I would like to try something here, an open Discussion about the Palestinian & Israeli conflict.
Tons of Articles out there & years of fighting. I came across a Documentary if you would like to download watch then discuss, that would be solid. If not, feel free to add any links or perspective to this topic at anytime.
Also this Torrent may or may not be seeded all that well, if someone has a better torrent link for Encounter Point feel free to post it.
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3658128/Encounter_Point_-_CBC
Full Version: Palestinian And Israeli Conflict
I have formed some malformed opinions about the conflicts going on over there, but from what I read it all stems right back to religion. Something about the blood line from (may have this name wrong) Mohammad. Something about on view is the rightful people are direct from the blood line, the others are not? (Still seems to me like religion is causing the major issue over there, makes me wonder...)
QUOTE (Soundwave.42 @ Mar 11 2008, 02:10 PM) 
I have formed some malformed opinions about the conflicts going on over there, but from what I read it all stems right back to religion. Something about the blood line from (may have this name wrong) Mohammad. Something about on view is the rightful people are direct from the blood line, the others are not? (Still seems to me like religion is causing the major issue over there, makes me wonder...)
thanks for those Links Invisible, interesting stuff there.
Your on the right track, check out: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3658128/Encounter_Point_-_CBC
My download came pretty fast, somewhat of a swarm going on now... it has won various awards... about to watch it myself will check back in a couple hours....
For the Main Site for Documentary info credits: http://www.encounterpoint.com [Documentary Info]
Torrents belong in the torrent forums unfazed not here. I should remove the links before a mod gets here if I were you.
QUOTE (Hashishin666 @ Mar 11 2008, 03:28 PM)
Torrents belong in the torrent forums unfazed not here. I should remove the links before a mod gets here if I were you.
It's not my Release, however I replace it with the original post link. Thanks for the heads up Hash.
I'm so personally separated from that experience, I don't think lending my voice to the discussion would amount to much. I could present my views on American involvement in the conflict, however. But it wouldn't be pretty.
QUOTE (Mudget @ Mar 11 2008, 03:49 PM)
I'm so personally separated from that experience, I don't think lending my voice to the discussion would amount to much. I could present my views on American involvement in the conflict, however. But it wouldn't be pretty.
Thats what the point of the Documentary is to show people outside of that environment what it is like and to lend perspective, but if you don't think you could watch it or whatever... no biggie
No no, I'll watch it. Believe me, I'm addicted to documentaries 
I love learning.
Thanks for the links.
I love learning.
Thanks for the links.
this conflict did not start as a religious one; it began as a geo-political conflict, stemming from the waves of Jewish immigrants that began to threaten the Arab majority in the area beginning in the 1930s. Jews and Arabs had lived in the area for a very, very long time in relative peace, with the Jews, the minority, in their parts of the city and the Arabs in theirs- just as it was in the old European cities back in the day.
At first their were minor skirmishes between the Jews and the Arabs, but the major conflict was between the Jewish nationalists and the British colonials. During the early years, Jewish extremist groups committed acts of terrorism against the British, most notably at a hotel in Jerusalem, which they blew up. Eventually the Brits left the region, and the U.N. declared a 2-state split. One for the Jews, one for the Arabs. The Arabs did not like the idea of their holy city being in the hands of the Jews, and they rejected the system.
Religion has only served as a catalyst for the real motivation, which was, and still is today, geo-political. If the extreme groups (Jewish zionists, Arab fanatics) can be pushed to the fridges where they belong, political reconciliation will occur. These extreme groups have been galvanized by the violence perpetrated by both sides.
The only real way for it all to stop is for one of the groups to stand up and reject all violence. The arabs cannot do it, because they are not organized (separate groups will always be able to fire rockets and such). The Israelis, on the other hand, are organized and would be able to enforce a declared non-violence approach. That means no more 'defensive' excursions into the west bank and gaza, no more approving of settlement expansion to appease the extremists on the Jewish side, and no more air strikes.
At first their were minor skirmishes between the Jews and the Arabs, but the major conflict was between the Jewish nationalists and the British colonials. During the early years, Jewish extremist groups committed acts of terrorism against the British, most notably at a hotel in Jerusalem, which they blew up. Eventually the Brits left the region, and the U.N. declared a 2-state split. One for the Jews, one for the Arabs. The Arabs did not like the idea of their holy city being in the hands of the Jews, and they rejected the system.
Religion has only served as a catalyst for the real motivation, which was, and still is today, geo-political. If the extreme groups (Jewish zionists, Arab fanatics) can be pushed to the fridges where they belong, political reconciliation will occur. These extreme groups have been galvanized by the violence perpetrated by both sides.
The only real way for it all to stop is for one of the groups to stand up and reject all violence. The arabs cannot do it, because they are not organized (separate groups will always be able to fire rockets and such). The Israelis, on the other hand, are organized and would be able to enforce a declared non-violence approach. That means no more 'defensive' excursions into the west bank and gaza, no more approving of settlement expansion to appease the extremists on the Jewish side, and no more air strikes.
Dead on with all that TagZ... couldn't agree more, It's like when your growing up as a kid, some of these people missed the part about sharing... I know one cannot equate the "holy land" to a sharing a toy but... With the right amount of rezoning in my opinion you could fit tons of people in newer buildings... they could take a look at Tokyo with the same amount of money & effort they put into killing them selfs they could construct housing that better utilized the land & do it under a cease fire, divide it up... probably too simple to ever work.
Man that Documentary was moving, give it a look if you haven't, links top of thread for site etc.
Damn I can not quote both of you in one post (Still learning how to use it haha.)
None the less, to me, it stems right back to religion. It is between the Jews and the Arabs... Hmm to me they both have different religious views and the fighting is because of this "holy land'? From what I have seen and read I feel that the reason is still religious, which I think is absolutely ridiculous. None the less all other countries have gone through similar issues.
I feel that this is the beginning of a new beginning, these people went from being the forefront in the technological, educational, etc world to a third world country because of the religious issues. Until one side decides to take a non violent stand, as stated above, they will never get their issues resolved and we know how radical people are with their ridiculous views on religion.
I think we should let them fight this out until someone gets the right idea, then they should be fine. Then again I could be completely wrong and I wont be the first time.
None the less, to me, it stems right back to religion. It is between the Jews and the Arabs... Hmm to me they both have different religious views and the fighting is because of this "holy land'? From what I have seen and read I feel that the reason is still religious, which I think is absolutely ridiculous. None the less all other countries have gone through similar issues.
I feel that this is the beginning of a new beginning, these people went from being the forefront in the technological, educational, etc world to a third world country because of the religious issues. Until one side decides to take a non violent stand, as stated above, they will never get their issues resolved and we know how radical people are with their ridiculous views on religion.
