

I don't really consider the division of the British Mandate to be relevant at all, given that it was an unofficial division (both territories remained under British administration, so the partition was really just a band-aid, and not a particularily well-thought out one at that). What is the 23 per cent number in relation to? The whole area of the British Mandate? Well, if you're going to use that argument, the question remains: why were the Jews entitled to an amount f territory so vastly disproportinate to their population? Remember: in 1948, Jews made up about 30 per cent of the population in what is now Israel, yet the were given 53 per cent of the land. If you go back to the old British Mandate and include Trans Jordan, their numbers as a per centage of the population shrink even more.

And whom was going to give them justice, The British. americans, hell the Canadians . nobody wanted them, and do you really blame the jews for wanting to flee europe. after 6 million of them were slaughtered. What justice did the jews get anyway, if that had been 6 million brits or US citizens germany would have been erased from our history. much like the indians in NFLD. It was a sound decision to give the jews some place to go, since nobody else wanted them, and the fact Trans jorden still had a large jewish population in the area, plus it's historical ties.

Perhaps it should have prevailed upon the west to accept the population of Jewish D.P.s into their own countries. But then, antisemetism and Zionist interests combined to discourage immigration to North America (where most Jewsih refugees would have undoubtably prefered).

BTW: Trans Jordan was the Arab part of the British Mandate.

Both sides were being compasated for thier troubles, in the promise of land, and a chance to build a nation.

The Arab populaton wasn't compensated. They had a bunch of foreign countries decide to giv etheir best land to a resident minority and an influx of aliens. No wonder they rejected the partition plan, only to have it impose dupon them anyway. And you wonder why they are pissed.

Actually Yes, perhaps you can explain the division of germany's lands or the Turks lands after WWI ending in 1919 (slightly after 1907) and why it was upheld after WW II. And yet when you look at a map these lands lost by germany are not marked "occupied" nor are the new boundries in bosina marked Occupied nor are the lands that nations have won in combat be it for what ever reason. Just Israel is so divided.

Because Great Powers have always operated on the principle that the rules they make are for others to follow, while they themselves are exempt. Nonetheless, just because something is done, doesn't mean that's the moral or correct course of action.