Log in

View Full Version : Israel's Wall of Separation



Totalitarian
11th October 2003, 03:20
My main problem with the big wall that Israel is building is that they are not doing it according to the 1967 borders, but instead stealing Palestinian land so that the illegal Jewish settlements can be incorporated into "Greater Israel".

Apart from that, it seems like a good idea. It would put a stop to illegal immigration and make it much harder for Arab terrorists to commit attacks.

Perhaps the Americans should try building one across the US-Mexico border as well? :D

(*
11th October 2003, 05:44
Nothing good will come of it. Just look at history. Haven't we learned anything?

Totalitarian
11th October 2003, 05:57
I can see some good points to the idea of a wall. The Zionists could have their little enclave, and they might stop pestering everyone else.

As it happens though, they are using it as an excuse to drive the Arabs further into the desert as part of some apartheid, expansionist plot.

(*
11th October 2003, 06:05
I don't think it will bring them security, which is what they claim it is for.

The wall will cut-off familes that live in Israel and palestine.
And like you said, the wall oversteps the borders.

The wall, if it is erected, will not stand for long. It will crumble.

Loknar
11th October 2003, 06:51
I don’t know if it should go up in the settlements but I think it's a good idea. Something has to stop Palestinians from attacking innocent civilians.

Totalitarian
11th October 2003, 07:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:51 AM
I don’t know if it should go up in the settlements but I think it's a good idea. Something has to stop Palestinians from attacking innocent civilians.
You don't know? I hardly think the Zionists have the right to just make incursions wherever they want. What are those Jewish settlements doing there anyway? Under the Geneva Convention (which i think Israel signed), they're not supposed to transfer their own civilian population onto occupied land.

Loknar
11th October 2003, 07:55
Originally posted by Totalitarian+Oct 11 2003, 07:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Totalitarian @ Oct 11 2003, 07:01 AM)
[email protected] 11 2003, 06:51 AM
I don’t know if it should go up in the settlements but I think it&#39;s a good idea. Something has to stop Palestinians from attacking innocent civilians.
You don&#39;t know? I hardly think the Zionists have the right to just make incursions wherever they want. What are those Jewish settlements doing there anyway? Under the Geneva Convention (which i think Israel signed), they&#39;re not supposed to transfer their own civilian population onto occupied land. [/b]


Yes I know the settlements are illegal that is not what I am disputing., I was referring to placing the walls up on Israel’s unoccupied borders with the exception of the Golan heights which I think Israel should keep.

Israel has every eight to make incursions into Palestine when they have to arrest terrorists. If Israel left the west bank and Gaza strip would the bombings stop?

Totalitarian
11th October 2003, 08:46
Originally posted by Loknar+Oct 11 2003, 07:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Oct 11 2003, 07:55 AM)
[email protected] 11 2003, 06:51 AM
Israel has every eight to make incursions into Palestine when they have to arrest terrorists. If Israel left the west bank and Gaza strip would the bombings stop?

[/b]
Well, let&#39;s see....does the US army have the right to go into Mexico and arrest Mexican terrorists? I&#39;m not sure about that. Israel hasn&#39;t exactly just been going in to arrest people, they sometimes just blow up the apartment blocks where they think the terrorist might live.

Unrelenting Steve
11th October 2003, 12:14
A wall is not a good idea, the Israelies are sheilded enough. I think this whole problem arouse when America gave Israel the upper hand through their support, cause now the Israelies dont see a need to reach a meanningful compromised co-existance arrangment.

Loknar
11th October 2003, 13:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 08:46 AM
Well, let&#39;s see....does the US army have the right to go into Mexico and arrest Mexican terrorists? I&#39;m not sure about that. Israel hasn&#39;t exactly just been going in to arrest people, they sometimes just blow up the apartment blocks where they think the terrorist might live.
If Mexico was allowing terrorists to kill Americans you bet there would be some action taken. However Palestine is not a state, it id occupied territory so Israel is not violating ant law by going in and nabbing terrorists. If you think Israel has no right, no matter what happens, to go after terrorists out side of it&#39;s own borders and hit the source of the terrorists you basically are saying Israel has no right to defend it self. (In 1914 we sent troops into Mexico after Poncho Villa because he raided American soil.)

What do you what Israel to do? Not go after the people who wish them dead? There are some groups who are simply devoted to Israel&#39;s destruction.

Also, if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza Strip (btw, if Israel didn’t occupy the west bank and Gaza strip in ‘67 the Palestinians would be fighting the Jordanians and Egyptians) the terror bombings wouldn’t stop. That is why Israel keeps Palestine occupied. Furthermore Arafat cares nothing for peace and never has, look at his ‘state within a state’ in Lebanon back in the 80’s.

shakermaker
11th October 2003, 14:09
I think so too that the wall is not a good idea.
...new "wall of berlin" in israel?&#33;
it will only grow the anger and give one reason more for palestinians to attack against the israels.
and israel isn&#39;t quite willing to have peace in there, they just wanna be "US of middle east".
that wall won&#39;t make peace&#33;
and it tells that they can (almost) handle the situation in there only with violence.

Loknar
11th October 2003, 14:15
Israel has to find a better way to keep track on who is coming and going Overall I think this will save lives.

dopediana
11th October 2003, 14:17
the wall is fucking idiotic. it&#39;s designed to cripple palestine. with the wall built around the perimeter proposed by israel wrapping around palestine cutting them off from the west bank (or intuitively proposed, whichever you prefer) you will see who has control over palestine&#39;s borders. israel. who will control all the water. israel. and as arafat is deigned irrelevant and is anyway because the PLO isn&#39;t govt controlled, the terrorist attacks aren&#39;t going to stop. to reiterate, the wall is utter shit.

shakermaker
11th October 2003, 14:22
like in prison?

can&#39;t israels see that only way that might stop violence in there is give to palestinians their own country.

and by the way it was quite stupid to give jews a land which already was inhabited by arabs. whatta h**l they were thinking?
they weren&#39;t quite wise.

