Lebanon Hates Palestinians Too!

[Der Übermensch]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/21/lebanon.violence/index.html

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Smoke billowed Monday from a Palestinian refugee camp as Lebanese forces battled Islamic militants for a second day near the northern city of Tripoli. The clashes have left dozens dead and wounded.

The fighting was sparked Sunday when Lebanese Internal Security Forces raided a building in a neighborhood north of Tripoli, army sources said.

Militants from Fatah al-Islam began shooting at the forces, who returned fire, triggering clashes in the vicinity of the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp.

Lebanese Internal Security Forces arrested four militants and found the bodies of 10 militants inside the building where they had barricaded themselves, an ISF spokesman said. Explosives were strapped to two bodies.

Security forces conducted the raid after Fatah al-Islam members tried to rob a bank Sunday and "take control of several security strongholds in the north, as if they were planning to carry out a major security operation," according to Ahmad Fatfat, a member of parliament and minister of youth and sports in Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's Cabinet.

Nahr al-Bared is about nine miles (16 kilometers) north of Tripoli, Lebanon's second-largest city that is home to a large population of Sunni Muslims. (Facts on refugee camps)

The battle near the camp continued into Monday, killing 27 Lebanese soldiers and wounding 39 others. At least 15 militants have been killed in the clashes, security sources said.

Among the dead militants was Saddam al Hajj Dib, the sources said. Dib -- along with his brother, cousin and three other men -- was being tried in absentia in a Lebanese court for plotting to bomb two passenger trains in Germany in July. The bombs did not explode.

Nice to see someone other than Israel bombing refugee camps for once, although I'll bet that Lebanon doesn't draw nearly as much flak for it.

[Dr Hooch]

They will if zero comes here.

[loathed]

interesting...hmmm.

[MattyBlade]

I know like 5 familes from lebanon IRL and they're all super nice people. :D

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

the lebanese government really isn't so bad. the problem is that it's a very weak government that really only has any semblance of power in the northern half (half? third? two-thirds? anyway, you get my point) of the country. I know a lot of moderate lebanese people who would not dare go to the southern part of the country, with the rest being all but officially ruled by Hezbollah or spin-offs of it. That's why Israel felt the need to go into Lebanon last summer - they didn't even really have any beef with the Lebanese government itself, they were just fed up with its weakness and inaction and tried to take care of things themselves. Lebanon is almost like a country within a country, with parts moderate and reasonable and others chaotic and radical.

So yeah. Lebanon has been struggling with radical Muslims since before its civil war. No real surprise there. I couldn't gather too many details from the article, but the only surprise might be that they'd try to take care of business in a Palestinian refugee camp.

[Light Fantastic]

Nice to see someone other than Israel bombing refugee camps for once, although I'll bet that Lebanon doesn't draw nearly as much flak for it.Where do you see the use of explosives on the refugee camp by Lebanese forces anywhere in this article?

There is one mention of a bombing, completely unrelated to the refugee camp, and it came with this:


The political sources said the explosion was an attempt by Syria to sow seeds of instability ahead of the Security Council deliberations.

[Der Übermensch]

Way to miss the sarcasm...

[Light Fantastic]

Well it was horribly done, you sound like zero and he's completely serious while talking like this. I don't know you that well, so not sure how I was supposed to tell but ok then I guess.

.-.

[Der Übermensch]

Well it was horribly done, you sound like zero and he's completely serious while talking like this. I don't know you that well, so not sure how I was supposed to tell but ok then I guess.

.-.

Well, I am relatively pro Israel I'll admit, but I do try to look at it objectivly. I have a number of relatives who live in Beruit, so I can't identify well enough with both sides really.

While I realise that obviously my thread title is hyperbolic, I do find it interesting that Lebanon can operate in the camps without the same out cry Israel receives.

[gregulus]

Well, I am relatively pro Israel I'll admit, but I do try to look at it objectivly. I have a number of relatives who live in Beruit, so I can't identify well enough with both sides really.

While I realise that obviously my thread title is hyperbolic, I do find it interesting that Lebanon can operate in the camps without the same out cry Israel receives.

it's because they aren't israel.

[StreetlightRock]

The Lebanese treatment of Palestinians in their camps are horrible anyway. I'm surprised that fighting has only really happened now. The conditions they live under are atrocious - http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE183032004

[Der Übermensch]

it's because they aren't israel.


Well obviously :p

Israel often gets a harder rap than it deserves.

And Dannyboy, it aint their fault (It's Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon's...)

[italic zero]

i thought it was britain's fault

[Reaganista]

Well obviously :p

Israel often gets a harder rap than it deserves.

And Dannyboy, it aint their fault (It's Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon's...)

israel's...

[Der Übermensch]

Israel was created with half the territory they now have. A seperate Palestine was also created, and Jeruselem was made an international zone.
The day it was created, the afore mentioned nations all attacked Israel. Israel counter attacked, and was provided with a justifiable raison d'etat to expand its borders past the original designations.
If they had just left Israel alone at the beginning, there is a good chance Israel wouldn't have tried to expand, or if they did unprovoked, they probably would have been stopped by international force.

[Surgicalgod]

The Palestinians get treated the way they deserve to be treated. They don't deserve any better.
Good, those swine need to be destroyed.

ban pls

it's because they aren't israel.


no, it's because the lebanese army isn't targeting civilians.

But seriously, wtf is wrong with the lebanese government? They're shooting down the plane to kill the hijacker. Fatah Al-Islam has nothing to do with Palestinians, btw. In fact, they have several Lebanese, Syrian, Saudi, etc.. members among their ranks. I'm pretty sure that if Fatah Al-Islam were hiding out in downtown Beirut, the Lebanese government would have resorted to more peaceful methods.

I've had it with the Lebanese government and how they get away with these discriminatory acts that are even in violation of their own constitution.

Israel was created with half the territory they now have. A seperate Palestine was also created, and Jeruselem was made an international zone.
The day it was created, the afore mentioned nations all attacked Israel. Israel counter attacked, and was provided with a justifiable raison d'etat to expand its borders past the original designations.
If they had just left Israel alone at the beginning, there is a good chance Israel wouldn't have tried to expand, or if they did unprovoked, they probably would have been stopped by international force.

It's still Israel's fault because they're illegally occupying territory. What you said is irrelevant.

[Mr. Ron]

The Palestinians get treated the way they deserve to be treated. They don't deserve any better.

Ummm, please think before you post.

[italic zero]

yeah those two comments together are probably temp-banworthy

[Surgicalgod]

i reported tbh

[Der Übermensch]

ban pls
We agree on one thing at least...



It's still Israel's fault because they're illegally occupying territory. What you said is irrelevant.
They are hardly blameless in this, but to lump it all on them is a gross over statement. If their neighbors had just left them alone in the first place, the area would be a lot better off for all parties involved.

[Dannyboy15]

ban pls




no, it's because the lebanese army isn't targeting civilians.

But seriously, wtf is wrong with the lebanese government? They're shooting down the plane to kill the hijacker. Fatah Al-Islam has nothing to do with Palestinians, btw. In fact, they have several Lebanese, Syrian, Saudi, etc.. members among their ranks. I'm pretty sure that if Fatah Al-Islam were hiding out in downtown Beirut, the Lebanese government would have resorted to more peaceful methods.

I've had it with the Lebanese government and how they get away with these discriminatory acts that are even in violation of their own constitution.