I think we should let them fight this out until someone gets the right idea, then they should be fine. Then again I could be completely wrong and I wont be the first time.
That it has geo-political start i can agree with. On the other hand, the UN descicion to split up the territory ect is just what made the birth of those radical groups possible in my opinion. Taking away rights of one group (the arabs in israel) ect, all those things make a radical breeding ground. If you were to be kicked out of your house and land for someone else that just arrived in the place...you would go beserk aswell. That being said, that doesnt mean that its the solution, i agree with Tagz, once the radicals are gone there will be a political solution possible, but that will be a hard nut to crack to get rid of them, just because the problem there is a radical one.
History has shown that one cannot stamp out either side of uncompromising ideologies, that only fans the flames. one can only erode their support and thus spur on their natural demise.
Ask the question: where do these groups derive their power and how do they give purpose to their actions?
Israel gives the Arabs' action purpose by: killing civilians and making life miserable for the general population.
Arabs give the Israelis' action purpose by: suicide bombings and rocket attacks against civilians.
One of those forces needs to be eliminated from the equation.
Ask the question: where do these groups derive their power and how do they give purpose to their actions?
Israel gives the Arabs' action purpose by: killing civilians and making life miserable for the general population.
Arabs give the Israelis' action purpose by: suicide bombings and rocket attacks against civilians.
One of those forces needs to be eliminated from the equation.
QUOTE (TagZ)
One of those forces needs to be eliminated from the equation.
It's only because of U.S. support that one keeps from being eliminated.
"One of those forces needs to be eliminated from the equation."
Who makes a decision like that? Thankfully nobody.
I see these two cultures symbolically as two arch-enemies who have been placed inside the same prison cell. Both have been terribly oppressed, both are mad as hell, and both have, as was pointed out in a post above rather well, fundamental ideologies that will never change. I am not sold that their ideologies conflict, rather that it's once again just the same old stupid "my God is real and yours isn't" problem.
I think the idea of eradicating one of them has been tried before, and nobody really thinks Hitler's idea was a very good one anymore.
"In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.[8] The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan"
So the irony (and it's not lost on the Palestinians) is that Israel has been breaching UN mandate for decades, but that the UN only seems to make a fuss when Arab countries do the same thing. There certainly is a sort of hypocrisy to it all, but the bottom line is you've got two displaced peoples, Jews and Palestinians, both sharing a central, religiously important location, it would be helpful if the seats of global power (UN, US, etc.) treated both equally and worked harder to find resolutions fully acceptable to both sides.
How this is done, no idea.
Who makes a decision like that? Thankfully nobody.
I see these two cultures symbolically as two arch-enemies who have been placed inside the same prison cell. Both have been terribly oppressed, both are mad as hell, and both have, as was pointed out in a post above rather well, fundamental ideologies that will never change. I am not sold that their ideologies conflict, rather that it's once again just the same old stupid "my God is real and yours isn't" problem.
I think the idea of eradicating one of them has been tried before, and nobody really thinks Hitler's idea was a very good one anymore.
"In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.[8] The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan"
So the irony (and it's not lost on the Palestinians) is that Israel has been breaching UN mandate for decades, but that the UN only seems to make a fuss when Arab countries do the same thing. There certainly is a sort of hypocrisy to it all, but the bottom line is you've got two displaced peoples, Jews and Palestinians, both sharing a central, religiously important location, it would be helpful if the seats of global power (UN, US, etc.) treated both equally and worked harder to find resolutions fully acceptable to both sides.
How this is done, no idea.
Mudget your ideas are spot on. I like them.
Like you said who knows how the UN will deal with it. Then again if the UN do something, will the religious peoples follow their ruling? And if they don't what will the repercussions of it be?
Like you said who knows how the UN will deal with it. Then again if the UN do something, will the religious peoples follow their ruling? And if they don't what will the repercussions of it be?
That was a good documentary, thanks!
If you haven't seen Forgiving Dr. Mengele, it's a pretty amazing story, too. About how a Jewish woman's (an identical twin experimented on by Josef Mengele) personal journey to forgiveness is met with outrage by her own people. Highly, highly suggested. Torrent.
Meanwhile, on and on and on and on it goes ....
Rockets hit Israel after West Bank raid
If you haven't seen Forgiving Dr. Mengele, it's a pretty amazing story, too. About how a Jewish woman's (an identical twin experimented on by Josef Mengele) personal journey to forgiveness is met with outrage by her own people. Highly, highly suggested. Torrent.
Meanwhile, on and on and on and on it goes ....
Rockets hit Israel after West Bank raid
QUOTE (Soundwave.42 @ Mar 13 2008, 06:59 AM)
Mudget your ideas are spot on. I like them.
Like you said who knows how the UN will deal with it. Then again if the UN do something, will the religious peoples follow their ruling? And if they don't what will the repercussions of it be?
Like you said who knows how the UN will deal with it. Then again if the UN do something, will the religious peoples follow their ruling? And if they don't what will the repercussions of it be?
The UN seems to behave as our own US Congress does. It talks a lot and does very little. Meanwhile, while trying to figure out how to handle certain situations and taking vote after vote after vote, and deadlocking, and chatting, and planning, and meeting, genocide goes on ahead, the Jews and Pals keep blowing each other up ...
I mean, I believe that if it worked the way it was supposed to work, the UN would be a great thing (kind of like our US government). Unfortunately, it doesn't. So I'm not very optimistic about a lot of these global situations.
QUOTE (lv.elessar @ Mar 12 2008, 09:16 PM)
It's only because of U.S. support that one keeps from being eliminated.
No, not really. The U.S. gives symbolic and diplomatic support, as well as arms deals, but none of that is required for the continued existence of Israel. The Israelis would find that suggestion a bit insulting in fact; they have one of the most developed defense industries in the world, and really couldn't care less about the diplomatic impact of things (case in point: their stranglehold on the Palestinians).
If you think that the Arab states that surround Israel would crush it if America were not holding them back, you don't know your history mate.
The first Arab-Israeli War, May 1948–March 1949.
Egypt: 10,000 initially rising to 20,000
Iraq: 5,000 initially rising to 15–18,000
Syria: 2,500–5,000
Transjordan: 6,000–12,000
Lebanon: 1,000 initially rising to 2,000[2]
Saudi Arabia: 800–1,200
Yemen: unknown
Arab Liberation Army: 3,500-6,000
Israel: 29,677 initially, rising to 115,000 by March 1949
Us north Koreans love the Israel... Palestinian not so much.
