The troubles started in the 1890s when the Zionist movement was formed and made a fundamental error in their political platform. They erroneously believed that God gave the Land to the descendents of Abraham (ie. themselves as Jews).
Many Jews saw an independent Jewish state in Palestine as the best escape from anti-Semitism. They established a movement called Zionism to establish such a state. In the late 1800's, Palestine was a poor, thinly populated region ruled by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Most of its people were Muslim Arabs, though a small number of Jews also lived there. The Zionists bought land in Palestine and established farming communities. The first all-Jewish city, Tel Aviv, was founded in 1909.
In 1917, the United Kingdom issued the Balfour Declaration, supporting the idea of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In addition, the United Kingdom promised Arab leaders support for an Arab state. The Arabs believed this state would include Palestine.
In 1918, the British captured Palestine from the Ottomans. The League of Nations--a forerunner of the United Nations--gave the UK temporary control of Palestine in 1920. In the 1920's and 1930's, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased, despite Arab opposition.
Quoted Text
Remember all those thousands and thousands of Jews who became Christians in the first and second centuries?
Beginning in the late 1200's, the Jews were expelled from England, France, and parts of central Europe. Many settled in eastern Europe, especially Poland.
To avoid persecution, some Jews in Spain and Portugal, which had become Christian countries, pretended to convert to Christianity but continued to practise Judaism secretly. These Jews were known as Marranos. Ferdinand and Isabella, the king and queen of Spain, established a special court called the Inquisition to punish people suspected of not following Christian teachings. The Inquisition used torture to force confessions from its victims, many of whom were Marranos. In 1492, Jews who had not converted to Christianity were expelled from Spain. Soon after, Jews were forced to leave Portugal. Many Jews fled to what are now Italy and Turkey. Some went to Palestine, where they studied the Kabbalah, the Jewish mystical tradition
What fascinate me... is the number of people who actually believe that there is a chance that they might convince the Jews to pack their bags and leave Israel. It's hilarious.
But lets say that they did pack their bags. It would set a precedent. And the terrorists would be in geat demand for their success.
So now we have a group of 20 year old aborigines who think... Hey! How about getting our land back. Lets give a call to that Hezbollah mob and see if they can help us. That would be so funny! I bet the talk on this forum would make a sharp U turn.
Well... There you go. This is the victory that most of you wanted. Long Live the Hezbollah.
Quoted Text
Hezbollah claims 'historic victory'
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said today his guerillas had achieved a "strategic, historic victory" against Israel, and suggested Lebanese and international troops could not protect Lebanon alone.
"We came out victorious in a war in which big Arab armies were defeated [before]," the black-turbaned cleric said in a taped address on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television.
Moments after his speech ended, celebratory gunfire erupted across the Lebanese capital.
"We are today before a strategic, historic victory, without exaggeration," Nasrallah said. He spoke on the day a ceasefire took effect - ending 34 days of brutal fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. Nasrallah called it "a great day".
Now was not the time to debate the disarmament of his guerilla fighters, Nasrallah declared, saying the issue should be done in secret sessions of the Government to avoid serving Israeli interests.
"This is immoral, incorrect and inappropriate," he said. "It is wrong timing on the psychological and moral level particularly before the ceasefire," he said in reference to calls for the guerillas to disarm.
"Who will defend Lebanon in case of a new Israeli offensive?" he asked. "The Lebanese army and international troops are incapable of protecting Lebanon," he said, flanked by Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.
But Nasrallah said he was open to dialogue about Hezbollah's weapons at the appropriate time. And he credited his group's weapons with proving to Israel "war with Lebanon will not be a picnic. It will be very costly".
"The main goal of Israel in this war has been to remove Hezbollah's weapons. This will not happen through destroying homes ... It will come through discussion," Nasrallah said.
The Shiite leader suggested some Lebanese politicians were rushing into disarming Hezbollah too soon.