It's still Israel's fault because they're illegally occupying territory. What you said is irrelevant.

Ban this user please he supports terrorism.

[Surgicalgod]

are you, by any chance, serenity's son/drummer/dead sister?

They are hardly blameless in this, but to lump it all on them is a gross over statement. If their neighbors had just left them alone in the first place, the area would be a lot better off for all parties involved.

Imagine Germany getting attacked by armies of Islamic terrorists. It would be pretty sad if the EU countries and the whole international community just stand there and watch the German people get slaughtered.

[Der Übermensch]

Imagine Germany getting attacked by armies of Islamic terrorists. It would be pretty sad if the EU countries and the whole international community just stand there and watch the German people get slaughtered.
Imagine Israel getting attacked by every neighboring nation + some other's to boot and the international community standing back and just watching...
oh... wait...

[Reaganista]

If their neighbors had just left them alone in the first place, the area would be a lot better off for all parties involved.
irony

[pedro durruti]

Israel was created with half the territory they now have. A seperate Palestine was also created, and Jeruselem was made an international zone.
The day it was created, the afore mentioned nations all attacked Israel. Israel counter attacked, and was provided with a justifiable raison d'etat to expand its borders past the original designations.
If they had just left Israel alone at the beginning, there is a good chance Israel wouldn't have tried to expand, or if they did unprovoked, they probably would have been stopped by international force.
Why was expanding its borders justified?

[Iskandar]

Why was expanding its borders justified?Arguably, because it won that territory in a war fought in self-defense.

[Reaganista]

that's a weak argument

[Iskandar]

that's a weak argumentYeah, I didn't make it. I just stated the commonly cited argument to justify Israel's seizure of extraneous territory.

[Reaganista]

you could argue that god wants them to live there

[Iskandar]

you could argue that god wants them to live thereYeah. I'm afraid only Orthodox rabbis, and Zero, are going to buy that though.

[Surgicalgod]

Imagine Israel getting attacked by every neighboring nation + some other's to boot and the international community standing back and just watching...
oh... wait...

ok, just remember that israel is the violator so everything that happens to them is really their fault.

[Smokey D]

Why do the historic claims of the Palestinians matter more than the (arguably newer and thus more relevant) historic claims of the Israelis?

[Hababi]

Arguably, because it won that territory in a war fought in self-defense.

Unless you want the US to give back the Southwest, and Canada to give a great deal of land back to the Indians, absolutely. The total land Israel has, today, is still very small within the region, and the Palestinians won't be happy till there is no Israel.

[ringworm]

ok, just remember that israel is the violator so everything that happens to them is really their fault.
lol, and where does mentality get you?

nvrmd, thats whats wrong with that area now

its your fault

no, its your fault


kaboom


wash, rinse, repeat

[Der Übermensch]

Why was expanding its borders justified?

Because they were the ones attacked. Generaly speaking, the person attacked is seen as the just cause, or at least the justified cause...
Israel was attacked, counter attacked, and took land - its right as the victor. There's nothing even illegal in that action really. It's legitimate under the generally accepted 'laws' of war.


ok, just remember that israel is the violator so everything that happens to them is really their fault.
Well, you'll only be happy if Israel doesn't exist at all. I think that the original Bi state Jewish/Palestinian plan was a perfectly reasonable one that no one should really should have had a beef with.... Except their anti-semetic neighbors apparently...

[pedro durruti]

Because they were the ones attacked. Generaly speaking, the person attacked is seen as the just cause, or at least the justified cause...
Israel was attacked, counter attacked, and took land - its right as the victor. There's nothing even illegal in that action really. It's legitimate under the generally accepted 'laws' of war.
But was it not at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians?

[Der Übermensch]

Point? War results in deaths, no matter how worthy the cause may be.
I'm not saying its great that many Palestinians were killed or made refugees, the only point I'm making is that its just as much the fault of their supposed protectors, if not more so. They'd still have a homeland if the 1948 War hadn't happened, and that most definitly wasn't started by Israeli aggresion.

[pedro durruti]

My point is that Israeli counter-aggression is illegitimate because it put Palestineans into the same position Israel was previously in. Would Canada be right in invading and occupying England after attacked by them?

[Dr Hooch]

ok, just remember that israel is the violator so everything that happens to them is really their fault.

Well that attitude can only lead to stability and peace in the middle east can't it

I mean it's certaintly not going to cause more deaths, civilian and military for btoh sides thinking like that is it






:rolleyes:

Next thing you'll be saying Israel should've gassed a bunch of german civilians after WWII right? Serves those Kraut bastards right, they started it?

[Der Übermensch]

My point is that Israeli counter-aggression is illegitimate because it put Palestineans into the same position Israel was previously in.
Thats a completly different issue. I too think its wrong for Israel to have disenfranchised the Palestinians; but it doesn't mean Israel wasn't given a mandate to do so...

Would Canada be right in invading and occupying England after attacked by them?

Yes, if England invaded Canada, and the mounties beat them off, I would see nothing wrong with Canada than bringing the fight to England.
...Although since Canada is a commonwealth nation, with the Queen as its head of state, the improbability of that is beyond astronomical...

[Dr Hooch]

Yes, if England invaded Canada, and the mounties beat them off, I would see nothing wrong with Canada than bringing the fight to England.
...Although since Canada is a commonwealth nation, with the Queen as its head of state, the improbability of that is beyond astronomical...

Probability has nothing to do with it; you holding this opinion, IMO, makes you kinda crazy.

[Der Übermensch]

You think its crazy that an injured party can seek restitution?

[Smokey D]

Unless you want the US to give back the Southwest, and Canada to give a great deal of land back to the Indians, absolutely. The total land Israel has, today, is still very small within the region, and the Palestinians won't be happy till there is no Israel.

The situation being slightly different because the Palestinians aren't part of any of the nations which attacked Israel. It's more like Mexico attacking the US and America annexing Cuba.

[Surgicalgod]

Next thing you'll be saying Israel should've gassed a bunch of german civilians after WWII right? Serves those Kraut bastards right, they started it?

No, because WWII would have been over and it would be foolish to start a fresh cycle of violence by seeking revenge. In our case;however, the Palestinians are under intense oppression, violence, and systematic discrimination; it's only logical to hate the oppressor and fight back. Everyone seems to forget that the Israeli state is racist and doesn't really care about Palestinian civilians.

Well, you'll only be happy if Israel doesn't exist at all. I think that the original Bi state Jewish/Palestinian plan was a perfectly reasonable one that no one should really should have had a beef with.... Except their anti-semetic neighborsapparently...

Of course, since Arab hatred towards the Zionists was exclusively because of their ethnicity.

[Reaganista]

Unless you want the US to give back the Southwest, and Canada to give a great deal of land back to the Indians, absolutely. The total land Israel has, today, is still very small within the region, and the Palestinians won't be happy till there is no Israel.
mexico wouldnt exist to give the southwest back to because it wouldve been returned to the mexica aztecs
who wouldve returned it to the people of teotihuacan
who would have to give it back to people who dont exist anymore

there is a huge difference between ancient wars of extermination and present ones
we can look at the present ones and say 'hey stop that'

[Der Übermensch]

The situation being slightly different because the Palestinians aren't part of any of the nations which attacked Israel. It's more like Mexico attacking the US and America annexing Cuba.
The West Bank was under the jurisdiction of Jordan. It's no different than when we declared war on Spain and took Puerto Rico.

