<font color="#00ccff"> Pulled this from another site that I posted it to, and thought it might spark some interesting debate here. </font>

<font color="#ccccff">OK kids here we go on a historical trip through the middle east as it relates to Zionism! Buckle up and hold onto your seats.

(one comment, I do not wish to argue about wether right of conquest is a legitimate way to claim land. The fact is, that is how the world worked throughout history, if you don't like it tough. Deal with it, History cannot be changed after the fact)

In the 1920's the British and French created the states that now define the middle east. These were Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Previously the Brittish promised the Jews a "National Home" in what is now known as the Palistine Mandate. But in 1921 the British seperated 80% of the mandate east of the Jordan rive and created the Arab Kingdom of Transjordan and gave it to the Arabian Monarch Abdullah instead of the Jews.

What was left of the original Palestine Mandate west of the Jordan had been settled by both migrant arabs and jews. The Jews unlike the migrant Arabs had in fact lived in the area continuously for 3700 years, even after the Romans destroyed their state of judea in 70AD. Arabs first became the dominant culture in the 7th century AD due to Muslim invasions. These Arabs were nomads, with no seperate and disctinct culture, or language to seperate them from the other Arab peoples of the time. In all the time since the 7th Century they had made no attempt to create a seperate independant Palistinian state, east or west of the Jordan and none was ever established.

The pressure (international and Zionist) to form a jewish homeland was vastly increased by the Nazi Holocaust, England and the US refused to open their borders to the jews fleeing this persection which later caused much guilt to be felt for the end results. In 1948 the United Nations voted to partition what was left of the Palistine Mandate that had not been given to Jordan to make a Jewish homeland possible.

Under the partition plan the Arabs were given the Jews ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria (now known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt. The Jews were alotted 3 strips of disconnected land along the Mediteranian and the Sinai desert. Theyw ere also given access to the Holy city of Jeruselem but it was surrounded by Arab lands and cut off from the jewish lands and under Internationl control. 60% of the lands given to the Jews was the negev Desert, and the entire amount of land given to the jews was only about 10% of the entire original Palistine Mandate. This land was called Israel in 1948. In 1948 there was still no move to or even a an idea to create a state of Palstine. At the time that Israel was created, 800,000 arabs lived alongside and amongst 650,000 Jews but jews were legally barred from setteling in any other parts of the Palistine Mandate. (we see here that what is good for the goose is not apparently good for the gander). The reason that there were so many Arabs in these lands to start with is because that when the Zionists first began moving intothe are in the late 1800's they brought Industriel and Agricultural development wich attracted Arabic workers to what had previously been sparesly populated lands.

If the Arabs had been content with having received 90% of the Palistine Mandate (which had really been promised to the jews) and under which they benefited from the industry, enterprise and political democracy that the jews brought to the region, then there would have been no Middle East conflict. But that was not the case.

The Arab League (Lebanon, Syria, TransJordan(Jordan) Iraq and Egypt) Declared war on Israel and attacked,sending troops into the slivers of land given tot he jews. UN Mediators estimate that nearly 470,000 Arabs fled the lands of Israel with the intent of coming back after Israel was destroyed to take possesion of the land for themselves.

The jews refused to be defeated (many of them survivors of the Holocaust) and fought with almost maniacal ferocity. (I can hardly blame them). The Arab League with their armies defeated refused offers of peace and were determined to remain at war. In 1950 Jordan simply annexed the entire west bank and Egyt Annexed the Gaza Stip (that means they just took it from the Arabs that it had been given to, who had fled due to the war). There were no protests, there were no cries of anguish over the plight of the Palistinian people..because no one even dreamed that they might be considered a seperate people.

As a result of tha Annexation and the continued state of war the Arabs who had fled the area, still did not attempt to return. the only refugees entering this are at this time were the jewish refugees who were being expelled from their homes all over the Arab controlled Middle East. Roughly 600,000 more jewish refugees relocated to Israel. the "palistinian" refugees were not welcomed by any of the Arab states nor were they allowed to become citizens.