Invader Zim
11th October 2003, 14:23
The idea to seperate people of different cultures seams highly counter productive to me, how are these people ever going to intergrate and stop the violance if their is a physical wall between them. All this will do is highten already snapping tentions.

dopediana
11th October 2003, 14:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 02:22 PM
and by the way it was quite stupid to give jews a land which already was inhabited by arabs. whatta h**l they were thinking?
they weren&#39;t quite wise.
particularly a land allotted to the arabs in some agreement dating all the way back to the end of WW2

Invader Zim
11th October 2003, 14:52
An interesting fact is that Israel only occupies about 25% of Historical Palestine. Palestine was split in two by the British after the first world war in 1923, Initiall the Jews had been promised all of Palestine and had been migrating their sinse the 1880&#39;s to prepair the area for the rebirth of Israel. But then the British decided to be fair (for the first time ever) that they should leave the Palestinian&#39;s the majority of the land. 75% of the land was given to the Arabs and called trans-Jordan, the other 25% was given to be given to the Jews. Trans Jordan later became Jordan. So really all the problems are all the British fault.

I find it rather ironic that Jordan condems Israel for stealing Palestinian land when Jordan occupies the 75%.
http://masada2000.org/bmand.gif

http://masada2000.org/transj.gif

I wonder why the Palestinian dont start a war against Jordan?

dopediana
11th October 2003, 15:01
wow... i did not know that. i&#39;m going to read up more on that sometime.......

Invader Zim
11th October 2003, 15:08
Originally posted by the [email protected] 11 2003, 04:01 PM
wow... i did not know that. i&#39;m going to read up more on that sometime.......
I only knew about it when I saw it mntioned (not explained) in a history textbook. So I looked it up, I could only find this hugly pro-Zionist site, but if you ignore its propaganda and read the history then you can learn alot.

http://masada2000.org/historical.html

Loknar
11th October 2003, 19:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 02:22 PM
can&#39;t israels see that only way that might stop violence in there is give to palestinians their own country.

and by the way it was quite stupid to give jews a land which already was inhabited by arabs. whatta h**l they were thinking?
they weren&#39;t quite wise.
1) It wont stop the violence. Hezbollah is in existence to destroy Israel, Hamas just wants a Palestinian state (they remind my of Jewish terrorists in the post WW2 era).


2) The Arabs conquered Palestine, however the land was always occupied by Jews. Israel would not even control all the territory they do today if the Arabs would have just left Israel alone. Ben Gurion even offered to cede most of the Negev desert in hopes of stopping a war with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in &#39;48.


The fact is Israel has tried to create a Palestinian state more than once. Arafat is the problem, he wont cede control of his security forces to any of his Prime Ministers, and has rejected many proposals for a home land.

El Brujo
11th October 2003, 21:07
No, ISRAEL is the problem. If they would have not kicked people out of their homes and annexed more territory than they were given in 1948 (which was still disproportional) we would not see this conflict today. Israel does not want peace, just more territory:

http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english...zionism/map.htm (http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english/zionism/map.htm)

I personally think the only way to bring about "peace" in the region is to defeat, disarm and push back Israel to a decent ammount of territory then wall it off to cool tensions for some years (ONLY after Israel is defeated).

atlanticche
11th October 2003, 21:16
what kind of wall is it politicalyis it:
-Berlin wall
-Great wall of china
-a harmless garden wall
-military

Loknar
11th October 2003, 21:20
Originally posted by El [email protected] 11 2003, 09:07 PM
No, ISRAEL is the problem. If they would have not kicked people out of their homes and annexed more territory than they were given in 1948 (which was still disproportional) we would not see this conflict today. Israel does not want peace, just more territory:

http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english...zionism/map.htm (http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english/zionism/map.htm)

I personally think the only way to bring about "peace" in the region is to defeat, disarm and push back Israel to a decent ammount of territory then wall it off to cool tensions for some years (ONLY after Israel is defeated).
They were not the only ones who annexed more territory after &#39;48, Jordan and Egypt did as well and Jews were also expelled from their homes. Like I said, Israel was willing to give up the Negev desert but the Arab states refused and attacked Israel.


So considering how many times Israel has been attacked you actually want to disarm? What about disarming Syria and Egypt as well? There are 6 million Jews, and 600 million Arabs many of which are brainwashed and hate Israel and you want Israel to disarm? You know Israel gave Egypt back a vast majority of the land they occupied in &#39;67 even though Israel didn’t have to. Israel invited the Arabs to live in peace with them but they attacked first.

Totalitarian
12th October 2003, 01:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 01:56 PM
If Mexico was allowing terrorists to kill Americans you bet there would be some action taken. However Palestine is not a state, it id occupied territory so Israel is not violating ant law by going in and nabbing terrorists. If you think Israel has no right, no matter what happens, to go after terrorists out side of it&#39;s own borders and hit the source of the terrorists you basically are saying Israel has no right to defend it self. (In 1914 we sent troops into Mexico after Poncho Villa because he raided American soil.)

What do you what Israel to do? Not go after the people who wish them dead? There are some groups who are simply devoted to Israel&#39;s destruction.

Also, if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza Strip (btw, if Israel didn’t occupy the west bank and Gaza strip in ‘67 the Palestinians would be fighting the Jordanians and Egyptians) the terror bombings wouldn’t stop. That is why Israel keeps Palestine occupied. Furthermore Arafat cares nothing for peace and never has, look at his ‘state within a state’ in Lebanon back in the 80’s.
The reason Palestine is not a state, is because it is occupied by the Israeli army. Anyway, it is not technically part of Israel so they shouldn&#39;t be there, because it is outside of their borders.

According to you, if a Palestinian commits an attack against Israelis, the Army or police should go in and arrest them.

On the US-Mexico border, there are some illegal immigrants who commit crimes (including sometimes murder) against Americans, and then go back across the border. There is also a group called &#39;La Raza&#39; (The Race) who want to take over the Southwest US, and make it into part of Mexico or a new state, Aztlan. Many of them want to ethnically cleanse the gringos from the state which they want to build.

I see a parallel between the two situations. My question is, would you support the US building a wall across its border with Mexico to prevent crime, and stop the Aztlan movement from gaining power?

BTW: From what i know of Hizbollah, they are a group which started as resistance against the invasion of Lebanon. I thought that was their main purpose, not destruction of Israel.

Invader Zim
12th October 2003, 01:25
Originally posted by El [email protected] 11 2003, 10:07 PM
No, ISRAEL is the problem. If they would have not kicked people out of their homes and annexed more territory than they were given in 1948 (which was still disproportional) we would not see this conflict today. Israel does not want peace, just more territory:

http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english...zionism/map.htm (http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english/zionism/map.htm)

I personally think the only way to bring about "peace" in the region is to defeat, disarm and push back Israel to a decent ammount of territory then wall it off to cool tensions for some years (ONLY after Israel is defeated).
Thats a very simplistic view of a very complex problem.