(Yes though, I realise the West Bank isn't the only disputed territory)



Of course, since Arab hatred towards the Zionists was exclusively because of their ethnicity.

Combined with their religious beliefs... Do you dispute that the major reason they declared war had to do with the fact that the new nation had a Jewish identity?

[Smokey D]

The West Bank was under the jurisdiction of Jordan. It's no different than when we declared war on Spain and took Puerto Rico.

(Yes though, I realise the West Bank isn't the only disputed territory)

By under the jurisdiction of do you mean under the control or legally part of Jordan?

[Der Übermensch]

I'm not sure what the legal terming of the whole thing was, but I know that Jordan had official responsibility for running the place, and it was under their protection.

Edit: Jordan annexed it, but the UK was the only major power to recognize this.
Either way though, Jordan viewed it as part of its own territory.

I'll also quote this from Wikipedia to illistrate my point.
Following the outbreak of the Six Day War in June 1967, Israel warned King Hussein not to join Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser in opening a new front against Israel in the West Bank. Nevertheless, in accordance with its mutual defense treaty with Egypt, Jordan initiated artillery fire on Israeli positions in West Jerusalem. The Israel Defense Forces counter-attacked and heavy urban fighting ensued.

(Italics mine)
Jordan willfully engaged in those actions, and should accept the consequences.

[Smokey D]

That's quite different to being a legitimate target for annexation.

Puerto Rico actually being part of the Spanish empire makes it a little different.

[Hababi]

The situation being slightly different because the Palestinians aren't part of any of the nations which attacked Israel. It's more like Mexico attacking the US and America annexing Cuba.

As part of the treaty following the Spanish America War, the US got several pieces of land that were merely occupied, not rightfully owned by, Spain. And the Spanish-American war was based largely on a faulty allegation.

Palestinians weren't part of the formal group of countries that was attacking Israel, but they had been engaging in organized terrorism against Israel long before it, so I don't see the difference in the situation. Plus they allowed their land to be used for offense against Israel.

[Smokey D]

Long before it? Israel didn't exist long before 1948.

[Hababi]

Long before it? Israel didn't exist long before 1948.

I thought you were referring to the 60's. But Palestinian terrorism started virtually with the inception of Israel. The objection is to the existence of Israel, which Farfur illustrates.

[Der Übermensch]

That's quite different to being a legitimate target for annexation.

Puerto Rico actually being part of the Spanish empire makes it a little different.
I'd say PR's status under Spain was at least comparable to the West Banks under Jordan.


I thought you were referring to the 60's. But Palestinian terrorism started virtually with the inception of Israel. The objection is to the existence of Israel, which Farfur illustrates.
Well Israelis... err, Jews rather... were engaging in terrorism before Israel was founded, so it isn't the best thing to brin gup really.

[Hababi]

Well Israelis... err, Jews rather... were engaging in terrorism before Israel was founded, so it isn't the best thing to brin gup really.

There are several significant differences there, not the least of which is that unlike with that lone Jewish terrorist incident, Palestinian terrorism has been widespread, consistent, and enjoyed the popular support of the Palestinian people.

[Surgicalgod]

Defending one's country terrorism? The Palestinians were attacking invaders who drove them out of their homes, how is that terrorism?


Combined with their religious beliefs... Do you dispute that the major reason they declared war had to do with the fact that the new nation had a Jewish identity?

Of course, what are you talking about? You think if Israel were a Christian state then nobody would have attacked it?

[metalkingtiger]

As part of the treaty following the Spanish America War, the US got several pieces of land that were merely occupied, not rightfully owned by, Spain. And the Spanish-American war was based largely on a faulty allegation.

Palestinians weren't part of the formal group of countries that was attacking Israel, but they had been engaging in organized terrorism against Israel long before it, so I don't see the difference in the situation. Plus they allowed their land to be used for offense against Israel.

Puerto Rico was on a colonial status with Spain and it passed again to a colonial status with the U.S.

[spitfirejunky]

You think its crazy that an injured party can seek restitution?

When it's at the expense of a completely unrelated party, yes.

[Dr Hooch]

You think its crazy that an injured party can seek restitution?

Palestine was injured when Israel was formed in the first place... So with that logic they had a right to invade Israel in the first place.

[Der Übermensch]

[quote]Of course, what are you talking about? You think if Israel were a Christian state then nobody would have attacked it?

If it were a Islamic State would they have?

When it's at the expense of a completely unrelated party, yes.
Except that most of the territory wasn't unrelated. The West Bank was Jordans, the Golan Heights were Syrian, and the Sinai was Egypt (of course they gave that back).

Palestine was injured when Israel was formed in the first place... So with that logic they had a right to invade Israel in the first place.
There was no Palestine. There was a British Mandate of Palestine.

[spitfirejunky]

Except that most of the territory wasn't unrelated. The West Bank was Jordans, the Golan Heights were Syrian, and the Sinai was Egypt (of course they gave that back).

You're speaking after the fact that Israel has been established. Address Dr Hooch's post.

And situation aside, rarely can an injured party seek restitution without injuring another party.

[shaqadelic]

If it were a Islamic State would they have?


Yes, without doubt. The opposition towards Israel by the Arabs is caused by the dislike of colonialism - Israel is seen as an agent of that -. If an Islamic state played Israel's role, it will too take the image of the colonialist and thus, face opposition that will lead it to being attacked.

mexico wouldnt exist to give the southwest back to because it wouldve been returned to the mexica aztecs
who wouldve returned it to the people of teotihuacan
who would have to give it back to people who dont exist anymore

there is a huge difference between ancient wars of extermination and present ones
we can look at the present ones and say 'hey stop that'

Good point.

[Der Übermensch]

You're speaking after the fact that Israel has been established. Address Dr Hooch's post.
I assume you are referring to the difference between the 1947 Plan and the 1949 Armistice?
Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza) were occupying more land that was supposed to be the Palestinian State then was Israel. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank within a year of occupying it. Why would Israel be forced to relinquish it's Palestinian territories when Jordan was blatantly taking control of its own?

Yes, without doubt. The opposition towards Israel by the Arabs is caused by the dislike of colonialism - Israel is seen as an agent of that -. If an Islamic state played Israel's role, it will too take the image of the colonialist and thus, face opposition that will lead it to being attacked.
That is bullshit. If an Arab state had been created, the neigboring nations wouldn't have attackd, and its ludicrous to say otherwise. The main factor was that the state was Jewish.

[Dr Hooch]

That is bullshit. If an Arab state had been created, the neigboring nations wouldn't have attackd, and its ludicrous to say otherwise. The main factor was that the state was Jewish.

I think the situation would've been resolved by now but still I'm sure there'd've been retaliation.

It's not like Arab nations never fight...

[Der Übermensch]

No, they do fight... Iran and Iraq were a prime example of that. But they wouldn't have declared war within 24 hours of the creation of a state called Islamistan or something, and shaq is an idiot if he honestly believes otherwise.

His reasoning is idiotic. "The opposition towards Israel by theArabs is caused by the dislike of colonialism" The only nation involved that WASN'T created from a colonial possession was Egypt (which regardless was still a protectorate of Britain anyways). Jordan was part of British Mandate. Syria was French Mandate, as was Lebanon. Iraq was a British protectorate... the Hashamite monarchy was propped up by them...
So, OBVIOULSY, colonialism wasn't the issue, as almost all the nations involved were direct creations of colonial intervention.

