Was war a reasonable reaction from the Arabs to the Creation of Israel

[a_unique_person]

Right,

lets get this point dealt with. Too much meandering and tooing and froing in the all the other threads.

I would contend that every imperialistic acquisition of land in history has been met with an armed response. (Usually unsucessful).

The Arabs have been maligned for resisting, with arms, the creation of Israel.

I would contend that that is only what would be expected.

[Tmy]

I can understand the Arabs in the area (Palistinians or whatever you would call them) but why should the other Arab natiosn really care. Unless it was a preemptive strike cause they were worried about Isreal expanding int their territory (irony alert!). The arab nations have a history of not getting along, but I guess Israel falls under the "enemy of my friend" exception.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I would contend that every imperialistic acquisition of land in history has been met with an armed response. (Usually unsucessful).

The Arabs have been maligned for resisting, with arms, the creation of Israel.

I would contend that that is only what would be expected.

I think their attack had less to do with fighting imperialism than it had to do with their hatred of the Jewish people.

[JAR]

The U.S.' support of Israel isn't about whether or not the formation of Israel was just. Israel now exists. The Palestinians want to exterminate the Jewish Israelis. The Jewish Israelis in general will not harm the Palestinians as long as the Palestinians don't harm them.

[Clancie]

The Palestinians want to exterminate the Jewish Israelis.
A contemporary official Palestinian document to support this, please?
The Jewish Israelis in general will not harm the Palestinians as long as the Palestinians don't harm them
Please explain how you reconcile this statement with the actions of the Israeli army in killing unarmed Palestinians (or the claim that these random killings are justified by somehow being in "response" to actions like suicide bombings, events in which the perpetrator has already died).

[Skeptic]

Your thread title is wrong. The goal of the arab war--as they openly said at the time--was THE BUTCHERY OF EVERY JEW IN THE AREA. Don't believe me? Ask Nasser, for example.

So your thread title should say: "The butchery of the jews to the last baby was a reasonable reaction by the Arabs to the creation of israel".

Just that there's no misunderstanding here, about the fact that you consider mass murder to have been a "reasonable reaction" by the Arabs for the awful jewish occupation of 0.3% of the middle east.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


I think their attack had less to do with fighting imperialism than it had to do with their hatred of the Jewish people.

Well, it was the Europeans who ran the Holocaust, not the Arabs. AFAIK, it was only when the Zionists turned up, with the intention of creating Israel, that the Arabs turned against them. Once again, resisting an invasion.

[Skeptic]

Please explain how you reconcile this statement with the actions of the Israeli army in killing unarmed Palestinians

By noting the fact that almost always the unarmed palestinians are there because a known palestinian terrorist, the target of the attack, hides behind women and children to make it more difficult for israel to catch him.

Similarly, it is true to say that the US will not harm Iraqis that do not harm it, despite the fact that some unintended civilian casualties occured: it was the result of going after an Iraqi (Saddam) who DID harm and threathen the US.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Just that there's no misunderstanding here, about the fact that you consider mass murder to have been a "reasonable reaction" by the Arabs for the awful jewish occupation of 0.3% of the middle east.

Thank you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Your thread title is wrong. The goal of the arab war--as they openly said at the time--was THE BUTCHERY OF EVERY JEW IN THE AREA. Don't believe me? Ask Nasser, for example.

So your thread title should say: "The butchery of the jews to the last baby was a reasonable reaction by the Arabs to the creation of israel".

Just that there's no misunderstanding here, about the fact that you consider mass murder to have been a "reasonable reaction" by the Arabs for the awful jewish occupation of 0.3% of the middle east.

This was florid language, much as has been used in every war. I would greatly doubt that this was the real intention. And, as you say, 'every jew in the area'. So the attack was not against Jews in general, there was no intention to take the attack overseas to all jews, just those that intended to set up a Zionist state. Prior to Zionism, there is no history of persecution of Jews by Arabs. The small Jewish communities that lived there did so in peace.

[Tmy]

Lets live in the now. Do you really think the whole "drive them into the sea" attitude still applies. I think the arab nations realize Isreal is here to stay. Really, are any of the neighboring nations any threat to Isreal, especially with Saddam gone.

[Skeptic]

This was florid language, much as has been used in every war.
I would greatly doubt that this was the real intention.

Yes, and Hitler SURELY couldn't have meant what he said about the jews literally, either.

The obvious truth is that they meant what they said. Whenever the palestinians in the war DID capture jews--such as in Gush Etzion--they DID butcher, torture, and expel them.

By the way, I like your mysterious ability to interpret the "true meaning" of statements, thought:

JEW: "The arabs don't want peace".
AUP: "Oh, what he REALLY MEANS that he hates the arabs and want them all dead."
ARAB: "Butcher the jews to the last baby!"
AUP: "Oh, he doesn't REALLY mean that. He doesn't REALLY hate jews."

And, as you say, 'every jew in the area'. So the attack was not against Jews in general, there was no intention to take the attack overseas to all jews,

Oh, so that's OK then.

Of course, Hitler also only said he would cause (as his famous 1939 speech said) "the destruction of the Jewish race IN EUROPE". Clearly, he only had the intention of butchering all EUROPEAN jews, not to extend the attack overseas to, say, South American ones.

I guess that means he wasn't REALLY an antisemite, and that the death camps were surely a "reasonable reaction" to something the jews did.

(Sheesh. Just when I thought AUP couldn't be any more of an a**hole...)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tmy
Lets live in the now. Do you really think the whole "drive them into the sea" attitude still applies. I think the arab nations realize Isreal is here to stay. Really, are any of the neighboring nations any threat to Isreal, especially with Saddam gone.

I think Arafat really wanted peace as well, he saw himself as another Ghandi or Mandela. He was afraid to accept any deal that still had settlements in the West Bank, and did not leave the traditional Arab quarter of Jerusalem for the Palestinians, as he knew this would be unacceptable to his people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This was florid language, much as has been used in every war.
I would greatly doubt that this was the real intention.

Yes, and Hitler SURELY couldn't have meant what he said about the jews literally, either.

The obvious truth is that they meant what they said. Whenever the palestinians in the war DID capture jews--such as in Gush Etzion--they DID butcher, torture, and expel them.



As did jews against arabs. It was a war. what did you expect?



