Israeli wall must fall documentary

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

what all the pro-hamas supporters around here fail to realize is that Palestinians do not "own" that land. neither does Israel. that particular patch of earth has changed hands hundreds of time throughout history. both sides are wrong during this current conflict. the ones who give 100% of the blame to Israel as the same ones who were picked on in high school by a bully. the only solution is a two state solution with a big ass fence keeping each other out.

familiar nonsensical...

lazymoon13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I'm sorry, but this statement is a whopping bunch of hooey.

That land was palestinian land up until the early and mid-1900's. You can go back to pre-history and ancient history if you want, but the fact remains, in modern history, that land was Arab land.

You don't just tell a people who have been settled for hundreds of years, "Uh, now listen, this other group of people, who used to live here 1000 years ago, is coming back. We are putting them here, you better clear out, they're coming. Deal with it." ... and expect there to be anything resembling "peace". Especially when you are talking about displacing a people as oppossed to Western meddling as the Arabs.

That land was taken from the Palestinian & Arab world in a small series of steps, starting with the British Mandate over Palestine, which was granted by the Council of the League of Nations expressly for the purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home"

After setting the conditions of white Western rule necessary for the influx of Jews to the region. Then, between 1947 and 1948, as England grew tired of its dealings with the Jewish\Arab conflict it had helped to create and began to withdraw from the region, the United Nations stepped up to continue the Zionist agenda. They granted a charter for the creation of Jerusalem by splitting Arab land in half and giving it to the Jews.

Now, what say the United Nations comes over to America, and says they are splitting the United States in half and giving half to the Vikings, because they traditionaly had been here, or they gave half to any number of "native" peoples, on the grounds that they had been here and suffered horribly under Colonial oppression?

It's just asinine.

Of COURSE the Arabs got up in arms and started fighting.
They did this, literaly, the moment they were certain that Jerusalem was being granted charter. Of course, when Israel, backed by Western arms whooped their asses, they simply decided that they were keeping what ever land fell within the borders of the cease fire. That meant not only were they taking the half of the land that the UN had granted them, they were taking the EXTRA land (Gaza strip primarily) that they accquired after the Arabs had attempted to solve the dispute via war.

I don't advocate the war, but certainly you must see why the Arabs began the fight.

And this was not the only time land was taken by Israel.
They did it again after they preemptively started a war in 1967. Who knows what the Arabs were planning ... certainly they were attemtping to at the very least embargo Israel, but the fact remains that Israel began the war preemptively, and then continued to push back the Arab front line -- again, with the assistance of arms accquired from the West -- and again, they claimed ALL land that fell within these new "borders".

I'm sorry,
but -- even being of jewish descent -- i don't see dick-all of their being "two sides" to this argument. The Western backed Zionist agenda for the theft of arab land to recreate Jersualem is soley responsible for the current violence in the region.

The arab response is nothing more than a reactionary movement to perpetual Israeli\Zionist agression.

:(

jezuz you love to rant. the land in question can't be compared to anything else, so that BS about united states/vikings crap doesn't apply. (as for native Indians, they have reservations if you didnt notice) this entire post of nonsense shows you don't have a good grasp on the history of the region. I'm not making a case that Israel is right. I'm just saying one should have a good understand of the history before one can say arabs own the land.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

what all the pro-hamas supporters around here fail to realize is that Palestinians do not "own" that land.

O.k, Jlew, we'll go over this for the 100th time. It's only according to Israel, and certain people in the U.S that the land isn't 'owned' by Palestinians. According to the U.N It does own that land and Israel is in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions.
The difference here is simply whether you respect international law, or whether you qualify as a rogue state. You obviously adhere to the latter category.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

O.k, Jlew, we'll go over this for the 100th time. It's only according to Israel, and certain people in the U.S that the land isn't 'owned' by Palestinians. According to the U.N It does own that land and Israel is in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions.
The difference here is simply whether you respect international law, or whether you qualify as a rogue state. You obviously adhere to the latter category.

I suggest you read the history of the region.

lazymoon13

lazymoon13 wrote:

I suggest you read the history of the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem

In the five centuries following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the city remained under Roman then Byzantine rule. During the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine I constructed Christian sites in Jerusalem such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Jerusalem reached a peak in size and population at the end of the Second Temple Period: The city covered two square kilometers (0.8 sq mi.) and had a population of 200,000[46][43] From the days of Constantine until the Arab conquest in 638, Jews were banned from Jerusalem,[47] but were allowed back into the city by Muslim rulers.[48] By the end of the 7th century, an Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik had commissioned and completed the construction of the Dome of the Rock over the Foundation Stone.[49] In the four hundred years that followed, Jerusalem's prominence diminished as Arab powers in the region jockeyed for control.[50]

