origins of Modern Israel

[myata]

Rue, I beg to differ on that. Purchasing land in private does not change its nationality.

Does that mean that despite President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase the US, from the Mississippi River to the Continental Divide (excepting Texas and points west of Texas) is still French? Does that mean that Alaska is still Russian?

That is utter nonesense and you know it.

Utter and absolutely incredible nonsense it is. Those were treaties between states. These are deals between private individuals. Now you should be able to see the difference? It's as if someone from e.g. Italy bought a cottage in NB and declared it to be italian territory.

On a positive side, all hope isn't lost for the region: Olmert calls for talks with Palestinians.

[Rue]

Rue, I beg to differ on that. Purchasing land in private does not change its nationality.

Does that mean that despite President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase the US, from the Mississippi River to the Continental Divide (excepting Texas and points west of Texas) is still French? Does that mean that Alaska is still Russian?

That is utter nonesense and you know it.

Utter and absolutely incredible nonsense it is. Those were treaties between states. These are deals between private individuals. Now you should be able to see the difference? It's as if someone from e.g. Italy bought a cottage in NB and declared it to be italian territory.

On a positive side, all hope isn't lost for the region: Olmert calls for talks with Palestinians.

Not that anyone wants to use logical and common sense but land does not have nationality, people do. You are mixing apples and oranges. People's right to land is through a soverign nation that grants them ownership in land-if that sovereign nation does not exist, the ability to grant the land does not necessarily exist.

What I have said and neither Higgly or you understand is the land registry that comes from the Ottoman Empire, and I will say it one last time, does not and can not properly establish legal ownership to land for many reasons the most obvious of which;

i-it did not properly register who owned and purchased land

ii-it was circumvented and corupted by absentee landlords

iii-it is not accurate as it was never based on anything but word of mouth, i.e., no one actually visibly surveyed the land coordinates and placed them on title'

iv-all titles to land conferred by the Sultan of Oman were then illegally taken over by the British who then changed them and altered the records and in fact forcefully seized most of the land and gave it to Jordan taking it away from poor Arab farmers whose rights to this day have never been registered

v-one last time-the point I made was that even if you could establish through uninterupted ownership and use (which is the way all of land titleship today has to be established in the West Bank since the beloved land register you talk about is not recognized by the PLO or Jordan) that can still be altered by international law superceding on individual rights.

I am not sure how many times I can repeat the same points over and over. You can deny them until doomsday but it doesn't change what the registry is or how international law can supercede individual rights, and how individual land ownership does not confer nationality, citizenship laws do.One does not get awarded their nationality through ownership of land UNLESS there is another law of citizenship that says so. This is basic law. Even in the Muslim world where nationality or status comes not from land ownership but religious belief or citizenship conferred from place of birth.

[Rue]

There already is a Palestinian state - it's called Jordan, which is majority Palestinian.

Yes, well one could just as well argue that there is already a Jewish state. It's called New York, Eliot Spitzer, leader.

It is a fact that Jordan or the former Trans Jordan is situated on 82% of what was Palestine. Your response merely indicates you are a bigot. You may think what you said was funny but it is basic anti-semitism and you show your true colours. If you can't debate without making slurs at Jews who live in New York do us all a favour and crawl back in your hole of intolerance. What you stated is no different then if you came out and referred to New York as Hymie Town. Now that your true colours have come out, I think it is safe to say if this is what you feel is witty then let me be clear with you it aint-its pathetic. Unlike you Higgly I won't go running to the moderator. I accept your comments for what they are ignorant and racist.

[Rue]

...cresting with the Holocaust

Truly a blot on human nature. Are you familiar with what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukrainians in 1932?

Higgly let me spell it out do you directly. What you said is ignorant. The way your words come out the first sentence can be inferred to be sacrastic and the second sentence about summarizes when your heart is at. You belittle one tragedy by raising another. You know why you did it. The inference is there and it is dispicable. Are we to believe that somehow the holocaust somehow has no signifigance because there have been other slaughters? Does this somehow take away its meaning and role in the creation of Israel.

More to the point Higgly are you that ignorant of history you do not undertand the difference between the forced famine by Stalin and the holocaust? The holocaust was not the result of one leader and one era. It was the culmination of thousands of years of similiar actions that evolved into the holocaust.

