What's the fucking deal with Palestinians?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Colorsblending9 wrote:

http://www.friendsofpalestine.org.au...0Map%20Big.jpg

- This Map is just not historically accurate. And is presented in a horribly biased manner. .

Are those not the ratios representing of land disposession?

Show me your "accurate" one then.

canadajammer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Are those not the ratios representing of land disposession?

Show me your "accurate" one then.

Here is 'Palestine' in 1920 under British control

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C6D2A0E5-2125-4853-AD27-8E647CC9600A/0/MFAG007q0.gif

Here is the British control in 1923

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/6A48E06E-3243E-4CEA-8EAF-C286613DECA3/0/MFAG007r0.gif

Here is the UN partition plan in 1947

http://www.damascus-online.com/history/Maps/partition.gif

While the Jews were given roughly 2/3rds of the coast, the vast majority of land is in the southern desert half of the country: Negev.

This plan was accepted by the Jews, and rejected by the arabs/palestinians.



http://www.friendsofpalestine.org.au/images/Palestine%20Map%20Big.jpg
This map does not mention how big the British mandate was, and how most of it was given to arabs which became Jordan.

In 1967, Israel shocked the world by surviving the war after being attacked by several surrounding countries. I say shocked the world, because they were clearly viewed as huge underdogs up to this point. They captured the Sinai region, which is bigger than Israel itself. But gave up later in entirety to Egypt for a peace treaty.

The Jews gave up a piece of land bigger than their own country in exchange for a peace document!

Open

swallowedwords wrote:

Common sense is the source. Lord, open your eyes and ears.

When a person is biased like yourself the "common" comes out of common sense. It just leave the distorted view of reality that you would call "sense"

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Colorsblending9 wrote:

Here is 'Palestine' in 1920 under British control

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C6D2A0E5-2125-4853-AD27-8E647CC9600A/0/MFAG007q0.gif

Here is the British control in 1923

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/6A48E06E-3243E-4CEA-8EAF-C286613DECA3/0/MFAG007r0.gif

Here is the UN partition plan in 1947

http://www.damascus-online.com/history/Maps/partition.gif

While the Jews were given roughly 2/3rds of the coast, the vast majority of land is in the southern desert half of the country: Negev.

This plan was accepted by the Jews, and rejected by the arabs/palestinians.



http://www.friendsofpalestine.org.au/images/Palestine%20Map%20Big.jpg
This map does not mention how big the British mandate was, and how most of it was given to arabs which became Jordan.

In 1967, Israel shocked the world by surviving the war after being attacked by several surrounding countries. I say shocked the world, because they were clearly viewed as huge underdogs up to this point. They captured the Sinai region, which is bigger than Israel itself. But gave up later in entirety to Egypt for a peace treaty.

The Jews gave up a piece of land bigger than their own country in exchange for a peace document!

Like this right?

" By secret agreement, France and England share the remnants of the Ottoman Empire after WW1. Syria and Lebanon become French Protectorates, England gets a mandate over Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq. This Mandate preempts self government by the Palestinians.

The British favor a Jewish homeland in Palestine (Balfour Declaration) and Jewish immigration increases, so to does the confiscation by Jewish settlers of Palestinian land, alarming the Palestine Arab population -who had been promised by the British an independant Arab state at the end of WW1.

1937, Peel Commission finds the British promises to both Arabs and Jews irreconcilable, declare it's Mandate unworkable, and recommend partition of Palestine into Arab, Jewish and British sectors.

Riots erupt and terror attacks increase from both sides.

The British, after securing their oil interests in Iraq, and the Suez Canal in Egypt, drop the Palestine issue like a hot potato."

http://unimaps.com/historic-israel-palestine/index.html

JordyWordy

swallowedwords wrote:

The reason why is because the overwhelming majority of Americans condemn the KKK today, while a substantial number of Muslims (in the millions) claim that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic.

Source?

swallowedwords wrote:

Common sense is the source. Lord, open your eyes and ears.

This doesnt make a single bit of sense.
How can you say that your view of common sense is the basis for generalizing what millions of muslims views of suicide bombings are? .........that's not common sense at all - its just your opinion!!!

