View Full Version : Israel
Picking up on Loz's thread, I wonder if anyone has any ideas of how the Israeli situation is solvable.
The situation is centuries old with millions of lives having been lost in severa crusades of the middle ages. Both Palestinian and Israeli's have good historic claims to the land and from a religious standpoint, of course, judaism and islam are both offshoots from the same seven tribes.
Whilst Palestinians harbour feelings that Israel is their land and have a goal of re-possessing it then I doubt if peace is possible. That being the case it seems to me to be reasonable for Israel to defend it's borders in the best way possible to protect it's people and the occupation of the west bank and golan heights appears to be reasonable as these are areas from where terrorist attacks are easily launched.
The crux of the matter sems to me to be religious, in that there are holy shrines of various faiths all in a short distance of each other in Jerusalem. Although a radical suggestion i do wonder if the destruction of the shrines would serve to lessen the reason for conflict.
London Dave
3 Jan 2002, 20:25
A Gordian knot this one Frodo. The 'opposing' sides really hate each other...which makes it pretty impossible...I read an interesting piece (in a paper here I think) a few months back, stating that the Israelis had 'lost' the right to legitimacy, thru their policy of continuing to settle in designated Palestinian areas (as per Oslo accord). The author author was basically saying they had broken their part of the agreement, which in turh resulted in increasing Palestinian violence etc...
Predicatably, he copped a bit of flak, but I didnt see or read any which really 'countered' his arguments....
Don't think it will be solved with present Israeli govt. I thought Netanyahu (sorry about spelling, but you know who I mean) was a backward step in some ways towards peace, but sometimes people need to try the opposite tack to which they are presently taking in order to find a solution. He did nothing, Barak was almost there I think, but couldnt get the support of the Knesset I recall. (a point to remember when people slag off the two party system in Oz).
I don't see the problem being solved until the 'land' issue is finalised, and both sides stick to their agreements. Will probably see a Freo flag before it happens. The shrine thingy is in someways a bit of a smokescreen for the real problem...giving the people somewhere to live and something to do (work).
I cant see a solution to the problem in the region. Even if the land was to be divided and Palestine became an independant nation (prob wont happen in my lifetime), there would still be attacks from both countries
There is no doubt that there is hate between these nations due to the lives that have been lost
We've seen America get involved, to no avail. A lot of middle eastern nations feel that America supports Israel and is biased in its pursuit of peace and therefore the terrorist organisations are allowed to flourish
Arafat has time and time again pleaded for the United Nations to send in a peace keeping force but i cant see that happening, i mean, what would they do??
All in all, a very grim situation. Ive seen on SBS pictures of young Palestinian children shot dead and surely that kind of action is ruining any chance of peace talks
Dippers Donuts
3 Jan 2002, 23:33
A very complex issue no doubt, one essentially created IMO by the war of 1948 where nearly a million Palestinians were driven from their ancestral homeland. The new state of Israel then refused to allow them to return. Whilst disputes between the Arabs and the Jews has been going on for centuries, the modern problems stem from 1948.
The solution in some ways is simple - a sovereign Palestinian state incorporating the entire West Bank and Gaza. It must have its capital in East Jerusalem. This in principle should not be that difficult - there arent that many jews living in these areas anyway.
In practice, with the current Israeli government it will be impossible, which is a shame. The Palestinians have just as much ancestral right (in fact probably more, given they have occupied this territory for far longer via the Canaanites) to this land.
Bloodstained Angel
4 Jan 2002, 07:20
The source of the current problem in the Middle East can be traced back to the incompetence of the British Administration in Palestine in the period 1918-1948.
Britain had fought a long and drawn out war against Turkey in this area. They were helped also by an uprising of local Arab populations. In return for Arab assistance in fighting the Turks, the British promised that the Arabs would be granted independence after the war and after an interim period whereby the British would run the show but also help in getting the Arabs up to speed so they could eventually run their own affairs. This was the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
In Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait this happened according to plan - eventually the British moved out and the local Arabs took over.
In Palestine they had a problem - not only had they promised this area to the local Arab population, but many years beforehand, they had also promised the very same area to the Jews.
In the last years of the 19th century a political and social movement known as Zionism had sprung up in the Jewish poulations of Europe. The aim (or dream really) of the Zionists was to recreate the ancient Jewish kingdom of Isreal in the old Palestinian lands - a place where virtually no Jews had lived since the Ancient Romans 'ethnically cleansed' the area in 79 AD.
The Zionists were a typically well organised, coherent and effective lobby group. They organised international conferences on the issue during the 1890-1914 period and enlisted significant political and financial clout for thier cause from the Jewish community in the USA (by now the biggest single Jewish community in the world). During this time also the Zionists got significant support from Britain, one of the very few European countries that had managed to 'get over' its own antiSemitism.
So Britain ended up promising the Promised Land to two different peoples.
They didn't think it was going to be a problem, Zionism or no Zionism, there were no Jews currently living in Palestine and the British got on with the task of administering their mandate in Palestine in the inter-war years.
Trouble was, I think everybody underestimated just how serious the Zionists were in their dream of resettling Palestine with European Jews. During the 1920's and 1930's a trickle of illegal Jewish immigration started into Palestine. Jewish refugees would cram into boats which were then ran ashore and the Jews would just run off into the hills and there was virtually nothing the British authorities could do to stop them.
This process dramatically increased after WW2 when most Jews in Europe came to the sobering realisation that life in Europe had no future for them. 6 million had been murdered by the Nazis, and the fact that the Allies had not lifted a finger to help their plight (even though they knew what was going on) confirmed in the eyes of most Jews that Zionism was the best possible outcome for their people.
During 1944-1948 over 2 million Jews illegally emigrated to Palestine. This huge influx altered the population mix in Palestine, Arabs who had lived there for centuries and who had fought the Turks for independence suddenly felt themselves out-numbered in their own country. By 1948 the population of Palestine was 60 % Arab and 40 % Jew. They werre both by now agitating for indepenence - an independence that did not include the other half that lived ther.
The Jews got radical, they wanted the Brits out quick smart and started to resort to terrorism to get their way. Zionist extremist bombed the Headquarters of the British admistration, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in 1946 - 92 were killed. Zionist terror gangs also started to intimidate the local Arabs populations. Jewish terrorists massacred the entire Arab village of Der Yassin in 1947.
The British, tired of trying to sort out this mess they had created for themselves handed the whole problem over to the newly created United Nations to sort out. The UN reccomended partition of the area into seperate Jewish and Arab States.
Problem was the partition was also a mess, Jewish and Arab populations were scattered all over the area and not concentrated in easily partitioned 'blocks' So the 1948 partition looked like a patchwork quilt - it suited nobody.
And so the scene was set for decades of conflict between Arab and Jew.
So here is where blame for the current mess can be apportioned :
- The British : they promised the place to two different peoples, they squibbed at giving the Arabs independence earlier on, they did nothing in later years to halt the mass illegal immgration of Jews to Palestine.
- The Nazis and their collaborators : Murderous AntiSemitism turned Zionism from elitist daydreaming into a mass radical movement dedicated to realising the State of Isreal through any and all means possible.
- American Jewry : as the principle backers of the Zionist movement, they exerted undue influence on American governments to support Zionism and to suppport Isreal.
- The Arabs for doggedly and stubbornly refusing to reach any accomodation at all with their new neighbours. Perhaps if the Arabs were a little more realistic and woke up and smelled the roses a little earlier then compromise and good faith would have won the day instead stubborness, bigotry and recalcitance.
- The Rest of the World : for not taking in more of the millions and millions of displaced European Jews who filled up the refugee camps at the end of WW2. At a International Conference called to deal with the refugee problem in 1947, the only country willing to take in these people was the Dominican Republic:rolleyes: kinda says it all really ? If nobody else wanted them - can you really blame all those Jews for just wanting to get on a boat and go to Palestine ? Especially after what they had just been through ?
cheers
Dippers Donuts
4 Jan 2002, 09:30
The blind faith the US has in Israel has not helped things over the years either.
Once again, the spectre of oil and the role it plays in international US relations rears its ugly head. America needs Israel simply because the yanks need a friend in the middle East. By providing billions of dollars of military aid, the yanks have ensured that Israel is equipped to defend their (America's) interests.
It has been simply disgraceful watching America's intransigence regarding UN resolutions aimed at providing some sort of stability in the region. Time after time the only dissenting voice for these resolutions have been the yanks.
The US media doesn't help either, Palestinian violence is continually referred to as "terrorism"; Israeli violence is "targetted retaliation".
One of the comments of the 20th century was Madeline Allbrights "Palestinian rock throwers have laid siege to Israel".
Bloodstained Angel
4 Jan 2002, 11:42
The supreme irony of the September 11 incident is that the new Conservative Administration in the United States was on the brink of a radical policy shift towards the Middle East.
One of the things that has stopped the USA from having a more balanced and fair policy towards the Palestinians is that US Governments have been held to ransom by the Jewish community living in the USA (the largest Jewish community in the World)
Successive US Presidential candidates (particulary Democrats) have relied on Jewish votes and Jewish campaign donations to get elected, so then it follows that US Governments would not want to 'step on Jewish toes' in trying to force a settlement on the area that took anything away from the already dominant position enjoyed by Isreal.
George Bush changed all that - his campaign did not recieve Jewish donations, the Jewish community as a whole did not vote for him, he came to office owing the Jewish lobby group in the USA absolutely nothing.
Urged on by Sec of State Powell and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice, the Bush Admistration by Septeber 11 was ready to unveil a new and radical policy on the Middle East which included such hitherto 'unmentionables' as
- Recognition of a Palestinian State.
- Military and economic aid for said Palestinian Satate.
- Withdraw of automatic Un Security Council veto on resolutions condeming Israeli actions.
- Diplomatic pressue on Isreal to dismantle illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories
- Threat to withhold military and economic aid from Isreal if they didn't tow the line.
and so on, it really was gonna be a watershed and a 'sea change' in US policy in the Middle East.
But unfortunately, Sept11 blew all of that away.
