Palestinians vs. Tibetans

[myata]

Here, one more time, the link to BBC's extensive "in depth" analysis of the conflict, before, during and after the wars. Interestingly, the first (i.e. before) part does not appear to be very popular with some "experts" here. The world (in their view) would be so much simplier and easier to understand if less than glorious past didn't happen at all. And if the reality cannot be altered at will, the second best would be to dismiss it with a catch-all (like "historic right"). Voila, all is nice and simple again.

Edited October 13, 2007 by myata

[DogOnPorch]

Interestingly, the first (i.e. before) part does not appear to be very popular with some "experts" here. I couldn't quite fathom why? (Oh, maybe because my s... doesn't stink?)

What I find incredible is that there is popular support in the West for what is essentially a movement that has direct ties to the Nazis and the Third Reich...including the Holocaust. But oddly THAT doesn't seem to bother those that have decided Israel and perhaps the Jews as a whole are the enemy.

Their 'leader' during the 1948 War: the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He was a full General in the SS and had his own SS Mountain Division which fought in the Balkans against Tito. He was personal friends with both Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich.

His Nephew who fought at his side and took up the reins of the cause in the late 60s...Mohammed Abdel al-Qudwa al-Husseini

Interviewer: “I have heard voices from within the [Palestinian] Authority in the past few weeks, saying that the reforms are coordinated according to American whims…”

Arafat: “We are not Afghanistan…We are the Mighty People. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini? ... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops.”

But that's years ago...the Palestinian cause isn't rooted in Nazi ideology these days...is it??

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images...llah_salute.jpg

Seig Heil! Seig Heil! Seig...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no longer a way out of our present situation except by forging a road toward our objective, violently and by force, over a sea of blood and under a horizon blazing with fire.

---Gamal Abdel Nasser

[myata]

And while the peace talk hits the fan one more time, the land grab business goes on as usual: Globe&Main on recent confiscation of 162 acres of Palestinian land for highway.

[DogOnPorch]

Aye...change the subject. We wouldn't want to stain the pure innocent Palestinian cause with all that Nazi clap-trap...lol. People might get the wrong impression.

But they do look pretty spiffy in those black uniforms...like Ninjas!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hezbollah is a resistance movement that aims at liberating the occupied territories and is not a substitute for the government.

---Hassan Nasrallah

[Higgly]

Not my name. But you're welcome.

You quote Goering, that's what you get.

Surely you must know what happened during the 6 Day War. Arab armies massed on the Israeli border(s) while Nasser called for the destruction of Israel. Your Jordani...er Palestinian chums were not innocent victims. They played their part in the war as well. They lost...as did all the other enemies of Israel that tried to drive it into the sea that June back in 1967.

As for your analogy: Little old Canada isn't threatening its' neighbors...so if we were 'conquered' (to use your terms) I suppose I'd be in the Partisans. However, if we were conducting a terror campaign against our neighbors I imagine we'd get bombed back to the age of sticks and stones rather quickly.

Now...try to answer this question if you could:

If the Arabs had won the '6 Day War' would you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

---Sir Winston Churchill

Oh jeez. Now it's Churchill. I have a quote for you: "Speeches like Mr. Brown's make me sick."

I will deal with your last question first. If dollar coins flew out of a pig's ass would you use them to buy the National Post?

And now back to the real world.

It doesn't matter what happens during a war. That is what the Geneva Conventions are all about. Germany, Italy and Japan did really nasty things during WWII. Do you see the allied countries occupying their land and building settlements?

Enough said.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Higgly

[jbg]

Here, one more time, the link to BBC's extensive "in depth" analysis of the conflict, before, during and after the wars. Interestingly, the first (i.e. before) part does not appear to be very popular with some "experts" here. The world (in their view) would be so much simplier and easier to understand if less than glorious past didn't happen at all. And if the reality cannot be altered at will, the second best would be to dismiss it with a catch-all (like "historic right"). Voila, all is nice and simple again.

Very simple. I read most of the BBC timeline and it is a warped, sick, cheerlead for the "Palestinians".

[jbg]

And while the peace talk hits the fan one more time....

With demands like these, discussed in linked post and associated article (link) is it any wonder that the "peace talk (will) hits the fan?

[DogOnPorch]

It doesn't matter what happens during a war.