The Jews by contrast treated the Arab peoples who remained in Israel allthis time compartitivly well. They enjoy more rights and priveledges than any other Arab population in the middle east (this straight from the reference material on the web and may be dated because at the time of this material no other Middle Eastern country allowed its citizens to vote, but Iraq does now...if even for only a single candidate).

Jordan it should be known, is a country whos population majority is what can be considered Palistinian Arabs, but have no rights and are disenfranchised by the Hashemite Minority.
When Egypt and Jordan seized the so called "Palistinian" lands of the west bank and gaza strip there was no hew and cry from the arab states about the rights fo the palistinians nor any Arab government demanding they be returned to the Palistinian Arabs.

In 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan whose leaders had never ceased to call for the destruction of Israel (up till then) massed hundreds of thousands of troops on Israels borders and blockaded the straits of Tiran (to the south of Israel) and blocked their only access to the east. This was seen as an act of war, and Jewish leaders fearful of the massive troop concentrations on their borders with not much in the way of geography seperating them, decided to strike first rather than to wait for the hostile nations to strike. Israel defeated the Arabs and came to control the Gaza strip and the west bank and the oil rich fields of the Sinai desert. By nternational law, Israel had every right to keep the lands that they won from the defeated Arab Armies and count them as annexed territories. Israel did not do this, but then again they did not withdraw their armies either. It was thought that by holding these lands they could use them as a buffer between the small state of Israel and the much larger surrounding Arab states. The defeated Arab league still did not ask for peace and in fact maintained that they were still atr war with Israel.

In 1973, the Arabs again attacked Israel, this time led by Syria and Egypt, who were aided by Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and five other countries who gave military support to the aggressor countries (Soviet Union was one of them) this also included an Iraqi Division of 18,000 men (I mistakenly thought it was Iran). Israelagan defeated the Arab armies and Egypt and Egypt alone sued for peace, Anwar Sadat was later assassinated for making this peace. Under the Camp David Accords Israel gave back to egypt Sinai oil fields.

In my mind this should have ended the fighting in the Middle east, but the Arabs hatred of the Israeli's has nothing to do with where they live or who lives on the west bank. it seems to me that it is all about the Muslims/Arabs not being willing to live and let live. You will notice that throughout the history of the Middle eastern wars, it is always the Arabs who are initiating the agression. and up till 1973 not one person or government has mentioned it being about the plight of the Palistinian people.

Now the PLO was formed in 1964 when Israel did nt control the west bank but had been seized by jordan. The PLO was not formed to fight for the rights of Palistinians (a disenfranchised majority population in Jordan at the time) The PLO was created to (in the wordsof its own leaders) "Push the Jews into the sea!"

The official charter of the PLO refers to the Zionist invasion, declares that israels jews were not an independant state (14 years after the UN had recognized the Nation) It describes Zionism as racist and fascist, called for "the liquidation of the Zionist presence" and specified "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine". The PLO was not even constructed by Plaistinian Arabs, it was constructed by the Arab League.

Following the 1993 Oslo accords PLO leader yasser Arafat removed those offensive clauses but publicly reassured his people that their removal was a necessary compromise that did not alter the motives or plans of the PLO. He did this publicly and explicitly and cited historical precedent in which the Prophet Muhammad insincerely agreed to a peace with his enemies in order to gan time to mass the forces with which he intended to destroy them. Duriong the Oslo Accords the PLO demanded the right of return for 5 million displaced refugees...more than 10 times the number of Arabs that fled the region during the wars between Israel adn the Arab League.

Well there is the sum of my research...It is as accurate as i could make it, and as true as any history text can be considering that the winners usually write the history. All though my childhood I was aware of the PLO and its violent actions, I have never heard of a group that was more completly vile in its racism and hatred for another people, they seem to me to be even worse than the KKK or even the nazi's because they have been allowed to continue their assault on a country that has tried many times over the years to appease the Arab nations that surround it. Yes they have had their dark and nasty sides on occasion, but on balance I maintain that the jews still hold the moral high ground over all.