[Iskandar]

So, OBVIOULSY, colonialism wasn't the issue, as almost all the nations involved were direct creations of colonial intervention.That was why they hated and still do hate the thought of a foreign entity entrenching upon Arab land, because they had just recently been freed from Western imperialism.

[Der Übermensch]

Thats not the point. My point is that its only because the state was Jewish. If the colonial creation was an Arab state, they wouldn't object to its mere existence.
It's a byproduct of colonialism, but colonialism isn't the problem itself is. Anti-semitism is.

[Surgicalgod]

First of all if Israel was an Arab state, they wouldn't have ethnically cleansed 530 Palestinian villages. But if your assumption is only limited to the religion/nature of the state, then yes I do think the same thing would have happened. The Palestinians killed hundreds of Lebanese militants defending their camps, what makes you think they wouldn't have done the same thing to defend their homeland?

[Smokey D]

I'd say PR's status under Spain was at least comparable to the West Banks under Jordan.

Well, who says PR was a legitimate target for annexation anyway?

The difference between that situation and Israel-Palestine being that most Puerto Ricons want to stay as affiliated with the US.

Also, anti-Semitism probably didn't play a role in the initial rejection of Israel. As Italic says, it was more likely xenophobia -- Arabs wouldn't have attacked an Arab state not because it wasn't Jewish but because it wasn't different.

Today, however, I think anti-Semitism as something distinct has merged with the ideologies which call for the destruction of Israel.

[italic zero]

Thats not the point. My point is that its only because the state was Jewish. If the colonial creation was an Arab state, they wouldn't object to its mere existence.
It's a byproduct of colonialism, but colonialism isn't the problem itself is. Anti-semitism is.
I don't think you can call it specifically anti-semitism. If it's anything, it's xenophobia.

[Der Übermensch]

First of all if Israel was an Arab state, they wouldn't have ethnically cleansed 530 Palestinian villages.
No, they just would have ethnically cleansed all the Jewish ones instead.

But if your assumption is only limited to the religion/nature of the state, then yes I do think the same thing would have happened. The Palestinians killed hundreds of Lebanese militants defending their camps, what makes you think they wouldn't have done the same thing to defend their homeland?
So to be clear, you honestly believe that Egpyt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia would have immediatly declared war and invaded the nation created on May 15th, where Israel stands, if that nation had an Arab/Palestinian identity?

I don't think you can call it specifically anti-semitism. If it's anything, it's xenophobia.
But the whole point I'm making is that the key factor was their Jewish identity. I'll use anti-Jewishness if you prefer (lets not debate the semantics of semitics...)

[italic zero]

i think the same thing would've happened if they were confucian, except the arab countries wouldn't have had as rich a tradition of discrimination to draw upon

[Der Übermensch]

Sure - I would agree... but Confucianism isn't Islamic either, so I don't see how it advances your argument.

You all say the religious identity doesn't matter, but as far as I can tell you are all just saying that to be contrary. I see no evidence to suggest this would actually have been the case.
I have never read ANYTHING that even suggests the surrounding nations were opposed to a state created in that area, only that they were opposed to a Jewish (or at least a non-Arab/Palestinian/Islamic) one.

[italic zero]

i'm saying that it's not related specifically to judaism, but rather to the fact that it is of a different religion. calling it anti-semitism (ignoring semantics) implies that they would only have attacked a jewish nation.

[Der Übermensch]

As I said, I could agree that they would invade a Confucian nation, although I think that if it were a different religion, but not Judaism, they might have given it a slight benefit of the doubt. Remember, the Grand Imam of Jeruselem contacted Hitler asking how he could help further the final solution.
But people, not necessarily you, but certain people, seemed to be implying religion had nothing to do with it, and an Islamic nation would have suffered an identical treatment.

[italic zero]

yes that wasn't me i was clarifying your argument

[Der Übermensch]

Ya, I wouldn't want to lump you in the same league as shaq and SG...

[shaqadelic]

That was why they hated and still do hate the thought of a foreign entity entrenching upon Arab land, because they had just recently been freed from Western imperialism.

Good point.


That is bullpoop. If an Arab state had been created, the neigboring nations wouldn't have attackd, and its ludicrous to say otherwise.

Firstly, you should discard the assumption that Islam = Arab from your argument because they are two very different characteristics.

If an Arab state consisting of Arabs is created; it won't be seen as a colonialist agent. This is because they are Arabs which changes the circumstance considerably.

Now.

If a Muslim state was created with majority of the people are from Europe, they would be considered as an agent of colonialism.

[Der Übermensch]

Firstly, you should discard the assumption that Islam = Arab from your argument because they are two very different characteristics.
When I use Arab, I mean in the context that Jordan is Arab (esp. I should add, in the context of Pan-Arabism). When I use Islamic, again, I use it in the context that Jordan is Islamic. What I have been saying is that if an Islamic/Arab state were created, it would not have faced opposition. You seem to disagree. If this is the case, why didn't they all declare was on Jordan when it was created out of former British possessions?

If an Arab state consisting of majority Arabs is created; it will not be seen as a colonialist agent. This is because they are Arabs which changes the circumstance.
You are proving my point. Thanks.

However, if that Arab state ethnically cleanse the Palestinians so that the Palestine character is lost, then it too will face opposition.
Well since the surrounding nations are Arab, I doubt that...

If a Muslim state was created with majority of the people are from Europe, they would be considered as an agent of colonialism. The fact that they are Muslims won't change that.

I highly doubt that as well. The Jewish nature of the created nation was the prime motivating factor. The surronding nations all had a previous history of anti-semitism, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in this situation. You also have ignored numerous points I have brought up, including the double standard to which Israel is held, but Jordan and Egypt aren't.

[shaqadelic]

What I have been saying is that if an Islamic/Arab state were created, it would not have faced opposition. You seem to disagree. If this is the case, why didn't they all declare was on Jordan when it was created out of former British possessions?


Since you have specify your statement a bit further; yes I agree, an Arab state consisting of the Arabs of that area won't face opposition.

Still, I maintain that if an Islamic state is built over Israel's place where the majority of the people migrated from Europe, it will be considered an agent of colonialism and face opposition.

Well since the surrounding nations are Arab, I doubt that...

I don't see any indication of that. Seeing how the majority of Arabs hated Saddam Hussein for the acts he has committed (using chemical weapon on the Shias and Kurds); they don't have a history of absolving people just because they are Arab.

I highly doubt that as well. The Jewish nature of the created nation was the prime motivating factor. The surronding nations all had a previous history of anti-semitism, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in this situation.

Blaming Arab anti semtism as the major cause of opposition to the creation of the Israeli state is being over simplistic and plain wrong.

Furthermore, there is no widespread anti semitism in the history of the Arab world. Prior to the creation of Israel, Arab Jews are integrated into Arab society. There are exceptions which are caused by extraneous influences (like European anti Jewish propaganda pre World War 2, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and etc) but they are generally dealt with by the government.