Importantly, the Jews did not displace anyone, because no one permanently resided there. It was a land inhabited by nomadic, Bedouin tribes. The whole region was nothing but deserts and swamps. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the state of Israel and Jordan. When Mark Twain visited the area, he wrote he found nothing but a wasteland. I believ that the region of Jordan and Israel is 32000 miles sqr which makes the area&#39;s population density 3.75 people per sqr miles. 4 people per mile, in shord a piece of vertualy uninhabited destert. Why do you think the British let them have it.

If they would have not kicked people out of their homes and annexed more territory than they were given in 1948 (which was still disproportional) we would not see this conflict today.

If they hadn&#39;t had war declared on them by the entire Arab world the day Israel was founded, and been invaded, then the Jews would never had to have fought back and captured area of stratigic importance, IE the occupied territorys.

Also if they gave them back do you really think that the Arab nations such as Jordan etc will create a Palistinian state? Considering that Jordan is Palistine, I doubt it.

But this does not excuse Israel&#39;s terrible treatment of the Arabs, but I dont see why every one has to go one step further and actualy "change history" to support their case. The fact is that the Arab nations instead of intergrating the refugee&#39;s (caused by them invading Israel) who fled to their nations, kept (and still do) them in refugee camps as a political weapon. The other fact is that the palistinians already have a nation, Jordan. The final fact is that Israel did not start a war the Arab world, it was the other way round.

Jesus i&#39;m starting to sound like a zionist, but my point is the pro-palistinians already have a good case so you dont have to "bend" historical fact to make your case.

Totalitarian
12th October 2003, 01:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 02:52 PM
Initiall the Jews had been promised all of Palestine and had been migrating their sinse the 1880&#39;s to prepair the area for the rebirth of Israel. But then the British decided to be fair (for the first time ever) that they should leave the Palestinian&#39;s the majority of the land. 75% of the land was given to the Arabs and called trans-Jordan, the other 25% was given to be given to the Jews. Trans Jordan later became Jordan. So really all the problems are all the British fault.

I find it rather ironic that Jordan condems Israel for stealing Palestinian land when Jordan occupies the 75%.
http://masada2000.org/bmand.gif

http://masada2000.org/transj.gif

I wonder why the Palestinian dont start a war against Jordan?
"Initiall the Jews had been promised all of Palestine and had been migrating their sinse the 1880&#39;s to prepair the area for the rebirth of Israel."

I have studied the history of this region and i don&#39;t think that statement is correct. In the Balfour declaration after World War 1, Zionists had been promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They were not granted all of the land by the British.



"But then the British decided to be fair (for the first time ever) that they should leave the Palestinian&#39;s the majority of the land. 75% of the land was given to the Arabs and called trans-Jordan, the other 25% was given to be given to the Jews. Trans Jordan later became Jordan."

My memory of the exact details is perhaps a bit hazy, but the 25% partition was to be divided into two states, one for jews and the other for arabs. The theoretical borders were finalised by 1948 when the UN took over, however the war broke out and the jews annexed far more than the partition plan had allowed for.

IMO, the entire zionist project was illegitimate. The British had no more right to give Palestine to the jews than they did to give China to the jews.

Loknar
12th October 2003, 01:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:24 AM




The reason Palestine is not a state, is because it is occupied by the Israeli army. Anyway, it is not technically part of Israel so they shouldn&#39;t be there, because it is outside of their borders.

That&#39;s not the only reason though. As I said earlier, Egypt and Jordan used to be the occupiers of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The same crap that the Palestinians face today would merely be replaced with Jordanian and Egyptian tanks rolling through the streets. Israel occupied that land in the 6 Day war because they were about to be attacked by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel remains there today because of the terrorists, but also because the Palestinians have rejected every offer for their own state. Israel cant force independence on them, they have to want it. Get rid of Arafat and the Palestinians will have a state.



According to you, if a Palestinian commits an attack against Israelis, the Army or police should go in and arrest them.
Should the police not arrest criminals?



On the US-Mexico border, there are some illegal immigrants who commit crimes (including sometimes murder) against Americans, and then go back across the border. There is also a group called &#39;La Raza&#39; (The Race) who want to take over the Southwest US, and make it into part of Mexico or a new state, Aztlan. Many of them want to ethnically cleanse the gringos from the state which they want to build.


If their movement gets large and the Mexican government cant handle them we would go and handle it our selves. We cant allow our people to be killed by bandits.




I see a parallel between the two situations. My question is, would you support the US building a wall across its border with Mexico to prevent crime, and stop the Aztlan movement from gaining power?


Not a literal wall, more like a few Mechanized Divisions patrolling the border. But only if it gained a profound movement. But we wouldn’t build a wall because we would take the fight to them. Israel doesn’t do a real job of cleaning up because if they did international support would waver.


BTW: From what i know of Hizbollah, they are a group which started as resistance against the invasion of Lebanon. I thought that was their main purpose, not destruction of Israel.


I will have to do more research, I could have sworn I saw it here though: http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terr...ions/hezbollah/ (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/hezbollah/) (Don’t worry, there is nothing graphic)

Invader Zim
12th October 2003, 12:26
In the Balfour declaration after World War 1, Zionists had been promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They were not granted all of the land by the British.

Perhaps, I dont pretend to be an expert, you are probably right.

The theoretical borders were finalised by 1948 when the UN took over, however the war broke out and the jews annexed far more than the partition plan had allowed for.

To be fair they took area&#39;s of strategic importance, where they had been invaded from, so that it would be more difficult to invade them again. They were IMO justified to do so considering that they did get invaded later in &#39;67. But I believe that they should have given the land back long, long before now.

The British had no more right to give Palestine to the jews than they did to give China to the jews.


Perhaps but considering that Jews had been living there for over 50 years previously in large numbers, and in small numbers for over 3000 years...

Not to mention they were given a basically uninhabited piece of desert only inhabited by a very, very few nomadic tribes people (about 4 people per sqr mile). But your probably right, it does however annoy me when people make out that the entire problem is the fault of the Jews, because that is just frankly not true. It is 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

The vast majority of the arguments you see in the media are obviously anti Semitic propaganda, and it shocks me to see so many intelligent people taken in by them. Yes the Palestinians deserve a home land, Jordan is just as much theirs as is Israel so why just attack Israel? Why are there still people in refugee camps in the 6 nabouring Arab countries? why did the Arab countries invade Israel, and force Israel to defend her self?