Thank you and good night gracie! </font>

Your going to get a beating for this one MagiK ;)

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people ;)

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Thats how I feel about most debates. Usally very little is solved. More so if a liberal is involved ;)

very nicely put together, it has quite a bit of very concise information, and I agree with the general idea put forth by Magik

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people ;) </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">See now Davros you just do not know what you are talking aobutwhen it comes to me. All I did was research history and post the facts and the conclusion I drew from those facts. Im prefectly willing to debate the conclusion and Id be interested in any proof anyone has that the facts that I posted are incorrect. [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not a Jew, so I doubt It could be claimed that I have any ulterior biases on subject.

The reason I took the time to write thisup this way, is because of an thread elsewhere. I thought the views and opinons there were interesting but didnt sound very accurate so I posted this, and it effectivly ended the thread, those who were pro-plo didnt come back with anything except one phrase "historicly yes, currently no" that was the sum total of the debate after I posted this. I was hoping for a balanced opposition but maybe... I guess that these facts are undisputed and thus you cannot debate the issue. I personally would love to hear some opposing views as long as they are based on historical fact and not just political biases and racism.</font>

[ 10-28-2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

A lot of what you posted is a great (slanted a bit) Cliff's Notes version of history. But, they were NOT entitled to keep ANY land by international law. I don't mean to cross-post here, as I also attempt to point this out to you regarding this on another thread. It's a mistaken assumption you've made before. Otherwise, the UN would not have sanctioned action against Iraq during the gulf war. To drive home my point, here's the UN Resolution regarding Kuwait, a recent act affirming my assertion that sovereignty of a nation is permanent, and will be "restored" if taken away by another sovereign. http://www.lexicorient.com/e.o/un687.htm

[ 10-28-2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

MagiK, this is an honest question. Do you do this because you want to learn from people around the planet with both different and similar opinions to yourself; or do you do it because you enjoy arguing and trying to convert others to your own world view?

If it's the latter, then Davros is quite correct, there is no point discussing anything with you. But if it's the former, I'm interested to know how you assess other people's opinions and factual evidence and whether you feel you do learn from them and even alter your POV when new ideas are introduced.

As I said, this is an honest question, not a flamebait. I'm not accusing you of either motive - merely asking. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="#00ccff">The answer to your queston, and it is legitimate [img]smile.gif[/img] because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it unlike some others) THis time as I stated above, I welcome any one who can give a fact based opposition to the information given above. To date most people who opposed the information couldn't do so with fact but merely said it wasnt fair to take the land from the Ottoman Empire which isn't an issue because it was done and it cannot be changed. Im pretty sure Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan would not want to give all that land back to Turkey.</font>

<font color="#00ccff">Ok, I explained the purpose of that other post to you in a PM and it is not an issue in this thread [img]smile.gif[/img] . Secondly The right of conquest at the end of World War I is a fact, it has been done and cannot be undone. I am pretty sure, that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan will not agree to give the land back to Turkey no matter what the UN would say. The UN didn't even exist when the land was first partitioned. In this issue it is too late to say you have to give the land back to the people who held it before it was given to others. If you want to take the land from the Jews, you have to take it from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan as well. </font>

Your post certainly explained a few things, and filled in a few gaps for me.

I feel badly for the Palestinians, though. They are in the same position as the Jews before 1948.

On NPR, they explained one reason there is such heated feelings over there is because from school they are taught that their enemies are literally incarnations of the devil. So to them, killing them is righteous.

I find the whole situation very sad. :(

MagiK, I was referring to the land Israel took in 1967, i.e. the occupied zones. Yes, the Ottoman Empire was divided up and that can't very well be undone now. But in 1967, Israel was playing by the rules I mentioned.

<font color="#00ccff">True, and I have thought about it. BUT Due to the overt and very vocal announcements by various Arab groups it seems to me quite reasonable that they keep those lands to provide a buffer zone in which to slow the advances of enemies. The ISraelies do have a very real (as I documented) reason to fear these people, they are threatened with anihilation and extinction on a daily basis by the Arabs. Do they not have the right to ensure their own safety? or should they leave themselves wide open...if you look at any map you can see just how small an area they have to defend. I definately would want some room to work with if I had very very hostile neighbors. </font>

<font color="#00ccff">Oh without a doubt there is a massive barrage of propaganda thrown at the arab children, it would not be nearly so bad if it all didnt promote the extinction of a race. I mean, why not peaceful coexistance? I don't see any examples of Israel going on unprovoked conquests. </font>

