[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
Who was there first, pray tell?

Jews or Arabs?

There is a third and fourth option, I guess.

I'll be as brief as I can...
The "people" in that land have been there thousands of years. The jews came first because their religion came first. Then some people became muslims when that religion started. Ok, too far back...

2000 years ago, the Romans invaded and to spite the people there and the lands named by them, they renamed the land to "Palestine". Still too far back...

~1917 the Ottoman Empire fell to the Brits and French. They split up the land and Brits got "Palestine". I say "Palestine" cuz it never has been an official state. It's always been a piece of whatever empire was in charge of the land and for the 400 years previous, it was the Ottomans.

A very strange thing was happening over the next 40 years. The Brits, who've conquered so much of the world and usually made the conquered land into a colony was going to do something amazing... turn the land over TO THE PEOPLE. Mind you, at this point, the people -- all jews and muslims -- were the conquered people. Neither group had any "rights".

Britain decided to split the land they conquered, also known loosely as "Palestine" -- the piece of land from the Ottomans that they got... France got other land -- into two states: Israel and Jordan. Right or wrong, the plan was to give the majority of the land to Arab Muslims and the remainder to Arab Jews.

There weren't many people living in what's now Israel cuz it was a desert and not very appealing. The jews cultivated the land into what is now there. It may be hard to believe, but in protest, a number of "palestinians" (arab muslims) actually went there and set up protest camps... which eventually turned into "homes".

In the war of 1967, Israel defended itself from multiple Arab countries... and won. They marched far enough into enemy lands to secure themselves. In other words, they conquered part of the attacking countries' lands. Like many conquering nations, they didn't have to give back any of it, but they did give back most.

So, that's basically what happened and where were at.

If the "Palestinian" people don't like it, they should've stayed in Jordan, gone back to Jordan or gotten pissed at the Arab World using them as pawns in their fvcked up game to destroy Israel.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Short Version

Long Version

If you have the time and patience, read the long version.

 

[Tenchiro]

Hey if the Jews can't kill off or round up the arabs on say reservations and take over once and for all, do they really deserve the land?

I mean, we had to do our own dirty work to get this land.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Hey if the Jews can't kill off or round up the arabs on say reservations and take over once and for all, do they really deserve the land?

that would never happen.
you ever see any jews in casinos?




(double racecard score)

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
that would never happen.
you ever see any jews in casinos?




(double racecard score)

haha, but yes, Jews are always going to casinos and bingo places

while your joke was funny, ya screwed it up...

that would never happen.
you ever see any Arabs in casinos? And we're not talking 7-11 dealing scratch off games.

 

[Silver]

Whatever the past is, that doesn't change the current reality that Israel is facing.

1. Withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and stay a democratic society.
2. Continue to occupy the West Bank and Gaze, and deny the Arabs there political rights in Israel. Both sides continue to fight, and Israel looks more and more like South Africa used to. The other option would be to occupy the West Bank and Gaza but grant the Arab inhabitants Israeli citizenship, which I can't see happening because that would destroy the concept of a Jewish state.
3. "Move" the Arabs out of the West Bank and Gaza.
3a. Kill the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.

I'd argue that 3 is ethnic cleansing, and I'm guessing most Israelis want to stay away from that. 2 is what I see happening for the foreseeable future (until there is a larger political shift in Israeli politics,) but that ensures that suicide bombings and bulldozing will continue.

I think 1 makes the most sense, and is probably the only way things will ever settle down.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Whatever the past is, that doesn't change the current reality that Israel is facing.

1. Withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and stay a democratic society.
.
.
.
I think 1 makes the most sense, and is probably the only way things will ever settle down.

was this not the offer (brokered by clinton) that arafat turned down a few years back?

 

[Silver]

Why does Arafat have to accept anything?

Just leave. Tell the Israeli settlers to get the hell out or they are on their own, pack up and head home. Let the Palestinians figure out what to do with themselves.

Israel would regain the moral high ground, at the least.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
Whatever the past is, that doesn't change the current reality that Israel is facing.

nice, you ask about the past, have no response, so you deflect the issue... which is still valid.

