Originally posted by SALADINAfter the Holocaust, it was decided that the Jews needed a homeland to protect them from such things ever happening again, the obvious location was the place where the Jews had lived intermittently for the past 4000 +/- years. The other suggestion was Uganda but that was impractical as it had few Jews and no significance to the Jewish people.
BUT HOW DID ISRAEL COME TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. if you see what i mean!?
Originally posted by Ragnorakbigot.
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : [b]one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
And you claim you're studying law? 😕
D[/b]
n:a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
dict.die.net/bigot
Originally posted by princeoforangeI think I am pretty much "on thread". I think you are wandering off bringing in Iraq.
1)The Palestinians do NOT have [b]legitimate grievances. Start a new thread if you want to debate this.
2)It was a different story when America was pressing for justice for the Iraqis wasn't it? I feel that your apparent concern for the Palestinians does not stem from real concern, or it would doubtless extend to others (such as the Iraqis), it stems from your irrational hatred of Israel.[/b]
But since you bring it up...America IS pressing for justice for Iraqis. They found none under Saddam. Bush may be a moron who started this war for the wrong reasons. And the US may have screwed up badly in the execution and in the process alienated a lot of people.
But the reason we are there and the reason we stay is in the hope of leaving things better than we found them. No other reason.
I have no hatred of Israel. I have a quite rational hatred of inaccuracy and ignorance.
Originally posted by spruce112358America is pressing for justice for Iraqis, albeit in a largely unsuccessful fassion. Agreed. However, this action is routinely denounced by the left. Why denounce justice for Iraqis while seemingly advocating it for Palestinians?
I think I am pretty much "on thread". I think you are wandering off bringing in Iraq.
But since you bring it up...America IS pressing for justice for Iraqis. They found none under Saddam. Bush may be a moron who started this war for the wrong reasons. And the US may have screwed up badly in the execution and in the process alienated a lot of people. ...[text shortened]... on.
I have no hatred of Israel. I have a quite rational hatred of inaccuracy and ignorance.
So where does your support for the Palestinians come from? In my view they are quite indefencible.
Originally posted by princeoforangeSure.
Give us the facts then.
The population of Palestinine in 1947 was about 30% Jewish and 70% Muslim. The Zionists wanted to run the whole country based on the Balfour Declaration (which promised them a homeland, not a state) and evict the Muslim inhabitants. An intermittent civil war with Jewish armed groups with the Irgun doing so began. Of course, the Muslim majority resisted.
While this was going on, the UN General Assembly approved a plan that would divide Palestine into two states: a 99% Muslim one and a 50-50 Muslim-Jewish one which the Jews would run (of course, the Zionists were planning to oust the Muslims from this area). The Muslims in Palestine rejected this plan as unfair wanting a unitary state. The GA plan was never approved by the Security Council thus it had no force of international law (thus no land was ever given to the Jews by the UN).
The Zionists then declared the existence of the State of Israel without specifying what its borders would be. The Muslim Palestinians called for military aid from other Arabs. Quite a few sent forces, though mostly in small amounts. The Zionists basically won the war and wound up with 76% of Palestine (the GA plan would have given them about 60😵. About 85% of the Muslims who had lived in this area were evicted or fled from the war zone. Israel promptly passed laws seizing their property and refusing them the right to return.
That's the real history of 1948.
Originally posted by no1marauderSource?
Sure.
The population of Palestinine in 1947 was about 30% Jewish and 70% Muslim. The Zionists wanted to run the whole country based on the Balfour Declaration (which promised them a homeland, not a state) and evict the Muslim inhabitants. An intermittent civil war with Jewish armed groups with the Irgun doing so began. Of course, the Muslim ma ...[text shortened]... heir property and refusing them the right to return.
That's the real history of 1948.
Originally posted by princeoforange"It was decided" by whom? I'll give you a clue -- nobody asked the Arabs then living in Palestine if this was fine with them!
After the Holocaust, it was decided that the Jews needed a homeland to protect them from such things ever happening again, the obvious location was the place where the Jews had lived intermittently for the past 4000 +/- years. The other suggestion was Uganda but that was impractical as it had few Jews and no significance to the Jewish people.
The Jews were kicked out by the Romans 2000 years ago -- why do they "obviously" have the right to just re-establish? And without any consideration for the current inhabitants?!?!
Those are the legitimate greivances I'm talking about.
Originally posted by spruce112358It was decided by the UN, which was not nearly as irrelevent and piddling then as it is now. The Jews resettled in part after the Romans left and were kicked out by the Ottomans who then planted the Palestinians there. The Ottomans were subsequently kicked out by the British Empire, which allowed the Jews to resettle through the medium of the UN, seems like fair play to me.
"It was decided" by whom? I'll give you a clue -- nobody asked the Arabs then living in Palestine if this was fine with them!
The Jews were kicked out by the Romans 2000 years ago -- why do they "obviously" have the right to just re-establish? And without any consideration for the current inhabitants?!?!
Those are the legitimate greivances I'm talking about.
P.S. There is an "Israel and Palestine" thread.
Originally posted by princeoforangeI'm afraid it doesn't work like that, kid.
bigot.
n:a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
dict.die.net/bigot
bear
v:put up with something or somebody unpleasant
According to your logic, I can now claim that Ursus maritimus do not exist, because the partial definition which I cherry picked doesn't include a definition of bears of the animal variety. 🙄
D
Originally posted by princeoforangeDispute any of the specific facts and I'll post links supporting them; they are well-known to non-idiots.
I have read books on the subject, none support your view. The reason I asked for a source was because I suspected you were using a biased source, now I suspect you were not using a source at all, but the whole story was another of your fabrications.