<font color = lightgreen>I don't even bother thinking about the Middle East situation anymore. Several decades of abandoned efforts and failed attempts to bring about peace has led me to the conclusion that the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians will not be resolved until one side completely wipes out the other.
I truly wish that were not the case, but one must deal with reality as it is.</font>

Very interesting Magik. I already knew most of it from my general reading. I have stated here and elsewhere that I think that since the Israelis could destroy the Palestineans any day and don't conclusively proves their ethical superiority. I, like you, have not come up with a single good thing to say about the Arab war of extermination against Israel.

Or else they have a good sense of where an action like that would land them..

One thing I could say is that the whole middle-eastern conflict goes way waaaaay back to pre-Roman times. That's how complex it is. Except in the days of the Roman Empire one of the really big trouble-making religious sects was that pesky little cult of the 'christ' (whoever the that was [img]smile.gif[/img] ). This whole Israel-Palestine debacle that has been raging on for the past 50 odd years (the blink of an eye in anthropological terms) is just the latest act in a greater play.
I don't think any singular group holds the 'moral highground' in the ongoing conflict in the region, mainly because morality differs so drastically from social system to social system. If we're taking things from a 20th century perspective then it can be said that the Israelis 'started it', but the PLO is equally 'guilty' of making sure the flames stay stoked up.

Interesting that the 'efforts' to broker peace have failed so consistently and so miserably isn't it?

*see several heated threads on US foreign policy for all manner of logical and hairbrained reasonings*

Interesting also that the Arabs and the Jews are decended from two brothers...

You broke the code :D

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.</font>[/QUOTE][img]smile.gif[/img]
Interesting points you raise JD, and I'll debate them with you if I may as I have always known you to listen and think on both sides of the discussion.

A prime tenet of my proposal is that a clear correlation has been established, whereby it is the custom of one party to steadfastly take unalterable positions on numerous discussion topics.

For confirmatory evidence I cite the following "because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it)". Before I get accused of quoting out of context, I am at pains to point out that whilst the above quote has been cut from a larger statement, the communicative purpose has not been altered, and it nevertheless openly confirms something of which many of us were aware. Our combative interlocutor, in the most basic on venacular, "enjoys a good stoush". :D

I quite admire the first point you make - I'll even go so far as to wholeheartedly endorse it [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. Of course, if I were to go back over the many and varied posts by our good friend on such topics as atheism, public health care, and (gasp) gun control - I am confident that you would often come across words like "your missing my point", "you have no idea what you are talking about", "you don't understand", "you're still not listening to me", ....... really, need I go on?

Don't take my word for it though - set yourself the task of looking through those threads and seeing how often that theme comes through. Of course the big M wasn't the only one saying those sort of things - they come when either side fails to see the others' point - look for a consistent correlation though, and judge for yourself.

Onwards then to your last statement - "It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement." First of all an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] for including your spelling mistakes in my quoting - I am however hoping to enrol in Father Bronze's Grammarian Brigade. I ask you this - how often have you known our good friend to be prepared to disagree? How many times have you seen him say "well I think we will have to agree to disagree on that". The mantra that he seems to live by is "my way or the highway".

You may not see things from my perspective JD, and if you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Looking forward to your rebuttal though, and an open exchange of viewpoints on the topic [img]smile.gif[/img]

Uh, magik are you forgetting the illegal settlements on land that is supposed to belong to palestine? What is that if not conquest of land albiet behind a thin facade.

MagiK, this is another straw doll you have set up and managed to knock down wondrously easily. If there are any people on this board who actually are in favour of driving the Jews into the sea then I will happily join with you in arguing why the state of Israel is necessary.

However, your post demonises "the Arabs" to an extent that I simply can't agree with. What is this homogenous mass you describe, with every member hell bent on irrational destruction and murder? I don't think such a mass of people exist, personally. There are people who attack the Isreali's, although it would be a great overstatement to say they threatened the security of the state as a whole. I do not support those people, and I doubt even the most radical IW member does either. What I do support is making a distinction between the suicide bombers, members of Hizbollah and Hamas, and the ordinary Palestinian citizens.