Now it seems its just 'business as usual' in the Middle East, with the same old intractable problems and the same old gross injustices and the same old gross hyprocracies.
what a shame - and to think we were on the brink of a breakthrough ...
cheers
I was thinking about this as I was watching a feature about Israel on foreign correspondant. What would happen if you paired off each Israelite with a Palestinian of the same age and gender and got them to just speak to talk to each other about their families, their brothers and sisters, pets, their children books they like reading, good movies they have seen, music that they like, their hopes for the future and anything else that could possibly erase the perceptions that each side has of each other and erase prejudices. See that the people involved are human beings.
It seems so unfair that the current generation and generations to come will have to deal with a problem which they have inherited from their ancestors. I'm not sure if all parties involved actually know why they're fighting and how it started.
It just makes me realise how lucky I am to be in Australia.
The Hitman
5 Jan 2002, 05:53
From a thinking, but possibly a naive 16 year old white lower class Australian.
This is probably going to sound stupid, but I am thinking long term here. Why not open Israel/Palestine open to both the racial groups? No border, no division, they can mix, Palestinians and Jews both share a homeland, and have places to live.
Pipe dream? I think not.
I once went into an Arab chat room on Yahoo when I was bored (yes, very bloody bored), and I said I was Israeli. Got a few abusive comments, as you do. Then revealed who I was and where I was from. Spent an hour in there discussing peace in the Middle East. This was about a year ago.
What did I find?
That thegeneral population wants peace. They are tired of fighting. The terrorists are a minute minority. 98% of the people just want to have a permenant home without the spectre of war, and thatthey don't really hate the Israeli's.
It is the terrorist groups like Hammas (sp?) and the likes which continue the useless fight, and the pig-headedness of Israel and America in this long, drawn out conflict which are holding back peace.
There is no right or wrong, no winner or loser. Both are suffering, both will continue to suffer. However, I honestly (and this could be where the naivety kicks in) believe that if my 'no border/live together' solution was offered, that the general population (I'm not saying the head honcho's they won't swallow their pride, that's another problem) would go for it.
One of the saddest things on earth to watch, and another example of religion tearing the world apart.
TheHitman
Your comments are fair enough Hitman, but what i feel it comes down to is that each of those people want their own land.
Palestinians want an independant state to call their own, which includes areas on the West Bank and other areas that include their holy landmarks. Only problem being is that Israelis also want to keep that area for themselves, with both sides being unreasonable in negotiations.
The current Israeli governement in my opinion wont get the peace situation sorted out, and Arafat looks to me like running out of steam....
DEES RULE!
5 Jan 2002, 20:19
I was born into this situation, and having lived in Israel for 12 years and moving here only 3 years ago, I can see the situation from two points of view.
Living conditions in Israel have only been getting worse, because people are scared in their own homes, scared to catch a bus, go watch a movie, go to the beach; people have become enclosed and bitter because terrorism has taken over their lives and minds. I am not going to be baised and tell you how the Palestinians are all to blame because that will be a total load of crap, it takes two to tango and two to fight.
The core of the problem is religion, and not being able to accept one another. Israel is the holliest site for the Jewish people, and the third holliest site for the Muslim people, yet who is to say that the Jews should get the land or that the Muslims should get the land? The problem over the years has developed, people have become greedy and instead of sharing the land they want it exclusivly. When the former prime minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the Palastinians 90% of what they have always asked for, people thought peace was finally upon us, but the Palastinians refused and with that all hope for peace was gone. The situation is beyond the current leaders, Arafat is long gone and the Isareli government wants him replaced. The Israeli government has had the same face for 50 years, same ministers, same old faces, same unreal ideas.
The only way we can solve what is now becoming an official war, is by educating the generations to come and hoping for a brighter future that lies ahead. Instead of the Palastinians teaching their kids to fight and bomb themselves and instead of the Israelis teaching their kids to hate all Arabs, people should move beyond those narrow minded thoughts and expand their horizons. Like someone said, they are all the same people intially who have been divided over religious differences and hate which has been brought about by ignorace. If people opened their eyes and realised that blood is more important than land, maybe this never ending fight might actually be brought to a peaceful end.
Originally posted by DEES RULE!
I was born into this situation, and having lived in Israel for 12 years and moving here only 3 years ago, I can see the situation from two points of view.
Living conditions in Israel have only been getting worse, because people are scared in their own homes, scared to catch a bus, go watch a movie, go to the beach; people have become enclosed and bitter because terrorism has taken over their lives and minds. I am not going to be baised and tell you how the Palestinians are all to blame because that will be a total load of crap, it takes two to tango and two to fight.
The core of the problem is religion, and not being able to accept one another. Israel is the holliest site for the Jewish people, and the third holliest site for the Muslim people, yet who is to say that the Jews should get the land or that the Muslims should get the land? The problem over the years has developed, people have become greedy and instead of sharing the land they want it exclusivly. When the former prime minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the Palastinians 90% of what they have always asked for, people thought peace was finally upon us, but the Palastinians refused and with that all hope for peace was gone. The situation is beyond the current leaders, Arafat is long gone and the Isareli government wants him replaced. The Israeli government has had the same face for 50 years, same ministers, same old faces, same unreal ideas.
The only way we can solve what is now becoming an official war, is by educating the generations to come and hoping for a brighter future that lies ahead. Instead of the Palastinians teaching their kids to fight and bomb themselves and instead of the Israelis teaching their kids to hate all Arabs, people should move beyond those narrow minded thoughts and expand their horizons. Like someone said, they are all the same people intially who have been divided over religious differences and hate which has been brought about by ignorace. If people opened their eyes and realised that blood is more important than land, maybe this never ending fight might actually be brought to a peaceful end.
Great post. A pity the so-called leaders over there won't get to read it.
DEES RULE!
5 Jan 2002, 22:58
Originally posted by Fred
Great post. A pity the so-called leaders over there won't get to read it.
Well actually when I was in grade 6 I was chosen along with 8 other students from the whole country to go to the parliment house for one day and talk to the politicans and deliver a speech. My speech was kind of similar and yeah they seemed to think I was cute.... :rolleyes: .... wrong attitude! :mad:
The Hitman
6 Jan 2002, 06:40
Great post Or. How dare you trump me. :mad: ;) :p
Like Fred said, shame the world leaders won't read yours, read mine, read anyones. The leaders of this world are narrow-minded, egotistical cretins who bar a slight few, put personal glory ahead of what is best for their land.
Look at how Bush is handling the 'war on terrorism'. He has an ego the size of the Rialto, and while I now acknowledge that it was Osama, and yes, they should go after him; it's the daily press conference, the tired, old, patriotic bloody term of speak, and it is definately an ego trip, even though it's a worthwhile and just ego trip.
In the Middle East, both the Palestinian and Israeli hierachies are egotistical, and don't want to look bad in front of their fellow politicians, by perhaps sacrificing some pride or losing their pig-headedness and actually say "It's not entirely your fault, it's not entirely ours - let's work out a proper and working solution with the hate and blame."
Easier said then done, but if they got leaders in there who had that attitude (like the late Rabin (sp?)), and they will bloody well get somewhere.
I still think my solution could work, they just needthe people in place to make it work, and that is where Or's post comes in.
I used to think and hope that politiciansweren't in it for themselves, but you look at conflicts like this, and others, and I loose my naivety, and gain a sense of anger and unjustness (not a word, but eh) towards them and the people who let them get there.
The Hitman
Danny Chook Fan Club
6 Jan 2002, 19:34
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
The US media doesn't help either, Palestinian violence is continually referred to as "terrorism"; Israeli violence is "targetted retaliation".
One of the comments of the 20th century was Madeline Allbrights "Palestinian rock throwers have laid siege to Israel". I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.
I have no claim to knowing that much about the situation (thanks BSA for an excellent potted summary of the recent history), and from what I do know, both sets of people have strong claims to the land. I don't know who is right and who is wrong.
What I do know is that the coverage of the events are dreadfully skewed. During recent events, I've seen & heard Israeli actions described as "actions", "incursions", "seizures", as well as the ubiquitous "retaliations". The Palestinians on the other hand only ever seem to do one thing - "attack".
The usage of the language in these situations is powerful - the casual observer (me for instance) can only form one opinion of the situation as it is covered by our media and the US agencies. This is grossly simplistic and probably unfair.
Dippers Donuts
6 Jan 2002, 20:06
Great post dees rule, it's always interesting to hear the point of view of someone who has actually experienced situations such as these first hand.
You did say though that the Palestinians declined the offer of 90% of what they always wanted (this was the Clinton/Arafat/Barak Camp David talks I think).
From my reading of the situation Arafat had no choice but to decline the offer, as Barak wanted assurance of Israel's continued strategic control over the West Bank and Gaza, including air space and borders. He also stipulated that Israel retain sovereignity (in perpetuity) over most of East Jerusalem, including Haram Al-Sharif. Surely this was a deal no Arab could accept.
Regardless, agree with yourself and icemans comments that Arafat has run out of puff. Combine this with Sharon's right wing sentiments on the issue and the future looks bleak for the region. A new broom is needed in the leadership of both sides, although Peres has always impressed me as a person of dignity and moderation.
DEES RULE!
6 Jan 2002, 21:27
Originally posted by The Hitman
Great post Or. How dare you trump me. :mad: ;) :p
LOL sorry, but I wanna be a journalist too so yeah.... you have a battle on your hands! :o
It's funny how the media condones the Israel army shooting down and murdering innocent Palesteinian children. seeing that 12 yr old young palesteinian boy murdered by Israel gunfire last year as his father was holding was as bad as any images i've seen from the Holocaust. Yasser Arafat (a great man, perhaps the modern day Nelson Mandela) keeps trying to broker peace but I do not belive for a minute that the Jews want to co-exist with the Muslims or Chirstians. (Not the current government anyway)
DEES RULE!
7 Jan 2002, 14:25
Originally posted by Loz
It's funny how the media condones the Israel army shooting down and murdering innocent Palesteinian children. seeing that 12 yr old young palesteinian boy murdered by Israel gunfire last year as his father was holding was as bad as any images i've seen from the Holocaust. Yasser Arafat (a great man, perhaps the modern day Nelson Mandela) keeps trying to broker peace but I do not belive for a minute that the Jews want to co-exist with the Muslims or Chirstians. (Not the current government anyway)
That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read! :rolleyes:
The media doesn't condone Israel, if anything it condones the Palesteinians. Why is it ok to bomb an underaged night club and kill 20 innocent kids? and why on earth are the Palestinians crying when their kids get shot, when they send their kids to fight! It is so redicilous how they have no value for life, and how they encourage their kids to fight and bomb themselves, yet they are crying and complaining! All the 18 year olds who die in the Israeli army don't have a choice, because they are forced to fight and protect their country.