That includes, I assume, the 6 Day War. Or any other Arab-Israeli war.

I don't blame you for trying to stear things away from the Palestinian's Nazi past...it's really bad for moral. I mean...who really wants to be on the same boat as the Nazis? Not me...

You quote Goering, that's what you get.

Your ally, kuzadd quotes Goering...does she get what she deserves?

I will deal with your last question first. If dollar coins flew out of a pig's ass would you use them to buy the National Post?

I didn't think you'd answer that question. Puts you in a rather difficult position. But, let's try again...

If the Arabs had won the '6 Day War' would you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'?

Oh jeez. Now it's Churchill. I have a quote for you: "Speeches like Mr. Brown's make me sick."

I've been to Blenheim Palace...how about you?

-------------------------------------------------------------

As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

---Benjamin Disraeli

[M.Dancer]

It doesn't matter what happens during a war. That is what the Geneva Conventions are all about. Germany, Italy and Japan did really nasty things during WWII. Do you see the allied countries occupying their land and building settlements?

Enough said.

Germany was beaten and then signed a formal surrender. Then they were occupied.

Perhaps Israel should have fought till they overthrough the arab leaders and then made them sign a formal surrender? And the were occupied till there was no thought of making war on us again.

In war the title of lands sometimes change, and that is a fact Geneva convention doesn't concern itself with. Asl Poland, ask Germany....the Geneva conventions have ZERO to do with this, but it's nice of you to trot them out every so often.

[myata]

With demands like these, discussed in linked post and associated article (link) is it any wonder that the "peace talk (will) hits the fan?

If a discussion begins with making ridicule of other people's religion, what purpose does it serve? Surely, not to establish a compromise?

BTW, the example cited earlier was not just a "demand", it's yet another evidence of a persistent, slow but steady and never stopping policy of encroaching upon and taking over the other peoples land. Quite a difference, ne s'est pas?

I have to agree, indeed, little wonder that any talk of peace may be taken with a (big) grain of salt by people who have observed (and experienced first hand) these policies over decades.

[Moxie]

Very simple. I read most of the BBC timeline and it is a warped, sick, cheerlead for the "Palestinians".

Yep and they openly admit they are a station that is pro-multicultural and anti anything that doesn't fall into that ethos. Sadly they are publicly funded.

Israel paid for the land, it's not Israel's fault that the absentee land owners didn't inform the squaters (Palestinians) that they sold the land. They owe the so called self labeled people of non-existant Palestine nothing. It shows how evolved they are, willing to negotiate to return land their ancestors BOUGHT and paid for LEGALLY. The Brits decided they could carve up Israel, in order for peace to reign. Yea that worked, NOT.

[jbg]

If a discussion begins with making ridicule of other people's religion, what purpose does it serve? Surely, not to establish a compromise?

You mean this?

In a negotiating posture unmatched for showing bad faith, Abbas demanded the return of the Western Wall a/k/a/ Wailing Wall from Israel (link). Apparently Mohamed's horse consummated the conversion of hay into fertilizer at this site, making it holy Muslim property.

Actually, it turned out to be donkey, not horse dung. But you don't respond to my serious point:

All kidding aside, this shows that the Palestinians do not want peace; this demand was made after Olmert offered to surrender parts of Jerusalem, itself a politically inflammatory gesture. By Abbas' standards, all Israel would be "a Muslim waqf,"

BTW, the example cited earlier was not just a "demand", it's yet another evidence of a persistent, slow but steady and never stopping policy of encroaching upon and taking over the other peoples land. Quite a difference, ne s'est pas? I have to agree, indeed, little wonder that any talk of peace may be taken with a (big) grain of salt by people who have observed (and experienced first hand) these policies over decades.

I agree. The Arabs do have a "never stopping policy of encroaching upon and taking over the other peoples land". After all, they moved rapidly, spreading Islam at the point of a sword from the Arabian Peninsula, to Babylonia, Persia, the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Land, Egypt and then the rest of North Africa, Spain, France through Tourres, Afghanistan, parts of the Indian Subcontinent, Indonesia and the Malay Peninsula. Quite a record.

[jbg]

The Brits decided they could carve up Israel, in order for peace to reign. Yea that worked, NOT.