In 1099, Jerusalem was besieged by the First Crusaders, who killed most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, apart from many Christians.[51] That would be the first of several conquests to take place over the next four hundred years. In 1187, the city was taken from the Crusaders by Saladin.[52] Between 1228 and 1244, it was given by Saladin's descendant al-Kamil to the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II. Jerusalem fell again in 1244 to the Khawarizmi Turks, who were later, in 1260, replaced by the Mamelukes. In 1517, Jerusalem and its environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who would maintain control of the city until the 20th century.[52] This era saw the first expansion outside the Old City walls, as new neighborhoods were established to relieve the overcrowding. The first of these new neighborhoods included the Russian Compound and the Jewish Mishkenot Sha'ananim, both founded in 1860.[53]
General Edmund Allenby enters the Jaffa Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem on December 11, 1917
General Edmund Allenby enters the Jaffa Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem on December 11, 1917

In 1917 after the Battle of Jerusalem, the British Army, led by General Edmund Allenby, captured the city.[54] The League of Nations, through its 1922 ratification of the Balfour Declaration, entrusted the United Kingdom to administer the Mandate for Palestine and help establish a Jewish state in the region.[55] The period of the Mandate saw the construction of new garden suburbs in the western and northern parts of the city[56][57] and the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in 1925.[58]

Eric H. Cline, author of Jerusalem Besieged, notes that Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[5

DriftingByTheStorm

lazymoon13 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem

In the five centuries following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the city remained under Roman then Byzantine rule. During the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine I constructed Christian sites in Jerusalem such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Jerusalem reached a peak in size and population at the end of the Second Temple Period: The city covered two square kilometers (0.8 sq mi.) and had a population of 200,000[46][43] From the days of Constantine until the Arab conquest in 638, Jews were banned from Jerusalem,[47] but were allowed back into the city by Muslim rulers.[48] By the end of the 7th century, an Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik had commissioned and completed the construction of the Dome of the Rock over the Foundation Stone.[49] In the four hundred years that followed, Jerusalem's prominence diminished as Arab powers in the region jockeyed for control.[50]

In 1099, Jerusalem was besieged by the First Crusaders, who killed most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, apart from many Christians.[51] That would be the first of several conquests to take place over the next four hundred years. In 1187, the city was taken from the Crusaders by Saladin.[52] Between 1228 and 1244, it was given by Saladin's descendant al-Kamil to the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II. Jerusalem fell again in 1244 to the Khawarizmi Turks, who were later, in 1260, replaced by the Mamelukes. In 1517, Jerusalem and its environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who would maintain control of the city until the 20th century.[52] This era saw the first expansion outside the Old City walls, as new neighborhoods were established to relieve the overcrowding. The first of these new neighborhoods included the Russian Compound and the Jewish Mishkenot Sha'ananim, both founded in 1860.[53]
General Edmund Allenby enters the Jaffa Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem on December 11, 1917
General Edmund Allenby enters the Jaffa Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem on December 11, 1917

In 1917 after the Battle of Jerusalem, the British Army, led by General Edmund Allenby, captured the city.[54] The League of Nations, through its 1922 ratification of the Balfour Declaration, entrusted the United Kingdom to administer the Mandate for Palestine and help establish a Jewish state in the region.[55] The period of the Mandate saw the construction of new garden suburbs in the western and northern parts of the city[56][57] and the establishment of institutions of higher learning such as the Hebrew University, founded in 1925.[58]

Eric H. Cline, author of Jerusalem Besieged, notes that Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[5

once again,
like i said ... your basis for the claim that the arabs were not the rightful inhabitants of this land is based in ONE THOUSAND YEAR OLD history?

Is that correct?

Look.
I'm not saying it's not "valid",
but if we are going to start allowing 1000 year old claims to land to become legitimate entitltements to land, there is fuck-all coming to every one.

???
Do you not understand that regardless of who was where 1000 years ago (600 to 1000ad), fate has it that the arabs were settled there as of any honest account of RECENT or "MODERN" history?

Please correct me if i am wrong.
I am no all-knowing savant,
but in what studies i have done,
it seems apparent that the last Jewish claims to that land date back at least 1000 years.

Is it your position that those with millenium old claims to land should be legitimate in their agressions to displace any current residents in any given region?

Please answer that question.

lazymoon13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

once again,
like i said ... your basis for the claim that the arabs were not the rightful inhabitants of this land is based in ONE THOUSAND YEAR OLD history?

Is that correct?

Look.
I'm not saying it's not "valid",
but if we are going to start allowing 1000 year old claims to land to become legitimate entitltements to land, there is fuck-all coming to every one.

???
Do you not understand that regardless of who was where 1000 years ago (600 to 1000ad), fate has it that the arabs were settled there as of any honest account of RECENT or "MODERN" history?

Please correct me if i am wrong.
I am no all-knowing savant,
but in what studies i have done,
it seems apparent that the last Jewish claims to that land date back at least 1000 years.