?????? (where can one find the stats for support of suicide bombing?)

swallowedwords wrote:

The number of KKK members compared to the number of radical Jihadists in ridiculous.

also, the KKK had millions of supporters not so long ago, that was probably inherent in the analogy

JordyWordy

and wasn't the official title of the British Mandate ......the "British Mandate of PALESTINE"?

that would suggest Palestine was a state, not autonomous but a state nonetheless?

El_Kabong

swallowedwords wrote:

Retaliation is a bitch, isn't it? Again, all of this would end if the Arabs truly wanted peace with Israel. Like I said before, unfortunately, many won't rest until every Jew is pushed into the sea. There was a great chance to attain a peaceful settlement in the late 90s, but good old Yasser Arafat wasn't interested in peace.

retaliation is a bitch? what did all those women and children and other civillians do? happen to occupy a home israel wants to build some new illegal settlements on?

yeah, i'm sure the majority won't rest until yadda yadda yadda...and you think sharon and others on the israeli side wanted peace?? arafat was a dick, so was sharon....and???

i'm sure far more would be happier living in peaceful coexistance, equal coexistance than driving them into the sea, maybe they just would like to be able to go to the sea themselves again (w/o being shelled)?

and according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs site i posted it didn't seem like that many palestinians were too occupied in 'driving them into the....yawn

you can't keep pushing the poorer brown kid down, stealing his lunch money, beating him up, pushing him around...then cry like a poor victim when he punches you back. i'm not condoning suicide or any other type of attack from either side, but honestly, how can israel act so surprised??? how can they say 'see, this is why i have to keep fucking him up and pushing his face into the dirt w/ the heel of my boot'

i noticed you have ron paul in your sig, what's his stance on this situation, again?

El_Kabong

swallowedwords wrote:

The sad thing is, the lives of many Arabs in occupied territories would be greatly improved if their so-called leaders wanted a true and lasting peace with their Jewish neighbors. Again, when Muslim children are taught from infancy to despise Jews/Christians, there's not much chance for peace in the future.

I do see radical Islam as the problem.

some israelis do that, too

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

Maybe, one day all Arabs/Muslims will recognize Israel's right to exist.

The above comment is utterly meaningless.

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. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years – and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?

For that matter, 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?

If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?

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.'

Heineken Helen

chopitdown wrote:

i don't think either side is a victim, b/c a victim implies no guilt. don't say what my post implies. My post says both sides are at fault and both sides have fanatics...one is not more right or wrong based on body counts.

I agree... whatever about what happened in the past or why the situation is the way it is... it's only now and the future that matters... and I love most of you but those posts referring to which side had the most kids killed piss me off :(

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

Also, why the fuck can't Jewish kids just suck it up and live with the fact that when they step on their school bus in the morning, there's a chance some Jihadist will blow them all up into ground meat? C'mon Jews, it isn't that bad having mortars launched into your homes from Gaza and southern Lebanon. Get a freaking backbone!

This is what happens when your government insists on perpetuating a crime against humanity. Those on the receiving end of this crime seek to defend themselves/retaliate with any means at their disposal.

Michael Neumann - The Case Against Israel

"We find it's low-tech attacks on individuals more distasteful than high-tech attacks, even if they are sure to harm individuals just as much. A beheading disgusts us; not so a massive air assault which will have the side effect of blowing the heads off a few children. That both the attackers and ourselves fully expect such 'collateral damage' doesn't seem to matter. This indeed is why we witness the spectacular exercise in obliviousness that sees the apostles of Western civilization berating 'the Arabs' or Islam for it's brutality. That Western civilization recently produced King Leopold's Congo genocide, Hiroshima, the concentration camps, and two catastrophic world wars should make us think twice before we see any particular evil in the Palestinian response."

Heineken Helen

swallowedwords wrote:

The reason why is because the overwhelming majority of Americans condemn the KKK today, while a substantial number of Muslims (in the millions) claim that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic. The number of KKK members compared to the number of radical Jihadists in ridiculous.