And another thing, Yasser Arafat is a two faced moron. He says he wants peace but than he funds groups like the Hamas who go and kill innocent Isarelis. People are dying of poverty in the streets, yet he lives in a mension, where on earth is all the money that the Palestinians are getting from the US government and from the UN? makes you wonder doesn't it!
Im not gonna sit here and tell you that the Palestinians are all to blame because as I said before they are not, but to say that the Israeli government doesn't want peace although they have been nagotiating it for more than 50 years, and to say that the media condones Israeli soliders shooting Palestinians kids, and that Yassar Arafat is a modern day Nelson Mandela... that is just plain dumb and redicilous and goes to show you know nothing about the situation, which is kinda sad because I'm younger than you and my views are still more open and less narrow minded than yours! :rolleyes:
Good defense, Dees!
As I read this thread I thought - what are these people thinking???
Your last post, however, says what needed to be said.
For anyone to equate the actions of renagade Palestinians (renagade in the sense of not sponsored officially and publically by the Palestinian Authority) blowing up Israeli non-combatants in a market or a restaurant, to the specific targeting of a Palestinian Authority government facility by the elected Israeli government and its armed forces, and further - to try to attach equal moral justification to each action, is incredible.
But hey! - you know what? I say give the Palestinians everything they ask for. Let them set up any sort of State they desire with boundaries that shrink Israel back to its original 1946 size.
Then, the next time a Palestinian makes war on an Israeli citizen - Israel can simply invade this new "State" take it all back, and keep it by right of conquest.
The mistake Israel is making is that without a State, Palestinians have nothing to lose. Give them something the Palestinians can screw up and lose, and then, maybe, they'll act in a more responsible manner.
The Hitman
8 Jan 2002, 06:02
One flaw with that argument Or, even though I fundementally agree.
You are grouping all the Palestinians together. You are basically saying that it is justified that a Palestinian kid dies, because he would die anyway serving his country (or lack of it).
You cannot do that.
It is life. Life that is still being lived, pre-maturely extinguished by Israeli forces. You can't say that every kid is fair game, because most kids don't become suicide bombers.
And on Yassar Arafat. He might hold a mighty big property, but he doesn't live there. He is constantly on the move, it is why he is still alive. If he was living in that mansion, he'd be dead.
I liked your first two posts better. ;) There's always a balance.
The Hitman
I have always tended to view Arafat as a devious politician. He is firstly and foremostly a terrorist with the single aim of wresting Palestine from Israel. His goal may not be unreasonable from a Palestinian viewpoint. For many years he has put on a pacifist and reasonable face to the western world (propaganda) whilst promoting indirect terrorism against Israel. By indirect I mean that the terrorist groups are not directly linked to him. He plays this game very skilfully. Without the terrorism his negotiating hand would be weakened. It is the terrorism that keeps Israel at the negotiating table, but I wonder to what avail. Even if 1947 boundaries were agreed upon would the terrorism stop? Or would it go on until a little bit more of Israel was ceded, and then a bit more.
Allowing a Palestinian state would not stop terrorism or allow Israel to invade as the terrorists are ostensibly nothing to do with the government. Look at Northern Ireland. The IRA have been denounced by the Irish government for decades but are secretely supported by them with cash, arms and training camps. Everyone knows of it but there is no positive link. The same situation exists with Palestine and Hamas.
If there is a solution in Northern Ireland then it will be a united Ireland and a withdrawal by the British. It is tending that way now. Likewise I cannot see any other solution in Israel but to cede control to Palestine with the Jews becoming a minority in the Country and many others returning to USA and Europe. The reality is that Israel is dependant upon USA and are not self sufficient. Take USA support away and Israel ends. The foundation of any country cannot be fundemental dependence upon another.
Dippers Donuts
8 Jan 2002, 10:39
Originally posted by Sherman
Good defense, Dees!
As I read this thread I thought - what are these people thinking???
Your last post, however, says what needed to be said.
For anyone to equate the actions of renagade Palestinians (renagade in the sense of not sponsored officially and publically by the Palestinian Authority) blowing up Israeli non-combatants in a market or a restaurant, to the specific targeting of a Palestinian Authority government facility by the elected Israeli government and its armed forces, and further - to try to attach equal moral justification to each action, is incredible.
But hey! - you know what? I say give the Palestinians everything they ask for. Let them set up any sort of State they desire with boundaries that shrink Israel back to its original 1946 size.
Then, the next time a Palestinian makes war on an Israeli citizen - Israel can simply invade this new "State" take it all back, and keep it by right of conquest.
The mistake Israel is making is that without a State, Palestinians have nothing to lose. Give them something the Palestinians can screw up and lose, and then, maybe, they'll act in a more responsible manner.
What garbage, next you'll try to tell me the killing of an innocent 12 year old Palestinian boy (who had nothing to do with any of the violence) by Israeli soldiers was "specific targetting"?
Yeah right, you've been watching too much CNN pal.
And hey, you know what, maybe if we did give the Palestinians what they are looking for, ie a Sovereign state, an end to Israeli occupation etc etc; then maybe, just maybe, this war will end.
Why would the Palestinians continue to fight for democracy if they have achieved their aims?
Anyone who believes Yasser Arafat is a terrorist seriously needs to have his/her head checked.
The Israel government's real plans are to try and invade Lebanon and the surrounding countries and drive out or kill the native Muslims/Christians there and replace them with Jews. That is what they have been doing on the West Bank for years. My mother and her family had to leave Lebanon because the Israel Army had invaded there and killed innocent Arabs there at will (this was admittedly some 40 odd years ago) but the real truth is that the Israelites have an agenda, and that is, i believe they want to take over their entire region of the middle east (Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus etc) and it is up to men like Arafat to stop them.
That is the real unbiased truth.
Voice of Reason
8 Jan 2002, 13:53
That is the real unbiased truth.
Is truth ever unreal or biased?
Are you a brilliant employer of irony?
Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of the history of this region?
Understand that labels used are meaningless, as in the following verb:
"I am a Freedom Fighter
You are a Guerrilla
He is a Terrorist".
Am I supposed to take anything you say seriously?
DEES RULE!
8 Jan 2002, 14:42
There is one thing I have to get straight here, I never ever said that the Palestinians kids who die deserve it.
I feel sorry and am appauld at every life that is lost on either side, BUT what I did say is that the majority of the Palestinians who die bring it upon themselves in way. I don't blame them for being fraustrated and wanting to fight and have their own country, however they could do it in an orginised and civilised way. Alot of the poverty that goes on and the miss- treatment of people is due to the government and the way it handles the inflows of money from sources like the US. Like I said before, its real hearbreaking to see people starving on the streets and idoilising some moron who lives in a mansion and pays for his wife's shopping sprees in Paris (and no I am not making this up its true!). When the leaders of a country don't put the people first than problems are bound to happen.
Arafat has been sneaking around trying to get the best of both worlds, by asking for peace and than going and giving support to terrorist groups.
To sum up I will say that any life lost is a shame, but when someone is out fighting and throwing rocks and making bombs like many of the Palestinians who die, than in a way their death was brought upon themselves; but when innocent kids my age are going out to party, or innocent people are catching a bus and they die because someone has planted a bomb... than you kinda wonder where is the justice in the world.
Until you have all your family go through the army and fight, and until you lose people that you love because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, you really have no idea what its like living in fear.
DEES RULE!
8 Jan 2002, 14:48
Originally posted by Loz
Anyone who believes Yasser Arafat is a terrorist seriously needs to have his/her head checked.
The Israel government's real plans are to try and invade Lebanon and the surrounding countries and drive out or kill the native Muslims/Christians there and replace them with Jews. That is what they have been doing on the West Bank for years. My mother and her family had to leave Lebanon because the Israel Army had invaded there and killed innocent Arabs there at will (this was admittedly some 40 odd years ago) but the real truth is that the Israelites have an agenda, and that is, i believe they want to take over their entire region of the middle east (Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus etc) and it is up to men like Arafat to stop them.
That is the real unbiased truth.
Where do you pull that stuff from? your arse?? :rolleyes:
Even if they did want to invade and take over like you so wisely say, it would be impossible. May I remind you that Israel is 1/3 the size of Tasmania, with only 6 million citizen and less than 800,000 part taking in the army at any one time. How on earth are they going to invade the middle east and take over? do you even think before you say stuff like that?
40 years ago there were wars going on between Lebanon and Israel and yes people did get killed, thats the reality of war. Since then though, there has been a peace deal and things have been going pretty smoothly since.
I don't know where you pull your information from, or how you know about those so called "plans" but let me tell you one thing, the Israeli government is not stupid nor dellusional in regards to their power and limits and nobody has any interest in taking over places like Lebanon, Syria or Cyprus, nor do they have any interest in driving out all the Muslims!
Dippers Donuts
8 Jan 2002, 15:22
Dees rule: If the Palestinians didn't resort to shall we say, "heavy handed" measures, do u think the Israelis would listen? Course not, Israel is in occupation of their land, possession is 9/10ths of the law as they say and do you think if the Palestinians asked nicely "please, can we have our land back"; the Israelis would say "sure, no problems".
Course they wouldn't. I'm not a huge fan of Arafat but I am less of a fan of Sharon, he is a provocative extremist with a VERY dubious military history of his own.
He has been quick to point the finger at the PLO for the recent seizure of a boat laden with arms, when more research is showing that it belongs to probably the iraqis or Lebanon.
DEES RULE!
8 Jan 2002, 16:02
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Dees rule: If the Palestinians didn't resort to shall we say, "heavy handed" measures, do u think the Israelis would listen? Course not, Israel is in occupation of their land, possession is 9/10ths of the law as they say and do you think if the Palestinians asked nicely "please, can we have our land back"; the Israelis would say "sure, no problems".
Course they wouldn't. I'm not a huge fan of Arafat but I am less of a fan of Sharon, he is a provocative extremist with a VERY dubious military history of his own.