It all reeks of anti-Semitism if you ask me, on an international scale.

But then again you cant excuse the Israeli treatment of the “Palestinians” its what you could call “bang out of order”. The “annexed” land should also be returned. The Palestinians should also be given a land of their own, which should include a large part of Jordan as well.

Totalitarian
13th October 2003, 05:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:48 AM







Israel remains there today because of the terrorists, but also because the Palestinians have rejected every offer for their own state. Israel cant force independence on them, they have to want it. Get rid of Arafat and the Palestinians will have a state.

Israel remains there not just because of terrorism (which is mostly a reaction to the occupation), but for strategic reasons and also due to a strong belief held by many orthodox and zionist jews that the w.bank/gaza is jewish property. How else do you explain all the (expanding) settlements which have been put there, and the new apartheid wall?




Should the police not arrest criminals?


Yes, indeed they should. What i&#39;m not sure about is whether a police force should have jurisidiction outside their own borders. It&#39;s a tricky issue, especially as the israelis have done a lot more than simply arrest people....they apppear to be making a sustained effort to disrupt Palestinian society.



Israel doesn’t do a real job of cleaning up because if they did international support would waver.


In your opinion, what would constitute a "real job of cleaning up?"

Here is an informative explanation of the Palestine conflict, written from a Jewish perspective.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Totalitarian
13th October 2003, 05:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 12:26 PM



To be fair they took area&#39;s of strategic importance, where they had been invaded from, so that it would be more difficult to invade them again. They were IMO justified to do so considering that they did get invaded later in &#39;67. But I believe that they should have given the land back long, long before now.

"Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples - achievable only by transfer and expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators. But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: &#39;With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don&#39;t see anything immoral in it,&#39;" Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."



Perhaps but considering that Jews had been living there for over 50 years previously in large numbers, and in small numbers for over 3000 years...

Jews have also been living in China for hundreds of years. There has of course been continuous Jewish settlement in Palestine, however Arabs were the majority in (later) Palestine until 1948.

"Arab rejection [of the 1948 partition] was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least..."Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Not to mention they were given a basically uninhabited piece of desert only inhabited by a very, very few nomadic tribes people (about 4 people per sqr mile).

"Britain&#39;s high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said &#39;all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators&#39;...The Colonial Office rejected the recommendation." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."


The vast majority of the arguments you see in the media are obviously anti Semitic propaganda, and it shocks me to see so many intelligent people taken in by them.

Really? Which arguments are you referring to.

[sources for quotes: Jews for Justice in the Middle East (http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html)]

(*
13th October 2003, 06:47
How did the state of Israel come into existence?
Jewish terrorists...they were the first to blow up buses, and hotels as well.

I don&#39;t believe violence in the answer, but how many countries that are in existence today never shed a drop of blood for independence?

Guest1
13th October 2003, 07:13
Enigma, you&#39;re right. Absolutely right.

Palestine was not inhabited, just as the Americas never were. And even if they were, they should all be moved to the land of the Inuits in northern Canada, after all, there&#39;s lots of room there and it&#39;s also indigenous land.

You&#39;re spouting very offensive propaganda, statistical genocide. You&#39;re erasing a people from the history books. Anyways, I don&#39;t think you&#39;re doing it on purpose, you&#39;re just uninformed about this and have assimilated some lies.

The Zionists (your referring to them as Jews is much more anti-Semitic than any of this "propaganda" you speak of) only began to come into Palestine in the late 1800&#39;s. The beginning of the 20th century saw a coordinated, organized colonization. Probably the only case of non-governmental organization in history. Western governments, driven by a racist colonial identification with the much more human European Zionists, allowed it to happen and even encouraged it. Before this, there were Jewish residents, Palestinian Jews (incidentally also hated and repressed in the modern Apartheid state), but they were a minority. A well treated minority who lived side by side with their Muslim and Christian neighbours, but considered themselves of the same people, and fought against british occupation with that people.

The war of religions is a relatively new developement in Arab society. For a long time, all three religions were given freedom of worship and your religion mattered very little to your neighbour. Regrettably, racism against Jews (including the majority in the area who wanted nothing to do with the latest European atrocity) developed just as hatred of the "White man" developed amongst African-Americans and the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, with colonization, occupation and systematic genocide.

As to your point about why the Arab states don&#39;t just give them land, or why they didn&#39;t accept the fucking desert. It was their home. Why should a Palestinian with an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean have to move to the desert of Jordan, or the desert in Palestine just because an exported European Theocratic movement decided it should be so? And in case you didn&#39;t notice, Palestinians and Jordanians are two distinct peoples. Just because you can&#39;t tell the difference between Iroquois and Algonquin nations doesn&#39;t mean they should be lumped together as "Indians". They would slaughter each other. Just like the Jordanian dictatorship slaughtered the Palestinian population in the 70&#39;s.

The Palestinians should not pay for the racism they get from Arab governments such as Jordan. Neither should they pay for the crimes the elite in the Middle East such as Arafat have committed. Just as Sharon knows he is only in power because of war and would never do anything to eliminate that war, so too does Arafat. And every other government in the region.




But most importantly, as a Palestinian, I call for the destruction of the state of Israel. As well as the Palestinian state. There would be slaughter for hundreds more years if we cut the 2 inches of land there are between them. Neither will settle for it. I call for a democratic state, with neither name and a seperation of Church and State. Then I would give citizenship to every palestinian in the Occupiied Territory. That would be all of Israel, and its little playgrounds of slaughter, West Bank, Gaza and Golan. (Except the golan needs a referendum on whether to go to Lebannon, Syria or this new federated state). That is why this wall, aimed at solidifying Apartheid for generations to come, should be fought vigorously.

Kapitan Andrey
13th October 2003, 08:58
...this wall is useless&#33; <_<

shakermaker
13th October 2003, 09:02
Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 13 2003, 07:13 AM
Palestine was not inhabited, just as the Americas never were.
yes it was, and indians lived in america.
jews get palestine area &#39;cos worlds leaders wanted to make up their suffers caused by holocaust.
A:hey, let&#39;s give them that land what bible says to belong to them
B:what a great idea

and besides USA was made by killing its indigenous population almost to extinction.