QUOTE (tqw @ Mar 13 2008, 07:30 PM)
Us north Koreans love the Israel... Palestinian not so much.
Same with most Western cultures. Why do you think this is?
(serious question)
QUOTE (TagZ)
No, not really. The U.S. gives symbolic and diplomatic support, as well as arms deals, but none of that is required for the continued existence of Israel. The Israelis would find that suggestion a bit insulting in fact; they have one of the most developed defense industries in the world, and really couldn't care less about the diplomatic impact of things (case in point: their stranglehold on the Palestinians).
If you think that the Arab states that surround Israel would crush it if America were not holding them back, you don't know your history mate.
If you think that the Arab states that surround Israel would crush it if America were not holding them back, you don't know your history mate.
The U.S. gives Israel weapons, they simply can not support their defense without us.
QUOTE
As the U.S.-Israeli strategic relationship matured, military and economic aid increased. But that increase does not mean the earlier aid had been insignificant. According to historian Nadav Safran: "During Israel's first nineteen years of existence, the United States awarded it nearly $1.5 billion of aid in various forms, mostly outright grants of one kind or another. On a per capita basis of recipient country, this was the highest rate of American aid given to any country."[133]
According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, between 1949 and 1965 U.S. aid to Israel averaged $63 million annually, and over 95 percent of that assistance was for economic development and food aid.[134] The first formal military lending, which was very modest, occurred in 1959. However, from 1966 through 1970 average annual aid jumped to $102 million, and the share of military loans climbed to 47 percent. In 1964 the U.S. government lent no money to Israel for military purposes. In 1965 it lent almost $13 million. In 1966, the year before the Six-Day War, it lent $90 million. In the year of the war such loans fell to $7 million, but in succeeding years the total rose, reaching $85 million in 1969 and hitting a high of $2.7 billion in 1979. More significant, military grants began in 1974; they ranged from $100 million in 1975 to $2.7 billion in 1979. In the first half of the 1980s, loans and grants ranged between $500 million and nearly $1 billion. Then, beginning in 1985, the loans stopped and all U.S. military aid was made as grants, ranging from $1.4 billion in 1985 to $1.8 billion each year from 1987 through 1989. Economic grants hit a high of nearly $2 billion in 1985, before falling to $1.2 billion in 1989. (See Appendix.)
Although U.S. aid has been given to Israel with the stipulation that it not be used in the territories occupied in 1967, the Congres-sional Research Service reported that "because the U.S. aid is given as budgetary support without any specific project accounting, there is no way to tell how Israel uses U.S. aid."[135] Moreover, the service wrote that, according to the executive branch, in 1978, 1979, and 1981, Israel "may have violated" its agreement not to use U.S. weapons for nondefensive purposes.[136] In 1982 the United States suspended shipments of cluster bombs after Israel allegedly violated an agreement on the use of those weapons. In 1990 Israel accepted $400 million in loan guarantees for housing on the condition that the money not be used in the occupied territories, but the promise was soon repudiated.[137]
Reporter Tom Bethell has written that of $1.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel, only about $350 million is sent by check. The rest never leaves the United States; it is spent on U.S.-made planes and weapons. Bethell also has reported that, according to the State Department, Israel returns $1.1 billion of $1.2 billion in economic aid as payment of principal and interest on old loans. It keeps the interest accrued from the time the money is received at the beginning of the year to the time it is sent back at the end of the year.[138]
According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, between 1949 and 1965 U.S. aid to Israel averaged $63 million annually, and over 95 percent of that assistance was for economic development and food aid.[134] The first formal military lending, which was very modest, occurred in 1959. However, from 1966 through 1970 average annual aid jumped to $102 million, and the share of military loans climbed to 47 percent. In 1964 the U.S. government lent no money to Israel for military purposes. In 1965 it lent almost $13 million. In 1966, the year before the Six-Day War, it lent $90 million. In the year of the war such loans fell to $7 million, but in succeeding years the total rose, reaching $85 million in 1969 and hitting a high of $2.7 billion in 1979. More significant, military grants began in 1974; they ranged from $100 million in 1975 to $2.7 billion in 1979. In the first half of the 1980s, loans and grants ranged between $500 million and nearly $1 billion. Then, beginning in 1985, the loans stopped and all U.S. military aid was made as grants, ranging from $1.4 billion in 1985 to $1.8 billion each year from 1987 through 1989. Economic grants hit a high of nearly $2 billion in 1985, before falling to $1.2 billion in 1989. (See Appendix.)
Although U.S. aid has been given to Israel with the stipulation that it not be used in the territories occupied in 1967, the Congres-sional Research Service reported that "because the U.S. aid is given as budgetary support without any specific project accounting, there is no way to tell how Israel uses U.S. aid."[135] Moreover, the service wrote that, according to the executive branch, in 1978, 1979, and 1981, Israel "may have violated" its agreement not to use U.S. weapons for nondefensive purposes.[136] In 1982 the United States suspended shipments of cluster bombs after Israel allegedly violated an agreement on the use of those weapons. In 1990 Israel accepted $400 million in loan guarantees for housing on the condition that the money not be used in the occupied territories, but the promise was soon repudiated.[137]
Reporter Tom Bethell has written that of $1.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel, only about $350 million is sent by check. The rest never leaves the United States; it is spent on U.S.-made planes and weapons. Bethell also has reported that, according to the State Department, Israel returns $1.1 billion of $1.2 billion in economic aid as payment of principal and interest on old loans. It keeps the interest accrued from the time the money is received at the beginning of the year to the time it is sent back at the end of the year.[138]
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019&full=1
Sorry mate I do know how Israel won our wars perhaps you have not studied it.
You really like that article, don't you man?
Here's some more facts: [International Business Monitor]
- Israel's defense spending per capita is second only to the U.S.
- Israel's defense industry exports military systems around the world, in excess of $4.5bil per year; it ranks in the top 5 worldwide with the U.S., Russia, GB, and France.
I'm not saying U.S. loans and grants to Israel are not substantial, because they are. What I am saying is that they really don't count for much in the grand scheme of things, and are not required for the success and existence of that country.
Here's some more facts: [International Business Monitor]
- Israel's defense spending per capita is second only to the U.S.
- Israel's defense industry exports military systems around the world, in excess of $4.5bil per year; it ranks in the top 5 worldwide with the U.S., Russia, GB, and France.
I'm not saying U.S. loans and grants to Israel are not substantial, because they are. What I am saying is that they really don't count for much in the grand scheme of things, and are not required for the success and existence of that country.
QUOTE (TagZ)
You really like that article, don't you man?