One case study where Iraq is focused on elaborated on this. Iraq's case is considered to be a good representation of how Jews were treated in the Arab world prior to Israel's creation.

http://www.ajds.org.au/mendes_refugees.htm



The Jews of Iraq constituted one of the oldest communities of the Jewish Diaspora, dating back over 2500 years to the time of the Babylonian exile. They were well integrated into Iraqi society, and generally prosperous...

Iraqi Jews in the pre-1948 period

Most of the literature agrees that Iraqi Jewry in the first half of the twentieth century was a relatively prosperous and well-integrated community.

Jews were particularly prominent in trade utilising both their knowledge of European languages, and contacts with expatriate Iraqi Jews in the countries with which they traded. They also dominated the professions of banking and money-lending known locally as the sairafah business. For example, a large proportion of members of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce were Jewish. On the other hand, the majority of Jews were poor, and some were destitute (Batatu 1978:244-254; Shiblak 1986:30-32; Gat 1997:9-10).

Following the establishment of the modern Iraqi state in 1920, Jews contributed prominently to local arts and literature. They were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy, Overall, Jews viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality. Only a minority of Jews were sympathetic to Zionism, although over 5,000 Iraqi Jews migrated to Palestine between 1924 and 1944 (Landshut 1950:42-45; Kedourie 1970:309; Luks 1977:37; Haim 1978:188-191; Hillel 1987:11; Gat 1997:5-16 & 74).



Nevertheless, during the 1930s, there was increasing evidence of a decline in Iraqi tolerance for minority groups. The massacre of Christian Assyrians seeking autonomy in August 1933 was widely viewed as an ominous signal (Landshut 1950:52; Schechtman 1961:91; Gat 1997:17). In addition, European anti-Jewish propaganda began to impact on Iraq. Numerous Palestinian exiles headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent time in Iraq. The German Ambassador to Iraq, Dr Fritz Grobba, was also a malevolent influence.



Anti-Jewish feeling was soon reflected in both official and popular actions. For example, large numbers of Jewish clerks were dismissed from government positions, and restrictive quotas were placed on Jewish access to higher education. In addition, following the outbreak of the Arab revolt in Palestine, public attacks including bombings took place against Jews and Jewish institutions. Considerable pressure was also placed on Jews to publicly dissociate themselves from Zionist activities. However, there was no official government policy of discrimination, and the authorities took action to protect Jews from extremist attacks (Hourani 1947:104; Cohen 1966:5-7; Cohen 1973:26-28; Luks 1977:32-33; Rejwan 1985:217-220; Kedourie 1989:28-31; Gat 1997:17-19).



The security and confidence of Iraqi Jews was shattered by the pro-German military coup of April 1941. The coup leaders were quickly defeated and exiled by a British army occupation, but their departure was followed by a large-scale farhud or pogrom against the Jews of Baghdad. The farhud was perpetrated by Iraqi officers, police, and gangs of young people influenced by Nazi ideology, and the popular perception of a Jewish alignment with Britain. Over 180 Jews were murdered, several hundred injured, and numerous Jewish properties and religious institutions damaged and looted (Cohen 1966; Cohen 1973:28-32; Kedourie 1974:306-309; Woolfson 1980:156-163; Shiblak 1986:50-53; Eppel 1994:115-117).



However, the new Iraqi Government soon took steps to restore law and order. The leaders of the farhud were jailed or exiled, and some were even executed. An offical committee of enquiry attributed the farhud to a number of factors including German propaganda, and the influence of Palestinian and Syrian exiles led by the Mufti of Jerusalem (Stillman 1991:405-417). The Jewish community was also awarded financial compensation.

Consequently, the traditional leadership of the community was able to retain its commitment to Jewish integration into Iraqi society. However, an increasing number of younger Jews began to turn to either Communist or Zionist solutions. Younger Jews established a Zionist underground movement dedicated to Zionist education, the defence of Jews from further violence, and the organisation of emigration to Palestine (Hillel 1987:11-12; Gat 1997:20-28).

You also have ignored numerous points I have brought up, including the double standard to which Israel is held, but Jordan and Egypt aren't.

Lets not forget that the majority of Israelis are from Europe who migrated during the state's inception. That is why Israel is different and is seen as an agent of colonialism unlike the other countries you cited; a massive number of Europeans migrating into an Arab land. Coupled that with the ethnic cleansing that Israel have committed; it further establish itself as a colonialist agent in the eyes of the Arabs.

[Surgicalgod]

So to be clear, you honestly believe that Egpyt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia would have immediatly declared war and invaded the nation created on May 15th, where Israel stands, if that nation had an Arab/Palestinian identity?

No, because the land already belonged to the Palestinians.

[Smokey D]

You say that like Palestine was a distinct nationality before 1948.

[Der Übermensch]

Since you have specify your statement a bit further; yes I agree, an Arab state consisting of the Arabs of that area won't face opposition.
Ok, at least you arent that stupid...

Still, I maintain that if an Islamic state is built over Israel's place where the majority of the people migrated from Europe, it will be considered an agent of colonialism and face opposition.
You have no proof. There is lots of proof that the nations of the area were EXPLICITLY opposed to a Jewish state. I still maintain you are just being contrary.



I don't see any indication of that. Seeing how the majority of Arabs hated Saddam Hussein for the acts he has committed (using chemical weapon on the Shias and Kurds); they don't have a history of absolving people just because they are Arab.
Actually, Saddam Hussein was considered a Hero of Pan-Arabism, and a great deal of Arabs see his ouster as a travesty, as he was the last bastion against Persian dominance of the Middle East.


Blaming Arab anti semtism as the major cause of opposition to the creation of the Israeli state is being over simplistic and plain wrong.
I can almost accept simplistic... it is one of multiple factors... I have even admiteed that colonialism was a factor, but only combined with Jewish identity. However, if you think it's just plain wrong, then you are seriously deluded.

Furthermore, there is no widespread anti semitism in the history of the Arab world. Prior to the creation of Israel, Arab Jews are integrated into Arab society. There are exceptions which are caused by extraneous influences (like European anti Jewish propaganda pre World War 2, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and etc) but they are generally dealt with by the government.
There has always been a history of Anti-semitism within Islam, from the time of mohammed, when they massacred the Jews of Medina.

One case study where Iraq is focused on elaborated on this. Iraq's case is considered to be a good representation of how Jews were treated in the Arab world prior to Israel's creation.
Which of course explains the massacres of Jews that had occured in Iraq before?

The Protocols of the Eldars of Zion has been one of the best selling pieces of writing in the last century there, and is taught in their schools as cold, hard fact.


Lets not forget that the majority of Israelis are from Europe who migrated during the state's inception. That is why Israel is different and is seen as an agent of colonialism unlike the other countries you cited; a massive number of Europeans migrating into an Arab land.
It is seen as a Colonial, Zionist Agent.

Coupled that with the ethnic cleansing that Israel have committed; it further establish itself as a colonialist agent in the eyes of the Arabs.
Arabs actually massacred lots of Jews through out their tenure (Many wanted to help out Hitler), they didn't just evict them.


Now, would you mind responding to this post I made earlier, "I assume you are referring to the difference between the 1947 Plan and the 1949 Armistice?
Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza) were occupying more land that was supposed to be the Palestinian State then was Israel. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank within a year of occupying it. Why would Israel be forced to relinquish it's Palestinian territories when Jordan was blatantly taking control of its own?"
Because I really want to get back to what the main jist of my argument is, which is that I hold Israel to the same standards I hold all other nations in the area. There is a horrid double standard, in which Israel seems to be held to a higher measurement, and frankly, it disgusts me. Israels neighbors have been the cause for a lot of the crap that has happened, but Israel still gets blamed for every bit of it.