"People sit in air-conditioning and speak about the resistance's weapons in a rough way," he said of his critics. "Lebanon's infrastructure has been destroyed in all places, but most intensely among the people of the south and southern Beirut. This is the sector of society that is most in support of the resistance, most proud of the resistance, and has given the most sacrifices."
Nasrallah said the "massive devastation and destruction" inflicted upon Lebanon during the month-long war reflected Israel's "failure and impotency".
He promised his organisation would help the Lebanese people rebuild, and pledged to give refugees money to pay rent and buy new furniture.
"Starting tomorrow morning, the brothers [Hezbollah members] in the towns and villages will turn to those whose homes are badly damaged and help rebuild them," he said. "Today is the day to keep up our promises ... All our brothers will be in your service starting tomorrow."
He estimated that 15,000 housing units had been destroyed.
"The shelling and destruction that Israel inflicted on Lebanon is unprecedented, especially in the south and Dahieh [the south Beirut suburbs where Hezbollah's headquarters were bombed in the opening days of the war]," he said.
"The enemy destroyed thousands of houses in the south, the Bekaa and the southern suburbs," he said.
Nasrallah described the rebuilding effort in military terms, and called on Lebanese youth to volunteer to help.
"Completing the victory can be done with reconstruction, particularly the houses," he said. "Everyone must enter the battle to rebuild."
Your brief run down of history was fairly accurate but not entirely relevant.
To think that migrants/refugees somehow had precedence over the indigenous population of Palestine was an immoral misjudgement by the power brokers in the early part of the century. (World War I carnage was another of their master strokes).
Are we going to give the Baptists a homeland because they get abused and killed here and there, then and now? The idea of giving someone else's land away to a religious group is very amusing. Would you like your hometown given away by a third party to Baptists (only) and told, "Don't worry. You'll be able to return but if you want to, you can get financial compensation instead."
This is what was said to the dispossessed of Palestine in 1948. Sixty years later, they are still waiting for compensation or the right to return.
By the way, only 7% of Palestine is in private hands. The rest belongs to the Jewish Agency.
You have to put Jewish persecution in context. Throughout the centuries, whatever your religion, if it were not the same as the King's then you were in trouble. You needed a patron, a hiding spot, or an exit visa. No matter what religion. Whole cities could be denounced as heretical and then destroyed.
The biggest exception to this absolute rule for Europe, was in the Middle East. There, most of the rulers and people allowed other sects and religions to flourish. That's why it's such a patchwork of different religions and groups today.
Unfortunately the foundation of Israel has forced most of the Jews and Christians in the region to migrate. So the oldest Jewish and Christian areas in the world are disappearing. Where do these people have to go?
Luckily the Jewish ones can go to Israel where they can be the underclass on low wages and send their sons off to war.
But what homeland should the Christians be heading for?
Instead of giving away Arab land, why didn't we give a piece of Germany to refugee Jews in the wake of the War? Or even more generously some of our own land. Giving away some else's land causes terrorism. Or should I say guerilla warfare. Resistance. Patriotism. Inncoent deaths.
Instead of giving away Arab land, why didn't we give a piece of Germany to refugee Jews in the wake of the War? Or even more generously some of our own land. Giving away some else's land causes terrorism. Or should I say guerilla warfare. Resistance. Patriotism. Inncoent deaths.
Spot on.
Why did they do it? Simple, racism. No one wanted the Jews and why would anyone care if the Jews and the Arabs destroyed eachother.
So . . in just over 12 hours time the guns should fall silent . . . *I'm not holding MY breath* . . . . nobody has a remedy for the issues these two sides claim as the cause of the conflict. .
The fact is that someone does have a remedy for the issues causing the conflict. That someone is the spokesman for the world. It is the United Nations. The UN gave birth to Israel and said in the same breath...and there shall be Palestine. It later said, all the refugees must either return or be paid compensation.