The forced starvation of the Ukrainians is not even remotely close in historic origin or cause and effect as was the holocaust. It is in fact similiar to say the Irish famine.

You made the above comment you did as most ignorant people like you do-for one reason and one reason only-to denigrate the holocaust and suggest it is nothing special and but one of many massacres. You not only insult all Jews and people who died in the holocaust but you insult Ukrainians using their tragedy as a pissing match to denigrate the holocaust.

Well Higgly you have finally shown your true colours and I suggest its time you take a rest. You have managed to do what people like you do best, take a debate on land ownership and the origins of Israel and turn it into a pretense to denigrate the holocaust and make racial slurs against Jews.

You can huff and puff your way out of it but your words are already written. Your insult against the holocaust and your racial slur against Jews and New York are on the record.

[myata]

Actually, Rue, I think we're saying the same thing: that boundaries in the region cannot be set based on the rights of land ownership alone and should have been decided by compromise and mutual agreement. It's the only way it can be worked out into a lasting solution that is acceptable to all living in the area.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Even then I wouldn't hold my breath. Today Israel offered peace, again, to the Palestinians in Gaza. Their response, as they launched some more rockets, was that they want the west bank as well. Go figure.....

[jbg]

I'm not cool with your double standard. Israel should be held to the same standards as the Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq. If they exceed those standards, G-d bless them.

So, Israel, the vaunted Only Democracy in the Midddle East should be held to the same standards as people you refer to as "feral beasts". Way to reach for the skies.

Those standards are not a suicide pact. Even WW II was showing little signs of coming to an end (examples are the Battle of the Bulge) until the rather horrific fireboming of Dresden began demoralizing the German population. Since the Arabs appear to be in little or no mood to stop fighting, the stutter-stop war, i.e. attacks followed by phony negotations (i.e. negotiations where the Arabs are not negotiating in good faith) may need to be replaced by all-out war. The West rarely does this; it proved necessary in WW II on both fronts, at Dresden, Tokyo, Hirsohima and Nagasaki. And as far as winning "hearts and minds" the Germans and the Japanese have turned from deadly adversaries to fruitful allies. Was this accomplished by singing Kumbaya or I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing?

Is expecting Israel to conform to the behavioural behavioral norms of other western democracies while expecting little from the other culturally repressed, politically retarded states in the region a double standard? Perhaps. But, to me the only way Israel (or any western nation) can expect to be regarded by anyone else as the advanced, civilized states they proclaim themselves is by setting and living up to their own standards. That means, not engaging in behaviour behavior that would pass withjout without comment in a dysfunctional failed state like Iraq.

My point, as above, is not that Israel should descend to Iraqi levels. That should be obvious. However, the shrill condemnation that occurs wehn fully provoked retaliations, surprise surprise, actually kill people, shows the double standard. Arabs blow up a pizza parlor or disco in Israel, or the World Trade Center, and this is justified as the result of "anger". Human shields in Lebanon are killed, and this is roundly condemned. Sickening, and wrong.

Also, if you think I'm giving the Muslim world a fee free pass, you're sadly mistaken. I can, however, judge the actions of some of their number without resorting to dehumanizing slurs. You should give it a try, it's actually quite easy.

Dehumanizing slurs? What about

1. The 1972 Olympic Massacre;
   
2. Gassing of the Kurds;
   
3. Attack on US Marines, peacekeepers in Beirut;
   
4. Attack on Berlin disco (1986);
   
5. Lockerbie;
   
6. World Trade Center I (1993);
   
7. The Kenya and Tanzania embassy massacres;
   
8. Summer 2001 attacks on Sbarro Pizza in Jerusalem;
   
9. September 11, 2001 attacks;
   
10. Bali;
    
11. Passover 2003 Attacks on Tel Aviv disco;
    
12. Spanish train attacks, 3/11/04;
    
13. London Subway attacks?
    

Are these "slurs"? Or did the Arabs dehumanize themselves?

By the way, what is a "fee pass"?

[jbg]

Long Live Israel!!

Better yet "Vive Israel libre".