About as well as carving up Czechoslovakia did in 1938, or carving up the Indian Subcontinent (since the Muslims refused to be a minority even in a country run by the rather kindly Ghandi) in 1947 (link, excerpts below):

September 2, 2007

Exit Strategy

By BEN MACINTYRE

Skip to next paragraph

INDIAN SUMMER

The Secret History of the End of an Empire.

By Alex von Tunzelmann.

Illustrated. 401 pp. Henry Holt & Company. $30.

On the balmy evening of Aug. 15, 1947, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, the great- grandson of Queen Victoria and the last viceroy of India, gave a sumptuous party in the Mughal Gardens of Delhi to mark the end of empire. Thousands of tiny lanterns hung from the bougainvillea and jacaranda trees as the great and good of India, past and future — native princes in dazzling array, British colonial army officers, Indian politicians of every creed and stripe — wandered among the fountains and rose beds, sipping Champagne and eating canapés.

Louis Mountbatten moved among the throng with his vivacious wife, Edwina, whose close relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s foremost statesman, was already the source of lurid local gossip. Nehru had been independent India’s first prime minister for less than 24 hours. Pakistan was not yet a day old.

It was a surreal occasion — Britain renouncing and dividing up the jewel of empire with every appearance of satisfaction; India and Pakistan applauding a freedom that would soon be engulfed by bloodshed and war.

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps Israel should have fought till they overthrough the arab leaders and then made them sign a formal surrender? And the were occupied till there was no thought of making war on us again.

That's exactly what they should have done in 1967. However, Israel doesn't have a very big army so to do such things could have really stretched the IDF's abilities to beyond the maximum.

Just a "page 6" reminder for Higgly:

If the Arabs had won the '6 Day War' would you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

---Mohammed: Koran, 9:5

[Higgly]

Israel paid for the land, it's not Israel's fault that the absentee land owners didn't inform the squaters (Palestinians) that they sold the land. They owe the so called self labeled people of non-existant Palestine nothing. It shows how evolved they are, willing to negotiate to return land their ancestors BOUGHT and paid for LEGALLY. The Brits decided they could carve up Israel, in order for peace to reign. Yea that worked, NOT.

You talk about this as though it were some open free market transaction. You are talking about severely distressed sellers - distressed because of the extraordinarily vicious contraints put upon all aspects of their sociaety by the Israeli occupation - who are selling to a buyer who will never put the land on the open market again. It is illegal for an Israeli to seell land to a Palestinian.

You are also talking as though all of the land was purchased legally. Most of it was seized illegally by administrative hocus-pocus followed up by military action.

Your claims are smoke and mirrors.

Earth to DogOnPorch. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The three blind mice.

As for your quote from the Koran, read the bible. You'll find things equally idiotic. Join a christian funcadmentalist group, you'll find idiots hell bent for leather to make those idiocies reality.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Higgly

[Higgly]

About as well as carving up Czechoslovakia did in 1938, or carving up the Indian Subcontinent (since the Muslims refused to be a minority even in a country run by the rather kindly Ghandi) in 1947 (link, excerpts below):

September 2, 2007

Exit Strategy

By BEN MACINTYRE

Skip to next paragraph

INDIAN SUMMER

The Secret History of the End of an Empire.

By Alex von Tunzelmann.

Illustrated. 401 pp. Henry Holt & Company. $30.

On the balmy evening of Aug. 15, 1947, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, the great- grandson of Queen Victoria and the last viceroy of India, gave a sumptuous party in the Mughal Gardens of Delhi to mark the end of empire. Thousands of tiny lanterns hung from the bougainvillea and jacaranda trees as the great and good of India, past and future — native princes in dazzling array, British colonial army officers, Indian politicians of every creed and stripe — wandered among the fountains and rose beds, sipping Champagne and eating canapés.

Louis Mountbatten moved among the throng with his vivacious wife, Edwina, whose close relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s foremost statesman, was already the source of lurid local gossip. Nehru had been independent India’s first prime minister for less than 24 hours. Pakistan was not yet a day old.

It was a surreal occasion — Britain renouncing and dividing up the jewel of empire with every appearance of satisfaction; India and Pakistan applauding a freedom that would soon be engulfed by bloodshed and war.

The slaughter would have been much much worse were it not for Gandhi. As for the Brits, was the problem that they carved the land up, or that they left immediately afterwards leaving the whole mess to be resolved by bloody conflict?

