Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good point, figure out where you want to go before you chose a map.

[9th Engineer]

Islamic moderates are either very weak (in the sense of ability to retain, control and direct political power) or very cowardly. The only way they can have any influence is if we fund the payrole of their country??? We already pay for half the hellhole dumps in the world so that the incompetant (must be)
moderates there don't get replaced by psychopaths. I suppose this is nothing supprising after watching all the peace loving Islamic institutions in the US balk at calling the 'fringe extremists' what they are. I want to see these people show some backbone before I'll give them any respect.

[Hippikos]

"complete strangers" - the Jews were already there and a substantial majority

Interesting how the Zionist propaganda can distort reality. There was no majority of Jews in Palestine when Herzl started the Zionist movement in 1896 with his book “Der Judenstaat”. During that time less than 5% of the population in Palestine was Jewish.

"would take over her house" - have the UN partition the area previously partitioned by everyone else because it was useless and unwanted

It certainly was not useless and unwanted for the people who lived there originally and see their land being giving away to strangers because of some improper feel of guilty.

"exiled her to the backyard shed" - because she refuses to share the area peacefully

What would you do if your land and house was taken away by strangers?

"and even there has to give up half of that living space" - after she unilaterally attacks them

Again, sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. You cannot invade and occupy land without risking action from the opposite party. But I understand that’s difficult to grasp for people whos land has never been occupied.

Zionist propaganda never stops to point out that the Arabs want to destroy the State of Israel using this as a tool to establish the Greater State of Israel.

Fact is that if Israel wants peace with its Arab neighbours then it can achieve it.

In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006).

Peace can be achieved in the ME if Israel really wants. They and US are calling the shots but instead use every excuse to inflame the situation (Lebanon) even when it means that it foolishly hurt their own position.

This is what Israeli Zeev Maoz (Ha'aretz, July 24) wrote, the "wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral waris based on selective and short-term memory, on an introverted world view, and on double standards." The reasons include the Israeli practice of kidnapping and the almost daily violations of the Lebanese border for surveillance: "a border violation is a border violation." The reasons also include the historical record: the four earlier Israeli invasions since 1978, and their grim consequences for Lebanese. And we should also not forget the pretexts. The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel repeatedly carried out bombing and other provocations in Lebanon, apparently trying to elicit some PLO violation of the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the pretext of the assassination attempt against Ambassador Argov (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out. It was, as described at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hezbollah had violated "the rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had no more credible pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.

Zionists always complains about violence, in the meantime being guilty of constant provocation, violence, brutalilty, racism and surpression themselves.

[MaggieL]

Clearly the two sides each have their own propiganda...I mean...versions of the history. No agreement will ever be reached on who are truly the aggrieved parties.

But again we're describing a desired process ("...if Israel really wants it...negotiation of all outstanding issues...stop inflaming the situation...") rather than that end state. And I think it's because there isn't one; there must always be an excuse to come back for yet another slice of the salami in 18-36 months.

And the purpose of "the process" seems to be "Tell us what tangible adavantage you will give us in return for finely-crafted words with escape clauses of equal workmanship? We promise absolutely the next group that attacks you will have a completely different name; after all, we cannot control the righteous anger of these people who have been wronged; they are acting on their own and we don't control them..." The shell game again....including "don't listen to Ahmadenijad, Khamenei is actually in charge".

Tell me...does that "full normalization" include "recognition of the right to exist"? If it does, why doesn't it say so? How about "two-state solution"? (two-states side by side with one bombing the other is not a "solution", no matter who you think "started it this time"...another shell game). Also "agreement with the Arab nations" or "international consensus"? Those include *everybody* leaving Israel in peace?

After you sell the same rug twenty or thirty times, everybody in the bazzar has seen it...

[Undertoad]

Interesting how the Zionist propaganda can distort reality. There was no majority of Jews in Palestine when Herzl started the Zionist movement in 1896 with his book “Der Judenstaat”. During that time less than 5% of the population in Palestine was Jewish.

And by 1947, a large majority.