He has been quick to point the finger at the PLO for the recent seizure of a boat laden with arms, when more research is showing that it belongs to probably the iraqis or Lebanon.
As I said before, both leaders are morons and should be replaced.
But I mean why should Israel give their land away? if you wanna be technical about it, the Israelits had it first thousands of years ago. Things changed with times, battles were fought and Israel won in what was a two sided battle. In fact at one stage Israel had about 3 or 4 countries to fight off. They have won the wars fair and square and have earned the land.
I'm not saying that the way they treat the Palestinians is fair, but why give them the land we earned? No one wants the Palestinians why should Israel take them? If i recall it correctly there are hundreds of Arab countries, why don't they lend a hand and take in the Palestinians? The Jews only have one home land, one tiny piece of land that is their, that they have fought for, why should they give that away?
The Jordanians, and Egypgians etc... they don't want the Palestinians occupying their land which is much more specious and appropriate, so why should Israel be left to pick up the pieces?
Dippers Donuts
8 Jan 2002, 16:19
If you want to be real technical about it then the palestinians, through their ancestry to the Canaanites, have a greater claim to the land than Israel.
It is hypocrital for the Israelis to talk about the return of the promised land, the kingdom of david etc. Are they asking for the return of the Roman empire as well (or aborigines to reclaim Australia as well for that matter). Obviously they are not, which highlights the paucity of their claims.
They didn't win the land fair and square - they stole it, in direct violation of every UN resolution passed since.
The Hitman
8 Jan 2002, 17:00
Originally posted by DEES RULE!
Things changed with times, battles were fought and Israel won in what was a two sided battle. In fact at one stage Israel had about 3 or 4 countries to fight off. They have won the wars fair and square and have earned the land.
No such thing as "earning land".
Does that mean the Germans deserved France, Scandanavia, Poland, part of Russia, Holland, Belguim, North Africa, Greece, Turkey, Italy? Hell no. They broke the rules. So do Israel. So do the Palestinians.
You never earned the land. Technically, you were given it.
Yes, the Jews were there first, the Romans kicked them out on the belief that they killed Jesus, the Arabs moved in, and now we have this furore.
No one can win. Everyone can lose, and is losing. They need one country for all, where all can worship their sacred sites. No country should be open/closed to religious or ethnic beliefs.
A united land is the only answer; shame that the leaders don't have the balls. :(
The Hitman
In reality modern day Israel is a little like Australia, that is mainly composed of immigrants and their descendants. These are people who were born in Europe and USA from generations of European and USA parentage before them. The key difference is that Palestinians were truly disposessed (aboriginal thoughts to another thread), although the barren wasteland that was Palestine has become a thriving industrial country under Israel. In fact it is a great shame they couldn't work together because both needed each other. The stumbling block with Israel, though, is the unique true racism of their religion. You have to be born a Jew, it is a superior being. You can convert to Judaism but will be called a gentile, a much lower being. Thus no non-Jew can be the equal of a Jew in Israel and because equality is a cause most will fight for it follows that there will always be conflict between Jews and non Jews in a Jewish controlled society. And so we return to religion as the prime reason for wars and misery, as it has done through the ages.
PS...Lebanon was a lovely place but their problems were caused mainly by Syria, I believe.
DEES RULE!
8 Jan 2002, 21:12
Originally posted by Frodo
In reality modern day Israel is a little like Australia, that is mainly composed of immigrants and their descendants. These are people who were born in Europe and USA from generations of European and USA parentage before them. The key difference is that Palestinians were truly disposessed (aboriginal thoughts to another thread), although the barren wasteland that was Palestine has become a thriving industrial country under Israel. In fact it is a great shame they couldn't work together because both needed each other. The stumbling block with Israel, though, is the unique true racism of their religion. You have to be born a Jew, it is a superior being. You can convert to Judaism but will be called a gentile, a much lower being. Thus no non-Jew can be the equal of a Jew in Israel and because equality is a cause most will fight for it follows that there will always be conflict between Jews and non Jews in a Jewish controlled society. And so we return to religion as the prime reason for wars and misery, as it has done through the ages.
PS...Lebanon was a lovely place but their problems were caused mainly by Syria, I believe.
I could not agree with you more! Religion is the main cause of most wars.
You will find that 70% of the population in Israel finds the whole being born Jewish thing redicilous. There is a lot of fighting in Israel as well between the orthodox Jews and the secular Jews. Most secular Jews hate the orthodox Jews because they don't work, they don't go to the army, they are supported by the government from taxes that the secular Jews pay and most of all they are trying to run the country although they are a minority. You won't find everyday Jews, looking down on anyone who wasn't born Jewish or converted, in fact no one even bothers asking because it makes no difference.
You have to understand though, that making the rule of only Jews being allowed to live in Israel and recieve a citizenship, came originally because Israel is so small and is already over populated, and lets face it its a Jewish country. So in order to stop all these people coming into the country (I don't get why anyone would wanna go live there, having lived there myself) they made a rule that you must be a Jew to live in Israel.
I think that if it wasn't for the 30% or 40% of orthodox Jews living in Israel, things would be much easier in terms of coming to a peace agreement. It is only the orthodox Jews within and around the government, that are pressuring the leaders not to give away any piece of land, because they claim every piece is holly. The leaders are left in no position to argue because if they don't do as the religious groups ask the government will fall apart due to not having enough support.
This religious battle has been going on for years both within Israel and between the Muslims and Jews trying to fight over a piece of land and a few holly artifacts, it is redicilous but true.
Originally posted by Frodo
PS...Lebanon was a lovely place but their problems were caused mainly by Syria, I believe.
I have to agree with this, my father was in Lebanon at the time of the war and it seems Syria were loving it in Lebanon. They practically owned the country and even after the war in Lebanon ended Syria were unwilling to leave - however, Syria wouldve had no reason to enter Lebanon if Israel wasnt kicking its arse
Originally posted by DEES RULE!
That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read! :rolleyes:
The media doesn't condone Israel, if anything it condones the Palesteinians. Why is it ok to bomb an underaged night club and kill 20 innocent kids? and why on earth are the Palestinians crying when their kids get shot, when they send their kids to fight! It is so redicilous how they have no value for life, and how they encourage their kids to fight and bomb themselves, yet they are crying and complaining! All the 18 year olds who die in the Israeli army don't have a choice, because they are forced to fight and protect their country.
I cant believe you seriously posted this. Those kids who you say Palestine are sending to fight are fighting for their country. How can you say that they have no value for life?? That Palestinian man who was holding his dead child killed by an Israeli soldier... does he value life? Or maybe he's happy that his child has died?
And in regards to those Israelis defending their country.. maybe you should check the current casualties list since the Israeli - Palestinian conflict started over a year ago. I think you'll be surprised at the numbers
Originally posted by Sherman
Then, the next time a Palestinian makes war on an Israeli citizen - Israel can simply invade this new "State" take it all back, and keep it by right of conquest.
Yeah, thats real smart :rolleyes:
Oh, but i forgot, if Israel were to "invade" this new state, they'd have Americas backing wouldnt they??
Dippers said:
What garbage, next you'll try to tell me the killing of an innocent 12 year old Palestinian boy (who had nothing to do with any of the violence) by Israeli soldiers was "specific targetting"?
Come on, Dippers - the child and his father were in a place at a time that turned out to be, tragically, the wrong time. No one is (or at least no moral person should be) happy about that outcome.
That particular altercation was started by Palestinians. What regard did those Palestinians have for the innocents that were, foreseeably and inevitably, to be caught in the middle of the ensuing fracas?
As to CNN - I can only say that I only watch CNN when a story is breaking news - I never watch for commentary. I do not care for the spin they place on news events.
Let me ask you these questions:
Do you honestly believe that Israel is going to "go away"?
And, if Israel isn't going to go away, do you honestly believe that randomly murdering Israeli children, women, and other non-combatants and keeping the Israeli people stirred up to the point of war, is going to further the cause of establishing an independent Palestinian State?
I mean - what do you hope to achieve (aside from bloody revenge) by driving Israel away from peace?
What is actually achievable for the Palestinian people? Extermination of Israel? I'm sorry - it isn't going to happen. Israel can protect itself, but even if it couldn't - the USA would.
Next - I believe you posted somewhere along the line (perhaps it wasn't you - if not - my apology) that Israel exists because the USA was responsible for creating it. That simply isn't so. The UN created Israel, but then did nothing to help Israel when Israel had to fight to establish itself. The USA did nothing to help in the '56 war. The USA did nothing in the '68 or Yom Kippur wars except to tell the Soviets to keep the hell out of it. You seem to believe that Israel is the USA's creation and has always been it's ally. Neither is true.
And while my comment about Israel invading any new Palestinian State that failed to keep its citizens from making war on Israelis within the soveriegn boundaries of Israel might have been a wisecrack - it also, ironically, is what would probably happen if attacks on Israel continued after the formation of such a State.
Dippers Donuts
9 Jan 2002, 07:37
Originally posted by Sherman
Dippers said:
Come on, Dippers - the child and his father were in a place at a time that turned out to be, tragically, the wrong time. No one is (or at least no moral person should be) happy about that outcome.
That particular altercation was started by Palestinians. What regard did those Palestinians have for the innocents that were, foreseeably and inevitably, to be caught in the middle of the ensuing fracas?
As to CNN - I can only say that I only watch CNN when a story is breaking news - I never watch for commentary. I do not care for the spin they place on news events.
Let me ask you these questions:
Do you honestly believe that Israel is going to "go away"?
And, if Israel isn't going to go away, do you honestly believe that randomly murdering Israeli children, women, and other non-combatants and keeping the Israeli people stirred up to the point of war, is going to further the cause of establishing an independent Palestinian State?
I mean - what do you hope to achieve (aside from bloody revenge) by driving Israel away from peace?
What is actually achievable for the Palestinian people? Extermination of Israel? I'm sorry - it isn't going to happen. Israel can protect itself, but even if it couldn't - the USA would.
Next - I believe you posted somewhere along the line (perhaps it wasn't you - if not - my apology) that Israel exists because the USA was responsible for creating it. That simply isn't so. The UN created Israel, but then did nothing to help Israel when Israel had to fight to establish itself. The USA did nothing to help in the '56 war. The USA did nothing in the '68 or Yom Kippur wars except to tell the Soviets to keep the hell out of it. You seem to believe that Israel is the USA's creation and has always been it's ally. Neither is true.