No, because the land already belonged to the Palestinians.
No, a large percentage of it belonged to the British Government...

[shaqadelic]

You have no proof. .

There are a lot of proof of the Arab's extreme dislike towards colonialism/Western imperialism.

There is lots of proof that the nations of the area were EXPLICITLY opposed to a Jewish state. I still maintain you are just being contrary

Keep in mind that prior to WW2, the Zionist movement is an agenda of European Jews and received very small support from Arab Jews. It is not a surprise for Arabs to oppose an idea proposing the migration of massive number of Europeans to their land.

Actually, Saddam Hussein was considered a Hero of Pan-Arabism, and a great deal of Arabs see his ouster as a travesty, as he was the last bastion against Persian dominance of the Middle East.

The war in Iraq is another issue all together actually. But going back to the original discussion; almost all Arab states supported the UN coalition to oust Iraq out of Kuwait which shows that Arabs has a history of not absolving countries just because they were Arabs.

I can almost accept simplistic... it is one of multiple factors... I have even admiteed that colonialism was a factor, but only combined with Jewish identity.

I doubt that. Arabs oppose heavily the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviets weren't Jewish.

However, if you think it's just plain wrong, then you are seriously deluded.

I think it is plain wrong to blame Arab anti semitism as the main reason for its opposition towards the creation of Israel. Now, if you are discussing whether it played a supportive/minor role, then you have more room to make a case.

There has always been a history of Anti-semitism within Islam...

I see many examples to the contrary actually. The spread of Islam has seen increase in the standard of living and rights of Jews. For instance, when the Muslims peacefully conquered Jerusalem in 637 C.E (5 years after Prophet Muhammad's death), the ban on Jews from living in the city placed by the Christians was gradually lifted.

... from the time of mohammed, when they massacred the Jews of Medina.

The times when Muhammad are at conflict with Jewish tribes in Medina, they are influenced by the ill actions of the few opposing Jewish tribes, political circumstance and the tribal nature of that time more than influenced by anti semitism. In fact, the Constitution of Medina uphold the rights of Jews and disproved any allegation of anti semitism.

Well, this topic is for another thread but ignoring other important factors and just pushing forward anti semitism as the main reason for any conflicts between Muslims and Jews is being over simplistic and for most cases inaccurate.

Which of course explains the massacres of Jews that had occured in Iraq before?

The Iraqi government then took steps to curb the violence against Jews, punish the persons responsible, give Jewish community compensation and committed to ascertain their integration to Iraqi society.

As stated in the research paper I copy/pasted.

..the new Iraqi Government soon took steps to restore law and order. The leaders of the farhud were jailed or exiled, and some were even executed. An offical committee of enquiry attributed the farhud to a number of factors including German propaganda, and the influence of Palestinian and Syrian exiles led by the Mufti of Jerusalem (Stillman 1991:405-417). The Jewish community was also awarded financial compensation.

Consequently, the traditional leadership of the community was able to retain its commitment to Jewish integration into Iraqi society.

The Protocols of the Eldars of Zion has been one of the best selling pieces of writing in the last century there, and is taught in their schools as cold, hard fact.

I recall you got this info from a tacky pro Israeli source. It also said that only 1000 copies were distributed in Syria which hardly convey into a bestseller of any significant impact.

Furthermore, a member here I recalled have had teaching experience in the Middle East and didn't report any teaching of the Protocals as cold hard fact in the school curriculum.

It is seen as a Colonial, Zionist Agent.

Actually, the Zionist movement itself is seen as a colonialist goal because of the British support for it, particularly the Balfour Declaration and the idea of migrating Europeans to Arab land.

Arabs actually massacred lots of Jews through out their tenure (Many wanted to help out Hitler), they didn't just evict them.

On the contrary, Palestinians and (most of the Arab countries) aided the Allies with men and logistical support, they also ignored the call for Jihad, against the Allies, that was declared by al-Hajj Amin. Furthermore, several Palestinian brigades were enlisted into the British Army.

Now, would you mind responding to this post I made earlier, "I assume you are referring to the difference between the 1947 Plan and the 1949 Armistice?
Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza) were occupying more land that was supposed to be the Palestinian State then was Israel. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank within a year of occupying it. ..."

Actually, Jordan has dropped their claim for the West Bank (inclusive of East Jerusalem) so that it can be taken by a future Palestinian state.

Furthermore, I don't think Palestinians would have pushed ahead nationalistic goals if they were under Jordan because they will not be treated like they are by the Israelis. This distinguish the rule under Israel and Jordan.

Why would Israel be forced to relinquish it's Palestinian territories when Jordan was blatantly taking control of its own?

Israel's withdrawal from the Occupied Territories is called upon by the UN Security Council resolution 242.

Israels neighbors have been the cause for a lot of the crap that has happened, but Israel still gets blamed for every bit of it.

Even Israel's first PM, David Ben-Gurion recognise that Israel is the political aggressor in the Israel-Palestine/Arab conflict which in essence is the thing that led to all the fighting/war. Furthermore, the acts that Israel have committed (ethnic cleansing, the military occupation of Palestine) becomes further a catalyst to more fighting.

I am not saying that Arabs didn't start any fights but if you are going to identify the root cause of all the fighting/war, then Israel fits the description more than the Arab countries.

[Der Übermensch]

There are a lot of proof of the Arab's extreme dislike towards colonialism/Western imperialism.
Because they see it as being part of the Zionist conspiracy.


Keep in mind that prior to WW2, the Zionist movement is an agenda of European Jews and received very small support from Arab Jews. It is not a surprise for Arabs to oppose an idea proposing the migration of massive number of Europeans to their land.
The original plan split the land in half, giving the Jewish state the land in which there was a Jewish majority.



The war in Iraq is another issue all together actually. But going back to the original discussion; almost all Arab states supported the UN coalition to oust Iraq out of Kuwait which shows that Arabs has a history of not absolving countries just because they were Arabs.
I really wish I hadn't thrown out my Economists at the end of the year, because there was a great article on this. I'll see if I can find it online, but dont keep your hopes up.

I doubt that. Arabs oppose heavily the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviets weren't Jewish.
Well, you actually are helping me here. Afganistan is not a Arab nation. What Afganistan proves is that religion matters. Islam was what brought them together in Afganistan, to expell the heathen invaders. Same thing here, they don't like a Jewish identity state, while they would be more accepting of one that was Arab or Islamic in nature.



I think it is plain wrong to blame Arab anti semitism as the main reason for its opposition towards the creation of Israel. Now, if you are discussing whether it played a supportive/minor role, then you have more room to make a case.
"That's no Mickey Mouse. Farfur, a Hamas creation that resembles that popular Disney icon, preaches worldwide Islamic supremacy and fierce anti-semitism to children each week on Palestinian TV. [...] After Farfur fails a test, he says, "I'm calling on all children to read more and more to prepare for exams because the Jews don't want us to learn". - Current Issue of Time.
Anti-semitism is simply a matter of fact, and drilled into the heads of kids from the time American kids are watching Seseme Street. The Protocol are taught as historic fact in most Middle Eastern nations, included in text books. And it's not like any of this is a new development. There is virulent hatred of Jew's in the Middle East, and this has been the case for a LONG time.