Jordan should take 'em. That is their rightful home after all.

 

[Silver]

You asked first...we can keep going on and on...and then get to the point where Andyman_1970 ended up:

Iraq should have Israel, because Abraham was originally an Iraqi. Works for me.

You can't pretend that there were no Arabs there ever. And you can't ignore the fact that they are there now, and Israel is policing them with soldiers.

So it isn't Jordan's problem. You're talking about ethnic cleansing my friend...

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Originally posted by $tinkle
was this not the offer (brokered by clinton) that arafat turned down a few years back?

I doubt you would have accepted the Camp David proposal either.
Barik wanted to annex 20% of the land givin to palestinians under the Oslo agreement - the best 20%. It also gave Israel complete border control and allowed for continued Israeli millitary presence inside palestinian territory.



cheesy biased flash show [but it illuminates the idea]

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Why does Arafat have to accept anything?

this is exactly his thinking. Which is his "right", but so is the right of israel to take their offer from the table, and taking a page from arafat's book speaking to the UN gen'l assembly 1974:

"I come to you carrying an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun. Don't let the olive branch fall from my hand."

i believe it is this arrogance & unwillingness to compromise which has led as a direct result to his people's plight & suffering. If he's so caring, why doesn't he dissolve his 2 billion dollars worth of assets among his people?

Originally posted by Silver
So it isn't Jordan's problem. You're talking about ethnic cleansing my friend...

Jordan occupies 80% of the land that made up the original Palestine Mandate; so, it's very much jordan's problem. But, we can also blame the PLO, for they've never targeted jordan for settlement.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BuddhaRoadkill
I doubt you would have accepted the Camp David proposal either.
Barik wanted to annex 20% of the land givin to palestinians under the Oslo agreement - the best 20%. It also gave Israel complete border control and allowed for continued Israeli millitary presence inside palestinian territory.



cheesy biased flash show [but it illuminates the idea]

what i'm curious about: why are the palestians resorting to such violence now? recall that from 1949-1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. Never heard phrases like "occupied territories" until the "dirty jews" kicked much ass in 67 & 73. i think they're just pissing about losing a 7 day war with a healthy serving of anti-semitism to keep it at a good boil.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
Iraq should have Israel, because Abraham was originally an Iraqi. Works for me.

You're either being obtuse intentionally or you missed something there. Perhaps Andy will come along to elaborate.

$tinkle's reponsed to pretty much everything else.

 

[Silver]

He was being tongue in cheek, but made a good point. You can't point to the Bible (or look at history and say that the Jews were there 2000 years ago) and say "The land belongs to the Jews!" So I'm curious, because I really don't know: Who was living in that area before 1948?

How was life under Jordanian rule? Once again though, this isn't Jordan's problem. They don't have tanks and soldiers there anymore.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
He was being tongue in cheek, but made a good point. You can't point to the Bible (or look at history and say that the Jews were there 2000 years ago) and say "The land belongs to the Jews!" So I'm curious, because I really don't know: Who was living in that area before 1948?

How was life under Jordanian rule? Once again though, this isn't Jordan's problem. They don't have tanks and soldiers there anymore.

Jews started to migrate and cultivate the area in 1880... when it was a desert.

Jordan was formed officially around the same time as Israel.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Jews started to migrate and cultivate the area in 1880... when it was a desert.

Jordan was formed officially around the same time as Israel.

So the land was empty then?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
So the land was empty then?

no, I'm sorry, I forgot about the little green men living there

Just how much land do you think there is that I'm refering to? I can drive across Utah for 150 miles and not see a living soul... but I do see dead people and they think you're just trying to be difficult.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Jordan should take 'em. That is their rightful home after all.

You realize that you are full of **** right?

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by ummbikes
You realize that you are full of **** right?

"arguing" with LordOpie about israel/palestine is pointless.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
no, I'm sorry, I forgot about the little green men living there

Just how much land do you think there is that I'm refering to? I can drive across Utah for 150 miles and not see a living soul... but I do see dead people and they think you're just trying to be difficult.