By the way, I like your mysterious ability to interpret the "true meaning" of statements, thought:

JEW: "The arabs don't want peace".
AUP: "Oh, what he REALLY MEANS that he hates the arabs and want them all dead."



"Arabs don't want Israel created, they will fight a war to prevent that" would be more like it.



ARAB: "Butcher the jews to the last baby!"
AUP: "Oh, he doesn't REALLY mean that. He doesn't REALLY hate jews."



I am sure they did hate the Zionist invasion, which is what it was. As to whether all jews would have been killed if the Arabs had won, I don't believe it would have occurred. But then again, we are now talking hypotheticals, so no one can prove anything.



And, as you say, 'every jew in the area'. So the attack was not against Jews in general, there was no intention to take the attack overseas to all jews,

Oh, so that's OK then.

Of course, Hitler also only said he would cause (as his famous 1939 speech said) "the destruction of the Jewish race IN EUROPE". Clearly, he only had the intention of butchering all EUROPEAN jews, not to extend the attack overseas to, say, South American ones.

I guess that means he wasn't REALLY an antisemite, and that the death camps were surely a "reasonable reaction" to something the jews did.

(Sheesh. Just when I thought AUP couldn't be any more of an a**hole...)

Hitler did hate all Jews, and clearly stated as much. If he had won the war, every Jew in the world would have been under threat of execution.

Your non-sequitors and strawmen never cease to amaze me. Can we please just stick to the topic, and stop derailing every thread.

[a_unique_person]

And in case you were wondering, I can understand why there was a Zionist movement in the first place. However, if it could ever be made to work as simply as was proposed has been shown to be false.

[Clancie]

originally posted by skeptic
...the unarmed palestinians are there because a known palestinian terrorist, the target of the attack, hides behind women and children to make it more difficult for israel to catch him.
Any actual evidence for this, other than the fact that whenever the IDF indiscriminately fires into a crowd and kills women and children they always claim to be targeting "militants" or "terrorists"?

What evidence do you have that your/the Israeli explanation isn't just wishful thinking, rationalization, or...an outright lie?

And, I wonder. Would you accept the same argument if a "anti-Palestinian Israeli militant" was on a bus full of Israeli women and children whom the Palestinians blew up in order to kill the claimed "Israeli terrorist who was trying to hide on a crowded Israeli bus"?

Would that be equally acceptable to you?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, it was the Europeans who ran the Holocaust, not the Arabs. AFAIK, it was only when the Zionists turned up, with the intention of creating Israel, that the Arabs turned against them. Once again, resisting an invasion.

What invasion was Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria resisting? None of these nations were invaded yet they decided to attack Israel. Was it for the Palestinians? It is funny how Egypt and Jordan resisted this invasion by annexing part of Palestine.

[renata]

A little history here. All background taken from this site http://www.us-israel.org/index.html. It has a pro Israeli slant, however its information is heavily researched and footnoted, so I believe the facts they rely on, if question their interpretation. However, the facts are pretty stark, if someone disagrees, let's see another site with as much references and background material.

The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.13 In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.14

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.15 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.16

The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.17
....

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el_Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.30



....

In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen ("one who sacrifices himself") to terrorize Jews. Haj Amin hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country.31 Arab radicals were able to gain influence because the British Administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they finally revolted against British rule.

....

Haj Amin took the Colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of Haj Amin's overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. Haj Amin escaped, however, and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in absentia.

A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon Haj Amin and to appoint him Mufti. By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several of his followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.33

Samuel met with Haj Amin on April 11, 1921, and was assured “that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility.” Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left 43 Jews dead.34

...

As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.36

....

In 1929, Arab provocateurs succeeded in convincing the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic that would be repeated on numerous occasions, the most recent of which was in 2000 after the visit of Ariel Sharon). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a catalyst for rioting by Arabs against Jews that spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron.

Again, the British Administration made no effort to prevent the violence and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, virtually the entire Jewish population of Hebron had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms.38

.....

In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.

...

In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.

....

According to British statistics, more than 70% of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9% of the land was owned by Jews and about 3% by `Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18% belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.6

....

Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a


....

The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and required some Palestinians to live under "Jewish domination." The Zionists opposed the Peel Plan's boundaries because they would have been confined to little more than a ghetto of 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises.

Again, in 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been offered independence — the goal of Arab nationalists — they repudiated the White Paper.

....

on November 29, 1947. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. Violence continued to escalate through the end of the year.4

The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back.5 In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947 until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties and passage along most of their major roadways was disrupted.

....

On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered.7 This was prior to the invasion by the regular Arab armies that followed Israel's declaration of independence.

The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.8

....

Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."11

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancy

Any actual evidence for this, other than the fact that whenever the IDF indiscriminately fires into a crowd and kills women and children they always claim to be targeting "militants" or "terrorists"?



Tons of evidence of militants hiding in civilian areas and being protected by the PA.

Here is an interesting report by an impartial organization. Addresses several issues you have raised.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/

This is not the first time that Palestinian armed groups have used suicide bombings to target Israeli civilians, although the scale and intensity of the current wave of attacks is unprecedented. Between September 1993 and the outbreak of the latest clashes between Palestinians and Israelis in late September 2000, Palestinian groups carried out fourteen suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians, mostly in 1996-97, killing more than 120 and wounding over 550. 12 Hamas said it committed most of the attacks; Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the others.

The PA responded by detaining hundreds of Hamas and Islamic Jihad members and supporters, but they were not charged or brought to trial in connection with the bombings. Following these detentions, the bombings ceased. Many of the detainees, however, were released from PA custody once the clashes between Palestinians and Israelis resumed in September 2000. Coincidentally or not, the new round of suicide bombings began within a few months, again under the auspices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

....

For Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the stated goal is the creation of a Palestinian Islamist state comprising not only the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also the entire territory over which Israel has held sovereignty since 1948. The PFLP also calls for a Palestinian state encompassing Israel, though not an Islamist one. By contrast, the nationalist agenda of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades calls for establishing Palestinian rule over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and for freeing those territories from Israeli military occupation.
...