Yes! Because all the facts have the supporting documentation. Find me a better one, because I have yet to find one.
QUOTE (TagZ)
Here's some more facts: [International Business Monitor]
- Israel's defense spending per capita is second only to the U.S.
- Israel's defense industry exports military systems around the world, in excess of $4.5bil per year; it ranks in the top 5 worldwide with the U.S., Russia, GB, and France.
- Israel's defense spending per capita is second only to the U.S.
- Israel's defense industry exports military systems around the world, in excess of $4.5bil per year; it ranks in the top 5 worldwide with the U.S., Russia, GB, and France.
From your own article. Please note that while 4.5 bill sounds impressive this is the net amount of transfers not profit. The reason they are able to spend so much per capita is because of aid from the U.S.
QUOTE
Perhaps more importantly, Israel is supported by the world's only superpower, the US, which donates enormous quantities of military aid and equipment to the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).
Israel's armed forces are also supported by one of the world's most advanced defence industries, which benefits from large amounts of support from the government in the form of contracts. Israeli arms exports are currently flourishing, with lucrative relationships created with major weapons purchasers such as India and Turkey. In 2006, transfers totalled some US$4.5bn, ranking Israel in the top five exporters in the world. Arms imports are also likely to be sustained at a significant level by several long-running procurement programmes and an increase in foreign military financing (FMF) from the US.
Israel's armed forces are also supported by one of the world's most advanced defence industries, which benefits from large amounts of support from the government in the form of contracts. Israeli arms exports are currently flourishing, with lucrative relationships created with major weapons purchasers such as India and Turkey. In 2006, transfers totalled some US$4.5bn, ranking Israel in the top five exporters in the world. Arms imports are also likely to be sustained at a significant level by several long-running procurement programmes and an increase in foreign military financing (FMF) from the US.
QUOTE (TagZ)
I'm not saying U.S. loans and grants to Israel are not substantial, because they are. What I am saying is that they really don't count for much in the grand scheme of things, and are not required for the success and existence of that country.
What I am saying is that without U.S. aid Israel would not be able to afford it's military or security which is why they are able to exist in the first place.
So what you would need to prove me wrong is that their GDP is greater than their government expenditures, of course subtracting out U.S. aid.
From their own website.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_...fense%20Industr
you fail to show that the country could not afford for their own military security without American support. The fact that their %GDP spent on defense is high (again, 2nd only to the U.S.) does not suggest this. The data you provide is 9 years old.
I just talked to an American who is in the international defense industry, who sells American military systems around the world. He had in fact just gotten back from Tel Aviv. When I asked him the question "Would Israel survive without American military aid and grants?" he said "Yes, but it would be more difficult"
This is obvious. I do not see any evidence that Israel need the United States. They have the bomb ffs.
as far as your favorite article - the reason i scoff at it is that it is a position paper, not an objective source of info, as you use it.
I just talked to an American who is in the international defense industry, who sells American military systems around the world. He had in fact just gotten back from Tel Aviv. When I asked him the question "Would Israel survive without American military aid and grants?" he said "Yes, but it would be more difficult"
This is obvious. I do not see any evidence that Israel need the United States. They have the bomb ffs.
as far as your favorite article - the reason i scoff at it is that it is a position paper, not an objective source of info, as you use it.
QUOTE (TagZ)
you fail to show that the country could not afford for their own military security without American support. The fact that their %GDP spent on defense is high (again, 2nd only to the U.S.) does not suggest this. The data you provide is 9 years old.
I just talked to an American who is in the international defense industry, who sells American military systems around the world. He had in fact just gotten back from Tel Aviv. When I asked him the question "Would Israel survive without American military aid and grants?" he said "Yes, but it would be more difficult"
This is obvious. I do not see any evidence that Israel need the United States. They have the bomb ffs.
as far as your favorite article - the reason i scoff at it is that it is a position paper, not an objective source of info, as you use it.
I just talked to an American who is in the international defense industry, who sells American military systems around the world. He had in fact just gotten back from Tel Aviv. When I asked him the question "Would Israel survive without American military aid and grants?" he said "Yes, but it would be more difficult"
This is obvious. I do not see any evidence that Israel need the United States. They have the bomb ffs.
as far as your favorite article - the reason i scoff at it is that it is a position paper, not an objective source of info, as you use it.
It's history you expect objectivity? No such thing everyone records if from their own viewpoint. Fact the U.S. has helped Israel in every one of it's wars, financially, militarily and diplomatically (vetoing sanctions for outright violation of U.N. resolutions). No evidence huh? I would have to conclude you are biased if that is not enough evidence.
That is evidence that Israel is an ally, not that it is reliant on American support for its survival.
Different interpretations of the historical record is the reason we are having this discussion. Stating that i am biased in my interpretation is a complete non sequitur.
your article: there is a vast difference between laying out the historical record for its own sake, and using certain points of the record to make a positioned thesis seem more valid. The article deserves much more skepticism for that reason; and should not be considered as just another subjective account.
Different interpretations of the historical record is the reason we are having this discussion. Stating that i am biased in my interpretation is a complete non sequitur.
your article: there is a vast difference between laying out the historical record for its own sake, and using certain points of the record to make a positioned thesis seem more valid. The article deserves much more skepticism for that reason; and should not be considered as just another subjective account.
So it's your conclusion that Israel would be able to trade 4.5 billion in arms with sanctions imposed on it?
I know you are able to look up the U.N. resolutions that Israel is still in violation of, any other country would have already been "liberated" by the U.S. for such violations.
I provide documented evidence and you provide a friends opinion, well my dad has the opposite opinion of your friend...there now you have failed to prove Israel can exist without the U.S.
No, stating that the reason that you refuse to accept established facts without rebutting or providing contrary facts as biased is completely logical.
I agree so I am looking forward to your challenges of the relevant documented facts. So far I have seen no specifics just a general counter bias.
I know you are able to look up the U.N. resolutions that Israel is still in violation of, any other country would have already been "liberated" by the U.S. for such violations.
I provide documented evidence and you provide a friends opinion, well my dad has the opposite opinion of your friend...there now you have failed to prove Israel can exist without the U.S.
QUOTE (TagZ)
Different interpretations of the historical record is the reason we are having this discussion. Stating that i am biased in my interpretation is a complete non sequitur.
No, stating that the reason that you refuse to accept established facts without rebutting or providing contrary facts as biased is completely logical.
QUOTE (TagZ)
your article: there is a vast difference between laying out the historical record for its own sake, and using certain points of the record to make a positioned thesis seem more valid. The article deserves much more skepticism for that reason; and should not be considered as just another subjective account.