And while my comment about Israel invading any new Palestinian State that failed to keep its citizens from making war on Israelis within the soveriegn boundaries of Israel might have been a wisecrack - it also, ironically, is what would probably happen if attacks on Israel continued after the formation of such a State.
Sherman;
I'll try to respond to your points in sequence;
1: Yes, the child and his father were in the wrong place at the wrong time, no question. Palestinian youths also probably started this particular incident; again no issue with that (although the Palestinians were driven to frustration by the Israeli presence no doubt). The child and his Father, stumbled, by accident, into this scene. They sought shelter near (but not with) the Palestinian position. They were about 20m away from the Palestinians. One could make an accusation that the Israeli soldiers deliberately targetted this boy and his father, given how far they were from the rest of the Palestinians. Indeed, some of the more independent press have made this accusation. Somehow I don't think the Israelis will investigate this one...
2: No Israel will not go away, I wouldn't expect it to.
As for your quote;
And, if Israel isn't going to go away, do you honestly believe that randomly murdering Israeli children, women, and other non-combatants and keeping the Israeli people stirred up to the point of war, is going to further the cause of establishing an independent Palestinian State?
violence begets violence; and your statement sounds like a typical zionist expression. It should be noted that since Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000 Palestinian casualties have outnumbered Jewish by a factor of 5 to 1. It could easily be said that it is the Israelis driving the Arabs away from peace.
3: As fo this quote;
What is actually achievable for the Palestinian people? Extermination of Israel? I'm sorry - it isn't going to happen. Israel can protect itself, but even if it couldn't - the USA would
I have never advocated that (extermination of Israel). Peace is achievable, the Israelis will need to move out of the occupied territories for starters.
4:I know the UN created Israel (after the Brits handballed it to them); never said the yanks did. What I will say is that the US gives more aid to Israel than any other country in the world. One must ask why. I like the comment of the French (I think) diplomat who called Israel recently "that sh*tty little country". Oops, shouldn't say that...
5: As for this comment;
And while my comment about Israel invading any new Palestinian State that failed to keep its citizens from making war on Israelis within the soveriegn boundaries of Israel might have been a wisecrack - it also, ironically, is what would probably happen if attacks on Israel continued after the formation of such a State.
My question is this, why wouldn't the violence (on both sides) stop (or reduce dramatically) once a sovereign State of Palestinian is created/recognised. IE, remove the Israeli presence from the occupied territories and there with it would go a lot of the Palestinian angst/despair.
After all, isn't that what they are ultimately fighting for?
Originally posted by DEES RULE!
I could not agree with you more!
Please have some considerartion and stop agreeing with me people. I do have a reputation to maintain you know ;)
Bloodstained Angel
9 Jan 2002, 11:38
yeah but Frodo
you've gone all 'reasonable' on us all of a sudden ! :confused: ;)
cheers
The only true solution to the problem (that will cause the least amount of bloodshed) is for the Jews to vacate Israel and return to their native Poland and other European countries (where most of them had been fled out in WW2.
The simple matter of the truth is that eventually one day all the Muslim countries (IE Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Jordan) will unite and destroy the people of Israel if they don't leave. I do not want this to happen, but that is my gut feeling. Better the Jews return to Europe where they lived in (relative peace) before the German Invasion.
Voice of Reason
9 Jan 2002, 16:26
Originally posted by Loz
The only true solution to the problem (that will cause the least amount of bloodshed) is for the Jews to vacate Israel and return to their native Poland and other European countries (where most of them had been fled out in WW2.
The simple matter of the truth is that eventually one day all the Muslim countries (IE Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Jordan) will unite and destroy the people of Israel if they don't leave. I do not want this to happen, but that is my gut feeling. Better the Jews return to Europe where they lived in (relative peace) before the German Invasion.
A couple of minor points that may have slipped through your analysis:
1) WW2 ended in 1945, which is 56 (and a half) years ago. Imagine for a moment if you had been transplanted from Australia 56 years ago to, say, Norway and someone decided to deport you back "home" to your "native" land. Fair enough? And what if you're, say, 20, and have never lived in your "native" land? And nor did your parents?
2) The Jews have been persecuted throughout modern and medieval history by a number of peoples, for example the Russian "pogroms" (not to be confused with "programs" which you watch on your TV), so they didn't exactly live in peace in Europe.
I could go on, but....
I have some sympathy with Loz's view on this.
It seems to me that the USA is the dominant 'empire' of the world. History shows us that other great empires such as British, Roman, Ottoman etc have declined in time. Ant there lies the problem because without that USA support I cannot see how Israel can exist. It is surrounded by Islamic nations that want them out. Don't forget that the root cause of Sept 11 was the fundementalism spawned by Muslim hatred of USA support for Israel.
I believe that one of the main reasons for the Sept 11 bombing as Frodo said is due to the percieved alliance between America and Israel in relation to the situation currently there.
Another one i think was said to be in regards to the American bases that are established in middle eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia
Dippers Donuts
9 Jan 2002, 21:27
Here's one I'll throw in to be deliberately provocative...
Perhaps Israel had a hand in the 911 bombings...
Think about it, do the deed, point all the evidence towards the arabs and whooska, WW3 is declared on Muslims...the world hates 'em etc etc...
I know, stupid idea but...out of all the casualties from 911, Israel lost about 5 of their citizens; compared to the over 10,000 that worked there on a daily basis that's a pretty good survival rate.
It has also been shown that a day before the bombings an Israel communication company sent an SMS message to its employees not to go to work on 911 because a catastrophe was imminent.
Mossad are the masters of dirty tricks you know...
Nah couldn't happen...
Dippers said:
Here's one I'll throw in to be deliberately provocative...
Perhaps Israel had a hand in the 911 bombings...
Think about it, do the deed, point all the evidence towards the arabs and whooska, WW3 is declared on Muslims...the world hates 'em etc etc...
OK, Dippers - I'll bite on this one:
Any thinking, scheming person weighs the potential upside gain against the potential downside risk when considering whether to undertake some action. Right now, the only true friend Israel has is - arguably - the USA. The obvious downside risk of being "found out" (if Israel were to pull an operation like this) is that the USA would turn on Israel. THAT - most ceratinly - would be disaster for Israel. So I submit that Israel would not undertake an operation like this against its own interests.
Last - your remark that "WW3 is declared on Muslims . . .the world hates 'em" is merely, I assume, a gallows humor, or throw away, wry comment. Because if it's not, with all due respect to you and your opinion - you've completely misinterpreted the underpinnings of the recent USA actions in Afghanistan.
Voice of Reason
10 Jan 2002, 08:05
WW3 is declared on Muslims
NOT.
Everyone has been extra careful to point out that this is in no way a war on Muslims. Lots of Muslims don't agree it's a good idea to kill innocent people and flatten NY.
This is not a religious war, on one side at least. Totally predictably, bin laden & co. claim they have (their) God on their side.
The rest of the world is a huge coalition of mostly sensible people who don't think that it's acceptable behaviour to hijack planes of innocent people and crash them deliberately into large buildings of innocent people causing death, destruction and consequential hardship to just about everyone. We reckon that if God exists he wouldn't be too happy about it either - or if he would, well, let's not bother with him.
Any fool can go through any religion and twist some words from the main book to suit their nefarious purposes. Lots of fools always have done and will do.
4000 israeli citizens dont show up to work
its not that they get out, its not that they hardly survive
they just take the day "off", :confused:
sharon is banned from traveling to the states by the shabak where he wanted to be the main guest at a jewish celebration
:confused:
fbi asks how come they knew about it and didnt say anything
"no comment"
(Total number of Middle Easterners among 257 passengers and crew: zero.) :confused:
approx 2000 dead, no names released, names are ALWAYS released after disasters, to give the relatives a sense of conclusion. not this time, this time for some strange reason the names "wont??" be released. may have to do with the fact that over 1000 dead are estimated to be muslims :confused: 50% of dead from a 3% total in the pupulation :confused:
by WILLIAM THOMAS
-----------
We didn’t ask what the United and American pilots (three of them military veterans) were doing while men armed with quarter-inch knives demanded death to fellow Americans, why their cockpit conversations were never released, why eight indestructible “black boxes” holding the keys to so many questions were rendered “inoperable” while hijackers’ paper passports escaped explosions and fire unscathed.
We didn’t ask why a plane supposedly driven by its passengers into two separate crash sites in the Pennsylvania countryside came apart in mid-air. Or why the president of the United States remained more interested in the story of a pet goat than reports of airliners crashing into Manhattan skyscrapers and the Pentagon.
We didn’t ask why U.S. forces were poised to attack across the Tajikistan border into Afghanistan in an assault announced last June - but could not scramble a single fighter to defend the U.S. capitol before three airliners hit their targets on a sunny morning in September.
We didn’t ask why the CIA met with an ailing Osama bin Laden in an American hospital as the biggest British battle fleet since the Falklands sailed for waters off Afghanistan, why Washington gave the Taliban $43 millions in May, or why the FBI and Attorney General of the United States repeatedly ignored warnings and blocked investigations into the impending attacks.
We didn’t ask what the CIA was doing in the upper echelons of Big Banks that profited hugely from “short-selling” United and American Airlines stocks in the final days before someone dialed 9.11
We didn’t ask why the head of the WTC arson investigation told reporters there were “explosive devices” in the building, why so few survivors were burned, or why New York firefighters were dragged away from Ground Zero just when the site was becoming safe and they were getting close to the bottom of things.
-----------
THINK people
Originally posted by ah_19
by WILLIAM THOMAS
-----------
We didn’t ask what the United and American pilots (three of them military veterans) were doing while men armed with quarter-inch knives demanded death to fellow Americans, why their cockpit conversations were never released, why eight indestructible “black boxes” holding the keys to so many questions were rendered “inoperable” while hijackers’ paper passports escaped explosions and fire unscathed.
We didn’t ask why a plane supposedly driven by its passengers into two separate crash sites in the Pennsylvania countryside came apart in mid-air. Or why the president of the United States remained more interested in the story of a pet goat than reports of airliners crashing into Manhattan skyscrapers and the Pentagon.