You think most muslims support the extremists? :eek: far from it. Islam is as peaceful a religion as any other religion... but, like with any other religion, there are those who use their book to support their actions. Most Muslims just want to live their life as they see fit too... I disagree with quite a lot of their customs but I respect their right to live as they see fit.

Heineken Helen

swallowedwords wrote:

I never stated that all Israelis are good, decent, and innocent. Of course, both sides have done wrong. In my opinion, and I've stated why many times here, peace can only be achieved when/if radical muslims accept that Israel/Jewish state has a right to exist. Until that happens, which won't be in my lifetime, progress will never occur.

Judging from your posts, I'm not sure you WANT either peace or progress. Many of us have suggested solutions... all you do is blast radical islam and have a very one sided view of the entire thing. NONE of us are defending suicide bombers... yet you defend the bombing of innocent Palestinians as 'collateral damage' For you, it's all or nothing... and no conflict of this kind will be resolved in that way... there HAS to be compromise on both sides.

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

I have a hard time sympathizing with people who hang posters of suicide bombers on their streets. It's difficult for me to sympathize with people who consider all Jews as swine. I have a hard time feeling compassion for people who teach their kids from the earliest of ages that all non-muslims are not worthy of life, and to martyr yourself while killing innocents is an honorable goal.

But you're perfectly o.k with Israeli F16's firing missiles into crowds of civilians in a refugee camp? And with Israeli tanks running over and crushing a 60 year old man in a wheelchair? And Israeli snipers shooting 6 year old children in the head for throwing stones at an armoured vehicle? And the bulldozing of 20,000 homes?

And you're also o.k with this...

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/talafargirl.jpg

http://english.people.com.cn/200607/31/images/0730_B64.jpg

http://tinyrevolution.com/mt/mt-static/images/lebanon2.jpg

http://www.hamdden.co.uk/Images/Palestinian_land_loss_Map.jpg

Mother and her four children killed during Israeli incursion
Tuesday April 29 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/29/israelandthepalestinians

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html
The Israeli occupation army and paramilitary Jewish settlers have killed 545 Palestinian children and minors since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000.

Among these victims, 266 children were 14 or younger while the ages of the remaining 279 ranged from 15 to 18. Moreover, as many as 20,000 Palestinian children were injured, with nearly 1500 sustaining life-long disabilities.

The total number of Palestinians killed by Israel during the current Intifada is around 2700, the vast majority of them civilians.

One of the latest Palestinian children to be killed by the Israeli army was six-year-old Khalid Mahir Walwil from the Balata refugee camp near Nablus.

He was shot in the back as he turned away from the window on the second floor of his house.

Khalid had reportedly stayed at home that day, too frightened to go to school because Israeli soldiers were “operating” in the area.'

Of course I could go on all day posting hundreds of links to pages which describe countless Israeli war crimes, random atrocities, and deliberate targeting of civilians. If you need me to do so, then I'll gladly oblige.

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

There was a great chance to attain a peaceful settlement in the late 90s, but good old Yasser Arafat wasn't interested in peace.

The above statement is a lie.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm
'...is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years? Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada…

Solomon: Didn't Barak put that on the table?

Chomsky: No, he did not!

Solomon: He did not?

Chomsky: What was also supported by the majority of the American people, has just been reiterated by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has unilaterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barak put on the table, the population doesn't know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don't tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don't bother checking. The answer is zero.

The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.

So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.

This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.

Solomon: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.

Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.

Solomon: They negotiated that afterwards.

Chomsky: That's not true.

Solomon: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -

Chomsky: They did. That's false.

Solomon: That's false?

Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .

Solomon: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . . .

Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.

Solomon: If you don't talk -

Chomsky: Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.

Solomon: Once they walked out of Camp David,

Chomsky: They didn't walk out of Camp David . . .

Solomon: Both camps . . .

Chomsky: No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.

Solomon: All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do . . .

Chomsky: No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.

Solomon: You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli . . .

Chomsky: No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That's how it ended.

Solomon: OK. The problem that people look at now in the Middle East is they say it's spun out of control because the radicals are on both sides now.