I agree so I am looking forward to your challenges of the relevant documented facts. So far I have seen no specifics just a general counter bias.
You are operating form the idea that the facts you provide support your position, i believe them to support mine. We are both looking at the same information, I really dont know where to take this further, but at least I won't call you delusional as you have me. I see and accept the facts, just because you don't agree with my interpretation shouldn't give you the presence of mind to call my integrity into question.
I don't very well understand your position anymore to be honest, could you clarify it? Are you saying that without American support, Israel would be destroyed and that would be a good thing?
I don't very well understand your position anymore to be honest, could you clarify it? Are you saying that without American support, Israel would be destroyed and that would be a good thing?
QUOTE (TagZ)
You are operating form the idea that the facts you provide support your position, i believe them to support mine. We are both looking at the same information, I really dont know where to take this further, but at least I won't call you delusional as you have me. I see and accept the facts, just because you don't agree with my interpretation shouldn't give you the presence of mind to call my integrity into question.
I have neither called you delusional or called your integrity into question, everyone has a bias and I merely stated what I believed yours to be.
QUOTE (TagZ)
I don't very well understand your position anymore to be honest, could you clarify it? Are you saying that without American support, Israel would be destroyed and that would be a good thing?
Same position I started with, that Israel exists and continues to exist because of U.S. intervention.
QUOTE (lv.elessar @ Mar 15 2008, 12:47 PM)
I have neither called you delusional or called your integrity into question, everyone has a bias and I merely stated what I believed yours to be.
Yes, you have.
QUOTE
I provide documented evidence and you provide a friends opinion
The suggestion that I am not read, and only rely on hearsay is very much an insult on my integrity.
QUOTE
you refuse to accept established facts
Delusional; a persistent false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.
QUOTE ( @ Mar 15 2008, 12:47 PM)
Same position I started with, that Israel exists and continues to exist because of U.S. intervention.
So, without the few billion dollars in aid the U.S. grants Israel a year (the aggregate sum of which is much less when one considers the loans it is still paying off to the U.S.) their economy would crumble. Without the power of the U.S. veto in the security council the U.N. would impose sanctions that would prevent Israel from defending itself. And without U.S. military support under treaty of common defence, the Arab nations would destroy the Israeli state.
Does that sum it up?
No I have not.
1) I stated what you are doing, quoting a friend.
2) I did not suggest your unread if fact the opposite you did:
3) I did not say the evidence was indisputable so your definition does not apply, I challenged you to dispute the facts I quoted.
4) If you are offended by blunt statements perhaps you should change your approach, I love to reciprocate attitudes because I assume since you feel it ok to be blunt and confrontational with people it must be ok for them to do back at you.
5) I don't like to repeat myself so scroll up if you want my summary.
1) I stated what you are doing, quoting a friend.
2) I did not suggest your unread if fact the opposite you did:
QUOTE (TagZ)
you don't know your history mate.
3) I did not say the evidence was indisputable so your definition does not apply, I challenged you to dispute the facts I quoted.
4) If you are offended by blunt statements perhaps you should change your approach, I love to reciprocate attitudes because I assume since you feel it ok to be blunt and confrontational with people it must be ok for them to do back at you.
5) I don't like to repeat myself so scroll up if you want my summary.
I'm getting some popcorn these debates are a tad more interesting than the Documentary I linked in the Original post, however it was interesting too...
There is no question that the U.S. helps Israel a ton, we have always supported them, in turn they attract hate from any that have an agenda against the states, thats not to say they do not have people opposed to the Israeli state, only through education on both sides, and many many years of education and generations understanding will they accept each others existence in that region.
It is not unlike migrations such as El Salvadorians heading into Southern Mexico to work and the animosity it brings, Mexicans into America & again the animosity, then Palestinians come into Israel to work in some of the least desirable jobs, this factor also lends itself to the problem, again education is the salve that these people & all people need for that matter. However we all need labor which is usually dominated by those who have less education & are Susceptible to certain islamic movements so they can slip into areas under the pretense of work and create havoc then return across borders unseen, continuing this cycle of violence. Israelis have a ton of blood on their hands as well, all in all this area of the world seems to be prone to violence, with no end in sight.
There is no question that the U.S. helps Israel a ton, we have always supported them, in turn they attract hate from any that have an agenda against the states, thats not to say they do not have people opposed to the Israeli state, only through education on both sides, and many many years of education and generations understanding will they accept each others existence in that region.
It is not unlike migrations such as El Salvadorians heading into Southern Mexico to work and the animosity it brings, Mexicans into America & again the animosity, then Palestinians come into Israel to work in some of the least desirable jobs, this factor also lends itself to the problem, again education is the salve that these people & all people need for that matter. However we all need labor which is usually dominated by those who have less education & are Susceptible to certain islamic movements so they can slip into areas under the pretense of work and create havoc then return across borders unseen, continuing this cycle of violence. Israelis have a ton of blood on their hands as well, all in all this area of the world seems to be prone to violence, with no end in sight.
If me stating so obviously with joking intent, "you don't know your history mate" (notice the mate), to a person that i very well know has a lot of knowledge on the subject provokes you into a no holds barred confrontation of words, then i am sorry and will try to refrain from any show of comradery in the future.
Still, I'm all for continuing this banter, as i am still feeling mildly insulted.
"established" is the same as "indisputable" in the context you used it in.
Saying that you were giving links to facts and I was using hearsay, in an attempt to lessen the strength of my position, is wrong and i generally would not expect that of you, especially when we have both clearly linked our source material in past posts.
I said this and I will state it again; that we are looking at the same facts and I interpret them differently. I see the U.S. - Israeli alliance as beneficial to Israel, you see it as essential.
Q: What would happen if the U.S. cut all military ties to Israel.
Still, I'm all for continuing this banter, as i am still feeling mildly insulted.
"established" is the same as "indisputable" in the context you used it in.
Saying that you were giving links to facts and I was using hearsay, in an attempt to lessen the strength of my position, is wrong and i generally would not expect that of you, especially when we have both clearly linked our source material in past posts.
I said this and I will state it again; that we are looking at the same facts and I interpret them differently. I see the U.S. - Israeli alliance as beneficial to Israel, you see it as essential.
Q: What would happen if the U.S. cut all military ties to Israel.
QUOTE (TagZ)
Still, I'm all for continuing this banter, as i am still feeling mildly insulted.
I am not insulted at all, sorry you feel that way. When debates get heated I have the most fun.
QUOTE (TagZ)
"established" is the same as "indisputable" in the context you used it in.
No, I choose my words carefully and since the facts have not been disputed they are established until disputed.