Palestinian officials, while denouncing the attacks on Israeli civilians, implicitly sought to justify them by pointing to the provocative impact of incidents such as an alleged Israeli booby-trap bomb that killed five young boys in Khan Yunis on November 22, 2001. "Everyone should realize that atrocities lead to atrocities," said Nabil Sha'ath, the PA minister of planning and international cooperation. "This is the inevitable outcome of the accumulation of atrocities committed by the Israeli army against our civilians, the humiliation, the torment, the unmitigated persecution," Sha'ath said.51

...

Public officials, because of the political authority they embody, should never legitimize attacks on civilians. Yet political leaders have made statements that appear to endorse attacks against civilians, both within the Occupied Territories and externally. These span the range from ambiguity to outright support, and undermine other statements condemning attacks against civilians.85 Political leaders such as President Arafat have repeatedly praised "martyrs," without distinguishing between those who die as victims of attacks or while attacking military targets and those who intentionally die in the course of a deliberate attack against civilians.86 Yasir Abed Rabbo, the PA minister of culture and information, reportedly defended the use of the term "martyr" with reference to suicide bombers. "You can call him a shahid and denounce what he does politically," he said.87

Other officials have expressed more unequivocal support for attacks on civilians. On April 10, 2002, PA Cabinet Secretary-General Ahmad `Abd al-Rahman described that day's attack on a Haifa bus as a "natural response to what is taking place in Palestinian camps."88 Six weeks later, `Abd al-Rahman described suicide bombings in an interview with the Qatar-based satellite television station al-Jazeera as "the highest form of national struggle. There is no argument about that."89

....

Apologetic statements by public officials have also been accompanied by the broadcast of incendiary statements on publicly funded television. There were several recorded instances of such broadcasts on the official PA television channel in 2001, particularly in the broadcasts of weekly Friday prayer sermons. Among these were the live broadcasts of Shaikh Ibrahim Ma`adi delivering sermons from a Gaza mosque on June 8, 2001, and again on August 3, 2001. "Blessed are the people who strap bombs onto their bodies or those of their sons," Ma'adi said on the first of these occasions. On the second, he explicitly called for bombings in Tel Aviv, Hadera, Ashkelon, and other Israeli cities, adding:

The Jews have bared their teeth. They have said what they have said and done what they have done. And they will not be deterred except by the color of the blood of their filthy people. They will not be deterred unless we willingly and voluntarily blow ourselves up among them.93

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such statements constitute incitement to crimes against humanity. Under international criminal law, the PA has a responsibility to ensure they are neither broadcast nor published, and should bring to justice those who make them.
.....

Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes.124 Persons who commit, order, or condone war crimes are individually liable under international humanitarian law for their crimes.
.....


Many Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights Watch said attacks on civilians were their only weapon with which to respond to repeated IDF use of tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, and warplanes.

Many conflicts, whether internal or international, take place between parties with radically differing means at their disposal. This is true of almost all wars that could potentially qualify under Additional Protocol I, article 4(1) as wars of national liberation, where one party frequently has vastly more sophisticated technical and military means than the other. Yet Protocol I reaffirms that all the basic rules of international humanitarian law still apply in those circumstances. Indeed, such a practice would be an exception that would virtually swallow the rules of international humanitarian law, since most wars are between forces of unequal means. The prohibition against intentional attacks against civilians is absolute. It cannot be justified by reference to a disparity of power between opposing forces.

....

Most perpetrators of suicide bombing attacks have been young men aged eighteen to twenty-four. At least three bombings, however, have been carried out by children-persons under the age of eighteen.

...

On June 28, 2002, an Israeli military court sentenced a sixteen-year-old boy to life imprisonment after he was apprehended in an attempt to blow himself up on or near a bus. At his sentencing, the boy said he had been "deceived" by Hamas into participating in the unsuccessful attack.249 Islamic Jihad acknowledged that to perpetrate a bombing on June 9, 2002 at Megiddo Junction, its members taught Hamza Samudi to drive; his age has been given variously as sixteen, seventeen, and nineteen.250

The participation, acknowledgment, and acceptance of the use of children to perpetrate suicide bombings have continued despite widespread Palestinian unease with such tactics. This unease intensified in April 2002 following three separate incidents in the Gaza Strip in which several Palestinian boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen were killed as they charged the perimeter of an Israeli settlement armed with knives and crude pipe bombs.

...

There have been several reports of segments on PA television that explicitly encourage children to take part in clashes with Israeli forces and extol the virtues of martyrdom.

...

On August 26, 2002, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate called on Palestinian armed factions to stop using children, and declared that it was "absolutely forbidden" for photojournalists to take pictures of children carrying weapons or taking part in militant activities. The statement said that footage of armed children served "the interests of Israel and its propaganda against the Palestinian people." Tawfiq Abu Khousa, deputy chair of the syndicate, said, "We have decided to forbid taking any footage of armed children, because we consider that as a clear violation of the rights of children and for negative effects these pictures have on the Palestinian people."3

It is the encouragement of children to carry weapons and take part in armed activity that is wrong, not media coverage of these activities.

...

Syria has consistently refused to take steps to limits its assistance to armed Palestinian groups that perpetrate suicide attacks. It claims that such groups are engaged in legitimate resistance against occupation but makes no effort to disassociate itself from attacks on civilians, in clear violation of international humanitarian law.32

....
The government of Iraq has expressly endorsed and encouraged suicide bombing attacks against civilians. Iraq, in its provision of funds to families of "martyrs" and others, has established a differential in which families of suicide bombing operatives are said to receive a considerably larger sum of $25,000, while other families that have suffered a death receive $10,000.33 In promoting suicide attacks, Iraqi leaders have made no distinction between attacks against civilians and attacks against military targets.
....


Among the PA documents captured by the IDF in April-May 2002 are records relating to payments from the Saudi Arabian Committee for Support of the Intifada al-Quds, headed by the Saudi Arabian Interior Minister, to the Tulkarem Charity Committee.53 Under the arrangement, all payments or distributions were made on the basis of information supplied by "Palestinian elements," and were arranged through some fourteen local charity committees, many of which had links to Hamas.54 Each charity committee made payments or distributed food to the needy, and also gave both lump-sum and ongoing payments to families of individuals killed, injured, or imprisoned in the intifada, including the families of individuals from Hamas or other armed groups who had carried out suicide attacks against civilians.55 The PA strenuously objected on the grounds that it was designed to undercut its authority, but not because the payments were rewarding attacks on civilians.