[Black Dog]

Those standards are not a suicide pact. Even WW II was showing little signs of coming to an end (examples are the Battle of the Bulge) until the rather horrific fireboming of Dresden began demoralizing the German population.

Nonsense. The German armies were being beaten on all fronts; total collapse was only a matter of time. If anything, it was strategic blunders like the Battle of the Bulge (a last-ditch effort which expended irreplaceable lives and material in an unsustainable offensive) and an overall deterioration of Germany's military situation on all fronts that hastened the end.

What evidence is there that deteriorating civilian morale had any bearing on the inevitable military outcome?

Since the Arabs appear to be in little or no mood to stop fighting, the stutter-stop war, i.e. attacks followed by phony negotations (i.e. negotiations where the Arabs are not negotiating in good faith) may need to be replaced by all-out war.

Demonstrably false. We've numerous examples where good-faith negotiations have borne fruit (Egypt and Jordan's peace treaties with Israel being two notable examples). We've seen repeated calls from Syria for dialogue. The problem, as I've noted before, isn't that there's no partner for peace, but that there are too many parties and factions involved.

The West rarely does this; it proved necessary in WW II on both fronts, at Dresden, Tokyo, Hirsohima and Nagasaki. And as far as winning "hearts and minds" the Germans and the Japanese have turned from deadly adversaries to fruitful allies. Was this accomplished by singing Kumbaya or I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing?

Apples and oranges. World War 2 was total war and Germany and Japan were aggressor states that posed legitimate threats to the civilized world. There are no comparable threats from the Arab/Muslim world today. As for after the fact, there are numerous factors that compelled Japanese and German co-operation with the conquerors, not the least being the fact that the occupation of the former Axis powers was regarded as legitimate even by the occupied. Another factor scarcely mentioned is the degree and amount of planning the Allies put into post-war occupation and reconstruction, a sharp contrast to the slapdash plan for post-war Iraq. It's clear you posses a deeply flawed understanding of history and it's leading you to some very shoddy conclusions.

My point, as above, is not that Israel should descend to Iraqi levels. That should be obvious. However, the shrill condemnation that occurs wehn fully provoked retaliations, surprise surprise, actually kill people, shows the double standard. Arabs blow up a pizza parlor or disco in Israel, or the World Trade Center, and this is justified as the result of "anger". Human shields in Lebanon are killed, and this is roundly condemned. Sickening, and wrong.

First: spelling flames are l-a-m-e (even more so since (a) you're correction of "behaviour" is incorrect-we use the Queen's English in Canada-and ( you frequently make numerous spelling errors of your own: in this post alone we have “fireboming,” “Hirsohima,” and “wehn”. Let he who is without sin... ). Second: if your point isn’t that Israel should descend to the level of the “feral beasts”, well, what is it? Who’s excusing terrorist attacks? What is it that you want? How about this: I hereby denounce every suicide bombing, rocket attack on civilian area, and any other act of terrorism. Happy? Can I criticize Israel now?

Are these "slurs"? Or did the Arabs dehumanize themselves?

No those are terrorist attacks from a variety of time periods, committed by a variety of groups against a variety of targets in a variety of contexts. The slurs are "feral beasts" and other terms that you use to ascribe the actions of individuals or groups to an entire category of people: a.k.a. straight-up racism. A rough equivalent would be to pin the IDF massacre of Egyptian POWs or the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty during the Six Day war on "the Jews".

By the way, what is a "fee pass"?

Is it not enough that you're so terribly wrong that you have to be a douche as well?

edited to add:

A douche and a sucker.

It was created to 'settle' a dispute between a friend of mine in which he claimed that 40 weaponless midgets could defeat 1 lion in a hypothetical fight. Many of my other friends and I tried to convince him that the lion would definitely win, but he would not back down from his argument. After seeing another fake article posing as BBC about 'zombism' in Cambodia, I got the idea to make this fake news article to try and convince him for the final time. (Please 'Join the debate' at the bottom to express your opinion.)

[Higgly]

Truly a blot on human nature. Are you familiar with what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukrainians in 1932?

Higgly let me spell it out do you directly. What you said is ignorant. The way your words come out the first sentence can be inferred to be sacrastic and the second sentence about summarizes when your heart is at.