QUOTE (TagZ)
Saying that you were giving links to facts and I was using hearsay, in an attempt to lessen the strength of my position, is wrong and i generally would not expect that of you, especially when we have both clearly linked our source material in past posts.
We are not in a court of law and hearsay is a legal term which I have not used. Point in fact a link is more reliable than what you have heard unless it was backed by evidence. Providing the evidence would then validate that opinion, but until then it is merely someones opinion.
QUOTE (TagZ)
Q: What would happen if the U.S. cut all military ties to Israel.
If the U.S. cut all ties the first thing that would happen is a resolution fest in the U.N.. If Israel failed to comply, which is their pattern, sanctions would be imposed and very likely you would see Russian support of Palestinians. Unable to import fuel and materials Israels military would grind to a halt and it would only be a matter of time before you saw the reverse of what is occurring now, Palestinian oppression of Israel. How long would it take? 10 years max.
QUOTE (lv.elessar @ Mar 15 2008, 06:33 PM)
If the U.S. cut all ties the first thing that would happen is a resolution fest in the U.N.. If Israel failed to comply, which is their pattern, sanctions would be imposed and very likely you would see Russian support of Palestinians. Unable to import fuel and materials Israels military would grind to a halt and it would only be a matter of time before you saw the reverse of what is occurring now, Palestinian oppression of Israel. How long would it take? 10 years max.
Let's consider what sort of resolutions would be passed at the U.N. in this instance. They would likely demand the secession of Israeli interference with imports into Gaza, and demand electrical power and water works be re constituted in full to the region. These are the most pressing human rights issues there, and passage of resolutions demanding these things would not be challenged. The resolutions could not legally force Israel to stop policing its border; human movement between the Israeli state and the Palestinian one would still be heavily restricted by Israel. The resolutions could not legally stop Israel from responding to rocket attacks coming from the Palestinian state.
There are two distinct power centers in the Palestinian state, and they are now separated geographically as you know- Fatah being the moderate voice of palestinians (as well as the internationally recognized Palestinian authority) in the West Bank, the Hammas terrorist organization in Gaza. I am sure you remember the elections last year that gave Hammas political legitimacy (even though it is not widely recognized). This is a problem, as that majority declares war on Israel, and shows no interest in diplomatic solutions to the conflict. I am curious to know how you mean Russia will "support" the Palestinians. Do you mean in a Hammas-led war against the Israeli state, or in supporting sanctions so that aid can get to the Palestinian people?
If you mean support of sanctions, then yes I agree that would occur. The sanctions against Israel would likely pass, as the current leadership in Israel would likely ignore resolutions which looked like what I outlined. However, these sanctions would change the status quo and the political climate in Israel. Israel is a functioning democracy that would not accept the consequences of sanctions; the leadership there would change and so would the Israeli policies toward the Palestinian state. The resolutions would be recognized and carried out in short order. Hammas would not destroy the Israeli state in this intervening time. Israel's ability to defend itself would not be so degraded in the time that these sanctions were in enforcement.
Any organized military action taken by Hammas against Israel would be internationally opposed in this theoretical global paradigm, just as an Israeli attempt to forcibly overthrow the Palestinian authority would be opposed. What would happen in this instance would be a notably more moderate Israel as a result of U.N. action, and thus a Palestinian people much less ready to support Hammas. Which, I am sure you will agree, would be a very welcome changes.
This conclusion I have made might surprise you, as I believe you have constructed me to be a pro-Israeli party. On the contrary, I have simply argued in this thread that the U.S. support of Israel is not requisite for the existence of the state. I have never said that the destruction of one side of this conflict would be a good thing. Are you?
QUOTE (TagZ)
Let's consider what sort of resolutions would be passed at the U.N. in this instance. They would likely demand the secession of Israeli interference with imports into Gaza, and demand electrical power and water works be re constituted in full to the region. These are the most pressing human rights issues there, and passage of resolutions demanding these things would not be challenged. The resolutions could not legally force Israel to stop policing its border; human movement between the Israeli state and the Palestinian one would still be heavily restricted by Israel. The resolutions could not legally stop Israel from responding to rocket attacks coming from the Palestinian state.
I believe the resolutions would be much more extensive than that including the demand that Israel pull back to the 1947 resolution passed by the U.N..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...ncerning_Israel
QUOTE (TagZ)
There are two distinct power centers in the Palestinian state, and they are now separated geographically as you know- Fatah being the moderate voice of palestinians (as well as the internationally recognized Palestinian authority) in the West Bank, the Hammas terrorist organization in Gaza. I am sure you remember the elections last year that gave Hammas political legitimacy (even though it is not widely recognized). This is a problem, as that majority declares war on Israel, and shows no interest in diplomatic solutions to the conflict. I am curious to know how you mean Russia will "support" the Palestinians. Do you mean in a Hammas-led war against the Israeli state, or in supporting sanctions so that aid can get to the Palestinian people?
Russia sees this area as we do, strategic for a region with scarce resources. It would love to be seen as the good guy by supporting a persecuted majority. They care no more about the people than we do. I specifically mention Russia because they have in the past threatened to intervene against Israel because of U.N. resolution violations.
QUOTE (TagZ)
If you mean support of sanctions, then yes I agree that would occur. The sanctions against Israel would likely pass, as the current leadership in Israel would likely ignore resolutions which looked like what I outlined. However, these sanctions would change the status quo and the political climate in Israel. Israel is a functioning democracy that would not accept the consequences of sanctions; the leadership there would change and so would the Israeli policies toward the Palestinian state. The resolutions would be recognized and carried out in short order. Hammas would not destroy the Israeli state in this intervening time. Israel's ability to defend itself would not be so degraded in the time that these sanctions were in enforcement.
I disagree with your assumption that religious extremists in Israel would allow a change in the status quo. Remember the assassination of Rabin? Extremists are not rational and would not care about U.N. resolutions, this is common for both sides.
QUOTE (TagZ)
Any organized military action taken by Hammas against Israel would be internationally opposed in this theoretical global paradigm, just as an Israeli attempt to forcibly overthrow the Palestinian authority would be opposed. What would happen in this instance would be a notably more moderate Israel as a result of U.N. action, and thus a Palestinian people much less ready to support Hammas. Which, I am sure you will agree, would be a very welcome changes.
Who would oppose it? With Russia now involved they would veto any resolutions against Hammas.
QUOTE (TagZ)
This conclusion I have made might surprise you, as I believe you have constructed me to be a pro-Israeli party. On the contrary, I have simply argued in this thread that the U.S. support of Israel is not requisite for the existence of the state. I have never said that the destruction of one side of this conflict would be a good thing. Are you?