And even if they were, they should all be moved to the land of the Inuits in northern Canada, after all, there&#39;s lots of room there and it&#39;s also indigenous land.
and jews can be taked to desert between egypt and middle east, after all they had survived there, there is also lots of room.

BuyOurEverything
13th October 2003, 10:01
Not to minimalize any suffering of indigenous people but if countries had to justify their creation in order to exist, there would be no countries. People have been conquering and invading and moving around since they beginning of time (or at least of humans) and who&#39;s to say how far back we look in order to draw the present state lines?

shakermaker
13th October 2003, 14:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 10:01 AM
Not to minimalize any suffering of indigenous people but if countries had to justify their creation in order to exist, there would be no countries
no countries? that&#39;s what John Lennon wanted&#33;

Invader Zim
13th October 2003, 18:03
Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 13 2003, 08:13 AM
Enigma, you&#39;re right. Absolutely right.

Palestine was not inhabited, just as the Americas never were. And even if they were, they should all be moved to the land of the Inuits in northern Canada, after all, there&#39;s lots of room there and it&#39;s also indigenous land.

You&#39;re spouting very offensive propaganda, statistical genocide. You&#39;re erasing a people from the history books. Anyways, I don&#39;t think you&#39;re doing it on purpose, you&#39;re just uninformed about this and have assimilated some lies.

The Zionists (your referring to them as Jews is much more anti-Semitic than any of this "propaganda" you speak of) only began to come into Palestine in the late 1800&#39;s. The beginning of the 20th century saw a coordinated, organized colonization. Probably the only case of non-governmental organization in history. Western governments, driven by a racist colonial identification with the much more human European Zionists, allowed it to happen and even encouraged it. Before this, there were Jewish residents, Palestinian Jews (incidentally also hated and repressed in the modern Apartheid state), but they were a minority. A well treated minority who lived side by side with their Muslim and Christian neighbours, but considered themselves of the same people, and fought against british occupation with that people.

The war of religions is a relatively new developement in Arab society. For a long time, all three religions were given freedom of worship and your religion mattered very little to your neighbour. Regrettably, racism against Jews (including the majority in the area who wanted nothing to do with the latest European atrocity) developed just as hatred of the "White man" developed amongst African-Americans and the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, with colonization, occupation and systematic genocide.

As to your point about why the Arab states don&#39;t just give them land, or why they didn&#39;t accept the fucking desert. It was their home. Why should a Palestinian with an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean have to move to the desert of Jordan, or the desert in Palestine just because an exported European Theocratic movement decided it should be so? And in case you didn&#39;t notice, Palestinians and Jordanians are two distinct peoples. Just because you can&#39;t tell the difference between Iroquois and Algonquin nations doesn&#39;t mean they should be lumped together as "Indians". They would slaughter each other. Just like the Jordanian dictatorship slaughtered the Palestinian population in the 70&#39;s.

The Palestinians should not pay for the racism they get from Arab governments such as Jordan. Neither should they pay for the crimes the elite in the Middle East such as Arafat have committed. Just as Sharon knows he is only in power because of war and would never do anything to eliminate that war, so too does Arafat. And every other government in the region.




But most importantly, as a Palestinian, I call for the destruction of the state of Israel. As well as the Palestinian state. There would be slaughter for hundreds more years if we cut the 2 inches of land there are between them. Neither will settle for it. I call for a democratic state, with neither name and a seperation of Church and State. Then I would give citizenship to every palestinian in the Occupiied Territory. That would be all of Israel, and its little playgrounds of slaughter, West Bank, Gaza and Golan. (Except the golan needs a referendum on whether to go to Lebannon, Syria or this new federated state). That is why this wall, aimed at solidifying Apartheid for generations to come, should be fought vigorously.
Enigma, you&#39;re right. Absolutely right.

Sarcasm in the first line doesnt make for good reading.

Palestine was not inhabited, just as the Americas never were. And even if they were, they should all be moved to the land of the Inuits in northern Canada, after all, there&#39;s lots of room there and it&#39;s also indigenous land.

More sarcasm...

You&#39;re spouting very offensive propaganda, statistical genocide.

Well I&#39;m sorry, if you are offended, I truly am. But if you can find fault with what I said, and not just propaganda of your own, then I will be more than willing to listen as I said, I am no expert in this subject. Do you not believe that genocide is an inproper word to use? After all there has been no mass scale extermination of Palestinians... but the nabouring nations have advocated mass removal of "zionists" from the land. I believe the term "Driven into the sea" was used to describe the Egyption foreign policy on the "zionists" inhabiting the newly formed Israel.

You&#39;re erasing a people from the history books.

According to the Zionists your people have never been in the History books. They claim that there has never been a nation of Palestine, just a region, in the same way that the Sahara is a region. They claim that there is little or no differance between a Palestinian and an Eygption. If this is true, I dont know, but they provide sources for what they say, I would be happy to see yours, to fully sway the argument in your favour.

The Zionists only began to come into Palestine in the late 1800&#39;s.

Which is what I said.

or why they didn&#39;t accept the fucking desert.

Like the Zionists did?

It was their home.

True, and I dont advocate kicking them out, but if you have only 4 people per sqr mile, it seems not to unreasonable to share some of that land.

Why should a Palestinian with an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean have to move to the desert of Jordan

Zionists say that rather than an "an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean" they had as Mark Twain described: -

"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

It only became, excuse my biblical quote, "a land flowing with milk and honey" when the Zionists moved their and engaged in a vast agricultural program to make the land habitable to more than its current nomadic population.

Another interesting claim of the Zionists is: -

"All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain."

If it is true it kind of destroys the Palestinian argument. Yet after all if a Zionists says it some bias must exist right?

Another intersting "claim" by the Zionists is: -

"Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that now comprises the State of Israel, Jordan and the so-called "West Bank" [Judea and Samaria] in between. By 1890, the number of Jews who had settled in Palestine reached 50,000 and, by 1907, numbered 100,000. In Jerusalem alone the Jews numbered more than 25,000, out of a total population in the city of only 40,000 Jews, Christians and Arabs. The Arabs did, however, constitute a majority over the sparsely populated countryside abutting Jerusalem."

The Zionists also claim that the vast majority of Palestinians are not infact from Palestine at all but: -

"The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880&#39;s in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions."

As I attempt to be impartial in this particular dispute, I would be very greatful if you dispell the Zionist myths which I have read, and tell me what really happened.