With respect to the first sentence, Rue, I was damned serious. I consider the Holocaust to be a dreadful blot on human nature. Six million people were murdered by a gang of psycopaths. There is nothing less than pure evil in that.

With respect to the second sentence, Rue, your response is typical of that of the pro-Israel community whenever Ukrainians try to get recognition for what Stalin did to them in 1932. The guy murdered over ten million people, for crying out loud. When the Ukrainian community tried to get recognition for this, there were actually people in the pro-Israel community who accused them of 'issue envy'.

What is wrong with you?

[Higgly]

Dehumanizing slurs? What about

1. The 1972 Olympic Massacre;
   
2. Gassing of the Kurds;
   
3. Attack on US Marines, peacekeepers in Beirut;
   
4. Attack on Berlin disco (1986);
   
5. Lockerbie;
   
6. World Trade Center I (1993);
   
7. The Kenya and Tanzania embassy massacres;
   
8. Summer 2001 attacks on Sbarro Pizza in Jerusalem;
   
9. September 11, 2001 attacks;
   
10. Bali;
    
11. Passover 2003 Attacks on Tel Aviv disco;
    
12. Spanish train attacks, 3/11/04;
    
13. London Subway attacks?
    

Are these "slurs"? Or did the Arabs dehumanize themselves?

Why is it that whenever we start talking about the Palestinians, we end up talking about Moslems? How often is it that we end up talking about the French when we start out talking about the Italians? A number of these things were the results of Moslems outside of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and in fact some of them (Bali, London subway...) are not even by Arabs.

Hell, 20% of the Palestinians are Christians, for Christ's sake! (curse intended)

[Higgly]

Better yet "Vive Israel libre".

Well fine. Has anybody here ever advocated the death of Israel? This reminds me of a girlfriend I once had. If I wasn't there every time she called, she accused me of cheating on her.

[Higgly]

On a positive side, all hope isn't lost for the region: Olmert calls for talks with Palestinians.

Yes, this is a positive sign, but Israel needs to get rid of the attitude that every time it offers a deal, its work is finished. This could be the start of a fruitful negotiation.

[jbg]

Is it not enough that you're so terribly wrong that you have to be a douche as well?

edited to add:

A douche and a sucker.

What a great argument!!

[jefferiah]

Better yet "Vive Israel libre".

Well fine. Has anybody here ever advocated the death of Israel? This reminds me of a girlfriend I once had. If I wasn't there every time she called, she accused me of cheating on her.

I think I know that girl .

[Black Dog]

What a great argument!!

Hmm. I posted an extensive rebuttal to your post and added the last bit as a knock at your sniffy (and hypocritical) spelling corrections and your gullibility over the midget story. Yet you ignore the substance and focus on the throwaway line. That indicates to me that you've got no response to the actual substance. I'm not surprised.

[jbg]

What a great argument!!

Hmm. I posted an extensive rebuttal to your post and added the last bit as a knock at your sniffy (and hypocritical) spelling corrections and your gullibility over the midget story. Yet you ignore the substance and focus on the throwaway line. That indicates to me that you've got no response to the actual substance. I'm not surprised.

If I weren't leaving for tennis, I could spend a lot of time going point for point. The one I will respond to is the condition of the German resistance. The Battle of the Bulge very nearly did the English-speaking allies' troops in. I would strongly ague, unfortunately, that is was the threat to civilian existence that finally brought the reality of the war home to Germans; and ended it.

[Black Dog]

If I weren't leaving for tennis, I could spend a lot of time going point for point. The one I will respond to is the condition of the German resistance. The Battle of the Bulge very nearly did the English-speaking allies' troops in. I would strongly ague, unfortunately, that is was the threat to civilian existence that finally brought the reality of the war home to Germans; and ended it.

Okay: how would you quantify that? You're arguing that civilian morale led to a military collapse, which certainly is not unprecedented, but not without greater disharmony than was seen on the German home front in 1945 (by contrast, it took a full fledged domestic revolution to take Russia out of the First World War). So what events on the home front fed into the military collapse? Also: by all accounts, many German units fought with great cohesion and determination until the very end, in spite of their fatally depleted state. Indeed, I would suggest the threat to civilian life from the invaders (not unjustified, given the brutality of the Soviet advance) in many cases stiffened the resolve of the German military (the Wermacht's resistance in support of the evacuation of East Prussia is a notable example).