....

One of the most contested questions in the debate about Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians is what, if any, role has been played by the Palestinian Authority and specifically, President Arafat. Israel charges that the PA has ordered and systematically participated in "terror," a term it applies to all armed activity against Israeli targets, whether military or civilian. It holds the PA responsible every time an attack occurs. The PA denies having any role in attacks against civilians.

The PA, under the terms of the Oslo Accords, assumed law enforcement responsibilities for those areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip under its control-namely, the major cities and Palestinian population clusters, amounting at the time of the outbreak of clashes in September 2000 to approximately 26 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of the Gaza Strip.62 The PA thus has had an obligation to take all available and effective measures consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law to prevent suicide or other attacks against civilians by the armed groups operating from these areas.

Human Rights Watch found that there were steps that the PA could have taken to prevent or deter such attacks, but that it remained unwilling to risk the political cost of acting decisively. The PA routinely failed to investigate, arrest and prosecute persons believed to be responsible for these attacks, and did not take credible steps to reprimand, discipline, or bring to justice those members of its own security services who, in violation of declared PA policy, participated in such attacks. In addition, although President Arafat repeatedly condemned suicide attacks against civilians, he consistently failed to insist that terms of honor and respect such as "martyr"-which Palestinians use to designate persons who have died or suffered grave loss in clashes with Israeli forces or settlers-should not apply to people who die in the course of carrying out indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

....
The PA's failure to act in an effective and consistent manner against Palestinian attacks on civilians contributed to an atmosphere of impunity, allowing the armed groups to conclude that there would be no serious consequence for those who planned or carried out attacks that amounted to war crimes, and in the cases of suicide bombings, crimes against humanity. This failure reflects a high degree of political responsibility on the part of President Arafat and the PA leadership for the many civilian deaths that have resulted.

...

As the spiral of violence wound tighter, the Palestinian Authority continued to condemn publicly armed attacks that deliberately targeted civilians but, except for a brief period from mid-December 2001 to mid-January 2002, took no clear or credible actions to prevent such attacks or to punish those responsible.

...

Although the PA's legal governing authority derives from the Oslo Accords signed with Israel, the duty to prevent systematic indiscriminate attacks against civilians is not contingent on Israeli compliance with those accords or rendered null by what the PA regards as Israeli violations of the accords. That duty should not be a bargaining chip whose implementation is subject to political negotiations. As the political authority in place, the PA has a responsibility to bring to justice individuals who order, plan, or carry out attacks against civilians. The PA has failed to meet this obligation.

When the PA made arrests, they were often indiscriminate, picking up supporters of one or another militant group without regard to any alleged responsibility for the serious crimes being committed in the name of that group. Instead of being investigated, detained suspects were typically held without charge and later released. The PA has explained these releases as a response to the danger posed by Israeli bombings of places of detention, but it has not tried to explain why suspects were not investigated, charged, or brought to trial.

PA officials also claim that Israeli actions, such as the destruction of PA police and security installations, have undermined the PA's capacity to act. However, the record indicates that the PA for the most part did not attempt to exercise its capacity to prevent or punish such crimes even when it had the ability to do so.
...


In the first weeks of the clashes, the PA released numerous detainees, most of them members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, some of whom had been in PA detention without charge or trial for several years.78 According to press reports, the first releases took place on October 4, 2000, when twelve Hamas detainees were released from Gaza Central Prison. Subsequent releases occurred over the following week. A PA security official in Gaza claimed that by mid-October the PA had "begun to re-arrest them."79 In Nablus, fourteen of the thirty-five who had been released reportedly responded to a summons to turn themselves back in.80 Hamas political leader `Abd al-`Aziz al-Rantisi was rearrested on October 18 and released again on December 26, 2000, at the end of Ramadan.81

The Islamic Jihad organization has cited these releases as a factor contributing to the group's ability to carry out attacks against Israeli targets.
...

Some of the detainees released at the beginning of the uprising, as well as other armed militants and political critics of the PA, were re-detained and re-released periodically during 2001. Some were formally arrested and, beginning in late October 2001, the PA started using administrative detention orders to detain suspects. Individuals known to be leaders of groups responsible for attacks against civilians nevertheless continued to operate openly in the West Bank and Gaza Strip-in the case of Bethlehem-area al-Aqsa Brigades leader Atef Abayat, even when technically under "house arrest."

...

In mid-April 2001, the PA confirmed that it had released Muhammad Deyf, imprisoned since 1996 for his role in the Hamas suicide bomb attacks in February of that year, although officials insisted he remained under their control in "a safe place where he cannot be reached by the Israeli authorities."86 No such pretenses were made when Deyf narrowly escaped death in an Israeli rocket attack targeting him as he traveled by car in Gaza city on September 26, 2002.87

...

Those measures taken by the PA to limit armed activities failed to include meaningful efforts to bring perpetrators of suicide attacks on civilians to justice.
...

Fatah officials authorized these six requested payments despite widely available evidence that, in at least the cases of two individuals, the named recipients had participated in attacks on civilians in the Occupied Territories. Fourteen of the forty-one individuals for whom payment was authorized were at the time "wanted" by Israel. Twelve of these individuals, in seeking financial assistance, identified themselves as "wanted."
...

The clearest case in which President Arafat authorized payment despite the recipient's widely reported links to attacks on civilians was that of Ra�Œid al-Karmi, the al-Aqsa Brigades leader in Tulkarem. 119 An undated request from Ramallah-based Fatah leader Hussein al-Sheikh asked Arafat to provide al-Karmi and two others with $2,500 each; Arafat apparently authorized payments of $600 each on September 19, 2001.120 The IDF had placed al-Karmi on its "most wanted" list in August 2001, accusing him of involvement in "numerous" shooting attacks and responsibility for the deaths of seven civilians and two soldiers. Al-Karmi himself openly boasted of his involvement in the execution-style killing of two Israeli restaurateurs visiting Tulkarem on January 23, 2001-in retaliation, he said, for Israel's assassination several seeks earlier of local Fatah leader Thabet Thabet.121 The PA had arrested al-Karmi and three others later in January 2001 in connection with the killing of the two restaurateurs, but he fled prison several months later. Al-Karmi had survived a well-publicized Israeli assassination attempt on September 6, 2001, shortly before President Arafat authorized the payment in question, and had spoken openly of his intention to continue attacks against Israelis.122

In another captured document, al-Karmi approached Arafat via Marwan Barghouti, requesting payments to twelve "fighter brethren," not including himself.123 Despite al-Karmi's own self-proclaimed responsibility for attacks on civilians, Arafat granted a payment of $350 to each individual on al-Karmi's list, again without making any apparent effort to ensure that these fighters were not responsible for attacks on civilians. The payments were made on January 7, 2002, a week before al-Karmi was assassinated. At the time of his assassination, according to media reports, the PA had assured European Union officials that al-Karmi was under arrest.124 According to one report, he was assassinated "while visiting his wife and daughter during a furlough from the `protective custody' of a PA jail."125

....