I see many examples to the contrary actually. The spread of Islam has seen increase in the standard of living and rights of Jews. For instance, when the Muslims peacefully conquered Jerusalem in 637 C.E (5 years after Prophet Muhammad's death), the ban on Jews from living in the city placed by the Christians was gradually lifted.
When Jordan controlled East Jeruselem, they expelled all Jewish residents, destroyed synagouges, as well as the Jewish quarter. Jew's were forbidden access to all Holy Sites.
(Of course, when Israel took control after '67, not only were Holy Sites open to all, but the Muslims were even given control of the Temple Mount.)



The times when Muhammad are at conflict with Jewish tribes in Medina, they are influenced by the ill actions of the few opposing Jewish tribes, political circumstance and the tribal nature of that time more than influenced by anti semitism. In fact, the Constitution of Medina uphold the rights of Jews and disproved any allegation of anti semitism.
They weren't 'at conflict'. They simply massacred them after returning from fighting the Meccas at the Wells of Badr. There were three Jewish tribes in Medina, and all were eventually wiped out... Enslaved and killed. There weren't any Jews in Medina to give rights too, as it was made pretty much 100% Muslim.

Well, this topic is for another thread but ignoring other important factors and just pushing forward anti semitism as the main reason for any conflicts between Muslims and Jews is being over simplistic and for most cases inaccurate.
Again, Simplitic to say its the only cause, but not inaccurate to advance it as a major one.

The Iraqi government then took steps to curb the violence against Jews, punish the persons responsible, give Jewish community compensation and committed to ascertain their integration to Iraqi society.

As stated in the research paper I copy/pasted.





I recall you got this info from a tacky pro Israeli source. It also said that only 1000 copies were distributed in Syria which hardly convey into a bestseller of any significant impact.
The source I may have posted (I don't remember which) may have been pro-Israel, but its something I've found from many sources.
Excerpts are included in most HS text books, and its also the source for a a popular Egyptian Mini series.

Furthermore, a member here I recalled have had teaching experience in the Middle East and didn't report any teaching of the Protocals as cold hard fact in the school curriculum.
I'll take published information over anecdotal recollection.


Actually, the Zionist movement itself is seen as a colonialist goal because of the British support for it, particularly the Balfour Declaration and the idea of migrating Europeans to Arab land.
Jews aren't European though. They are Semetic (I use in the larger sense, ie Arabs and Palestinians are Semetic).


On the contrary, Palestinians and (most of the Arab countries) aided the Allies with men and logistical support, they also ignored the call for Jihad, against the Allies, that was declared by al-Hajj Amin. Furthermore, several Palestinian brigades were enlisted into the British Army.
As were several Arab units created within the SS. A pro-German uprising happened in Iraq... serious enough for Britain to feel the need to invade.


Actually, Jordan has dropped their claim for the West Bank (inclusive of East Jerusalem) so that it can be taken by a future Palestinian state.
Thats good of them, but it's really avoiding the question. It's easy for Jordan to relinquish the claim because they are weak, know they don't have a chance of reclaiming it against Israel, so see they can make a good gesture. If they never lost control, think they would have given it up?

Furthermore, I don't think Palestinians would have pushed ahead nationalistic goals if they were under Jordan because they will not be treated like they are by the Israelis. This distinguish the rule under Israel and Jordan.
Israel offers them full citizen ship, something that most of them refuse. They don't have to be treated as second class citizens if they don't want to be. Israel is a much more progressive nation that Jordan, and were they to accept such terms, I think they would enjoy much greater quality of life then they ever would have gotten under Jordan.

Israel's withdrawal from the Occupied Territories is called upon by the UN Security Council resolution 242.
242 just proves my point about how Israel is held to a completly different standard. Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was just as illegal as Israel's is, but no one ever said anything. The moment Israel does the same thing though, everyone has an uproar.


Even Israel's first PM, David Ben-Gurion recognise that Israel is the political aggressor in the Israel-Palestine/Arab conflict which in essence is the thing that led to all the fighting/war. Furthermore, the acts that Israel have committed (ethnic cleansing, the military occupation of Palestine) becomes further a catalyst to more fighting.
Gurion was a smart man. After '67, he only wanted to keep Golan - an extremely imprtant strategic piece, and East Jeruselem, and to return the West Bank. People probably should have listened to him. But as I have said many times, Israel had no inherant obligation to do so, and I respect their right to choose against it.
What about the Etnic Cleansing and occupation Jordan had of East Jeruselem? Why did no one give them **** for that?


I am not saying that Arabs didn't start any fights but if you are going to identify the root cause of all the fighting/war, then Israel fits the description more than the Arab countries.
The only thing Israel was initialy guilty of was existing. All that came after that I lay primarily at the feet of the aggressor nations of the 1948 War.


Man, I'm losing track of all these different arguments.. Respond to thisone, but I'm just going to write a summation next time.

[shaqadelic]

Because they see it as being part of the Zionist conspiracy.

Well, you actually are helping me here. Afganistan is not a Arab nation. What Afghanistan proves is that religion matters. Islam was what brought them together in Afganistan, to expell the heathen invaders. Same thing here, they don't like a Jewish identity state, while they would be more accepting of one that was Arab or Islamic in nature.

Arabs hate invasion/imperialism/colonialism from any group; the invading group's religion doesn't change that. If another Muslim country invaded Arab lands, the Arabs will oppose that country to the end. If the country tried to reason that they are Muslims and should be less opposed, the Arabs will reject that and continue opposing.

Keep in mind that Arabs opposed the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Iraq being Muslims and Arabs didn't gain them a lenient treatment; instead, many Arab countries sent troops to join the UN coalition to oust Iraq out of Kuwait.

Jews aren't European though. They are Semetic (I use in the larger sense, ie Arabs and Palestinians are Semetic).

The Jews who migrated from Europe during Israel's inception are European. Even Arab Jews consider them as Europeans.

The original plan split the land in half, giving the Jewish state the land in which there was a Jewish majority.

The 1947 UN GA proposed partition granted to a majority ALIEN foreign minority about 60% of the total area of Palestine.

I really wish I hadn't thrown out my Economists at the end of the year, because there was a great article on this. I'll see if I can find it online, but dont keep your hopes up.

Ok.

"That's no Mickey Mouse. Farfur, a Hamas creation that resembles that popular Disney icon, preaches worldwide Islamic supremacy and fierce anti-semitism to children each week on Palestinian TV. [...] After Farfur fails a test, he says, "I'm calling on all children to read more and more to prepare for exams because the Jews don't want us to learn". - Current Issue of Time.

Um the show was taken off air by the Palestinian government which highlights my previous statement that anti semitisms are usually dealt with by the respective governments.

When Jordan controlled East Jeruselem, they expelled all Jewish residents, destroyed synagouges, as well as the Jewish quarter. Jew's were forbidden access to all Holy Sites.


Arabs from West Jerusalem were expelled as well. Furthermore, lets not forget the ethnic cleansing Israel committed throughout the 1948 war. What Jordan did was a reaction to Israeli action.

And the Jews expelled didn't meet the fate of Deir Yassin and many other Palestinian villages, a safe passageway was created from East Jerusalem to West Jerusalem as I recalled.

