IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[Panag]

Originally posted by Eli
One soldier lightly injured, one terrorist dead.

hi ,

one sad loss and one great victory , guess what goes where

have a nice evening

[Panag]

hi ,

one pic , .....

have a nice evening

[CyberGnu]

Edan:

Ahh, I see, so if it's an internal conflict it's not war?
OK, then, Israel isn't causing a war, now is it, since the current conflict is an internal matter.

From the EB:

War: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units, such as states or nations or between rival political factions of the same state or nation. War is characterized by intentional violence on the part of large bodies of individuals who are expressly organized and trained to participate in such violence. Wars between nation-states may be fought to gain reparation for a particular injury; to acquire a particular territory or advantage; to gain recognition of a particular claim; or to achieve the extermination or unconditional surrender of the enemy.

Israels war in palestine is covered under the last heading, btw.

And most of the Israeli-Arab wars were cold-war related, and all are decades old now.

And your point is?

False. There are reports of numerous anti-semitism by the late 19th century, and there had been violence since the middle of that century - true it had escalated by the mid-1920s, in a way that make the previous violence inconsequential, but to claim that they were living peacefully is stretching the truth. And the Jews and Arabs had rarely lived "enthusiastically" together, and then, only in the middle ages.

You might want to consult a history book on this. While there was violence between arab and jewish groups in palestine prior to 1920, it was pretty much exclusively caused by the immigrating jews never bothering to learn local laws. The palestinians who lived in palestine didn;t own their own land, but were life long serfs in the same manner as many east european peasants. They did, however, own their own trees.

When the jews came they not only dispossed and displaced palestinian farmers, but also tore down their property.

Only revisionists in the israeli propaganda machine would conlucde that attacking someone who has driven you from your home and destroyed your property is considered a hate crime...

[CyberGnu]

Panag, what you write seems to contain words, but I can;t make out a mening.

The trick is to string them together to form coherent sentences.

When you've mastered that, we can work on you actually making sense.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Israels war in palestine is covered under the last heading, btw.

Make up your mind. If Israel's conflict with the Palestinians is counted as war, so would all the others I've listed.

And your point is?

I counter your argument and so you simply ignore them. I see little point in debating this when you simply choose to ignore my points.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, I think your analogy of about the Mexicans taking a piece of America and forming their own country is almost apt. The problem with the analogy is that in the 1920s there was no Arab government in Palestine. Had there been an Arab government in Palestine rather than a British mandate, your analogy would be entirely apt.

What the Jews did in carving Israel out from the Mandate was legal because it was done with the consent of United Nations. The problem we have, therefore, is not that the Israeli stole land from an Arab government, but that the Arab's have never recognized in the legitimacy of the Mandate.

[CyberGnu]

Edan, was the long complicated sentences too much for you?

Let me bold the important part to make it easier for you.

From the EB:

War: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units, such as states or nations or between rival political factions of the same state or nation. War is characterized by intentional violence on the part of large bodies of individuals who are expressly organized and trained to participate in such violence. Wars between nation-states may be fought to gain reparation for a particular injury; to acquire a particular territory or advantage; to gain recognition of a particular claim; or to achieve the extermination or unconditional surrender of the enemy.

This is, of course, assuming that palestine is an actual part of Israel, which it isn't. I figured that poitning that out would be overtaxing you, however.

So regardless of how you define the legal status of palestine, the conflict is still a war. Now, for heavens sake, try to keep your dignity.

I counter your argument and so you simply ignore them. I see little point in debating this when you simply choose to ignore my points.

?

You posted a non-sequiteur, I wonder what point it has, and all of a sudden I am ignoring you?!!!!!

Yeah.... Right.....

[CyberGnu]

Ned, the brits had a mandate, as caretakers of the land. I trust you are aware that a caretaker of, say, a house, is not entitled to sell any part of the property.

The UN decision was not legal, since the parties involved never agreed to it.

The comparison to the mexicans are thus more than apt.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu You posted a non-sequiteur, I wonder what point it has, and all of a sudden I am ignoring you?!!!!!

I really don't care to continue this debate, but here are a few (of many) examples of why I really don't want to debate you:

Me(sarcastically): After all, Israel is the root of all the problems of the Arab nations.
You:In case you haven't noticed, apart from conflicts with Israel, the arab world IS in peace.
Me: you'll find that that war is, by far, not their only problem.
You: So you ARE knocking down your own strawmen.


You: Two are directly related to the cold war.... The one single war remaining, the Iraq-Kuwait war, is now 12 years old.
Me: And most of the Israeli-Arab wars were cold-war related, and all are decades old now.
You: Your point?

You: And even a mediocre scholar of history knows that before 1920 jews and arabs coexisted not only peacefully, but actually enthusiastilly.
You (a little while later): there was violence between arab and jewish groups in palestine prior to 1920.


I'm not going to even going to bother with the numerous inaccuracies, ommisions and outright falsehoods you've made. I just don't want to waste any more time on you.

Oh, and since you appear to to think that I don't know anything, here are some of my sources:

The Arabs and Zionism before WW1
The Arab-Israeli Reader
Six Days of War
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East
The Arab-Israeli Wars
The 50 Years War
Secrets of War: Bold Strikes

Mind naming one source apart from the Encyclopedia Britanicca and http://www.IHateJewsPropoganda.com/ (or, for that matter, http://www.IHateArabsPropoganda.com/ )?

[CyberGnu]

How about quoting the FULL interchange?

Ned: Advising the good guys to somehow stop the cycle violence is a suggestion that they accept their fate like sheep being led to slaughter.



Gnu: Wow... So you both have finally understood why the palestinians are fighting?