But most importantly, as a Palestinian, I call for the destruction of the state of Israel. As well as the Palestinian state.

Well your fair at least.

That is why this wall, aimed at solidifying Apartheid for generations to come, should be fought vigorously.

Absolutly.

PS

Thanks for advance for any info you give me.

Loknar
13th October 2003, 18:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 09:02 AM
yes it was, and indians lived in america.
jews get palestine area &#39;cos worlds leaders wanted to make up their suffers caused by holocaust.

But like the Palestinians the Indians were immigrants. There is not really a "Native American", they came here from Asia.

Invader Zim
13th October 2003, 19:07
Originally posted by Loknar+Oct 13 2003, 07:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Oct 13 2003, 07:58 PM)
[email protected] 13 2003, 09:02 AM
yes it was, and indians lived in america.
jews get palestine area &#39;cos worlds leaders wanted to make up their suffers caused by holocaust.

But like the Palestinians the Indians were immigrants. There is not really a "Native American", they came here from Asia. [/b]
There is a slight differance between a 2nd generation immigrant than a people who emegrated over thousands of years previous...

Guest1
13th October 2003, 23:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 01:03 PM
Enigma, you&#39;re right. Absolutely right.

Sarcasm in the first line doesnt make for good reading.

Palestine was not inhabited, just as the Americas never were. And even if they were, they should all be moved to the land of the Inuits in northern Canada, after all, there&#39;s lots of room there and it&#39;s also indigenous land.

More sarcasm...

You&#39;re spouting very offensive propaganda, statistical genocide.

Well I&#39;m sorry, if you are offended, I truly am. But if you can find fault with what I said, and not just propaganda of your own, then I will be more than willing to listen as I said, I am no expert in this subject. Do you not believe that genocide is an inproper word to use? After all there has been no mass scale extermination of Palestinians... but the nabouring nations have advocated mass removal of "zionists" from the land. I believe the term "Driven into the sea" was used to describe the Egyption foreign policy on the "zionists" inhabiting the newly formed Israel.

You&#39;re erasing a people from the history books.

According to the Zionists your people have never been in the History books. They claim that there has never been a nation of Palestine, just a region, in the same way that the Sahara is a region. They claim that there is little or no differance between a Palestinian and an Eygption. If this is true, I dont know, but they provide sources for what they say, I would be happy to see yours, to fully sway the argument in your favour.

The Zionists only began to come into Palestine in the late 1800&#39;s.

Which is what I said.

or why they didn&#39;t accept the fucking desert.

Like the Zionists did?

It was their home.

True, and I dont advocate kicking them out, but if you have only 4 people per sqr mile, it seems not to unreasonable to share some of that land.

Why should a Palestinian with an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean have to move to the desert of Jordan

Zionists say that rather than an "an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean" they had as Mark Twain described: -

"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

It only became, excuse my biblical quote, "a land flowing with milk and honey" when the Zionists moved their and engaged in a vast agricultural program to make the land habitable to more than its current nomadic population.

Another interesting claim of the Zionists is: -

"All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain."

If it is true it kind of destroys the Palestinian argument. Yet after all if a Zionists says it some bias must exist right?

Another intersting "claim" by the Zionists is: -

"Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that now comprises the State of Israel, Jordan and the so-called "West Bank" [Judea and Samaria] in between. By 1890, the number of Jews who had settled in Palestine reached 50,000 and, by 1907, numbered 100,000. In Jerusalem alone the Jews numbered more than 25,000, out of a total population in the city of only 40,000 Jews, Christians and Arabs. The Arabs did, however, constitute a majority over the sparsely populated countryside abutting Jerusalem."

The Zionists also claim that the vast majority of Palestinians are not infact from Palestine at all but: -

"The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880&#39;s in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions."

As I attempt to be impartial in this particular dispute, I would be very greatful if you dispell the Zionist myths which I have read, and tell me what really happened.

But most importantly, as a Palestinian, I call for the destruction of the state of Israel. As well as the Palestinian state.

Well your fair at least.

That is why this wall, aimed at solidifying Apartheid for generations to come, should be fought vigorously.

Absolutly.

PS

Thanks for advance for any info you give me.
First off, Shakermaker, read my post in its entirety before commenting on it. That was sarcasm.

A little disclaimer. I wrote this and may have been a little too emotional at times. Don&#39;t take anything here as a personal attack and dismiss any stupid ad hominems. I appologize in advance if there are any.

Now to enigma:

Well I&#39;m sorry, if you are offended, I truly am. But if you can find fault with what I said, and not just propaganda of your own, then I will be more than willing to listen as I said, I am no expert in this subject. Do you not believe that genocide is an inproper word to use? After all there has been no mass scale extermination of Palestinians... but the nabouring nations have advocated mass removal of "zionists" from the land. I believe the term "Driven into the sea" was used to describe the Egyption foreign policy on the "zionists" inhabiting the newly formed Israel.

According to the Zionists your people have never been in the History books. They claim that there has never been a nation of Palestine, just a region, in the same way that the Sahara is a region. They claim that there is little or no differance between a Palestinian and an Eygption. If this is true, I dont know, but they provide sources for what they say, I would be happy to see yours, to fully sway the argument in your favour.

I did not say genocide, I said statistical genocide. That is erasing a people from the history books. And you saying that zionists claim they never existed is pointless. I accused you of spouting lies, and you tell me they disagree. I know they say Palestinians never existed. I can&#39;t prove that Palestinians and Egyptians are different peoples, no more than you can prove that the Venezuelan and Argentinian peoples are different. After all, they both speak Spanish.

Oh, and when you talk about Arab nations&#39; racist plans, you can say Jews, because that was what they wanted to do, expell Jews. But anyways, Palestinians shouldn&#39;t pay for their neighbours&#39; racism.

Here&#39;s some links to population numbers:

-in 1880 the total population is 480 000, of which 24 000 is Jewish (http://www.sphr.org/history/historyframes/glance.html)
-1922 to 1943, there&#39;s a very clear majority of Palestinians in the are, the mass expulsions changed that (http://www.sphr.org/history/historyframes/documents.html)

or why they didn&#39;t accept the fucking desert.

Like the Zionists did?

No, I was talking about you saying they were offered the negev desert.

It was their home.

True, and I dont advocate kicking them out, but if you have only 4 people per sqr mile, it seems not to unreasonable to share some of that land.