Based on its own investigation as well as media accounts and publicly available, captured PA documents, Human Rights Watch identified instances in which individuals employed in one or another Palestinian security force were involved in shooting or suicide bomb attacks targeting civilians. Human Rights Watch also found that individual members of the PA security forces have had ongoing associations with armed groups that have carried out suicide bombing attacks on civilians. On at least two occasions, individual members of PA intelligence services assisted perpetrators in carrying out such attacks.139
...

The PA should have made credible efforts to reprimand, discipline, or, where appropriate, bring to justice members of its own security services who, in apparent disregard for declared PA policies, participated in or lent support to those responsible for attacks against civilians. Insofar as Human Rights Watch could determine, it did not do so.
...


High-ranking PA officials, including President Arafat, failed in their duty to administer justice and enforce the rule of law in compliance with international standards. Through their repeated failure to arrest or prosecute individuals alleged to have planned or carried out suicide attacks against civilians, they contributed a climate of impunity-and failed to prevent the bloody consequences. Their payments to, and recruitment of, individuals responsible for attacks against civilians likewise demonstrate, at least, a serious failure to meet their political responsibilities as the governing authorities, if not a willingness to support them. However, there is no publicly available evidence that Arafat or other senior PA officials ordered, planned, or carried out such attacks.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by ssibal


What invasion was Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria resisting? None of these nations were invaded yet they decided to attack Israel. Was it for the Palestinians? It is funny how Egypt and Jordan resisted this invasion by annexing part of Palestine.

...and then continued to help their "palestinian brothers" by keeping them in refugee camps for the next 50 years, just so they'll continue to hate the jews.

It wasn't caring for the poor palestinians that caused the arab nations to go to war. It was the disgust at the thought of (horrors!) a NON-MUSLIM nation next to them. Such an abomination must be eradicated, as islam clearly teaches.

[Skeptic]

AUP:

My grandfather on one side, in 1948, was a soldier trying to repel the arab invasion. My grandmother on the other was a refugee from Europe who had just arrived in the newly-declared state, after losing most of her family.

As members of the "zionist invasion", what fate, exactly, should they have deserved to suffer, in your view, if there was justice in this world and the "reasonable" Arab war against it had succeded?

Would expulsion have been enough, or is death the only fitting punishment (as the Arabs repeatedly said and practiced at the time) for the capital offense of being a zionist without their consent?

I'd appreciate a straight answer.

P.S.

What about the colonialist invasion of Australia? Would the surviving aboriginies be justified in starting a war of terror killing white australian babies on buses to repel it? Would you mind if I call on them to rise and butcher their colonialist opressors?

Just asking.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
AUP:

My grandfather on one side, in 1948, was a soldier trying to repel the arab invasion. My grandmother on the other was a refugee from Europe who had just arrived in the newly-declared state, after losing most of her family.

As members of the "zionist invasion", what fate, exactly, should they have deserved to suffer, in your view, if there was justice in this world and the "reasonable" Arab war against it had succeded?



Well, there's the rub. What was the solution to centuries of European discrimination against Jews culminating in the Holocaust? Creating the state of Israel appears to have many problems attached to it.

I think you will find that, all along, the Zionists expected resistance.



Would expulsion have been enough, or is death the only fitting punishment (as the Arabs repeatedly said and practiced at the time) for the capital offense of being a zionist without their consent?



Well, it was their land. In case you haven't noticed, countries around the world have immigration laws.

Was it war time rhetoric or not about killing? No one can tell. Certainly centuries of Ottoman occupation appear to have included much brutality.

Expulsion to where they came from? That appears to be standard practise these days.

What was the solution to persecution of Jews? I don't know. Do you?



I'd appreciate a straight answer.

P.S.

What about the colonialist invasion of Australia? Would the surviving aboriginies be justified in starting a war of terror killing white australian babies on buses to repel it? Would you mind if I call on them to rise and butcher their colonialist opressors?

Just asking.

I have pointed out before that colonialist invasions have occurred around the world. It is a little late for them to be undone now, which was the principal Israel seemed to be working on. If it hung around long enough, it would have achieved the right to permanency. This has happened. Arab nations have already proposed peace settlements with Israel.

However, for some reason, it wants it's borders to be those of one particular time in ancient history. And even then, many secular Israelis do not expect those borders. What they have now is fine by them. It is an extremist clique that appears hell bent on getting all of the land, no matter what the price.

As for compesation of aboriginies in Australia, many Australians want their to be a settlement of the issue, with money and land handed over, so that the matter can be put to rest. However, vested interests don't like this idea in principal, or just don't like them full stop, or don't like the idea of giving anything away.

I imagine that the American Indians are in a similar postion. A culture destroyed means that a civil society is destroyed and drugs and violence take root. Given that the US and Australia are wonderful places to live, a little compensation and time and encouragement to rebuild seem to be in order.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Right,

lets get this point dealt with. Too much meandering and tooing and froing in the all the other threads.

I would contend that every imperialistic acquisition of land in history has been met with an armed response. (Usually unsucessful).

The Arabs have been maligned for resisting, with arms, the creation of Israel.

I would contend that that is only what would be expected.


Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later in 586 B.C.E. these first ancient Jews in the Land of Israel [Judea] were overrun and Israel's First Jewish Temple (on Jerusalem's Old City Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple in Jerusalem upon the Temple Mount. Thus the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago right after the Holocaust and drove out the Arabs is preposterous!