Chomsky: No, there's three sides. You're forgetting the United States. The radicals in the United States who have blocked this proposal for 25 years, continue to block it.

Solomon: How do we get back, now, there's so much distrust?

Chomsky: The first way we get back is by trying the experiment of minimal honesty. If we try that experiment of minimal honesty, we look at our own position and we discover what I just described. That for 25 years, the United States has blocked the political settlement, which is supported by the majority of the American population and by the entire world, except for Israel.

We take a look at Camp David and we see how it's the same. The United States was still demanding a Bantustans style settlement and rejecting the overwhelming international consensus and the position of the American people.'



http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/novpg5.gif
Oslo II map, or, as the Palestinians call it, the "Leopard Skin" for obvious reasons. Israel will control fully the light grey area (A~=56%) and partially the dark grey area (B~=40%). Only the black area (C~=4%) is under full Palestinian control. This is the map of the much-lauded land-for-peace deal. (Map source The Foundation for Middle East Peace. See also Associated Press map here

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

Hmmm, not really. I think it's more about eliminating all Non-Muslims, instead of a fight for freedom. I also think it has a lot to do with envy. Jews have built Israel into a modern, functioning society. I believe many Islamist radicals use religion as an excuse to murder innocents, while the deeper problem could be the envy and resentment of those who are doing better than you.

So you believe that Palestinian resistance to the illegal occupation boils down to envy? Palestinians are envious of Israel's wealth? This is plainly ridiculous, but typical of many American's view of the world. Many Americans believe that 9/11 occurred because 'Arabs' are envious of America. This type of thinking belongs in the heads of 4 year olds.

And as for your assumption - which has no relation to the facts, and which can't be supported by any evidence - that the Palestinians struggle is '..more about eliminating all Non-Muslims..' can you please explain how this differs from the often stated goals of the Zionists?

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

Let's face it, if the Jews gave back all the land they rightfully occupied after the 1967 war, Arab Muslims would still be doing everything in their power to wipe every Jew out of Israel.

You make it sound like 'Arab Muslims' have wiped any Jews out of Israel. As you know perfectly well, this just isn't the case.
Also, your argument is the equivalent of saying that the French resistance needed to be eliminated because they would have wanted to wipe every German out of Germany. It's basically meaningless and irrelevant. Your hypotheses about what may happen if and when Israel begins abiding by international law and withdraws to the 1967 borders are no justification for it's crimes.

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

How does the vicious cycle of violence end? What's your solution?

One of the problems is that many people, along with the mainstream media in the West, try to portray the issue as complicated. It's not actually very complicated at all. It's actually pretty straightforward; Israel needs to begin abiding by the consensus of the international community - excluding the U.S - and the dictates of the U.N security council, and withdraw from the post 1967 occupied territories.

Byrnzie

swallowedwords wrote:

Yes, they won the 1967 war, and as a result, the winner gets to make the rules.

I'm afraid you're wrong...again.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/int_law.html
International Law, Israel, and Palestine

Excerpted from “The International Laws of Belligerent Occupation”
by Professor of International Law Francis Boyle

'Belligerent occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary laws of belligerent occupation. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3 continued: “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;...” Again, the Security Council vote was 14 to 0, becoming obligatory international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.

There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes.

So this is not a symmetrical situation. As matters of fact and of law, the gross and repeated violations of Palestinian rights by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute war crimes. Conversely, the Palestinian People are defending themselves and their Land and their Homes against Israeli war crimes and Israeli war criminals, both military and civilian.'

swallowedwords

Heineken Helen wrote:

You think most muslims support the extremists? :eek: far from it. Islam is as peaceful a religion as any other religion... but, like with any other religion, there are those who use their book to support their actions. Most Muslims just want to live their life as they see fit too... I disagree with quite a lot of their customs but I respect their right to live as they see fit.

I strongly disagree with you here. Everywhere there are Muslims in the world, there is trouble/conflict. Many people actually think "Islam" means "peace," but it happens to mean "submission".

I would hope that one day all Muslim countries resemble Turkey, then progress will be made.