Both Israel and the United States have thwarted that from happening. Israel with its guns (from America) on the ground and the U.S. with its veto inside the UN.
You cannot hit me with a rocket and ask me to be diplomatic towards those who launched it.
Do you reserve this right to yourself alone, or does it go for all of us?
If I am an Arab, can I be undiplomatic when I hit back at those who hit me with a rocket? Yes or No? Do you believe everyone has the same rights as you? Do Arabs have the same right to defend their homes?
Do you reserve this right to yourself alone, or does it go for all of us?
If I am an Arab, can I be undiplomatic when I hit back at those who hit me with a rocket? Yes or No? Do you believe everyone has the same rights as you? Do Arabs have the same right to defend their homes? Or don't they count?
Of course this right apply to everyone. But technically (And I know that some of you will want to split hair over this one), the west never strike first. Yes we did invade some Middle East countries... But only in retalation to terrorist attacks on our land. Is it justify to invade a country because of a terrorist attack? Yes... Most definitely. It took a lot less than that to start WWI.
Regarding your previous post... I do not regard giving Israel to a religion. But rather to a people (The Hebrews). It is their land of origin and without it, they don't have a country.
This is really not about Palestine. It is a well know fact that the whole Middle East would want to see Israel going down the tube. It is a Muslim Arab thing and Palestine is only being use as an excuse. Lebanon, Syria and Iran would love to destroy Israel. And that's only to mention a few. You can add the rebels in Iraq to that list for starter. I reckon that if the terrorists did not exist, Israel and Palestine would get on fine. The majority of Palestinians want peace. But their dictators are using them as pawns to further their crap cause.
But technically (And I know that some of you will want to split hair over this one), the west never strike first. Yes we did invade some Middle East countries... But only in retalation to terrorist attacks on our land.
Not sure how many times you need to hear this, even the white house has conceded that Iraq (or terrorists within Iraq) had nothing to do with 9/11, had nothing to do with London, or Bali!
This is that we're the good guys mentality and what we do is ALWAYS right. Thinking like that makes you no better than those people in the middle east who believe Israel should be destroyed because of the propaganda about Jews they have been fed for centuries!
Quoted from Aussies_Online
I do not regard giving Israel to a religion. But rather to a people (The Hebrews). It is their land of origin and without it, they don't have a country.
As unfair as it was that the Jews were all but driven out of Palestine over the centuries, you can't just take (steal) land from one culture to give it to another just because it was their 'promised' land or the land they originally inhabited.
It would be like us giving all our land back to the Aborigines which was simply not possible, however we did give them some land back and compensate them (the unfair treatment of Aborigines has been covered in other topics).
The west preferred the Jews to have control of what is now Israel because it is also the sacred holy land for Christians and they decided the Jews would be more trustable than the Arabs.
Quoted from Aussies_Online
This is really not about Palestine. It is a well know fact that the whole Middle East would want to see Israel going down the tube. It is a Muslim Arab thing and Palestine is only being use as an excuse. Lebanon, Syria and Iran would love to destroy Israel. And that's only to mention a few. You can add the rebels in Iraq to that list for starter. I reckon that if the terrorists did not exist, Israel and Palestine would get on fine. The majority of Palestinians want peace. But their dictators are using them as pawns to further their crap cause.
Again this is anti-Arab propaganda spun by the west. Even though what you're saying about Lebanon, Syria and Iran wanting to get rid of Israel might be true, you have to take into account the events that have led to this situation.
No matter what race you are, if your land was taken from you and given to another culture and you were forced to live in what was once your home as a second cass citizen with members of your family getting killed indiscriminantly for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or for no reason at all I think you would be angry at the 'invaders' as well.
The anti-Jew brainwashing of the middle-east has occurred over centuries and I wonder if this was started or encouraged by the Christians who hated the Jews as well. In fact during WWII the Palestinian Arab leader was an ally with Hitler because they both shared the same ideology to get rid of the Jews.