The term "Palestine" came from the name that the conquering Roman Empire gave the ancient Land of Israel in an attempt to obliterate and de-legitimize the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The name "Palestine" was invented in the year 135 C.E. Before it was known as Judea, which was the southern kingdom of ancient Israel. The Roman Procurator in charge of the Judean-Israel territories was so angry at the Jews for revolting that he called for his historians and asked them who were the worst enemies of the Jews in their past history. The scribes said, "the Philistines." Thus, the Procurator declared that Land of Israel would from then forward be called "Philistia" [further bastardized into "Palaistina"] to dishonor the Jews and obliterate their history. Hence the name "Palestine."

One more thing. Very often one hears the revisionists and propagandists finding ancient historical links between the "Philistines" and the Arab "Palestinians." There is no truth to this claim! The Philistines were one of a number of Sea Peoples who reached the eastern Mediterranean region approximately 1250-1100 B.C.E. They were actually an amalgamation of various ethnic groups, primarily of Aegean and south-east European origin [Greece, Crete and Western Turkey] ... but surely not of Arabian origin! These Philistines were not Arab... and neither was Goliath! The Arabs of "Palestine" are just that... Arabs! And these Arabs of "Palestine" have about as much historical roots to the ancient Philistines as Yasser Arafat has to the Eskimos!

The ancient, indigenous inhabitants of Palestine are long perished from the earth. Canaanites, Phoencians, and then Philistines, all were dominated by the Israelites before 1060 B.C.E. Most of these cultural identities dissolved completely by the neo-Babylonian age, or, the 6th century B.C.E. Arabs weren’t even in Palestine until the mid-7th century C.E., over a thousand years later, after Palestine’s 1,300-year Jewish history. Arabs later living in Palestine never developed themselves or the land, but remained nomadic and quasi-primitive

Even the word "Palestine" has no meaning in Arabic - every word in Arabic has some meaning deriving from the Koran, but the word "Palestine" does not. If anything, the name "Palestine" was associated with Jews. In the years leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were nearly always referring to the region's Jewish residents. For example, the "Palestine Post" was a Jewish daily newspaper. The "Palestine Brigade [Regiment]" were composed exclusively of Jewish volunteers in the British Army. In fact, Arab leaders rejected the notion of a unique "Palestinian Arab"

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Arabs have been maligned for resisting, with arms, the creation of Israel.



Water under the bridge. Israel has made peace with several of those nations. Was the war reasonable? Perhaps. They lost. Its over.

Ohhhhhhh.... wait. Are you saying those non-uniformed people's attacking Israeli civillians today are fighting a war?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal



Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later in 586 B.C.E. these first ancient Jews in the Land of Israel [Judea] were overrun and Israel's First Jewish Temple (on Jerusalem's Old City Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple in Jerusalem upon the Temple Mount. Thus the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago right after the Holocaust and drove out the Arabs is preposterous!



And your point is?



The term "Palestine" came from the name that the conquering Roman Empire gave the ancient Land of Israel in an attempt to obliterate and de-legitimize the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The name "Palestine" was invented in the year 135 C.E. Before it was known as Judea, which was the southern kingdom of ancient Israel. The Roman Procurator in charge of the Judean-Israel territories was so angry at the Jews for revolting that he called for his historians and asked them who were the worst enemies of the Jews in their past history. The scribes said, "the Philistines." Thus, the Procurator declared that Land of Israel would from then forward be called "Philistia" [further bastardized into "Palaistina"] to dishonor the Jews and obliterate their history. Hence the name "Palestine."



And your point is?



One more thing. Very often one hears the revisionists and propagandists finding ancient historical links between the "Philistines" and the Arab "Palestinians." There is no truth to this claim! The Philistines were one of a number of Sea Peoples who reached the eastern Mediterranean region approximately 1250-1100 B.C.E. They were actually an amalgamation of various ethnic groups, primarily of Aegean and south-east European origin [Greece, Crete and Western Turkey] ... but surely not of Arabian origin! These Philistines were not Arab... and neither was Goliath! The Arabs of "Palestine" are just that... Arabs! And these Arabs of "Palestine" have about as much historical roots to the ancient Philistines as Yasser Arafat has to the Eskimos!



The ancient, indigenous inhabitants of Palestine are long perished from the earth. Canaanites, Phoencians, and then Philistines, all were dominated by the Israelites before 1060 B.C.E. Most of these cultural identities dissolved completely by the neo-Babylonian age, or, the 6th century B.C.E. Arabs weren’t even in Palestine until the mid-7th century C.E., over a thousand years later, after Palestine’s 1,300-year Jewish history. Arabs later living in Palestine never developed themselves or the land, but remained nomadic and quasi-primitive

Even the word "Palestine" has no meaning in Arabic - every word in Arabic has some meaning deriving from the Koran, but the word "Palestine" does not. If anything, the name "Palestine" was associated with Jews. In the years leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were nearly always referring to the region's Jewish residents. For example, the "Palestine Post" was a Jewish daily newspaper. The "Palestine Brigade [Regiment]" were composed exclusively of Jewish volunteers in the British Army. In fact, Arab leaders rejected the notion of a unique "Palestinian Arab"

And once again, what is your point?

Let me guess.

Because there were Jewish tribes that existed, at various times, at various places, and amongst various other tribes, sometimes ruling themselves, sometimes under the rule of other countries, that this means modern Jews can come along and say, we want it back now, just as it was at this particular point in time. Not that point in time when we were in Babylon, or Egypt. Not when we were ruled by this ruler or that ruler. And not sharing it with anyone else, like we also did. And pretty well 99% percent of Jews for about 2000 years haven't lived in the region at all.

The people who actually lived there in the 20th century however, have no claim. There is some debate about what their actual title should be, and because of that, they never existed.

Should we be bringing back the Turks then?

[Cleopatra]

Can somebody explain to me the point of this thread,please?

What will we make out of it?

Thanks in advance.

C.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx



Water under the bridge. Israel has made peace with several of those nations. Was the war reasonable? Perhaps. They lost. Its over.

Ohhhhhhh.... wait. Are you saying those non-uniformed people's attacking Israeli civillians today are fighting a war?

If you look at the thread topic, I was just trying to get this one issue out of the way.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Can somebody explain to me the point of this thread,please?

What will we make out of it?

Thanks in advance.

C.