Now gee. Where did all those Jews come from? I can't remember - was there some reason, during the first half of the last century, for Jews to leave their various countries and find someplace to live?

Care to tell us which European country you're from, H-kos?

Oh yes and you forgot your endline again

"...and that is why international terrorism is justified."

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't know what country he's from but obviously living in Amsterdam...cheap, plentiful and legal.


The Jews, throughout history, have had some problems in Rome, Greece, Persia, Iberia, Russia, Poland, lots of places, for whatever reasons. Most likely, just being different was enough.
So after WWII, it sounded like a good idea to give them some worthless desert in the middle of nowhere. Out of sight, out of mind and out of everyone's hair.

Unfortunately, there probably isn't a worse place they could have created the Jewish State..... in the midst of the most unreasonable, intolerant, backward, oppressive, savages on Earth. A people that had obliterated their once thriving, prosperous civilization and wants to destroy everyone else's too.
The Jews would have been better off living among the cannibal headhunters in the South Pacific.
Ah, 20-20 hindsight...too late now, they are where they are and I doubt they would move willingly even of they had a place to move to.

How will it play out?
Will they be able to negotiate a true, live and let live, peace settlement ?

Will they reach a stalemate across a heavily guarded DMZ, like Korea?

Will it require the UN (or equivalent) to keep them apart permanently.

Will one side win, ie, eliminate the opposition?

Will it keep festering and spreading until the world is two armed camps?

Will this lead to the elimination of civilization, as we know it?

Should I hit on Joe's wife before the end comes?

[Hippikos]

The ones you started, or just the ones you regularly visit?

So, history starts in 1947? Before that it's a black hole? Even in 1947 the Jews were in minority (third of the population).

Now gee. Where did all those Jews come from? I can't remember - was there some reason, during the first half of the last century, for Jews to leave their various countries and find someplace to live?

Now gee, the Jews want their own country, lets steal it from somebody else. I wanna live your house UT, you let me? The planning of colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine originated already before the Holocaust. Herzl and the "Der Judenstat", remember?

Care to tell us which European country you're from, H-kos?

A completely superfluous question UT and a nice way to divert the discussion. As a board owner you know perfectly well that I'm from the Netherlands, so we know how it is to be occupied.

"...and that is why international terrorism is justified."

NO terrorism is justified, from nobody, inc Israel. Soeme say one's freedom fighter ist the other's terrorist. Most of Israel's PM's started their carreer as terrorist.

Maggie, again, Israel can have perfectly peace if it wants to. But that means concessions and it don't want to give in a single square inch. Like in 1948, they want Pax Israel, putting the Palestians in bantustans deprived from every land source and governed by the politician Israel chooses. Would YOU accept that?

I don't know what country he's from but obviously living in Amsterdam...cheap, plentiful and legal.

Wow what an argument, resorting to your guts again, Brucey? Any relation with the Israel/Palestine conflict?

So after WWII, it sounded like a good idea to give them some worthless desert in the middle of nowhere. Out of sight, out of mind and out of everyone's hair.

Another victim of the Zionist propaganda. This was not a white spot on the map, people lived there, for centuries.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Maggie, again, Israel can have perfectly peace if it wants to. But that means concessions...

Again.

The price of peace is always "just a few concessions"...and then there's another war, with the next shell in the game.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat...

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

So, history starts in 1947? Before that it's a black hole? Even in 1947 the Jews were in minority (third of the population).

The Jews were in the majority of the land partitioned to Israel by the UN.

The official UN estimate was 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs (a number that included Christians, Bedouins, Druze, and others).

The planning of colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine originated already before the Holocaust. Herzl and the "Der Judenstat", remember?

I'm sorry, when you say "Palestine", are you referring to British land which they intended as a Jewish homeland?

Originally Posted by Arthur J. Balfour

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

Sure, in hindsight, one might say that was a huge mistake. Personally, I think it would have been a better outcome if ALL the European Jews decided to move there in 1917. See, if they had only done that, they would still have a chance at being alive in 1947. Unfortunately they faced pogroms in Palestine so I'm sure many Jews weren't convinced it was safe.