We didn’t ask why U.S. forces were poised to attack across the Tajikistan border into Afghanistan in an assault announced last June - but could not scramble a single fighter to defend the U.S. capitol before three airliners hit their targets on a sunny morning in September.
We didn’t ask why the CIA met with an ailing Osama bin Laden in an American hospital as the biggest British battle fleet since the Falklands sailed for waters off Afghanistan, why Washington gave the Taliban $43 millions in May, or why the FBI and Attorney General of the United States repeatedly ignored warnings and blocked investigations into the impending attacks.
We didn’t ask what the CIA was doing in the upper echelons of Big Banks that profited hugely from “short-selling” United and American Airlines stocks in the final days before someone dialed 9.11
We didn’t ask why the head of the WTC arson investigation told reporters there were “explosive devices” in the building, why so few survivors were burned, or why New York firefighters were dragged away from Ground Zero just when the site was becoming safe and they were getting close to the bottom of things.
-----------
im surprised this article has been published..... and some of the information in it makes you wonder doesnt it??
Originally posted by ah_19
4000 israeli citizens dont show up to work
its not that they get out, its not that they hardly survive
they just take the day "off", :confused:
sharon is banned from traveling to the states by the shabak where he wanted to be the main guest at a jewish celebration
:confused:
fbi asks how come they knew about it and didnt say anything
"no comment"
(Total number of Middle Easterners among 257 passengers and crew: zero.) :confused:
approx 2000 dead, no names released, names are ALWAYS released after disasters, to give the relatives a sense of conclusion. not this time, this time for some strange reason the names "wont??" be released. may have to do with the fact that over 1000 dead are estimated to be muslims :confused: 50% of dead from a 3% total in the pupulation :confused:
by WILLIAM THOMAS
-----------
We didn’t ask what the United and American pilots (three of them military veterans) were doing while men armed with quarter-inch knives demanded death to fellow Americans, why their cockpit conversations were never released, why eight indestructible “black boxes” holding the keys to so many questions were rendered “inoperable” while hijackers’ paper passports escaped explosions and fire unscathed.
We didn’t ask why a plane supposedly driven by its passengers into two separate crash sites in the Pennsylvania countryside came apart in mid-air. Or why the president of the United States remained more interested in the story of a pet goat than reports of airliners crashing into Manhattan skyscrapers and the Pentagon.
We didn’t ask why U.S. forces were poised to attack across the Tajikistan border into Afghanistan in an assault announced last June - but could not scramble a single fighter to defend the U.S. capitol before three airliners hit their targets on a sunny morning in September.
We didn’t ask why the CIA met with an ailing Osama bin Laden in an American hospital as the biggest British battle fleet since the Falklands sailed for waters off Afghanistan, why Washington gave the Taliban $43 millions in May, or why the FBI and Attorney General of the United States repeatedly ignored warnings and blocked investigations into the impending attacks.
We didn’t ask what the CIA was doing in the upper echelons of Big Banks that profited hugely from “short-selling” United and American Airlines stocks in the final days before someone dialed 9.11
We didn’t ask why the head of the WTC arson investigation told reporters there were “explosive devices” in the building, why so few survivors were burned, or why New York firefighters were dragged away from Ground Zero just when the site was becoming safe and they were getting close to the bottom of things.
-----------
THINK people
This entire post is a collection of outright lies, malicious innuendo and unsubstantiated rumour.
Quite frankly this is an amateur propaganda piece intended to 'muddle the waters' of information concerning September 11 with blatant misinformation and the use of biased and emotive imagery.
To proscribe any credence to any article containing so much 'evidence' of a broad and presumedly ZOG conspiracy would involve the reader disassociating themselves with the fundamental virtues that (a) the author should actually bother to reference their sources of information and (b) the author should actual have reliable and relevant sources that can prove such an argument.
I actually feel dumber for reading it.
Hawkforce
11 Jan 2002, 09:12
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Here's one I'll throw in to be deliberately provocative...
Perhaps Israel had a hand in the 911 bombings...
Think about it, do the deed, point all the evidence towards the arabs and whooska, WW3 is declared on Muslims...the world hates 'em etc etc...
I know, stupid idea but...out of all the casualties from 911, Israel lost about 5 of their citizens; compared to the over 10,000 that worked there on a daily basis that's a pretty good survival rate.
It has also been shown that a day before the bombings an Israel communication company sent an SMS message to its employees not to go to work on 911 because a catastrophe was imminent.
Mossad are the masters of dirty tricks you know...
Nah couldn't happen...
And Man didn't land on the moon.
And the Holocaust never happened.
And Elvis lives.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Don't belittle this debate with ridiculous paranoic fantasies - this isn't the MidWest of America you know?!
Hawkforce
11 Jan 2002, 09:22
[i]
THINK people [/B]
What is this? Banjo country?
Take a little of your own advice you gullible twit!
Originally posted by Hawkforce
What is this? Banjo country?
Take a little of your own advice you gullible twit!
Anything to do with Gillibles Travels? :eek:
Dippers Donuts
11 Jan 2002, 22:05
Originally posted by Hawkforce
And Man didn't land on the moon.
And the Holocaust never happened.
And Elvis lives.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Don't belittle this debate with ridiculous paranoic fantasies - this isn't the MidWest of America you know?!
Take a chill pill sweetie....
Just pondering the imponderables...that's all...
One can safely however there are a number of intriguing questions that remain unanswered from 911.
For example, has anyone seen a breakdown of the nationality of the victims of the WTC bombing. I would like to see that, for example.
And seriously, you don't really believe man landed on the moon do you...;)
What a load of hogwash.
Actually I am not even going to enter into discussion over the totally unsubstantiated claims made in this thread. To do so would simply lend them more credence.
So now all of the conspiracy idiots say: "See, no one will talk about it. It must be true because there is no documentation to refute it."
Sensible people: "But there is no evidence that it happened."
Idiots: "There is no evidence that they didn't destroy the evidence that it happened."
Sensible people: "So how do you know it happened at all??"
Idiots: "Because this guy says he knows what happened and wrote an article about it."
Sensible people: "Why would you trust some guy who you have never heard of before?!?"
Idiots: "Well, he wrote an article about it. Proper sentence structure and everything. It must be true."
Sensible people: (*sound of someone lost for words in the face of absolute stupidity*)
I would like you all to go out and buy a copy of Terry Pratchett's "The Truth". It is an excellent and very funny look at this sort of mass acceptance of obviously fabricated claims.
the first stage of truth is that it is ridiculed
the second stage is that it is violently rejected
the third stage is that it is accepeted as truth
the facts that i for one get are from the news and the papers that i read every day, but are often found at the end of articles on page 50 and are never elaborated. It would be complete propaganda if they were tottaly ommited, so they pay lip service instead.
i for one dont beleive that any western politician gives one hoot about whether or not i die, suffer or befall any other calamity as long as it is in thier best interest, the american government is responsible for the largest amount of world terrorism done under the auspices of "nation security" and "peace forces". Nicaragua is one of the most blatant examples you can find, a country which by the UN and amnesty internation was flurishing under its own rule after it expelled american influences.
Education, health, public services employment all improved and american exploitation diminished. So the americans spent 21 million dollars funding a rebel army to destabilize the country, they committed horrific acts of violence, murders and rape of parents in front of children, beheadings or children and most likely every other crime you could imagine. Thousands of such men with the aid of the CIA destroyed the infrastructure and livelihood of thousands of people. And they did it claiming to be fighting for the independence of nicaragua.
The government unable to do anything lost support, the people got the picture, amercia will save you, vote for them, so they did.
And america was the good old saviour. The terrorists stopped by america, great old america pulled the plug on the funding. The majority of the murderers who made up the rebel army were granted places in the new countries army, as officers mostly.
If american politicians can do this, i dont think they would lift a finger to save my life or yours. If australian politicians are so closely allied wtih them what makes them any better. This is just one small example of thousands being killed by a two faced hypocracy of a country of "freedom". There are many more.
i dont ask who did something these days, i ask who really benefits from it, they are usually the ones behind it, they always have been in the past even if they were not the first ones blamed. for example the carlyle group, which just happens to be part owned by the bush family, that just "happens" to be getting a lot of those trillions of gallons of oil from afghanistan. just a coincidence? yeah i guess so i must be an idiot. Im sure this was about justice, just like the seren gas they gave to saddam to wipe out hundreds of thousands of kurds because iran wouldnt play come here doggie. All i the name of "freedom".
Sometimes the pawns do strike back for whatever justice (american justice or real) they can get, but if there are so many inconsistencies in the story as there are in this one then usually its just the big guys at the top pulling some strings to make us all dance the jig.
It was an Isralie newspaper that mentioned that the shabak knew of the attack months before it happened, having banned sharon from going to a ceremony he really wanted to attend in new york at about that time 2 months before the attacck. Having 4000 jews apparently die and the country go into mourning and then suddenly all quiet. nothing, almost all of them were on "holiday". Mossad you know anything about that? "no reply" to the FBI sorry.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/ look up articles a few days after that, you will find it
Even on the CNN the most zionist anti-islamic news station in the world in the days directly after the attack the witnesses said that after the planes chrashed, before the buildings fell they heard explsions as if bombs were going off. i didnt say it they did. You tell me why, YOU think. The pentagon said they were gas mains blowing up. At 80 floors up??? gas mains that could blow up soloud people on the ground could hear it among the frantic screaming of shocked people. The architects who built it said it would withstand any 767 running into them. that was a few decades ago, they said the planes were bigger now and that was why, but they didnt say that the old 767 carried more fuel and would have caused more heat and fire and if they couldnt knock them down how could airplanes wtih smaller fuel tanks.
An architect who built a similar building that had another plane chrash into it said his building, about 25 floors high burned for 2 weeks under 2000 degree heat and it didnt fall. It took 2 million dollars worth of explosives to knock the shell down at the end. He said the WTC was much much stronger, having 4 gigantic steel pillars in the center that should never have collapsed under that strain. Big deal if they were 3 times as big, so was the infrastructure holding it together.
Things dont add up, surely you logic tells you that.
The first reports on the news of the plane that chrashed out on the middle of the forest was that it blew up in mid air. why?
id DID blow up in mid air, because it is impossible for wreckage to be spread out over such a distance of miles if a plane chrashes into the ground in one piece. The american pilots associated has agreed to that. So why are reports by the government otherwise, what does IT have to hide.