Just as the title says, trying to debate one aspect of the whole issue. Many times in debates on the issue, reference is made to attacks on Israel, and that this is an example of immoral Arab actions. I am just trying to debate if this. Because the next step is usually, given the Arabs are immoral, Israel cannot be.

[davefoc]

peptoabysmal,
I believe there are two problems with what you said:
1. Your historical facts are suspect
2. It does not directly address the issue at hand: Was it legitimate for the arab nations to wage war against Israel in 1948 to curtail the Zionist movement.

On point 1: I believe what you have quoted as far as the 1312 BCE date is some biblical scholars guess as to when Moses or his brother might have massacred the caananites and founded a state. I do not believe that modern day archeologists believe that that happened. I think a more accepted idea is that between about 1000 BCE and 586 BCE a group of people that came to be known as Hebrews ruled over lands with varying degrees of autonomy that are roughly located where Israel is today. For the next 2400 years those same lands were controlled by a wide variety of civilizations, none of which were Hebrew. As I said above though, I don't see what this has to do with the point of the thread. Does everybody get to make some guesses about his ancestry and reclaim land that may have been walked on by an ancestor that lived 2400 years ago?
On point 2: I actually didn't have much of an opinion. It probably would have been better for everybody concerned if the arabs had not gone to war against the Israelis. I don't know. I can see how from their point of view the Europeans were foisting immigrants on them who would eventually set up there own independent state. I suspect the Europeans probably would have fought against a Jewish immigration if the Arabs had massacred Jews in Palestine and then forced the rest to emmigrate to Europe. It seems like there are some difficult issues here and I don't mean to pretend that I have the answers.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And your point is?



And your point is?



And once again, what is your point?

Let me guess.

Because there were Jewish tribes that existed, at various times, at various places, and amongst various other tribes, sometimes ruling themselves, sometimes under the rule of other countries, that this means modern Jews can come along and say, we want it back now, just as it was at this particular point in time. Not that point in time when we were in Babylon, or Egypt. Not when we were ruled by this ruler or that ruler. And not sharing it with anyone else, like we also did. And pretty well 99% percent of Jews for about 2000 years haven't lived in the region at all.

The people who actually lived there in the 20th century however, have no claim. There is some debate about what their actual title should be, and because of that, they never existed.

Should we be bringing back the Turks then?

He was questioning your claim that it belongs to the Arabs there where many good points made in his message take notice.

[Cleopatra]

Well, this is what I think.

Debates MAY lead to the extremes indeed but what is the point of starting a debate by the extremes...

Debates are lovely. I love them so much that I made them a living of mine but they must have an essence as well...

You posted this and see the response you had... I don't blame them.

I wonder, what people who don't participate in the Politics Forum think of us...

As for the connection of the Arabs and the war... please... don't make me reply to this. It's in their religion for heavens sake!!! Islam can't survive without War.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well, this is what I think.

Debates MAY lead to the extremes indeed but what is the point of starting a debate by the extremes...



It is an important point. It relates to the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim for a state. If all they are is a bunch of warmongering barbarians, they presumably have less of a claim to the land than the highly civilised, democratic, modern tolerant Israelis.



You posted this and see the response you had... I don't blame them.



Yes, and that is what I am debating. It is good to get this issue out in the open once and for all, rather than just have it popping up over and over again.



As for the connection of the Arabs and the war... please... don't make me reply to this. It's in their religion for heavens sake!!! Islam can't survive without War.

Please do reply. What is the point of having debates and people do not say what they think. It is not a contest, where we get a trophy according to how well we debated a certain topic.

As for being their religion, there are other religions that celebrate conquest, war and killing. See if you can guess one.

Eventually, a civilised society can adapt to any religious basis, I believe. The warrior part of Arabic life was more to do with their tribal conflicts, I believe, than thr Koran.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is an important point. It relates to the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim for a state. If all they are is a bunch of warmongering barbarians, they presumably have less of a claim to the land than the highly civilised, democratic, modern tolerant Israelis.

They are nothing but warmongering barbarians.
In addition, your only claim is that it all belongs to the Arabs.



Eventually, a civilised society can adapt to any religious basis, I believe. The warrior part of Arabic life was more to do with their tribal conflicts, I believe, than thr Koran.

There are plenty of examples of it in the koran.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And your point is?



And your point is?



And once again, what is your point?

Let me guess.

Because there were Jewish tribes that existed, at various times, at various places, and amongst various other tribes, sometimes ruling themselves, sometimes under the rule of other countries, that this means modern Jews can come along and say, we want it back now, just as it was at this particular point in time. Not that point in time when we were in Babylon, or Egypt. Not when we were ruled by this ruler or that ruler. And not sharing it with anyone else, like we also did. And pretty well 99% percent of Jews for about 2000 years haven't lived in the region at all.

The people who actually lived there in the 20th century however, have no claim. There is some debate about what their actual title should be, and because of that, they never existed.

Should we be bringing back the Turks then?

If possession is 9/10's of the law as you seem to be saying here, what right do the so-called Palestinians have to want it back now? This is the 21st century.

Yeah, the Turks really stirred things up when they tried to tell the Muslims to treat the Jews as equals around 150 years ago.

My point is that Palestine is not a Palestinian objective, but an Arab objective.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


If possession is 9/10's of the law as you seem to be saying here, what right do the so-called Palestinians have to want it back now? This is the 21st century.

Yeah, the Turks really stirred things up when they tried to tell the Muslims to treat the Jews as equals around 150 years ago.

My point is that Palestine is not a Palestinian objective, but an Arab objective.

I think they have indicated an acceptance of the existence of Israel. Israel, however, appears intent on taking over what little land is left of Palestine.

[Skeptic]

So, in sum, AUP claims he doesn't want israel destroyed--"only" that a war of annihilation by the arabs to destroy it is perfectly justified.

And I don't want AUP dead, I just think anybody who would attack him in the street with a knife with the intent of killing him is fully justified.

This doesn't mean I HATE AUP, either. Just like AUP claims he doesn't hate jews because he only supports such butchery in a "strictly limited geographical area", I do not really hate him--I only support such attacks on his person in a "strictly limited geographical area", Australia. If he ever leaves the place as a refugee in fear of fully justified knife attacks, I shall support his right to live free of such molestation anywhere else.