I am against intervention, surprise surprise. If our public decides for intervention policies then I believe they should be fair. If we give millions, weapons and training to Israel then we should do the same for Palestine. I don't believe we should take sides. The media constantly portrays Palestinian military action as terrorism, but that is because we did not train and give them F-22's. I have nothing for or against either people but if they choose to wipe each other off the map at least provide them with equal means to do so.
QUOTE (lv.elessar @ Mar 17 2008, 08:43 PM)
I am against intervention, surprise surprise. If our public decides for intervention policies then I believe they should be fair. If we give millions, weapons and training to Israel then we should do the same for Palestine. I don't believe we should take sides. The media constantly portrays Palestinian military action as terrorism, but that is because we did not train and give them F-22's. I have nothing for or against either people but if they choose to wipe each other off the map at least provide them with equal means to do so.
I will drink to that.
And I will also object to a previous post. Israel is not a democracy. It's a theocracy. The supreme law is not a civil law built as a Constitution, but the word of their holy texts. Anyone who looks at Iran for religious fundamentalism should look at Israel first, since it's a country that was built from the ground up as a fundamentalist state with not even the slightest attempt at secularism.
No.
Hamas still in opposition to Abbas's peace efforts. Hamas don't even recognize Israel, so not extremely surprising.
Cheney calls for painful concessions for Mideast peace
Cheney calls for painful concessions for Mideast peace
Well, to be perfectly fair, Israel was created against the will of the Arabs.
After WWI, the League of Nations approved a British mandate of Palestine in order to create a national, sovereign nation for the Jews which meant splitting Palestine into Jewish and Arab halves. The Arab League rejected the plan but in 1948 Israel declared its independence anyway. When the Arabs fought them, they lost, and Israel further expanded its borders into Arab territory (and outside of what was originally mandated by the U.N.)
So in reality, the nation of Israel was created regardless of how the Arabs felt about it, even though it affected them in major ways, and the League of Nations/U.N. just let it go at that, and didn't even punish Israel when it extended its borders outside of the mandate into Arab territory.
When a people are completely ignored and marginalized, they do the only they think is possible to retaliate. They obviously can't fight a war against the entire West, so they resort to terror. It's not right, but it's important to understand the history of the conflict.
After WWI, the League of Nations approved a British mandate of Palestine in order to create a national, sovereign nation for the Jews which meant splitting Palestine into Jewish and Arab halves. The Arab League rejected the plan but in 1948 Israel declared its independence anyway. When the Arabs fought them, they lost, and Israel further expanded its borders into Arab territory (and outside of what was originally mandated by the U.N.)
So in reality, the nation of Israel was created regardless of how the Arabs felt about it, even though it affected them in major ways, and the League of Nations/U.N. just let it go at that, and didn't even punish Israel when it extended its borders outside of the mandate into Arab territory.
When a people are completely ignored and marginalized, they do the only they think is possible to retaliate. They obviously can't fight a war against the entire West, so they resort to terror. It's not right, but it's important to understand the history of the conflict.
QUOTE (Mudget @ Mar 23 2008, 12:04 PM)
Well, to be perfectly fair, Israel was created against the will of the Arabs.
After WWI, the League of Nations approved a British mandate of Palestine in order to create a national, sovereign nation for the Jews which meant splitting Palestine into Jewish and Arab halves. The Arab League rejected the plan but in 1948 Israel declared its independence anyway. When the Arabs fought them, they lost, and Israel further expanded its borders into Arab territory (and outside of what was originally mandated by the U.N.)
So in reality, the nation of Israel was created regardless of how the Arabs felt about it, even though it affected them in major ways, and the League of Nations/U.N. just let it go at that, and didn't even punish Israel when it extended its borders outside of the mandate into Arab territory.
When a people are completely ignored and marginalized, they do the only they think is possible to retaliate. They obviously can't fight a war against the entire West, so they resort to terror. It's not right, but it's important to understand the history of the conflict.
After WWI, the League of Nations approved a British mandate of Palestine in order to create a national, sovereign nation for the Jews which meant splitting Palestine into Jewish and Arab halves. The Arab League rejected the plan but in 1948 Israel declared its independence anyway. When the Arabs fought them, they lost, and Israel further expanded its borders into Arab territory (and outside of what was originally mandated by the U.N.)
So in reality, the nation of Israel was created regardless of how the Arabs felt about it, even though it affected them in major ways, and the League of Nations/U.N. just let it go at that, and didn't even punish Israel when it extended its borders outside of the mandate into Arab territory.
When a people are completely ignored and marginalized, they do the only they think is possible to retaliate. They obviously can't fight a war against the entire West, so they resort to terror. It's not right, but it's important to understand the history of the conflict.
Actually this History of the land goes way back to King Solomon. 12 tribes led by Moses entered Cana'an from Egypt, even then Hebrews were already inhabiting the area. Over the next couple thousand years it had changed hands due to the crusades of both the persians, greeks, turks, you name it.
I think history is very important as you pointed out... but hell we killed off the Indians to inhabit America, I guess when someone backs the remaining Indians they may try to carve out a large piece for themselfs, or are the casinos enough?...
I for one will never be proud of how we got here.
In the mid-late 1990's I worked with politicians (especially Bill Richardson, who was very helpful) to get Native Americans a cut of the pie, by having oil pipelines go through some of their tribal lands in New Mexico (which would ensure them profit). All the work we did for four years was ended abruptly when Bush took office in 2000. We might get back to that if Dems take control of the White House and hold Congress again. Yeah, it's too little too late, but we owe them the effort.
Meanwhile, I don't celebrate July 4th. I usually hang with the native friends I worked with during that period.
In the mid-late 1990's I worked with politicians (especially Bill Richardson, who was very helpful) to get Native Americans a cut of the pie, by having oil pipelines go through some of their tribal lands in New Mexico (which would ensure them profit). All the work we did for four years was ended abruptly when Bush took office in 2000. We might get back to that if Dems take control of the White House and hold Congress again. Yeah, it's too little too late, but we owe them the effort.
Meanwhile, I don't celebrate July 4th. I usually hang with the native friends I worked with during that period.
I hear you, nothing wrong with taking time out to help people, done a ton of charity work myself... mostly for homeless in D.C. so hard to see people drive up & down streets while so many go without, about 80% of the people I worked with back in the late 80's are more than likely dead, some were Vets... helped to be able to relate to them.
As far as this topic, You have a Pro-Zionism & Anti-Zionism attitudes when it comes to claim on the land in Israel.
In one way, I like to be on the outside of this topic, just view the material. Not unlike an Independent voter that can laugh at Democrats & Republicans while they debate, even though their own cause is a laughing matter as well, however they jump in to stir the pot, any chance they get.