I reckon that if the terrorists did not exist, Israel and Palestine would get on fine.
Not true. Islamic terrorism did not exist following the immediate creation of Israel. The first terrorist groups to rise out of the creation of Israel were actually two Jewish groups called the Irgun and Lehi. The Arab–Israeli War in 1948 was fought by the legitimate armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq.
It sounds like your judgement has been clouded by hatred for terrorists. It's fine to hate the terrorists and you'd be inhuman not to, but terrorists did not start the Israel-Palestine conflict, they are the result of that conflict. Terrorism is a result, rarely a cause.
I do not regard giving Israel to a religion. But rather to a people (The Hebrews). It is their land of origin and without it, they don't have a country.
Hitler too made the error of thinking that the Jews were a race. As a result, he believed that Judaism was in the blood and could be exterminated.
But in fact Judaism is an idea, a faith or belief. A religion. This can be proven very easily.
1. proof number one: You can become a Jew. There are countless documented records of non Hebrews becoming Jews. The most famous and dramatic was when the Empire of the Khazars converted to Judaism between 740 and 950 A.D. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars for details.
2. proof number two: If Judaism is a race, how come Swedish Jews are blonde and blue eyed, Iraqi Jews are of Middle Eastern appearance, and Ethiopian Jews are black?
Can people choose to be Jews, and can Jews convert to other religions? The answer is clearly yes. But no amount of choice will allow you to change your race. That is something you are born with.
The reason people think of Jews as a race is because the parents of most Jews are Jews too. Just the same as the parents of most Catholics are also Catholics. Their beginnings were as a race and tribal religion. But that was 4,000 years ago and there's been a lot of conversions and intermarriage ever since.
At the time of Christ, most Jews lived outside of Palestine. Their families had, at some point in B.C. decided to live beyond Palestine. So, the biggest concentration of Jews in Christ's time, was Alexandria in Egypt (not Jerusalem as you would suppose). The Jewish population in Mesopotamia (aka Iraq) was higher than the Jewish population in Israel. There were significant Jewish populations in every direction spreading out from Palestine: in Arabia, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Persian Empire (aka Parthia) and the Black Sea coasts.
When the Jewish revolt occured, most Jews were outside of Palestine (and Rome) and thus not affected. The Diaspora was already a fact. It was not triggered by Rome's destruction of Jerusalem.
Probably 50% of the Jews in Palestine did not get involved in the revolt and therefore were not slaughtered or sold into slavery. Huge numbers of Jews had already converted to Christianity and they did not get involved either.
The Jews involved in the revolt were usually killed or sold into slavery. They have very few descendents.
So the idea that the Jews of today are descended wholesale from Jews expelled from Palestine by the Romans, just does not stand up to the facts of history.
At an educated guess, less than 10% of an Israeli Jew's blood would be derived from a Jew living in Israel at the time of the Revolt. And of those involved in the Revolt, it would be even less than that.
We know that after the Revolt and destruction of Jerusalem, there was still a viable/strong Jewish presence in Palestine, and we know that the Christian population were once themselves Jews as well. It is these people that the Palestinians of today are descended from. So Palestine is their land in every sense of the word. Palestine does not belong to immigrants from Russia.
The European colonies in the New World were successful because our Old World diseases wiped out the vast majority of the indigenous population. But our colonies in Algeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Israel have been unsuccessful because they were in the Old World and so the indigenous population did not just lie down and die, but had the temerity to fight back!
That's where Israel and Palestine are today. And that's why it is highly unlikely that the State of Israel will be around for long.
Is it justify to invade a country because of a terrorist attack? Yes... Most definitely.
So you say that it is justified for a country (A) to attack another country (B) when a terrorist act comes out of that country B?
So if one of those Papuans we gave asylum to and living in Darwin, lobbed a missile into Indonesia, it is okay for Indonesia to bomb Darwin, Peth and Brisbane? And to follow the bombing up with invasion.....?????