Lets face it, the Isrealis treat the ordinary Palestinians like "lice" (as a Lebanese friend who's spent a lot of time in Isreal described it to me). Isreal is effectively an apartheid state, with the government officially sanctioning discrimination against people on racial grounds. Palestinians are regularly forced off of land or simply not allowed to move around the country due to checkpoints. Its completely unbelievable to think that checkpoints make the peace situation any better, and as Azure pointed out, its not like settlements are exactly fair under international law. The Palestinians demands are far from unreasonable: the return of the Occupied territories, the end of the apartheid system of government, and an officially recognised Palestinian state.

So just remember the next time you talk about "the Arab world" wanting the destruction of Isreal that it is a bit of a white lie really. I don't doubt that some people want that, but it would be like saying all Jews want to see the extirmination of the Arabs. Its simply not a fair description.

Davros, I personally don't think that there is anything wrong in writing something contraversial on the board to promote discussion. If it was written to deliberately annoy people however, then that is a bit different. But trying to start an argument isn't exactly all that bad in my view, as long as the argument is conducted in a civil manner. Which admittedly does sometimes get a bit difficult...

I want to know why you think the state of Israel is necessary. Why should people of a certain religious leaning be given their own countrie? How come they get a "homeland" just because they are Jewish??Useing that logic christians,buddhist,wiccans and every other religion should be given a countrie for themselves as well because they need a "homeland" also. If they were given the land because they were persecuted by Hitler then the Palestinians deserve a homeland as well since they are currently being persecuted by Isreal.

this also bothers me
It bothers me because people from accross the globe are telling another group of people where and how they have to live.Under whos authority did England and France act when they created states and promised out land?If the U.N. did nothing to stop them from parceling out what wasnt theirs why do they now try to stop other countries from doing the same thing?It seems a lot like do as I say and not as I do.Then again the brittish government is still doing it today with Ireland.I wonder where the U.N. sanctions are concerning that?

I am not anti-Isreal, but at the same time I dont think that just because you belong to a certain group you are entitled to special treatment.

C'mon JD - if I don't get some rebuttal soon I'm goin ta have ta crash for the night - I was so looking forward to developing new theories and exploring the possibilities ;)

<font color="#00ccff">I maintain that the problem isn't about Israelis and Palistinians, since there were no Palistinians untill the Arab League "created" the construct in the 1970's with wich to push their agenda (along with the PLO)
he problem is with Hostile Arabs from the surrounding regions fomenting dissension and trying to find ways to "Drive the Jews into the sea" Their words. Only Egypt and Jordan have made peace and even then, its still questionable as to how much support they are giveing the PLO.</font>

Or else they have a good sense of where an action like that would land them..</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">Where would it land them? They have proven at least 3 times that they can defeat the combined arms of the surrounding Arab nations, so what exactly would happen if they completely anhiliated all of the residents of the gaza and West bank? World condemnation...errr well, gee it seems to me that they already pretty much have that, no? Or worse yet, they could have more UN sanctions levied against them (lot of good that does). Seriously what would be the down side aside from some political flack?</font>

Damn - JD has left the building - and if there is no further debate tonight, I have to go too - time for some shut-eye - see you all bright and early in the morning :D

Uh, magik are you forgetting the illegal settlements on land that is supposed to belong to palestine? What is that if not conquest of land albiet behind a thin facade.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">Did you read my very first post? I would say that you ought to. It covers that issue quite well. There are no "illegal settlements" unless you call all the arab settlements and cities on Jewish land illegal as well. Basicly the Jews did not evict the arabs from the lands that were given to them, and There is no legitimate reason to evict the jews on the west bank or the Gaza. The steps taken by Israel in 1967 were provoked, justifiable and reasonable in my mind, they had already been attacked twice by the combined might of the Arab League, how many times must they allow the Arabs to try and push them into the sea, without becomming a proactive nation instead of a reactive one? Please, do read the report [img]smile.gif[/img] I worked hard on it [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

[ 10-29-2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.</font>[/QUOTE][img]smile.gif[/img]
Interesting points you raise JD, and I'll debate them with you if I may as I have always known you to listen and think on both sides of the discussion.