Well, of course if you include Jordan in your definition of Palestine, you can reach 4 people per square mile. Heck, let&#39;s include Saudi Arabia too and all of its uninhabited deserts and make it into 1 person per square mile.

You have to understand, not everyone inhabits the whole land. Canada&#39;s population is mostly along the american border, above that it is pretty much uninhabited. If you were to include the pretty much empty parts of Canada, their density is 3.4 persons per square kilometre (encarta). Does that mean another population should be allowed to move in and occupy Canada? Cause that&#39;s what it is, occupation. Anyways, sharing would be, they&#39;re allowed to immigrate, but not establish a country based on racism and cost thousands their homes.

Zionists say that rather than an "an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean" they had as Mark Twain described: -

"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

Although much of Israel’s desert regions contain poor soils, the northern Negev, the coastal plains, and the interior valleys provide patches of productive soils (more encarta)

coastal plains. anyways, jordan is pretty much entirely desert, but the coastal region of israel is pretty fertile. and my point is, Palestinians don&#39;t want Jordan, cause that&#39;s not their home.

Another interesting claim of the Zionists is: -

"All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain."

If it is true it kind of destroys the Palestinian argument. Yet after all if a Zionists says it some bias must exist right?

1935 Jewish people own about 5.5 per cent of the land (equivalent to 12 per cent of the cultivable land). They acquire it by buying land titles for land that has been farmed by Palestinians for centuries from large, predominantly absentee landlords. (from the first link)

If you know anything about Deir Yassin, you would know that the majority of land was taken by force or at the very least intimidation.

the population numbers you read are bull, I already provided some realistic ones. Jordan was very sparsely inhabited, filled with mostly nomadic tribes. Palestine on the other hand was not, being filled with farmers because of the much more fertile land. The Negev desert is the only area where nomadic Arabs made up the total population. Jordan&#39;s population only reached a boom in the 50&#39;s, when Palestinians began flooding in. That is why today up to 75% of their population is immigrant Palestinians.

The Zionists also claim that the vast majority of Palestinians are not infact from Palestine at all but: -

"The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880&#39;s in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions."

now this pisses me off. :angry: my mother&#39;s family were there for generations. the indians only started immigrating into the americas when they saw the wonderful things the europeans were building.

anyways, it&#39;s ok, I don&#39;t take it personally. I understand how hard it is to sift through the bullshit sometimes. I had to go through the same thing and decide for myself that the propaganda I was being fed about Jews being evil was wrong.

At least you&#39;re looking for another opinion, and I respect that. :)

Please don&#39;t take offense to anything in my post, I&#39;m kinda emotional about this subject.

shakermaker
14th October 2003, 09:03
Originally posted by Enigma+Oct 13 2003, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Oct 13 2003, 07:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 07:58 PM

[email protected] 13 2003, 09:02 AM
yes it was, and indians lived in america.
jews get palestine area &#39;cos worlds leaders wanted to make up their suffers caused by holocaust.

But like the Palestinians the Indians were immigrants. There is not really a "Native American", they came here from Asia.
There is a slight differance between a 2nd generation immigrant than a people who emegrated over thousands of years previous... [/b]
yeah, so the american indians are it&#39;s original population
okay, and palestinians aren&#39;t original population neither are jews.
I have spoken. I won&#39;t argue anymore about this who are original people.
thank you.

Invader Zim
14th October 2003, 11:21
Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Oct 14 2003, 12:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Che y Marijuana @ Oct 14 2003, 12:37 AM)
[email protected] 13 2003, 01:03 PM
Enigma, you&#39;re right. Absolutely right.

Sarcasm in the first line doesnt make for good reading.

Palestine was not inhabited, just as the Americas never were. And even if they were, they should all be moved to the land of the Inuits in northern Canada, after all, there&#39;s lots of room there and it&#39;s also indigenous land.

More sarcasm...

You&#39;re spouting very offensive propaganda, statistical genocide.

Well I&#39;m sorry, if you are offended, I truly am. But if you can find fault with what I said, and not just propaganda of your own, then I will be more than willing to listen as I said, I am no expert in this subject. Do you not believe that genocide is an inproper word to use? After all there has been no mass scale extermination of Palestinians... but the nabouring nations have advocated mass removal of "zionists" from the land. I believe the term "Driven into the sea" was used to describe the Egyption foreign policy on the "zionists" inhabiting the newly formed Israel.

You&#39;re erasing a people from the history books.

According to the Zionists your people have never been in the History books. They claim that there has never been a nation of Palestine, just a region, in the same way that the Sahara is a region. They claim that there is little or no differance between a Palestinian and an Eygption. If this is true, I dont know, but they provide sources for what they say, I would be happy to see yours, to fully sway the argument in your favour.

The Zionists only began to come into Palestine in the late 1800&#39;s.

Which is what I said.

or why they didn&#39;t accept the fucking desert.

Like the Zionists did?

It was their home.

True, and I dont advocate kicking them out, but if you have only 4 people per sqr mile, it seems not to unreasonable to share some of that land.

Why should a Palestinian with an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean have to move to the desert of Jordan

Zionists say that rather than an "an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean" they had as Mark Twain described: -

"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

It only became, excuse my biblical quote, "a land flowing with milk and honey" when the Zionists moved their and engaged in a vast agricultural program to make the land habitable to more than its current nomadic population.

Another interesting claim of the Zionists is: -

"All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain."

If it is true it kind of destroys the Palestinian argument. Yet after all if a Zionists says it some bias must exist right?

Another intersting "claim" by the Zionists is: -

"Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that now comprises the State of Israel, Jordan and the so-called "West Bank" [Judea and Samaria] in between. By 1890, the number of Jews who had settled in Palestine reached 50,000 and, by 1907, numbered 100,000. In Jerusalem alone the Jews numbered more than 25,000, out of a total population in the city of only 40,000 Jews, Christians and Arabs. The Arabs did, however, constitute a majority over the sparsely populated countryside abutting Jerusalem."

The Zionists also claim that the vast majority of Palestinians are not infact from Palestine at all but: -

"The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880&#39;s in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions."

As I attempt to be impartial in this particular dispute, I would be very greatful if you dispell the Zionist myths which I have read, and tell me what really happened.

But most importantly, as a Palestinian, I call for the destruction of the state of Israel. As well as the Palestinian state.

Well your fair at least.

That is why this wall, aimed at solidifying Apartheid for generations to come, should be fought vigorously.