An act of terror by an 18 year old does not equate to an act of terror from a government. (crime v war crime)
When America demanded Osama bin Laden to be handed over, Afghanistan did not have an extradition treaty with the USA. So the Afghan government asked for evidence that he was involved in 9/11. The Americans could not or would not provide any evidence and invaded instead. This is totally illegal in international law. This is Hitler stuff.
Israel is guilty of the same mentality. A Jewish youth killed a German diplomat in Paris in 1938. Hitler responded by ordering the Kristallnacht (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/knacht1a.htm ) and strengthening the Nuremburg laws.
Collective punishment used to be viewed by twentieth century Anglo-Saxons as a horrific crime....but wait....that's only when our enemies do it!
In Lebanon's case, the Hezbollah were formed in 1982 to conduct guerilla warfare against the invading Israeli Army. They vowed to continue attacking Israel until Israel got out of Lebanon. Isarel never fully evacuated Lebanon so Hezbollah has continued to attack Israeli positions. Israel has just used the recent attacks to invade Lebanon.
They're after the water (the Litani River) more than the land. That's why they told the Lebanese to flee. It will be interesting to see whether they ever let the Lebanese return. They haven't let the Palestinians return.
... technically (And I know that some of you will want to split hair over this one), the west never strike first. Yes we did invade some Middle East countries... But only in retalation to terrorist attacks on our land.
We (as democratic Anglo-Saxons) invaded the Middle East in: 1861 Bahrain 1868 Qatar 1882 Egypt 1884 Sudan 1884 Somalia 1891 Oman 1892 United Arab Emirates 1899 Kuwait 1914 Basra, Iraq 1915 Gallipoli, Turkey 1915 Iran 1917 Palestine, Jordan & Iraq 1918 Syria & Lebanon 1942 Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia 1956 Egypt 1980 Iran 1991 Iraq 1992 Somalia 2001 Afghanistan 2003 Iraq
None of these military attacks and/or occupations were in retaliation to "terrorist attacks on our land" by these countries. We have been the aggressors for over 100 years.
Quoted from Aussies_Online
... technically (And I know that some of you will want to split hair over this one), the west never strike first. Yes we did invade some Middle East countries... But only in retalation to terrorist attacks on our land.
Of course this right apply to everyone. But technically (And I know that some of you will want to split hair over this one), the west never strike first.
Ah ignorance is bliss. America even invaded Hawaii deposed the king and made the country a US State, just because the king kicked out a US tycoon who was ripping his country off.
Read Stephen Kinzer's book, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq (Times Books, 2006). As the name suggests it chronicles 100 years of America doing exactly what you say the West doesn't, striking first. In nearly all cases America has done this for economic gain of one sort or another (and this includes invading Iraq).
Really it is a good book and an eye opener.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
In nearly all cases America has done this for economic gain
The code word for economic gain in this instance is "American interests". This also accommodates "strategic interests" - spots that guard or produce the wealth.
The thing is, it would be more accurate to say "Wealthy American interests" since the poor pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes to equip and supply the disproportionate number of their boys in the army.
So you say that it is justified for a country (A) to attack another country (B) when a terrorist act comes out of that country B?
So if one of those Papuans we gave asylum to and living in Darwin, lobbed a missile into Indonesia, it is okay for Indonesia to bomb Darwin, Peth and Brisbane? And to follow the bombing up with invasion.....?????
You better believe it! You might not think it is right... But that is the way it works. The government is responsible for each one of its citizen. If a 18 year old goes banana and somehow obtain a missile to launch on Indonesia, we are all in trouble.
However, the problem could be solved by the Australian government arresting the 18 year old... Or even handing him over to Indonesia for punishment.
This is what the Middle East countries have not done. Not only they do not capture and punish terrorists, but they protect them.
Logged
. . nobody has a remedy for the issues these two sides claim as the cause of the conflict. . 