(Of course, there is also another difference: my "support" of killing AUP with a knife is merely an ironic device; his support of killing jews with bombs is real.)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is an important point. It relates to the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim for a state. If all they are is a bunch of warmongering barbarians, they presumably have less of a claim to the land than the highly civilised, democratic, modern tolerant Israelis.

I will ignore the style of the sentence above and I will remind you that, thank God, Palestinians don't expect me or you, to legitimize their claim.
UN has done this very early. UN offered them a State back then...but...

Yes, and that is what I am debating. It is good to get this issue out in the open once and for all, rather than just have it popping up over and over again.

Be honest to yourself Mr. Unique. You do this as a Pcychotherapy as everybody else. :) When I was in college in late 80ies we had a flourishing communist group in the school of Law. Those guys were trying to find issues to discuss and to create mess. We used to say that they were hooked on " Revolutionaerobics" ;)


Please do reply. What is the point of having debates and people do not say what they think. It is not a contest, where we get a trophy according to how well we debated a certain topic.

As for being their religion, there are other religions that celebrate conquest, war and killing. See if you can guess one.

No, frankly I can't ,the same way Islam does it.

Eventually, a civilised society can adapt to any religious basis, I believe. The warrior part of Arabic life was more to do with their tribal conflicts, I believe, than thr Koran.

Ahhh now we are talking!!! Do you really think that Arabs are over the tribal state? I don't.They still behave as if they are organised in tribes and not in modern states.

[Supercharts]

A_U_P is obsessed with Jews and Americans. For some reason, which he cannot explain, he thinks being a useful idiot is his calling in life.
He isn't funny like BigFig or moronic like Paul Bethke but he shares with them a mantra that he needs to repeat over and over again.
Provoking people with no clear stated point [eg. Marine families 'begging' for food] is done just to get a rise out of those he has decided need to be angered. Then his 'defense' is that he likes to ask questions and debate. DC, CMS and A_U_P are all cut from the same cloth but A_U_P pretends to intellectualism and revisionism - both of which he is incapable of attaining. DC & CMS are still children so their "It's not fair" BS is a sign of their maturity and thus can be forgiven.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So, in sum, AUP claims he doesn't want israel destroyed--"only" that a war of annihilation by the arabs to destroy it is perfectly justified.

And I don't want AUP dead, I just think anybody who would attack him in the street with a knife with the intent of killing him is fully justified.

This doesn't mean I HATE AUP, either. Just like AUP claims he doesn't hate jews because he only supports such butchery in a "strictly limited geographical area", I do not really hate him--I only support such attacks on his person in a "strictly limited geographical area", Australia. If he ever leaves the place as a refugee in fear of fully justified knife attacks, I shall support his right to live free of such molestation anywhere else.

(Of course, there is also another difference: my "support" of killing AUP with a knife is merely an ironic device; his support of killing jews with bombs is real.)

I was talking about the response of the Arabs to the creation of Israel. Not my response. Not the current situation. I do not think an attempt to wipe out Israel now is going to be excusable. Stop trying to derail the whole point of the thread.

Once again, there have been numerous accusations, such as yours above, that all the Arabs want to do is wipe out Israel in as bloody a manner as possible.

I was just trying to debate if, when Israel was created, the response from the Arabs was understandable in the context of the time.

When have I supported the killing of Jews with bombs? And what has that to do with the topic. This is the constant, transparent, stupid device you use in debates on this general area of discussion, derail the thread when you know you cannot win using logic.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I will ignore the style of the sentence above and I will remind you that, thank God, Palestinians don't expect me or you, to legitimize their claim.
UN has done this very early. UN offered them a State back then...but...



Funnily enough, you have ended up at the whole point of this topic. Why did they have to accept any deal from the UN, except that it was forced on them.



Be honest to yourself Mr. Unique. You do this as a Pcychotherapy as everybody else. :) When I was in college in late 80ies we had a flourishing communist group in the school of Law. Those guys were trying to find issues to discuss and to create mess. We used to say that they were hooked on " Revolutionaerobics" ;)



Such a topic is quite interesting, why don't you start this in a separate thread?




No, frankly I can't ,the same way Islam does it.



Ahh, yes you can, but you don't see it as being the same as 'Islam'. I know a Moslem who is so quiet and shy, you could not imagine him being involved in a war. There are many such Moslems. There are also many violent Moslems. There are also extremist Jews who take their inspiration from the Old Testament, (not sure what Jews call it), and look forward to a good bit of bloodshed every now and then too.



Ahhh now we are talking!!! Do you really think that Arabs are over the tribal state? I don't.They still behave as if they are organised in tribes and not in modern states.

They appear to be still in a tribal state, given how their conferences seem to resemble the scenes from 'Lawrence of Arabia' still.

This also surely indicates that getting a unified approach to anything, including the destruction of Israel, is pretty unlikely.

[Skeptic]

I was talking about the response of the Arabs to the creation of Israel. Not my response. Not the current situation.

So, you don't think israel should NOW be destroyed BY YOU, but merely that it should have been destroyed WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED by SOMEBODY ELSE (the Arabs.)

I love you too, AUP: you see, I never meant that a "reasonable" reaction to your existence is for ME to kill you NOW. All I'm saying is that SOMEBODY ELSE should have "reasonably reacted" and killed you WHEN YOU WERE A BABY, that's all.

Surely you can see that makes such an enormous difference in my respect for your life...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I was talking about the response of the Arabs to the creation of Israel. Not my response. Not the current situation.

I apologize my analogy distorted your position so, AUP.

As you say, a fair analogy would have been, not that I should murder you NOW, but merely that SOMEBODY ELSE should have murdered you WHEN YOU WERE A BABY.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It is not my position. The topic question is on the Arab reaction to the excision of their land, that they lived on, for the creation of a new State.

Now, when such events have happened in the past, the natural reaction has often been war. Wars involve killing. That is true. I have been against the recent war, for example.

The Australian aboriginies, when the British invaded, fought back in a low level war at a tribal level. The Maories, in New Zealand, who had a much more warlike society, fought back to such a degree against the British invasion there that the British eventually had to make a peace deal with them.

India also fought against the British invasion. The Afghanies fought against the Russian invasion. The Irish and Scottish fought the English invasion. You see the pattern here?