[Higgly]

You mean this?

Actually, it turned out to be donkey, not horse dung. But you don't respond to my serious point:

I agree. The Arabs do have a "never stopping policy of encroaching upon and taking over the other peoples land". After all, they moved rapidly, spreading Islam at the point of a sword from the Arabian Peninsula, to Babylonia, Persia, the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Land, Egypt and then the rest of North Africa, Spain, France through Tourres, Afghanistan, parts of the Indian Subcontinent, Indonesia and the Malay Peninsula. Quite a record.

Yah, and it all ground to a halt back in the 1800s. How bloody old are you to be still ticked about that? How different is this than the British empire?

Freedom speaks Danish, Swedish, German, French, Walloon, Dutch.....

[ScottSA]

The slaughter would have been much much worse were it not for Gandhi. As for the Brits, was the problem that they carved the land up, or that they left immediately afterwards leaving the whole mess to be resolved by bloody conflict?

You have much to learn about the partition of India before displaying the type of anti-British hatred so typical of the unthinking left.

[Higgly]

You have much to learn about the partition of India before displaying the type of anti-British hatred so typical of the unthinking left.

Like what? You play this game a lot. What exactly are you talking about.

[myata]

Well what more can be said? - the facts are out here. Spin, blame, ignore - it won't change them one tiny bit.

The most sad and ironic part is that we all know that in good time people will come to terms with the truth, will accept it, make amends and strike a fair deal. Too bad that a lot of suffering and death will have to happen before the inevitable end.

[DogOnPorch]

Earth to DogOnPorch. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The three blind mice.

You continue to evade the question. Why is this? Instead you try a lame ploy to make it sound as if my question isn't valid.

Well? Had the Arabs won the 6 Day War...or say they win a future war that takes over Israeli territory...would you/will you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'??

Thanks for your response in advance...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear.

---Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler (personal friend of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)

[M.Dancer]

You have much to learn about the partition of India before displaying the type of anti-British hatred so typical of the unthinking left.

The Attenborough school of Indian History......

[Higgly]

Here, one more time, the link to BBC's extensive "in depth" analysis of the conflict, before, during and after the wars. Interestingly, the first (i.e. before) part does not appear to be very popular with some "experts" here. The world (in their view) would be so much simplier and easier to understand if less than glorious past didn't happen at all. And if the reality cannot be altered at will, the second best would be to dismiss it with a catch-all (like "historic right"). Voila, all is nice and simple again.

Thanks very much for that time line. I am quoting the article below. Note who attacked who first....

"Establishment of Israel

The State of Israel, the first Jewish state for nearly 2,000 years, was proclaimed at 1600 on 14 May 1948 in Tel Aviv. The declaration came into effect the following day as the last British troops withdrew. Palestinians remember 15 May as "al-Nakba", or the Catastrophe.

The year had begun with Jewish and Arab armies each staging attacks on territory held by the other side. Jewish forces, backed by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups made more progress, seizing areas alloted to the Jewish state but also conquering substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one.

Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank.

The Jewish armies were victorious in the Negev, Galilee, West Jerusalem and much of the coastal plain.

The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel but were repulsed, and the Israeli army crushed pockets of resistance. Armistices established Israel's borders on the frontier of most of the earlier British Mandate Palestine.

Egypt kept the Gaza Strip while Jordan annexed the area around East Jerusalem and the land now known as the West Bank. These territories made up about 25% of the total area of British Mandate Palestine. "

[Higgly]

You continue to evade the question. Why is this? Instead you try a lame ploy to make it sound as if my question isn't valid.

Well? Had the Arabs won the 6 Day War...or say they win a future war that takes over Israeli territory...would you/will you be calling for the return of Jewish lands 'rightfully theirs'??

Thanks for your response in advance...

What are you dense? What part of my response do you not understand? THIS DID NOT HAPPEN AND THEREFOR I CANNOT HAVE AN OPINION. Does that make everything more clear for you? I DO NOT HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT EVENTS THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear.

---Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler (personal friend of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem)

If you were living in Gaza City or Ramallah, who would you say is living this nightmare?

Edited October 15, 2007 by Higgly

[M.Dancer]

Meet Higgly, Marshall of Dodge City......