This highlights my statement how Arab anti semitism is caused by extraneous influence than an inherent anti semitic quality.

They weren't 'at conflict'. They simply massacred them after returning from fighting the Meccas at the Wells of Badr. There were three Jewish tribes in Medina, and all were eventually wiped out... Enslaved and killed. There weren't any Jews in Medina to give rights too, as it was made pretty much 100% Muslim.

To answer this would need me to go through each tribes individually. I don't have the time for that at the moment.

As a general statement, Islam as shown by its first conquest of Jerusalem have increased the standard of living and rights of Jews. This cannot happen if there was some inherent anti semitic characteristic in Arabs or Islam.

I'll take published information over anecdotal recollection.

I'll take an unbiased anecdotal report over biased published information like MEMRI.

As were several Arab units created within the SS. A pro-German uprising happened in Iraq... serious enough for Britain to feel the need to invade.

These examples are the few exception.

Israel offers them full citizen ship, something that most of them refuse. They don't have to be treated as second class citizens if they don't want to be.

Israel only offered citizenship to the Palestinians of East Jerusalem. Jordan gave automatic citizenship to Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The latter is a much better offer.

Also, Israeli Arabs are treated like second class citizens, fyi.

Israel is a much more progressive nation that Jordan, and were they to accept such terms, I think they would enjoy much greater quality of life then they ever would have gotten under Jordan.

Under Israel, they are under military occupation that Desmond Tutu calls similar to apartheid.

Thats good of them, but it's really avoiding the question. It's easy for Jordan to relinquish the claim because they are weak, know they don't have a chance of reclaiming it against Israel, so see they can make a good gesture. If they never lost control, think they would have given it up?

Would they give up the claim if Palestinians push for nationalism? Yes. However, more importantly, Palestinians won't push nationalism cause Jordan's treatment of them is not like how Israel treated them.

242 just proves my point about how Israel is held to a completly different standard. Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was just as illegal as Israel's is, but no one ever said anything. The moment Israel does the same thing though, everyone has an uproar.

Well, again I differentiate Jordan rule and Israeli rule in terms on how the Palestinians are/were treated. Under the latter, they are treated like subhuman.


Gurion was a smart maan. After '67, he only wanted to keep Golan - an extremely imprtant strategic piece, and East Jeruselem, and to return the West Bank. People probably should have listened to him. But as I have said many times, Israel had no inherant obligation to do so, and I respect their right to choose against it.

The Israeli government as well as the Arab governments have an obligation to its people to strive for peace. Last I checked, the Arabs offered the Arab Peace Initiative; Israel has not responded to this offer; I certainly hope they do.

What about the Etnic Cleansing and occupation Jordan had of East Jeruselem? Why did no one give them **** for that?

Um, during the political process of the 90s between Palestine-Israel, the issue of compensation for what happened to Jews in East Jerusalem were discussed.

The only thing Israel was initialy guilty of was existing. All that came after that I lay primarily at the feet of the aggressor nations of the 1948 War.


Israel's role as a political aggressor cannot be undermined.

Man, I'm losing track of all these different arguments.. Respond to thisone, but I'm just going to write a summation next time.

Yep, I am getting bored with this discussion. The Israel-Arab conflict is most pleasantly discussed with people like Smokey D and The Dropper.

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, as promised, a summation of argument, because this is just going into wild tangents, most of which have nothing to do with the original contention.

What my argument is, is that Israel does not have any obligation to act at a higher moral capacity than it's neighbors.
In 1948, Israel was attacked. In counter attacking, they captured additional territory. Due to the circumstances of the aquisition, and the fact that Jordan and Egypt in fact took MORE Palestinian Land then Israel, which they too refused to return, Israel had no obligation to relinquish the land seized.
In 1967, Israel responded to Egyptian Acts of War, which soon resulted in Jordan and other nations declaring war as well. The Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula were all captured. As the injured party, Israel had the right to retain captured territory.
Israel was again attacked in 1973, and defended its territory against the aggressor nations.

Now, at no point here do I want this to be interpretted as a moral argument. That is the mistake that people like Shaq and SG make, and than sidetrack me with pointless side arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand (and btw, I know the three tribes of Medina, and why each one was kiled off). Do I think that Israel should take the higher ground, and unconditionally give up the West Bank/Gaza and allow the creation of a seperate Palestinian State? Yes. But just because I think the should doesn't mean that I also believe they have the right not to do so. From a strictly real politik perspective Israel is completely in their right to keep the land that they won fairly on the field of battle.

[Smokey D]

What you're saying isn't very fair at all.

The occupied territories was land seized in a war started by people other than the Palestinians. As such, why should the Palestinians be punished?

Unless you're saying that no people have any right to land other than what they can enforce, but that's not really a scheme for justice. In fact, that's an alternative to justice altogether.

[gregulus]

What you're saying isn't very fair at all.

The occupied territories was land seized in a war started by people other than the Palestinians. As such, why should the Palestinians be punished?

Unless you're saying that no people have any right to land other than what they can enforce, but that's not really a scheme for justice. In fact, that's an alternative to justice altogether.

if i understand hunter's argument, the land seized was land that belonged to the aggressors, not palestine.

[Der Übermensch]

I'm saying Israel had as much an obligation to return the land to the Palestinains as did Jordan. Within less than a year though, Jordan formally annexed the West Bank. Given then, I see no reason why Israel should be held to a higher standard that Jordan. If Jordan had said, "well, let's at least give back to the Palestinians what's left and let them have a nation out of it," then I would be as against Israel in this situation as much as shaq... but they didn't. They kept it.

if i understand hunter's argument, the land seized was land that belonged to the aggressors, not palestine.
Not exactly. At later stages it was considered national soil by the aggressors though.

[Smokey D]

if i understand hunter's argument, the land seized was land that belonged to the aggressors, not palestine.

Which isn't true.

I'm saying Israel had as much an obligation to return the land to the Palestinains as did Jordan. Within less than a year though, Jordan formally annexed the West Bank. Given then, I see no reason why Israel should be held to a higher standard that Jordan. If Jordan had said, "well, let's at least give back to the Palestinians what's left and let them have a nation out of it," then I would be as against Israel in this situation as much as shaq... but they didn't. They kept it.

Sorry to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because two parties are screwing over a third equally doesn't make either of them justified.

[Der Übermensch]

No, they don't.

But this also isn't the third grade.

[Smokey D]

I don't think that resolves the probelm.

At best, you're saying Jordan should stop dicking Palestine over as well.

Nor is it clear that Jordan has done as bad things as Israel.

[Mr. Ron]

I wish I knew more about this to comment. :^[

[Der Übermensch]

I don't think that resolves the probelm.

At best, you're saying Jordan should stop dicking Palestine over as well.

Nor is it clear that Jordan has done as bad things as Israel.

No, it doesn't resolve the problem.

I guess that could be what I'm saying... but really its more that they are all simply morally corrupt nations. Every one of 'em. And I am perfectly fine with people accusing Israel of what have you, but only if they give Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and such as much **** for the stuff they did as well.

[Smokey D]

I agree, but that's quite different to saying Israel is justified.

[Der Übermensch]

I have never merely said (or at least meant to imply) Israel is simply justified. Only that they are justified insofar as the other nations involved in the conflicts were.
ie, "Israel had as much Justification in keeping the West Bank as Jordan did."

[Reaganista]

in other words none whatsoever