A prime tenet of my proposal is that a clear correlation has been established, whereby it is the custom of one party to steadfastly take unalterable positions on numerous discussion topics.

For confirmatory evidence I cite the following "because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it)". Before I get accused of quoting out of context, I am at pains to point out that whilst the above quote has been cut from a larger statement, the communicative purpose has not been altered, and it nevertheless openly confirms something of which many of us were aware. Our combative interlocutor, in the most basic on venacular, "enjoys a good stoush". :D

I quite admire the first point you make - I'll even go so far as to wholeheartedly endorse it [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. Of course, if I were to go back over the many and varied posts by our good friend on such topics as atheism, public health care, and (gasp) gun control - I am confident that you would often come across words like "your missing my point", "you have no idea what you are talking about", "you don't understand", "you're still not listening to me", ....... really, need I go on?

Don't take my word for it though - set yourself the task of looking through those threads and seeing how often that theme comes through. Of course the big M wasn't the only one saying those sort of things - they come when either side fails to see the others' point - look for a consistent correlation though, and judge for yourself.

Onwards then to your last statement - "It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement." First of all an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] for including your spelling mistakes in my quoting - I am however hoping to enrol in Father Bronze's Grammarian Brigade. I ask you this - how often have you known our good friend to be prepared to disagree? How many times have you seen him say "well I think we will have to agree to disagree on that". The mantra that he seems to live by is "my way or the highway".

You may not see things from my perspective JD, and if you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Looking forward to your rebuttal though, and an open exchange of viewpoints on the topic [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Davros, Good post
Thank you, I do try to see things for the other side (as best I can give human limitations) even if I don't agree the conclusions reached. I understand the feeling of going round and round on certain topics and with certain parties. Lord there's probibly quite a few that feel the same about me. I've dicovered there are people on the board that because of, political, phisophical, or even writing styles, I butt heads with. I'm not perfect at it, but I've tried, without being rude, to ignor their posts and prevent a posible clash.

I see the problem with the spelling errors, you're using the Queen's English, I'm using the bastardized version "American Redneck" ;)

My conclusions on the subject of the middleast are fairly much in line with the historical stance MajiK stated. On a highly emotional subject like the Middleast I try to stay away form the feelings and emotions aspect of the disagreement, because by their very nature feelings and emotions are subjective.

Is a Stoush anything like a Scrap? ;)

<font color="#00ccff">As you said, I didn't start this thread to just "argue" Im hoping to gain some insights, learn a bit and maybe make some other people think. I am defending my research in this post and my reasoning. I think I have been able to be as unbiased about ISrael and the Arab nations as I can be about any issue. All I have to go on are historical text, personal observation and some nifty keen intel I used to be privy to. While I disagree with your assessment of the situation, I felt like what you were writing were more, personal opinions and based more on your friendships and aquaintences than on any real reasearch.

I neither hate Arabs nor do I love jews any more than I hate or love any other group. I suppose I am just a tad biased against Iraqi's, Libyans and Iranians since part of my personal life has been involved in hostilities with these nations. Im also miffed at Al-Queda, but they are a multi-national group so can't pin that on any group of people.

Ahh well. Im glad you responded but hope you will actually read what I posted and not just skim over it. </font>

Unlike some people here, I have no problem with conquest of land by military force. If they can keep it, well and good. I had to laugh at your reply, MagiK, to the question of what would happen if the Israelis did drive every Palestinian out of their territories. Mine is simpler: nothing except some wailing in the leftist press, who are pacifist anyway, so there would be no action taken. The Arabs would be too cowed by the Israeli victory to do anything. But, they don't, which I think is damn moral of them.

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/dude-owned.jpg

Quote:

Originally posted by Davros: When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate"). Don't say I didn't warn you people ;)

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/GoYou.gif</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">Exquisitly researched and well thought out argument there Caleb, how could anyone refute your studies and researched facts. I salute your Historical and political acumen!