In stock market temps a PUT is when you pay a person a percentage of the worth of thier stock so that you have the right to buy thier stock within 24 hours at any time at any price. There were enormous amounts of PUT's just before the attack on airline industry shares. People bought out stock that dived up to 50%. one such transaction made a 2.5million dollar profit. just one. The government has recrods of every single transaction that is made because you can only deal in the stock market if you are registered and through a bank account. They know all the people that had PUT's on the airline industry and the ones that benefited from it. Coincidence? yeah im an idiot
i must beleive what i am told from now
Well, you believe what you are told. The rest of us will simply sift through the evidence as it comes to light.
You can not necessarily trace all stock market transactions. It is possible to hide the actual beneficiaries through various legal setups. You mistakenly believe that the US government is all-seeing and all-knowing. They aren't that smart, and they aren't that organised.
The fact that people had put options shows nothing. Were they new players on the market? Was the volume of transactions out of ordinary proportion? If so, were the new players responsible for this unusual volume of trades?
As for Nicuragua, I have no knowledge so I will not comment.
I'd be interested to see the items in regard to the architect and his building. All I've ever heard from experts is that the burning fuel was hot enough to melt the steel supports, or at least weaken them so they could not hold up the building.
I would have been surprised if the buildings DIDN'T fall down. "Big deal if they were three times as big"? Study a bit of physics.
A gas explosion is a pretty loud event. Have you ever heard one? I couldn't out-scream one I can tell you that.
I'm not unconvinced that the other crashed plane was not shot down. Mainly because I would have done the same thing. I have heard no evidence for or against the terrorists on that plane having explosives themselves.
"They all knew about it" - the Israeli government may have suspected something but I am sure that every day they see a thousand pieces of information, and every day pollies and diplomats all around the world cancel meetings and trips due to possible dangers.
Do govenrments care about the individual? Not likely. Are these huge organisations agile and disciplined enough to co-ordinate something like this and anticipate all of the possible outcomes? I doubt it. There are much easier ways to achieve these outcomes.
Dippers Donuts
16 Jan 2002, 00:00
Originally posted by Bluey
What a load of hogwash.
Actually I am not even going to enter into discussion over the totally unsubstantiated claims made in this thread. To do so would simply lend them more credence.
So now all of the conspiracy idiots say: "See, no one will talk about it. It must be true because there is no documentation to refute it."
Sensible people: "But there is no evidence that it happened."
Idiots: "There is no evidence that they didn't destroy the evidence that it happened."
Sensible people: "So how do you know it happened at all??"
Idiots: "Because this guy says he knows what happened and wrote an article about it."
Sensible people: "Why would you trust some guy who you have never heard of before?!?"
Idiots: "Well, he wrote an article about it. Proper sentence structure and everything. It must be true."
Sensible people: (*sound of someone lost for words in the face of absolute stupidity*)
I would like you all to go out and buy a copy of Terry Pratchett's "The Truth". It is an excellent and very funny look at this sort of mass acceptance of obviously fabricated claims.
That's very harsh. So because I don't necessarily swallow the mainstream media line then I'm an idiot? The perpetrators of 911 were probably a ragtag coalition of muslim fanatics, however there are still a lot of unresolved issues/questions that need to be addressed.
Not at all. It is when you swallow any line that looks like some sort of exciting conspiracy theory you become an idiot.
No doubt there are lots of things that we will never know the answer to, but with a lack of hard evidence (and indeed in the presence of evidence to the contrary) a lot of these theories just do not hold water.
And just because many truths are ridiculed when they are first proposed does not mean every whacko conspiracy theory that is ridiculed is therefore true. Please use logic correctly.
logic
"sift through the facts as they come out"
meaning that you wouldnt beleive everything a brainwashed media tells you? so you beleive something else may be up, logic says your looking for conspiracies
law of gravity.....
if the building is 3 times as big but built wtih 3 times as strong
logic would say there would be no difference, in fact even in favour of the taller building as gravity decreseas slightly with altitutude if you wish to be padantic
i supposed most of the people who disbeleived that nicaragua was being "looked after" by the americans would have been conspiracy theorists.
you can only go to facts
"abnormal" puts on stock market
Sharon banned from going to new york months prior
most of the 4000 isralies were "holidaying"
fbi asks how Shabak knew....
us senator interviewed 3 months prior to attack and states he has knowledge of an attack on manhatted, and that the fbi has been forbidden to investigate
you use your logic, what do you get?
something dodgy?
if so, welcome fellow conspirator
if not, may your trust in the illuminati government bring you all that you need
Were the puts abnormal? Show me stats on puts for that period compared with periods for the previous five years.
Can't do it? Then you have no evidence.
Prove your assertions about the physics of buildings under stress.
Can't do it? Then you have no proof.
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
That's very harsh. So because I don't necessarily swallow the mainstream media line then I'm an idiot? The perpetrators of 911 were probably a ragtag coalition of muslim fanatics, however there are still a lot of unresolved issues/questions that need to be addressed.
I think that is a fair comment Dipper. There is a hell of a lot that will unfold in time.
ps Calling people 'Ignorant' or 'Idiots' is a losers tactic. What's the point of delberately tring to inflame people by name calling?
if you want to be like that then lets play
where is your proof osama did it?
the video never proved it, zoom in on the face thx, that guy has a fat face and nose, pity the yanks didnt notice, very observant
wheres the proof it ever happened?
umm the media reported it?
despite bias in the media what you are saying is that if it reports something you dont like then i have to prove it. thats just plain dumb. While 99.9999% of news is shot from 1 small perspective if you take the facts at face value they are news. It was reported in the majority of the news papers around the world, of which i spend 2 hrs a day on average reading. It just wasnt on the front page and it wasnt brought to peoples attention as most people dont dig into anything beyond what they are told to beleive.
Hawkforce
17 Jan 2002, 22:07
Originally posted by ah_19
if you want to be like that then lets play
wheres the proof it ever happened?
Why do I get the feeling that you suspect a conspiracy involving an alien race of Lizards?
Fools and Idiots...?
Sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade!
Bloodstained Angel
18 Jan 2002, 06:31
Its easy for stupid gullible people to believe stupid conspiracy theories.
Stupid conspiracy theories are started by stupid people and are designed for a stupid audience.
There alot of this type of stuff about at the moment - maybe thats because their are alot of stupid people about also ?
so ah-19, if Bin Laden didn't bomb the WTC, who did ?
The Freemasons ??????
Hawkforce
18 Jan 2002, 09:29
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
so ah-19, if Bin Laden didn't bomb the WTC, who did ?
The Freemasons ??????
I have this awful feeling that he is going to try and convince us that it was agents of Mossad, under orders from a secret cabal of alien lizards masquerading as powerful members of the world's community.
i never said bin laden didnt do it
but why did the west report that in july last year it was claimed he met with some cia agents in a hospital in dubai i think it was, while he was receiving treatment for his kidney problems.
the CIA's response was
"why would we meet him in a medium sized hospital," what the?
so because it was a small hospital their logic is saying it could they would not have met him. what kind of response is that, would a guilty party say that?
so like they say
"no we didnt meet a secret agent there, it was too small a place,because it was so small we would never meet him there, we would meet him somewhere where there were more witnesses, "
duh??
on top of that the US gave 43 million to the taliban in july
about that time a US senator was interviewed who said he knew of an attack, and the FBI were forbidden to investigate
the western military was told it was forbidden because they thought it was a joke, i asked someone from the army
doesnt sound right does it
you people do nothing but criticise, you disrepute no facts with logic but repeat your mantras of "conspiracy theorists are insane"
fact after fact is presented to you to suggest that maybe there is more to this than the perfect men who run the white house suggest and all you can do is insult.
if you cant think of logical replies, its best to keep your mouth shut.
Bloodstained Angel
18 Jan 2002, 11:28
start quoting some authorative sources for your, er, 'information' and maybe I'll start to take you seriously.
At the moment you sound like a kook.
cheers
Voice of Reason
18 Jan 2002, 14:16
Is this grassy knoll conspiracy thing still going on? Jeeez.
Here's some funny quotes someone sent me:
"What we know about Osama bin Laden is this -- he's worth $300 million, he has five wives and 26 kids ... and he hates Americans for their 'excessive' lifestyle."
-- David Letterman
"The leaders of the Taliban said today that killing bin Laden won't solve the problem. But, you know, it couldn't hurt."
-- Jay Leno
"More and more details coming out now about spoiled rich kid Osama bin Laden. Time reports this week he was one of 52 kids. Mother must be exhausted. This guy inherited $80 million at age 13 and has since expanded it to $300 million through construction, smart investments and gas and oil investments. This way, he can use the money in his war against capitalism."
-- Jay Leno
"More and more facts coming out about Osama bin Laden. You know, he never
sleeps in the same place two nights in a row, just like Clinton."
-- Jay Leno
"This Osama bin Laden guy, spoiled rich kid worth $300M. I have three words for this guy: Anna Nicole Smith. We send her over there, she'll get his money, he'll be dead in a week."
-- Jay Leno
"It was reported today that Osama Bin Laden has 50 brothers and sisters. Which absolutely shocked me because I had no idea he was Catholic"
-- Conan O'Brien
"One of the Taliban spokesmen said they have thousands of men who look forward to death like Americans look forward to living, which is great because we can arrange that. We'll set them up with death, we'll continue living."
-- Jay Leno
Roylion
19 Jan 2002, 16:44
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
If you want to be real technical about it then the palestinians, through their ancestry to the Canaanites, have a greater claim to the land than Israel.
Interesting discussion.
However I do have to take issue with the above statement. Many historians (myself included) take the view that, the Palestinians are no more closely related to the ancient Canaanites than the Jews are.
Consider the history of Palestine.
The area was first occupied by Semites before 3,000 BC and by about the time of the Old Kingdom, the Canaanites were subject to Egypt.
The Israelites (a Semitic people also) arrived about 1100 BC, as did the Philistines (from whom the name Palestine derives) shortly after. For over 400 years the Israelites, Philisitines and natoive Canaanites, as well as the Amorites, the Edomites etc. co-existed, intermarried and became somewhat fused.