As for the Battle of the Bulge, it could never have succeeded because it was simply not sustainable. A breakout on a short front is naturally limited: the further it pushes, the longer its supply lines and the greater the danger of encirclement from any additional enemy forces (which the Allies had in abundance). When you factor in the already critical fuel, ammo, manpower and supply shortages on the German side, it's clear that the Bulge offensive could never have amounted to anything more than a short-term tactical success.

In any case...how does any of that apply to today's Middle East? Are you proposing bombing random population centres now?

[Higgly]

If I weren't leaving for tennis, I could spend a lot of time going point for point.

Lord thunderin' jaysus. Are you serious?

[Higgly]

If I weren't leaving for tennis, I could spend a lot of time going point for point.

Lord thunderin' Jaysus. Why didn't you register as Gatsby? A missed opportunity IMHO!

[Rue]

Truly a blot on human nature. Are you familiar with what Joseph Stalin did to the Ukrainians in 1932?

Higgly let me spell it out do you directly. What you said is ignorant. The way your words come out the first sentence can be inferred to be sacrastic and the second sentence about summarizes when your heart is at.

With respect to the first sentence, Rue, I was damned serious. I consider the Holocaust to be a dreadful blot on human nature. Six million people were murdered by a gang of psycopaths. There is nothing less than pure evil in that.

With respect to the second sentence, Rue, your response is typical of that of the pro-Israel community whenever Ukrainians try to get recognition for what Stalin did to them in 1932. The guy murdered over ten million people, for crying out loud. When the Ukrainian community tried to get recognition for this, there were actually people in the pro-Israel community who accused them of 'issue envy'.

What is wrong with you?

You know what is wrong with me? We are discussing the West Bank and you throw out the Ukrainian famine in comparison to the holocaust. You brought it up with the intent to suggest that the holocaust was not unique. Why else would you bring it up in a discussion about the West Bank. Thgepurpose was clear to down-grade the historic relevance of the holocaust as but one of many genocides.

Here is the point. The Ukrainian genocide ( it was defined just today as a genocide) is to be discussed independent of and not in comparison to the holocaust or any other genocide. Each genocide is unique and should not be compared and used in an arguement such as yours to suggest that the holocaust is not unique and not special but just another genocide. What is the matter with me? Probably what is the matter with many Jews when they see the holocaust raied in a West Bank dispute discussion in an off-handed way that down-plays its uniqueness.

As for the Ukrainian famine, it was a horrible genocide but it is a far different historic phenomena then the holocaust and has no relation at all to the West Bank conflict and the origins of Israel. More to the point Ukraines now have their own country or did you not notice.

[jbg]

If I weren't leaving for tennis, I could spend a lot of time going point for point.

Lord thunderin' Jaysus. Why didn't you register as Gatsby? A missed opportunity IMHO!

Gatsby? A winter indoor tennis game is not a sign of extreme wealth.

[Figleaf]

Each genocide is unique ...

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes.

[myata]

More to the point Ukraines now have their own country or did you not notice.

Yes, and as far as I know it didn't involve leave anyone without (their own country).

[Rue]

Each genocide is unique ...

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes.

You missed the point Figleaf. Each genocide, like each snow flake is unique. If you try mash themall together, of course they will all seem the same colour-white. That is why we must take care when we talk about ANY genocide not to compare them to others or try use others to suggest they are not unique or have lesser signiifigance since there have been other genocides.

Think about it FigLeaf. It is insulting to the survivors of any genocide to have their genocides compared and tossed about in off handed comments clearly done to downgrade their uniqueness.

How for one moment does a genocide in the Ukraine have any relevance to the holocaust? It is not relevant. They are both tragedies. They both saw innocent people die and suffer at the hands of psychotics. But to suggest one is not unique because another happened why?

Why? Why must it even arise in a discussion about Israel in such a way?

No Figleaf even you can figure out why its wrong to talk about the mass killings of people in such a way.

Each genocide must be honoured individually and never be confused with any other or be made less important simply because there are so many.