Is it your position that those with millenium old claims to land should be legitimate in their agressions to displace any current residents in any given region?

Please answer that question.

first of all you really need to relax. all I picture on the other side of the computer is some wacky college kid banging his head on the keyboard and using caps locks much too often. relax, take deep breaths, lay off the cookies and coffee.

now listen, no other area on earth has quite the history this place does. it is the spiritual capital of 3 major religions. all 3 think they can take claim to it.

lazymoon13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

once again,
like i said ... your basis for the claim that the arabs were not the rightful inhabitants of this land is based in ONE THOUSAND YEAR OLD history?

Is that correct?

absolutely not. when did I say arabs were not rightful inhabitants? I said they do not "own" the land. IMO, no one owns it. the only solution is to share it. I'm starting to think you don't even read what I write. are you one of those hyperactives?

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

I said they do not "own" the land. IMO, no one owns it. the only solution is to share it.

O.k, so either you're an apologist for Israeli terrorism, or you believe in a two-state solution - and therefore an Israeli withdrawal to either the 1967 or 1948 borders.

Which is it?

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

O.k, so either you're an apologist for Israeli terrorism, or you believe in a two-state solution - and therefore an Israeli withdrawal to either the 1967 or 1948 borders.

Which is it?

and you very much sound like a hamas apologist? no? as for me, I support a two state solution. I have no idea where theres borders should be, thats not for me or you to decide.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

and you very much sound like a hamas apologist? no? as for me, I support a two state solution. I have no idea where theres borders should be, thats not for me or you to decide.

Maybe the borders should be where the U.N says they should be - re: 1967.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

Maybe the borders should be where the U.N says they should be - re: 1967.

so I guess you've never been to Israel? I have, and those exact 1967 borders simply aren't possible. compromises and concessions will need to be made on both sides.. I don't support or not support that. I'm just stating what is fact and the reality of the situation.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

so I guess you've never been to Israel? I have, and those exact 1967 borders simply aren't possible. compromises and concessions will need to be made on both sides.. I don't support or not support that. I'm just stating what is fact and the reality of the situation.

Other people that have 'been there' say it is possible. So let's try to realize what are our opinions and what are actual facts.

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Other people that have 'been there' say it is possible. So let's try to realize what are our opinions and what are actual facts.

really? who? I'd love to hear someone say its possible. I was in a settlement in east Jerusalem that has been there for 30+ years and has more 30,000 Jews living there. to go back to the 67 borders would mean they would all leave. this happens in many areas. possible? ok. likely? no.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

really? who? I'd love to hear someone say its possible. I was in a settlement in east Jerusalem that has been there for 30+ years and has more 30,000 Jews living there. to go back to the 67 borders would mean they would all leave. this happens in many areas. possible? ok. likely? no.

Plenty of people share this opinion, Noam Chomsky for one. But I suppose you view your opinion as more valid than his. And guess what, he probably views his as more valid than yours. See how that works?

All I'm saying is (and this is a huge pet peeve of mine on this board) don't pass your opinion off as 'fact' or 'reality' when it's not. If I had a dime for every time I read a post here with this same problem.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

so I guess you've never been to Israel? I have, and those exact 1967 borders simply aren't possible. compromises and concessions will need to be made on both sides.. I don't support or not support that. I'm just stating what is fact and the reality of the situation.

So the fact that you've supposedly 'been there' makes you an expert on where the borders can or cannot be drawn?
As far as concessions needing to be made on both sides; what concessions need to be made by the Palestinians exactly?
As mentioned in the article I posted above: 'The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."'

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

So the fact that you've supposedly 'been there' makes you an expert on where the borders can or cannot be drawn?

expert, no? I think you should go visit and see for yourself. certain things are better seen and understood when seen with your own eyes.

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as concessions needing to be made on both sides; what concessions need to be made by the Palestinians exactly?

reconginze Israel's right to exist and denounce violence.

Byrnzie wrote:

As mentioned in the article I posted above: 'The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."'

think for yourself much?

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

reconginze Israel's right to exist and denounce violence.

How about recognizing the Palestinians right to exist on their own land, free of Israeli incursions, illegal settlement building, and terror? Or is that concept too far off the scale for you to fathom?

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/rte.html
'In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).

Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept..

..why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?

Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists – that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them'.

lazymoon13 wrote:

think for yourself much?

Yes, thanks. I also back up what I say with credible sources.

lazymoon13

Byrnzie wrote:

How about recognizing the Palestinians right to exist on their own land, free of Israeli incursions, illegal settlement building, and terror? Or is that concept too far off the scale for you to fathom?

you asked me what concessions needed to be made by the Palestinians. I answered.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

you asked me what concessions needed to be made by the Palestinians. I answered.

Right. And I debunked both of them.