The Assyrians destroyed the Kingdom of Israel about 710 BC and about 160 years later the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah (the Jews). The Persians then took over, allowing many of the Jewish people to return and rebuild the Second Temple.
200 years in 330 BC later Alexander the Great conquered Palestine and the Greeks ruled until the Jews re-asserted their independence under the Maccabees. The Romans arrived in about 63 BC and after some strife established Herod the great as a client king in 40 BC. The Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70. After another rebellion in 135 Hadrian re-named the Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina. While many Jews were removed from Palestine between AD 70 and 135 , many remained.
Rome in the East evolved into the Byzantine Empire and in AD 611, Palestine was lost to the Persians and in 636 was conquered by the Arabs . In 1072 the Seljuk Turks took Palestine, followed by the Crusaders in 1099. They lost Jerusalem ninety years later and all of Palestine by 1291. The Arab Egyptians now took control of Palestine, until the Mongoloans under Tameralne invaded in 1400. The Mameluke Sultans of Egypt then re-took the area until 1516, when another wave of Turks (this time the Ottomans) conquered the country. They then ruled until their defeat in 1918, when the British took over until 1948, when the State of Israel came into being.
So the Palestinians do have Canaanite ancestry, but no more than the Jews whose known ancestors were in the area for over a thousand years. Ample time to intermarry with the ancient Canaanites. Indeed the Bible has many examples of this. One of Jesus' reputed ancestors was a Moabite for example. The story of Samson and Delilah is another example.
To use Canaanite ancestry as a justification for Palestinian claims to Israel over the Jews is clearly incorrect. Many Palestinians have a mixed ancestry as the above potted history of their country shows. As do many native Jews.
Roylion
19 Jan 2002, 17:41
Originally posted by ah_19
the first stage of truth is that it is ridiculed
the second stage is that it is violently rejected
the third stage is that it is accepeted as truth
A VERY famous politician of last century also wrote about lying:
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.
The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.
Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts. Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true.
Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end."
The theory that Mossad planned the ramming of two hijacked airliners into the World Trade Towers as part of a Jewish conspiracy and that Mossad had given thousands of Jewish employers of the WTC advance warning not to go into work that day was stated by Syrian Defence Minister Mustafa Tlass, in mid October. His statement apparently came from a report on the Al Manar television network based in Beirut, which in turn had appeared to be exaggerated from a report that the Israeli government had expressed concern for the 4,000 Israelis living in new York at the time of the attacks.
This 'lie' is now apparently sweeping the Arab world.
Dippers Donuts
21 Jan 2002, 00:23
Originally posted by Roylion
Interesting discussion.
However I do have to take issue with the above statement. Many historians (myself included) take the view that, the Palestinians are no more closely related to the ancient Canaanites than the Jews are.
Consider the history of Palestine.
The area was first occupied by Semites before 3,000 BC and by about the time of the Old Kingdom, the Canaanites were subject to Egypt.
So the Palestinians do have Canaanite ancestry, but no more than the Jews whose known ancestors were in the area for over a thousand years. Ample time to intermarry with the ancient Canaanites. Indeed the Bible has many examples of this. One of Jesus' reputed ancestors was a Moabite for example. The story of Samson and Delilah is another example.
To use Canaanite ancestry as a justification for Palestinian claims to Israel over the Jews is clearly incorrect. Many Palestinians have a mixed ancestry as the above potted history of their country shows. As do many native Jews.
Don't have an issue with the middle history stuff you posted, that's largely agreed to by most scholars I would suggest.
When you refer to the semites I assume you mean the correct interpretation ie being of Arab or Jewish race (and not just meaning jewish as some are wont to do).
The Canaanites were the original inhabitants of Israel (as far as recorded history tells us at this stage); they obviously preceded the Israelites by hundreds of years.
Yes there was intermarrying, no question, there is also no question that the hebrews borrowed and assimilated much of the Canaanite religion and culture.
You will find just as many historians who would suggest that the majority of native Palestinians (Arab and Christian) are the descendents of those who preceded the Israelites.
(I'm not a historian btw, just have a keen interest)
Roylion
21 Jan 2002, 06:45
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Don't have an issue with the middle history stuff you posted, that's largely agreed to by most scholars I would suggest.
When you refer to the semites I assume you mean the correct interpretation ie being of Arab or Jewish race (and not just meaning jewish as some are wont to do).
The Canaanites were the original inhabitants of Israel (as far as recorded history tells us at this stage); they obviously preceded the Israelites by hundreds of years.
Yes there was intermarrying, no question, there is also no question that the hebrews borrowed and assimilated much of the Canaanite religion and culture.
You will find just as many historians who would suggest that the majority of native Palestinians (Arab and Christian) are the descendents of those who preceded the Israelites.
(I'm not a historian btw, just have a keen interest)
I agree. There are many historians who would suggest that the majority of native Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites, but in no closer degree or purity than the modern Jews. Therefore closer descent from the ancient Canaanites cannot be used by the Jews or the Palestinians to establish a greater claim to the territory now covered by Israel and Jordan.
The Semite grouping of peoples is usually derived from the related languages that they spoke, including the modern languages of Hebrew, Arabic, Modern South Arabic and Ethiopic. Ancient peoples that are considered Semitic are the Assyrians, Babylonians (who spoke Akkadian), Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Habiru (Hebrews), the Amorites, and the Arameans, the Arabs, and the Ethiopians. (The ancient Philistines are generally not considered to be a Semitic people, nor are the ancient Egyptians)
Aramaic (the language of the Arameans) eventually became the international language of the Middle East, particularly along the Mediterranean coast. It is believed to be the language Jesus spoke and Arabic supplanted it about 1,300 years ago.
Anti-Semitism has been used to refer to the Jews, but my understanding is it was a term that only started to be used in the the late 19th century (roughly 1870's from memory)
Dippers Donuts
21 Jan 2002, 15:39
Originally posted by Roylion
I agree. There are many historians who would suggest that the majority of native Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites, but in no closer degree or purity than the modern Jews. Therefore closer descent from the ancient Canaanites cannot be used by the Jews or the Palestinians to establish a greater claim to the territory now covered by Israel and Jordan.
The Semite grouping of peoples is usually derived from the related languages that they spoke, including the modern languages of Hebrew, Arabic, Modern South Arabic and Ethiopic. Ancient peoples that are considered Semitic are the Assyrians, Babylonians (who spoke Akkadian), Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Habiru (Hebrews), the Amorites, and the Arameans, the Arabs, and the Ethiopians. (The ancient Philistines are generally not considered to be a Semitic people, nor are the ancient Egyptians)
I can see where you are coming from but I would suggest that perhaps a more valid case could be made for the Palestinian linkage than the Jewish linkage. It depends where you sit on the great divide I guess.
I say this because I would have thought that by and large Jewish ancestral claims to palestine would largely be tied to Joshua's eviction of the Canaanites in 1000bc?
I suppose ultimately we are all related in one way or another anyway, so a lot of these debates are needlessly academic exercises.
Roylion
21 Jan 2002, 16:37
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
I can see where you are coming from but I would suggest that perhaps a more valid case could be made for the Palestinian linkage than the Jewish linkage. It depends where you sit on the great divide I guess.
I say this because I would have thought that by and large Jewish ancestral claims to palestine would largely be tied to Joshua's eviction of the Canaanites in 1000bc?
I suppose ultimately we are all related in one way or another anyway, so a lot of these debates are needlessly academic exercises.
I'm not sure how a more valid case could be made for the Palestinian linkage than the Jewish linkage. Personally I'm impartial on the debate. Both sides have legitimate claims on the land of Palestine. It's getting both sides to compromise on the issue, particularly the partition and status of Jerusalem that is proving difficult.
Jewish ancestral claims are largely based on (according to the Book of Genesis) the promise of Canaan allegedly made by Yahweh to Abraham. Abraham is thought to have existed somewhere between 2000-1800 BC, and was believed to have lived in the area around Hebron, so I guess you could say that the Jewish claim extends to a time well before Joshua. Hence the term "the Promised Land." However some Arabs claim descent from Abraham's elder son Ishmael, so Arabs could legitimately argue that the "God's" (Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, the Lord etc. etc) promise extends to the Arabs as well. Abraham and the other patriarch's Isacc and Jacob are quite important figures in the Koran as well as the Torah and the Christian Old Testament.
Archaelogists generally believe that the Canaanites weren't evicted as such, but over the course of over a thousand years (1100 BC to about AD 70), gradually assimilated (or perhaps more accurately absorbed into) with the Hebrew (Jewish) population. Joshua is believed to have lived about 1100 BC and therefore Hebrews and Canaanites lived along side each other for possibly as long as 700 years before Joshua came along. The Bible seems to imply that the sons of Jacob for example took wives from amongst the Canaanites and Joseph (he of the 'coat of many colours') took an Egyptian wife (from whom two of the twelve tribes of Israel reputedly descend.) Then there's the examples of Israelite/Canaanite/Philisitine/Amorite marriages from the Books of Judges and Samuel, such as Boaz and Ruth, Samson and Delilah etc. Personally I have little doubt there was much intermarriage between the two peoples, in probably much the same way as the Norman-French and the conquered Saxon peoples in England intermarried and evolved over the course of 400 or so years into the English.
Hence as the Arabs arrived in 636 AD, and have been there for close to 1,400 years, they would have had (like the Jews) ample time to assimilate with the native populations of Palestine, which even after 70 AD, contained a small population of Jews, practicing Judaic traditions.
Some might even argue (I am not one of them by the way) that the population the Arabs assimilated into, was significantly different from the ancient Canaanites having being diluted and changed by Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Frankish and Mongol strains. Whereas the Jews might be considered by some to have a greater purity of Canaanite blood in their genetic makeup due to their modern propensity to marry amongst their own people, thus preserving the 'purity'. The Arabs however intermingled with more of a mixed people.
Starting to sound a little bit like the Nazis with this talk of pure races aren't I?
Hopefully my point is understandable. I still don't see how any claim can be made by either Jew or Palestinian on the territory of Palestine based on a better or closer descent from the Canaanites. Both in my view have a fairly equal descent.
Very interesting though.
Fat Red
21 Jan 2002, 16:46
This is interesting history, but hardly the point.
Both peoples are going to have to live with each other. Neither is going to disappear. So they might as well come up with some sort of agreement and get on with it.