Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
considering the number of arabs that lived in the area governed by britain, and the number that stayed and became citizens, i think it could be said isreal was at war with the "palestinians" the way teh US was at war with the Branch-Dividians, or the local militia's in the mid-90's.
|
I really don't see any correlation here. The Branch-Dividians/local militia's were citizens of the society they lived in - not an outside society that the U.S. decided to squelch. The Palestinians were not disorderly members of the state of Israel.
And I still don't have any idea why you keep bringing up the fact that some Palestinians have remained in Israel this whole time. What exactly do you think that proves?
Quote:
|
and it's not irrelevant who gave them the land. land is property. it has always been controlled by the people in power. usually that power comes from military might.
|
It is irrelevant who gave them the land if that decision is not made by the people that own the land - in this case, the Palestinians by virtue of living on it. Simply having the ability to take someone's land does not give you the right to take someone's land. The U.N. had no right and Israel had no right to act on the U.N's decision. Further, Israel had no right to then go about taking land beyond the area defined by the U.N.
Quote:
|
there was no govt. there other than a british colonial one, so setting up a govt. for isreal is no different than what we're doing in iraq (except we're replacing one instead of starting one from scratch).
|
Well, let's assume for a second that I even agree with what we're doing in Iraq - the difference between Israel in 1948 and the U.S. in Iraq in 2004 is that the U.S. is not giving the land to people from somewhere else - they are giving it to the inhabitants of Iraq. (Though technically I do not believe the U.S. is giving the land to the Iraqi's, as evidence by the Iraqi's fighting the U.S. for their land.) If you want to say that the U.N. should have acted accordingly, then the U.N. should have told Britain to get out of Palestine and let the Palestinians have their own gov't - i.e. the Jews should never have come into play.
Quote:
|
i don't hear you bitching about jordan not giving the west bank back to the palestinians. until you're willing to look at things with more than "isreal bad" running through your head, and apply your opinions to everyone involved, i will be immature and tell you to, in the immortal words of the heart break kid, shawn michaels, "Suck It." X.
|
Contrary to your distorted perceptions - I am not stating that Israel is bad - I am refuting the completely false claim that Israel is the defender. I see no reason to argue against or for Jordan as if there is a problem between Jordan and the Palestinians, it is currently an exceptionally minor point until the problem between Israel and the Palestinians has been worked out. I'm not holding my breath - but I'm certainly not going to sit back and let this "Israel is just defending" propaganda keep spreading.
Quote:
|
i prefer to live in the reality that is the world as it is, not as it might be in fairy tales.
|
Excellent goal. Hopefully one day you'll attain it.
If you want a dose of reality to help you reach your goal - you should read this page:
http://www.fact-index.com/1/19/1948_...raeli_war.html The trick for you will be to recognize that the U.N. had no right to give away the Palestinian land - which you seem to deny in the face of evidence, and this allows you to excuse the aggressive behavior of the Israeli's.
For example - here is a map of Jewish military operations PRIOR to the establishment of the state of Israel:
http://www.allthatremains.com/Maps/MilOperOutUN.jpg
Not exactly "defensive" in nature or scope.