People might compare your map with this one. This map is 1947, yours begins in 1948. The difference was a war, in which the side that started the war lost.



People might notice how the orange areas coincide with the blue areas on your map.

Does history begin in 1947? No it sure doesn't; nor in 1917, nor 1948, nor 1967. We can go back further to how the whole concept of colonization no longer worked in the 20th century, and how the world had to wreak havoc for a while to settle on what it is now, and how this is the last vestage of that old problem.

But the best thing for all concerned would be if they would just sit down and shut the fuck up. All the land Israel has gained since the orange areas on that map are due to initially-defensive wars. The land Israel has gained has been the land from which they were attacked. If the Arabs would have sat down and shut up in 1947, they would have not only a state but a huge and great one. Instead they have been used, over and over again.

[richlevy]

Basically, the British screwed up in Israel and Kashmir by leaving things half-done. The UN had to finish up in Palestine. The India/Pakistan split worked out much better, and occurred a few months before the Palestine partition.

The Arab League had the chance to accept the partition at that time, and had the example of Pakistan, but decided to refuse.

[Hippikos]

The Jews were in the majority of the land partitioned to Israel by the UN.

The official UN estimate was 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs (a number that included Christians, Bedouins, Druze, and others).

Palestine was inhabited by 2/3 Arabs and 1/3 Jews at the time of the division. Which btw was rejected by the Brits. Israel has declared the State of Israel unilaterally as it has always imposed all new borders, unilaterally.

I'm sorry, when you say "Palestine", are you referring to British land which they intended as a Jewish homeland?

The Zionist movement knew where to concentrate their lobby Weizmann having close ties to Lloyd George and Balfour. Given this context then, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 can be seen as an effective tool for Britain to serve multiple ends. Seen through British eyes and from the perspective of late 1917, it would serve as a powerful propaganda tool aimed at the world’s Jewish community in hopes of securing additional financial support – cash contributions, loans, grants - to fill the depleted coffers of the Allied governments. Secondly, it would effectively preempt Germany’s ongoing efforts to enlist both informal and formal support from the Zionist movement. In a very real sense whichever side issued such a declaration first would effectively preclude any positive impact of the other side's efforts.

Unfortunately they faced pogroms in Palestine so I'm sure many Jews weren't convinced it was safe.

Palestine was not safe for nobody. Jews were never shy to use terrorism to obtain their goal. Neither Brits nor Arabs were save for their terrorism. Google on Irgun, Hagganah, Stern Gang and you'll find some interesting names.

Whatever year is used, fact is that hundreds of thousands Palestines whos families lived there were ethnic cleansed, exiled, prisoned and live in reservates with no future, just for living here.

If the Arabs would have sat down and shut up in 1947,

I asked before and I ask again, would YOU have shut up if your house was confiscated?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Palestine was inhabited by 2/3 Arabs and 1/3 Jews at the time of the division.

And again, the portion allotted to Israel was majority Jews.

Israel has declared the State of Israel unilaterally as it has always imposed all new borders, unilaterally.

Where "unilaterally" means "for defensive purposes, took the land via which they were attacked in a war, without asking the attackers their preference."

The withdrawl from Gaza was unilateral in the more traditional sense of the term. Unilateral Israeli withdrawl? That REALLY doesn't match your worldview, so you can't even see it, can you?

I asked before and I ask again, would YOU have shut up if your house was confiscated?

"...and that's why international terrorism is justified."

[Ibby]

I dont know what I believe is the ideal solution, I honestly don't know enough about the situation (I know a lot, but I dont know if ANYONE knows enough to say), but I think the practical solution at this point is for Palestine to give up and just move to Jordan or Lebanon or somewhere nearby. They wont like it, but they dont like it now anyway, eh?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

...but I think the practical solution at this point is for Palestine to give up and just move to Jordan...

Weren't they supposed to have done that before?

[Hippikos]

I never said "just a few consessions".

Israel has never made any serious attempt to make peace, except for Rabin, who was subsequently murdered by a religious Jewish fanatic, go figure...