Absolutly.

PS

Thanks for advance for any info you give me.
First off, Shakermaker, read my post in its entirety before commenting on it. That was sarcasm.

A little disclaimer. I wrote this and may have been a little too emotional at times. Don&#39;t take anything here as a personal attack and dismiss any stupid ad hominems. I appologize in advance if there are any.

Now to enigma:

Well I&#39;m sorry, if you are offended, I truly am. But if you can find fault with what I said, and not just propaganda of your own, then I will be more than willing to listen as I said, I am no expert in this subject. Do you not believe that genocide is an inproper word to use? After all there has been no mass scale extermination of Palestinians... but the nabouring nations have advocated mass removal of "zionists" from the land. I believe the term "Driven into the sea" was used to describe the Egyption foreign policy on the "zionists" inhabiting the newly formed Israel.

According to the Zionists your people have never been in the History books. They claim that there has never been a nation of Palestine, just a region, in the same way that the Sahara is a region. They claim that there is little or no differance between a Palestinian and an Eygption. If this is true, I dont know, but they provide sources for what they say, I would be happy to see yours, to fully sway the argument in your favour.

I did not say genocide, I said statistical genocide. That is erasing a people from the history books. And you saying that zionists claim they never existed is pointless. I accused you of spouting lies, and you tell me they disagree. I know they say Palestinians never existed. I can&#39;t prove that Palestinians and Egyptians are different peoples, no more than you can prove that the Venezuelan and Argentinian peoples are different. After all, they both speak Spanish.

Oh, and when you talk about Arab nations&#39; racist plans, you can say Jews, because that was what they wanted to do, expell Jews. But anyways, Palestinians shouldn&#39;t pay for their neighbours&#39; racism.

Here&#39;s some links to population numbers:

-in 1880 the total population is 480 000, of which 24 000 is Jewish (http://www.sphr.org/history/historyframes/glance.html)
-1922 to 1943, there&#39;s a very clear majority of Palestinians in the are, the mass expulsions changed that (http://www.sphr.org/history/historyframes/documents.html)

or why they didn&#39;t accept the fucking desert.

Like the Zionists did?

No, I was talking about you saying they were offered the negev desert.

It was their home.

True, and I dont advocate kicking them out, but if you have only 4 people per sqr mile, it seems not to unreasonable to share some of that land.

Well, of course if you include Jordan in your definition of Palestine, you can reach 4 people per square mile. Heck, let&#39;s include Saudi Arabia too and all of its uninhabited deserts and make it into 1 person per square mile.

You have to understand, not everyone inhabits the whole land. Canada&#39;s population is mostly along the american border, above that it is pretty much uninhabited. If you were to include the pretty much empty parts of Canada, their density is 3.4 persons per square kilometre (encarta). Does that mean another population should be allowed to move in and occupy Canada? Cause that&#39;s what it is, occupation. Anyways, sharing would be, they&#39;re allowed to immigrate, but not establish a country based on racism and cost thousands their homes.

Zionists say that rather than an "an orchard along the fertile lands cradling the mediterranean" they had as Mark Twain described: -

"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

Although much of Israel’s desert regions contain poor soils, the northern Negev, the coastal plains, and the interior valleys provide patches of productive soils (more encarta)

coastal plains. anyways, jordan is pretty much entirely desert, but the coastal region of israel is pretty fertile. and my point is, Palestinians don&#39;t want Jordan, cause that&#39;s not their home.

Another interesting claim of the Zionists is: -

"All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain."

If it is true it kind of destroys the Palestinian argument. Yet after all if a Zionists says it some bias must exist right?

1935 Jewish people own about 5.5 per cent of the land (equivalent to 12 per cent of the cultivable land). They acquire it by buying land titles for land that has been farmed by Palestinians for centuries from large, predominantly absentee landlords. (from the first link)

If you know anything about Deir Yassin, you would know that the majority of land was taken by force or at the very least intimidation.

the population numbers you read are bull, I already provided some realistic ones. Jordan was very sparsely inhabited, filled with mostly nomadic tribes. Palestine on the other hand was not, being filled with farmers because of the much more fertile land. The Negev desert is the only area where nomadic Arabs made up the total population. Jordan&#39;s population only reached a boom in the 50&#39;s, when Palestinians began flooding in. That is why today up to 75% of their population is immigrant Palestinians.

The Zionists also claim that the vast majority of Palestinians are not infact from Palestine at all but: -

"The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880&#39;s in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions."

now this pisses me off. :angry: my mother&#39;s family were there for generations. the indians only started immigrating into the americas when they saw the wonderful things the europeans were building.

anyways, it&#39;s ok, I don&#39;t take it personally. I understand how hard it is to sift through the bullshit sometimes. I had to go through the same thing and decide for myself that the propaganda I was being fed about Jews being evil was wrong.

At least you&#39;re looking for another opinion, and I respect that. :)

Please don&#39;t take offense to anything in my post, I&#39;m kinda emotional about this subject. [/b]
Thanks for the articals, I will read them asap.

It just seams really screwed up to only see one side of a debate, so I did a little looking of my own, and posted what I found. Maybe that stuffs all wrong I dont know, but i will finish this discussion late coz I have to go to class now.

Totalitarian
15th October 2003, 10:29
Israel Committing &#39;War Crimes&#39; in Gaza, Charges Amnesty International (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=655&u=/oneworld/20031014/wl_oneworld/4536703781066140384&printer=1)

WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct 14 (OneWorld) -- Amnesty International has accused the Israeli army of committing war crimes in its ongoing raids of Gaza which continued at Rafah Refugee Camp there today.


"The repeated practice by the Israeli army of deliberate and wanton destruciton of homes and civilian property is a grave violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, notably of Articles 33 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and constitutes a war crime," the London-based group charged in an unusually strong condemnation.


Amnesty says the latest raids, in which at leats 114 homes housing almost 1300 people were reportedly demolished, was part of a longstanding policy carried out for decades in the Occupied Territories, but has accelerated in recent years.


Since the launch of the latest Palestinian intifada three years ago, the Israeli army has destroyed some 4,000 Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as large swathes of cultivated land, hundreds of factories and other commercial properties, roads, and public buildings.


Much of the destruction in recent years was concentrated in Gaza--one of the world&#39;s most densely populated areas--where more than two-thirds of the population lives on less than US&#036;2 a day.