PS. can you spell S. A. R. C. A. S. M. ? </font>

Uh, magik are you forgetting the illegal settlements on land that is supposed to belong to palestine? What is that if not conquest of land albiet behind a thin facade.[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">Did you read my very first post? I would say that you ought to. It covers that issue quite well. There are no "illegal settlements" unless you call all the arab settlements and cities on Jewish land illegal as well. Basicly the Jews did not evict the arabs from the lands that were given to them, and There is no legitimate reason to evict the jews on the west bank or the Gaza. The steps taken by Israel in 1967 were provoked, justifiable and reasonable in my mind, they had already been attacked twice by the combined might of the Arab League, how many times must they allow the Arabs to try and push them into the sea, without becomming a proactive nation instead of a reactive one? Please, do read the report [img]smile.gif[/img] I worked hard on it [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QB][/QUOTE]

Again - one last time - the action taken by Israel in 1967 was the annexing of land. They had originally taken much more, but then retreated to Golan Heights, Gaza, and West Bank, the occupied territories. Living there, controlling Palestinians there, acting as a sovereign there, and settling there is... let me say it once more only... ILLEGAL. Oh, hell let me drive it home:
il·le·gal Pronunciation Key (-lgl)
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules.
Illegal under the UN Charter and many other treaties, though most all others get absorbed by the UN Charter, which I'm probably gonna end up posting here some day to get the class to pay attention. ;)

That's why they don't call it "New Israel." That's why they make excuses regarding these lands. Everyone knows it was illegal. It is tantamount to annexation. It is the conquest of land - whether or not behind a thin facade.

Maybe you think it *should be* legal, like some people think [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] should be legal, but it's not. What's worse, unlike the aforementioned drug law, this law applies to Israel for one reason only, the same one reason the UN Charter applies to any nation: THEY SIGNED AND AGREED TO IT. So, it's not just illegal, it's also the breaking of an oath, a bond.

Would it be nice if Israel could keep the land as a "buffer zone?" Well, maybe, and they do. But, I'm sure Pakistan thinks Kashmir would make a great "buffer zone," but it doesn't mean they own it (of course in that situation at least the location of the border is in dispute, whereas with Israel it's all very clear).

The peace between Egypt, the original 1967 instigator who was set invade, and Israel has worked out well, even though they *hate* each other. Maybe something like that perhaps.

But, I see this as one of the world's everlasting conflicts. From the European world's point of view (and I include it's imperial offshoots of like mind, government, and economy), it's the story of the Crusades going on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseum. From the middle eastern point of view, it's more like the continuation into the modern day of the old testament stories of once-tribal peoples chasing each other all around the subcontinent and taking turns enslaving each other.

Someone mentioned the Romans and that rowdy "Christ" cult. I'm not saying it was in reference to the relative age of Christianity vis-a-vis Muslinism, but if it was let's try to remember that Muslinism did come much later in time that Judaism, and in fact is a spin-off of Christianity. The point... erm, rather question, I'm getting around to here is one as to the religious vs. ethnic source of the fued. Isn't this fued so old and long-lasting due more to historically ethnic reasons rather than religious ones? I guess I'm not to up-to-speed on the birth of Muslinism, and maybe I should shut up now before I show my ignorance on that particular topic. :D

Well, I don't think the fact that they are Jewish entitles them to special treatment, nor do I think that because they were persecuted they have divine right to take that land. What I do think though is that there was widespread anti-semitism in Europe and there had been for quite some time. I think it is understandable for a race of people so heavily persecuted to want a state of their own. Also, even if I were to follow your argument that the Jews have no more right to the land than anyone else, what do you propose we do about it? Where do we move all of them?

I think the question here is not: "Who are they to have the right to create a state for themselves?", but instead: "Who are you that you can deny the right of any peoples to a state?". But they are both pretty pertinent I suppose.

Don't get me wrong, I am still firmly in the belief that the Palestinians have had a hell of a rough time of things over the years, and I would consider myself "on their side" quite definately. However, I don't think I can support the view that the Jews should give up the whole of Isreal. The Occupied territories - yes, the illegal settlements - yes, everything - no.

