Mojo_PeiPei

You make it seem like they just magically showed up in 48'.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

OpieCunningham

They did just magically show up - by magic decree of the UN.

A modern-day analogy would be if the UN magically decrees that refugees from Sudan will be given control of the state of California for their new homeland, regardless of any U.S. disagreement with the matter.

Mojo_PeiPei

Well for one, there was never a legally recognized state of Palestine. Secondly Zionism had been a movement that had been going on for more then half a century at the time of Israel's establishment.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

OpieCunningham

Neither issue rebuts the fact that the Jews were magically decreed land which was occupied by someone else and went about forcefully taking that land.

By any definition, it is an act of war.

hannukah harry

oh god, you're breaking my heart. i think i'm gonna cry. i can already tell you there's no point in continuing this, because we will not agree on reality. by your logic then, the indians (natvie americans) are still at war with the US, because we havent' allowed them complete sovereignty over themselves or given them back the land we took in war from them.

i'm sorry, but unless you're anti-UN, and think they should be disbanded and none of their resolutions lived up to, you don't have a leg to stand on. the land (whether right or wrong), was given to them by a UN resolution, basically handed over by that area's former colonial ruler (britain). also, the arabs living there were not forced out, many left at the urging of the attacking arab neighbors and then didn't come back/weren't allowed back (i really don't know which), but many stayed and are full citizens of isreal. so basically, the israeli's were allowed to set up the govt. there, some arabs stayed, some left, but those that left could have stayed and taken part in the new country.

i possibly got of track somewhere, i have a habit of rambling when bored.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

hannukah harry

hold on, let me check with gandalf... nope, no magic decree about the state of israel... he keeps mumbling something about uruk-hai, but nothing about jews. sorry.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

OpieCunningham

Obviously. One of us is in touch with it - the other believes that Israel has been "defending" themselves.
I assure you, if the Native American's had not been almost entirely wiped off the face of the earth and if they had even a modicum of support from neighboring countries, they would indeed be at war with with us today. And rightfully so.
Disagreeing completely and totally with the UN decision to take land from people and give it to some other people does not mean I have to be anti-UN and wish it to be disbanded and have none of their resolutions lived up to. I'm not clear how my disagreement with one issue is supposed to apply to everything and anything the UN has done - but I attribute your analysis to your grasp of reality.
This is where you have it backwards - it is irrelevant as to whether and/or who "gave" them the land - the question is precisely whether it was right or wrong. I see no evidence of any righteous purpose in giving them that piece of land - because it was wrong. From that decision, Israel then fought for a wrong - ergo, they are the initial aggressor of the war.

hannukah harry

and this is why i'm gonna leave this thread now... it's actually a topic i prefer to avoid unless talking with friends because people generally have rather polar views on it. and while i can be sarcastic, i try to keep things civil. right now i'd say your barely treading the line, and i don't feel a flame war is worth it.

i'm just gonna end this with this.

the war in 1948 was mainly isreal vs. neighboring arab states. "Meanwhile, Arab military forces began their invasion of Israel on May 15. Initially these forces consisted of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 Egyptians, 2,000 to 4,000 Iraqis, 4,000 to 5,000 Transjordanians, 3,000 to 4,000 Syrians, 1,000 to 2,000 Lebanese, and smaller numbers of Saudi Arabian and Yemeni troops, about 25,000 in all. Israeli forces composed of the Haganah, such irregular units as the Irgun and the Stern Gang, and women's auxiliaries numbered 35,000 or more. By October 14, Arab forces deployed in the war zones had increased to about 55,000, including not more than 5,000 irregulars of Hajj Amin al Husayni's Palestine Liberation Force." http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0029)

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.

you're right about one thing though, i did take my "anti-UN" statement and brought it to an extreme that doesn't have to be true.

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. 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). it must be nice being able see the world from rose-tinted glasses, but that is not how the world works.

and from the same page... "By January 1949, Jewish forces held the area that was to define Israel's territory until June 1967, an area that was significantly larger than the area designated by the UN partition plan. The part of Palestine remaining in Arab hands was limited to that held by the Arab Legion of Transjordan and the Gaza area held by Egypt at the cessation of hostilities. The area held by the Arab Legion was subsequently annexed by Jordan and is commonly referred to as the West Bank."

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.

/done, not coming back, feel free to get the last word in. i prefer to live in the reality that is the world as it is, not as it might be in fairy tales.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

OpieCunningham

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?
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.

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.
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.
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.

pocon1

Hey, its been a long time since we have had a good old, inflammatory angry Israeli vs. Palestine thread. My solution is split the country in half, sow both sides with American nukes, and if either side starts to kill, then blow up both sides. Get rid of everything at once.
Back to the original thread. All developed countries spy on each other. We spend as much time spying on our allies as we do our enemies. It is a regular thing and it is not a big deal. Hell, we probably knew about the guy and sent occasional info through him for a long time before getting rid of him. That is the way the business works.