Wonders still can happen...

Well, 4 million Israelis to go, and there might actually be peace in the mid east!



Edan: Yeah, cause then all there problems would be solved, and they'd all be content and happy. After all, Israel is the root of all the problems of the Arab nations.

OTOH, some of us like to live in the real world.



Gnu: In case you haven't noticed, apart from conflicts with Israel, the arab world IS in peace.


Edan: you'll find that that war is, by far, not their only problem.


Gnu: So you ARE knocking down your own strawmen.




So, what you are saying is that you didn't post a strawman, but a non-sequiteur.

Now, I don't expect you to understand any of that, so I'll elaborate.

A strawman is a deliberately misleading argument, which is easily disproven by the proposer and thus gives the image of refuting the original argument. I assumed that you posted your first reply in order to refute me. Apparently I was in error.

What you instead posted was what is called a non-sequiteur, or a statement that has no logical/rational base in a preceding statement or action. It is basically an elaborate version of spam.

Now, if you really don't have anything to add to the discussion, why not just be quiet? There are intelligent people on the board, like Ned, who are able to conduct a debate, and it would be nice to be allowed to have that debate without spammers.

You: Two are directly related to the cold war.... The one single war remaining, the Iraq-Kuwait war, is now 12 years old.
Me: And most of the Israeli-Arab wars were cold-war related, and all are decades old now.
You: Your point?

Another non-sequiter. You claimed that the arab world had plenty of wars without Israel, and thus the conclusion that without Israel, or even Israels barbarities, there might be peace is false. By showing your claim to invalid I refuted your point and upheld my original tenet.

What Israels wars are caused by has aboslutely no relevance. What is relevant is that Israel is currently responsible for the current wars in the area, and removal of Israel might thus achieve peace.

You: And even a mediocre scholar of history knows that before 1920 jews and arabs coexisted not only peacefully, but actually enthusiastilly.
You (a little while later): there was violence between arab and jewish groups in palestine prior to 1920.

Well, I'm sorry you have to have everything spelled out for you. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. To dumb it down for you: Take a look at, for example, hispanics in the US. Hispanic and "US" culture are coexisting peacefully and enthusiastiaclly. Yet there are incidents of racial tension and even violence. It is bound to happen, especially if the new comers, the guests on the older groups land, does not learn and/or respect local laws and customs.

I'm not going to even going to bother with the numerous inaccuracies, ommisions and outright falsehoods you've made. I just don't want to waste any more time on you.

Of course you don't. That would require not only knowledge but also logical skills and intelligence.

Oh, and since you appear to to think that I don't know anything, here are some of my sources:

Well, while I certainly don't hold your knowledge in any kind of esteem, I haven;t actually commented on it. What you are sorely lacking, however, is basic logic and deductive reasoning.

Mind naming one source apart from the Encyclopedia Britanicca and http://www.IHateJewsPropoganda.com/ (or, for that matter, http://www.IHateArabsPropoganda.com/ )?

Aaaaah, isn't that cute? Taking a leaf from Siros old book, I see? Since what I post doesn't agree with your world view, it must obviously be taken from a anti-semitic propaganda site?

I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE reference to an anti-semitic site. I don't read that drivel. Why would I? That would make me no better than the average pro-israeli.

What I DO reference are REAL sources. Newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times. Sometimes books, if they are written by reputable historians. I leave that part to Kreuze, though, since he is a better historian than I am. The UN website has plenty of good information. And, naturally, the EB, a most excellent source of information, although sometimes to shallow.



If you have something constructive to add, please do. If not, would you mind just staying away?

[CyberGnu]

I just wonder why I am suprised... This conforms to the traditional pro-israeli tactic. Spam enough, and all serious debate will eventually be shut off.

How many of the pro-israelis on this board are actual people and not DLs, anyway? Are you real, Edan?

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I just wonder why I am suprised... This conforms to the traditional pro-israeli tactic. Spam enough, and all serious debate will eventually be shut off.

How many of the pro-israelis on this board are actual people and not DLs, anyway? Are you real, Edan?

hi ,

why dont you speak for yourself , .......

have a nice day anti semite

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned, the brits had a mandate, as caretakers of the land. I trust you are aware that a caretaker of, say, a house, is not entitled to sell any part of the property.

The UN decision was not legal, since the parties involved never agreed to it.

The comparison to the mexicans are thus more than apt.

CyberGnu, The Brits took Palestine from the Turks. Because it was multi-ethnic, they held the land as a Mandate under the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations, rather than immediately establishing a local government or turning it over to Faisal. (They proposed to do the same for Lebanon for the same reason.)

I will stop here to see if we agree on this much.

[Ming]

Everybody needs to chill some more... No more personal insult... And this includes calling anybody that disagrees with you a DL...

Discuss the issues, and leave the personal crap somewhere else...

[CyberGnu]

Ned: Multi-ethnic? Less than 10% of the population was jewish, and as far as I know that was the only major ethnicity outside of arabs in the area.

The mandate was established in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which is basically just another part of "the Big Game". The three great powers of the first world war agreed to establish spheres of influence in what was at the time the ottoman empire. Russia got armenia, France the areas Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, and England the areas south.

While it cannot be considered certain that palestine was left under a joint "international" mandate because France and England couldn't agree who should have it as opposed to a genuine concern over the people living there, we all know the French and British records of altruism. Slim to non existent... And considering the Balfour declaration (issued only a year after the Sykes-Picot Agreement) it is pretty clear that England had no intentions of even adhering to the promises made to the indigeneous population.

So, basically, it was just another self-serving part of Englands intent on adding large parts of the arab world to the British Empire.