Educate me. If the land was empty, then you're right, the Palestinians have no right to be pissed off.

If they happened to be living there when Israel was established, I'd say they have a beef...

 

[ummbikes]

Arabs & Israel for Beginners Link to Amazon (no I don't work for Amazon)

This book has bibliography that contains the best writing on the issue and as a stand alone book was better than any others I read in an upper division poly sci program.

You can learn to see past the rhetoric of both sides.

 

[stevew]

Originally posted by LordOpie
you ever see any Arabs in casinos? And we're not talking 7-11 dealing scratch off games.

Yes. In Vegas last year at SEMA. They didn't seem to mind the scantily clad models either.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Toshi
"arguing" with LordOpie about israel/palestine is pointless.

Every post you made on the subject, I've posted links and info to educate you and now you post that? I'm thinking that somewhere in your past a few jewish kids upset you has made you angry at them for some irrational reason Instead of realizing that kids will be mean to each other regardless of other factors.

Originally posted by Toshi
meh. grow up in manhattan and attend a ritzy elementary school as i did (read: all jewish except for my sister and me) and this is nothing new

Yes, I'm saying you might be anti-semetic. Just think about it.

Originally posted by Silver
Educate me.

"Do you have google on your internet?" ~ VB

 

[sshappy]

Loopie, you do only seem able to see one side of the problem. It seems that as far as you see it the land belongs to the Jews becuase it always did and no one else was ever there. Also the Palestinian Arabs (whose existence prior to 19xx you dispute) are the responsibility of Jordan (or other Arab states), according to some of your statements.

It isn't that simple and I'd be surprised if you can't see that. Your position is pushing others into equally incorrect positions.

There were Arabs living there under the Turks and the British mandate. The Jewish people need a homeland and have historic links. A separate Palestinian state was initially proposed.

There is a lot of politics and spin and both sides have greivances and injustices.

And if you call me anti-semitic you are nuts.

 

[Slugman]

Saw this on a documentary several years ago - sorry I do not have the google link for it...

The Arab Muslims out numbered the Arab Jews for a long time. The Jews were not allowed to go to their holy places to pray. Eventually the Jews became fed up with being treated like second class humans, and took over. They actually did a lot of the tactics that are pretty controversial - fire bombing homes and taking over land. Eventually they took over as the 'power' in the land.

Despite the frequent attacks, to this day they do not prevent the Muslims from visiting their holy places… once they get past the fences.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by sshappy
It seems that as far as you see it the land belongs to the Jews becuase it always did and no one else was ever there.

are we talking about the same land that takes up 10% of Palestine? The same land that makes up 1% of the Middle East?

Stop being a jew-hater!

PS: Only VB gets to call me Loopie

Originally posted by Slugman
Saw this on a documentary several years ago - sorry I do not have the google link for it...

The Arab Muslims out numbered the Arab Jews for a long time. The Jews were not allowed to go to their holy places to pray. Eventually the Jews became fed up with being treated like second class humans, and took over. They actually did a lot of the tactics that are pretty controversial - fire bombing homes and taking over land. Eventually they took over as the 'power' in the land.

Despite the frequent attacks, to this day they do not prevent the Muslims from visiting their holy places… once they get past the fences.

agendaPushing.quoting++;

:devil:

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I'll be as brief as I can...
The "people" in that land have been there thousands of years. The jews came first because their religion came first. Then some people became muslims when that religion started. Ok, too far back...

2000 years ago, the Romans invaded and to spite the people there and the lands named by them, they renamed the land to "Palestine". Still too far back...

~1917 the Ottoman Empire fell to the Brits and French. They split up the land and Brits got "Palestine". I say "Palestine" cuz it never has been an official state. It's always been a piece of whatever empire was in charge of the land and for the 400 years previous, it was the Ottomans.

A very strange thing was happening over the next 40 years. The Brits, who've conquered so much of the world and usually made the conquered land into a colony was going to do something amazing... turn the land over TO THE PEOPLE. Mind you, at this point, the people -- all jews and muslims -- were the conquered people. Neither group had any "rights".