And MagiK - the illegal settlements are the ones being created pretty much daily in Arab territory against the wish of the United Nations and causing the relocation and often death of hundreds of Palestinians. Not the same thing as the Occupied territories, as you seem to believe. They are isolated pockets in Palestinian territory that are heavily protected by the army - its a similar tactic as was used by the settlers of North America to take land off of the Indians. It goes a bit like this:

1. Make a peace treaty or agreement of some kind marking out who is allowed to live where and which bits of disputed land should be controlled by whom.
2. Make no effort whatsoever to enforce this on your side. I.e. let people attempt to settle land not technically part of the state.
3. The enemy attack these people as they are on their land and trying to evict people from it.
4. Send in a whopping great army and pummel the enemy in the area concerned into submission. Self defence is the justification - you have to defend your citizens.
5. After killing lots of people make a new peace treaty, however this one considers the land previously owned by your enemy that the settlers invaded as either disputed or simply yours. The enemy aren't in position to argue as they have been slaughtered.
6. Repeat from step 1 until all opposition is futile.

Its effective, thats precisely my problem with it. Its also illegal, which I'm not too keen on either.

[ 10-29-2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people ;) [/qb][/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.[/qb][/QUOTE] [img]smile.gif[/img]
Interesting points you raise JD, and I'll debate them with you if I may as I have always known you to listen and think on both sides of the discussion.

A prime tenet of my proposal is that a clear correlation has been established, whereby it is the custom of one party to steadfastly take unalterable positions on numerous discussion topics.

For confirmatory evidence I cite the following "because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it)". Before I get accused of quoting out of context, I am at pains to point out that whilst the above quote has been cut from a larger statement, the communicative purpose has not been altered, and it nevertheless openly confirms something of which many of us were aware. Our combative interlocutor, in the most basic on venacular, "enjoys a good stoush". :D

I quite admire the first point you make - I'll even go so far as to wholeheartedly endorse it [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. Of course, if I were to go back over the many and varied posts by our good friend on such topics as atheism, public health care, and (gasp) gun control - I am confident that you would often come across words like "your missing my point", "you have no idea what you are talking about", "you don't understand", "you're still not listening to me", ....... really, need I go on?

Don't take my word for it though - set yourself the task of looking through those threads and seeing how often that theme comes through. Of course the big M wasn't the only one saying those sort of things - they come when either side fails to see the others' point - look for a consistent correlation though, and judge for yourself.

Onwards then to your last statement - "It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement." First of all an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] for including your spelling mistakes in my quoting - I am however hoping to enrol in Father Bronze's Grammarian Brigade. I ask you this - how often have you known our good friend to be prepared to disagree? How many times have you seen him say "well I think we will have to agree to disagree on that". The mantra that he seems to live by is "my way or the highway".

You may not see things from my perspective JD, and if you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Looking forward to your rebuttal though, and an open exchange of viewpoints on the topic [img]smile.gif[/img] [/qb][/QUOTE]

<font color="#00ccff"> [img]smile.gif[/img] I would love to meet you in real life and have a most wonderful debate with you [img]smile.gif[/img]

I would ask though that you take your critique of me, my posting styles (or lack of) to your own thread. This is not what this thread is for. Take also your objection for my points of view and the fact that I actually try to communicate with people who make it necessary for me to write the phrases you so goshly have taken out of context. Please feel free to talk behind my back so to speak and criticize me with all your little friends but really I must protest if you continue public personal attacks I will have to report a TOS violation.</font>

[ 10-29-2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#00ccff">TL I understand wht you are saying. I can also see the other side of the argument. Do you have any idea why the UN and all of the Civilized world doesnt do anything to correct that illegal action That some seem to think justifies all that has gone on and is going on? </font>

Incomplete. The British issued the Palestine Mandate on behalf of the the Council League of Nations. The League of Nations is the ancestor of the U.N. It was created just after WWI, at the initiative of Woodrow Wilson, then president of the U.S.A. The original members of the League of Nations were the victorious Allies of World War I (with the exception of the United States, whose Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles) and most of the neutral nations. The Council of the League of Nations included 5 permanent members (United States, which never took its seat, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan), and 4 non-permanent members elected by the Assembly of all League of Nations members. About the Palestinian Mandate, Britain was only the entrusted Mandatory of the League of Nations.