In this case I don't know what to think, history points to Hebrews having claim on this land far back as 2000 B.C. that an after watching a ton of Israeli Military shows & looking at the weapons they have I think the deck is stacked in their favor.
Often one seeks out the underdog in a fight, it is our nature to try to root for them, that being said,
I think someone in this thread said it best, that one or the other in this group needs to be eliminated to have "peace".
I do not see that happening anytime soon.
As far as this topic, You have a Pro-Zionism & Anti-Zionism attitudes when it comes to claim on the land in Israel.
In one way, I like to be on the outside of this topic, just view the material. Not unlike an Independent voter that can laugh at Democrats & Republicans while they debate, even though their own cause is a laughing matter as well, however they jump in to stir the pot, any chance they get.
In this case I don't know what to think, history points to Hebrews having claim on this land far back as 2000 B.C. that an after watching a ton of Israeli Military shows & looking at the weapons they have I think the deck is stacked in their favor.
Often one seeks out the underdog in a fight, it is our nature to try to root for them, that being said,
I think someone in this thread said it best, that one or the other in this group needs to be eliminated to have "peace".
I do not see that happening anytime soon.
Whoops I misspoke. I didn't help the push for an oil pipeline to go through Native American reservations in NM, it was a natural gas pipeline. Must have oil on the brain, just filled up my tank (yeesh).
I'm neither pro- nor anti-Zionist, I just get into history. I care as much about Jews as I care about Somalis as I care about Canadians as I care about Americans as I care about Native Americans as I care about Germans as I do about Palestinians and so on and so on.
I don't favor any ethnic group over any other. But I do get into history and if you just look at that, Israel acquired it's land in a way that ensured they would come under attack by Arabs for the next 100 years +
I know it goes back way further than this, but modern history is what matters the most to the situation. I do believe the two groups could co-exist if they were separated, like two feuding brothers.
So no, the concept of "eliminating" one of them being the only way for the conflict to end is ridiculous. But the notion of resettling either side also seems like an impossible task. The only option left is to have a world that continues supporting BOTH sides, and continues to encourage them both to sit down with one another and figure something out. It's happened tentatively many times before. Then the people themselves usually **** it up.
Instead of viewing suicide bombers as nationalists, or instead of viewing Israeli counterattacks with rockets on civilian populations as "defense", both sets of actions need to be regarded as CRIMINAL and treated as such by both governments and world democratic bodies such as the U.N. and the Arab League.
I'm neither pro- nor anti-Zionist, I just get into history. I care as much about Jews as I care about Somalis as I care about Canadians as I care about Americans as I care about Native Americans as I care about Germans as I do about Palestinians and so on and so on.
I don't favor any ethnic group over any other. But I do get into history and if you just look at that, Israel acquired it's land in a way that ensured they would come under attack by Arabs for the next 100 years +
I know it goes back way further than this, but modern history is what matters the most to the situation. I do believe the two groups could co-exist if they were separated, like two feuding brothers.
So no, the concept of "eliminating" one of them being the only way for the conflict to end is ridiculous. But the notion of resettling either side also seems like an impossible task. The only option left is to have a world that continues supporting BOTH sides, and continues to encourage them both to sit down with one another and figure something out. It's happened tentatively many times before. Then the people themselves usually **** it up.
Instead of viewing suicide bombers as nationalists, or instead of viewing Israeli counterattacks with rockets on civilian populations as "defense", both sets of actions need to be regarded as CRIMINAL and treated as such by both governments and world democratic bodies such as the U.N. and the Arab League.
QUOTE (Unfazed @ Mar 23 2008, 06:59 PM)
In this case I don't know what to think, history points to Hebrews having claim on this land far back as 2000 B.C.
History also taught us that the Jews built the Pyramids. However in a recent episode on National Geographic tv. archeologists dug up skeletons near the pyramids/buildingsites and these were not of Hebrew origin, but African (or Nubian).
They examined these skeletons and it would seem that these people were the true builders of the Pyramids.. as the joints between the bones of these skeletons were worn assumed to be the result of hard labour.
So history is kinda fcked up.
I'm not going to say the Hebrews weren't the first to inhabit the region now known as Israel, but most history from that time is documented in the Bible and the Torah and therefore doesn't give a total and maybe even not a correct view of how things were back then. Especially when you see how the Western world has done nothing to prevent Israel from increasing it's territory beyond the limits of the mandate that was given to them, I'd say it's not worthy of trusting.
However I will say that the Jewish people aren't the victims in the history of humankind that they would like us to believe.
and just to give some extra info.
I'm Bosnian.. and Muslim by origin, although I do not go to the Mosque or pray.
I do consider the Palestinians as my brothers though and I think they have been wronged greatly.....
I read this article this morning. It's interesting, not sure that Carter is taken seriously in some circles, but I commend him on his efforts to bring peace in the Israeli & Palestinian conflict.
Former President Jimmy Carter sat down with Hamas & seems to be speaking in an effort to get Israel to revert back to 1967 borders. Under the current borders which were pushed outward in some areas to make it geographically immune to attack would put Israel at risk, I believe if they tried to work together they could acheive a compromise.
Former President Jimmy Carter sat down with Hamas & seems to be speaking in an effort to get Israel to revert back to 1967 borders. Under the current borders which were pushed outward in some areas to make it geographically immune to attack would put Israel at risk, I believe if they tried to work together they could acheive a compromise.
1st of all we have the u.k and others to thank for this conflict,
at the end of the 2nd world war,
it when a little something like this.
what we going to do with all these jews, they have no where to go
i know we'll put them back it the Israeli.
that's where jewish people come from originally
but the muslim people live there already
they will not mind.
(now remember this is the holyland that many religions have been fighting over for thousands of years)
i don't really think it was a good move on the behalf of the jews people as there is now a big power struggle between them both and a very big split down the middle
i.e
northern ireland and also the republic of ireland has a wall to separate the both countrys.
at the end of the 2nd world war,
it when a little something like this.
what we going to do with all these jews, they have no where to go
i know we'll put them back it the Israeli.
that's where jewish people come from originally
but the muslim people live there already
they will not mind.
(now remember this is the holyland that many religions have been fighting over for thousands of years)
i don't really think it was a good move on the behalf of the jews people as there is now a big power struggle between them both and a very big split down the middle
i.e
northern ireland and also the republic of ireland has a wall to separate the both countrys.
It is a never ending struggle in the middle east, this one will go on forever, no amount of discussion will help in the short run but in time maybe the next generation will learn to respect their neighbors.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.