Britain decided to split the land they conquered, also known loosely as "Palestine" -- the piece of land from the Ottomans that they got... France got other land -- into two states: Israel and Jordan. Right or wrong, the plan was to give the majority of the land to Arab Muslims and the remainder to Arab Jews.

There weren't many people living in what's now Israel cuz it was a desert and not very appealing. The jews cultivated the land into what is now there. It may be hard to believe, but in protest, a number of "palestinians" (arab muslims) actually went there and set up protest camps... which eventually turned into "homes".

In the war of 1967, Israel defended itself from multiple Arab countries... and won. They marched far enough into enemy lands to secure themselves. In other words, they conquered part of the attacking countries' lands. Like many conquering nations, they didn't have to give back any of it, but they did give back most.

So, that's basically what happened and where were at.

If the "Palestinian" people don't like it, they should've stayed in Jordan, gone back to Jordan or gotten pissed at the Arab World using them as pawns in their fvcked up game to destroy Israel.

i like that . well, if it had to be followed then you should give up your US citizenship, go back to your familys country of origin and return the land to the native americans. then probably the arabs are gonna leave israel.

i dont think that reasoning would work, because everybody in the world lives in a place that was somebody elses before. and you cannot try to go back infinite times to find our who the real owner is, because then half south america should be peru, i´d be called Tupac Yupanqui, and being ethnically mixed, i wouldnt have anywhere to go back to, or if you go further down the past, then all the earth is property of the africans, because the first humans came from there and colonized the, humanless, rest of the world.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
i like that . well, if it had to be followed then you should give up your US citizenship, go back to your familys country of origin and return the land to the native americans. then probably the arabs are gonna leave israel.

i dont think that reasoning would work, because everybody in the world lives in a place that was somebody elses before. and you cannot try to go back infinite times to find our who the real owner is

i think that's what it should come down to: "to the victor goes the spoils".

a few posts back, andyman made reference to abraham being an iraqi, & sho 'nuff he was right (the land of Ur is just before the conjunction of the tigris & uphrates). However, he went to egypt, got shoved off, & where he settled i haven't yet looked up. Whever that was, that's a major point of consideration WRT ishmael (tap root of islam?) & isaac (first of 12 tribes of israel?).

just spitballin' here.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i think that's what it should come down to: "to the victor goes the spoils".

And this is why I generally don't respond to Aunt Flo... he tries very hard to argue and annoy, but in the end, he winds up making the point for you, so you end up a He'll make a great politician one day.

cratchhead:

 

[$tinkle]

looks like Sharon's going to be a good catholic & pull out:

Sharon, in Reversal, Proposes Full Pullout From Gaza Strip

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, rebuffed today by right-wing members of his cabinet on his plan for a partial pullout from the Gaza Strip, has decided to reverse course and present ministers on Sunday with his original plan for a complete withdrawal.

The first proposal, which included evacuating all 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza and four isolated ones in the northern West Bank, was overwhelmingly rejected by Mr. Sharon's own Likud Party in a referendum on May 2.

printer friendly NYT

of course, hard liners view this as reward for terrorism.

At the risk of betraying my pro-israel stance, methinks this isn't such a bad idea after all. Is Gaza a spoil of victory? that is, did israel "win" gaza w/ the skirmish against egypt?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
looks like Sharon's going to be a good catholic & pull out

you're evil! I almost spit coffee on my monitor!

EDIT: That's gotta be a triple-evil score, no?

Originally posted by $tinkle
At the risk of betraying my pro-israel stance, methinks this isn't such a bad idea after all. Is Gaza a spoil of victory? that is, did israel "win" gaza w/ the skirmish against egypt?

how is this betraying your pro-israel stance? You should support whatever's good for Israel, even if it's a tactical withdrawl. And you know it's a spoil of victory, right?

Despite my heavy pro-israel stance, I've said it before and will say it more... the palestinian people need a place to live and call their own. I'm for them getting a state and think both Israel and Jordan should give up land on both sides of the river to help create a palestinian state.