Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims

[Richpo64]

>>Then get back to me.<<

That would obviously be a waste of time. The point has been settled. There has never been a country called Palestine.

[hnumpah]

There has never been a country called Palestine.

Never said there was.

Read.

Learn.

Then get back to me.

[Richpo64]

>>Then get back to me.<<

Why bother? There's no debate. There has never been a country called Palestine, nor has there been Palestinians until Arabs invented them.

[sirs]

There has never been a country called Palestine.

Never said there was.

Which of course, was the whole point of this tangent.  Nor a City, nor a county, nor ANYTHING remotely passing as a recognized border of LAND, governed as Palestine, either before or after the war, where Israel was allowed to resettle   oy

Read.  Learn.

Good suggestion.  I would wholeheartedly recommend it.  And it would have nothing to do with any lack of intelligence on your part, (just in case you were about to spring a sprocket, that that's what I was trying to claim)

[Michael Tee]

<<So now I'm fixated on names? . . . I'm just giving you a simple fact. There was NEVER a country named Palestine, no matter how much you wish there where. It's a lie created by Israels enemies that usefull idiots perpetuate. >>

OK, there was never an independent nation-state called Palestine.  There was a geographical region called Palestine.  There was a Roman province named Palestine-Syria.  There was a Byzantine province named Palestine.  There was a British mandate over Palestine.  "Palestine" was never a secret word unknown to the world.  It was not a gibberish word meaning nothing.  It was understood to mean a region, a part of the world.  If at any time in the last 2,000 years, a grown man anywhere in the Mediterranean area had said "Palestine?  What IS that?  I never heard of it," you would think he was a fucking idiot.

There was never a country called "America."  There was never a country called "United States of America."  Then one day there was.  Things change.  Time marches on.  Does anyone argue the Americans had no right to a country called the U.S.A. because prior to its formation, there wasn't a country called "America?"  Your argument is beyond silly, Rich.  It's basically absurd.  It makes no sense.


<<Jews have always been there, and they always will be. >>

They were there a long time ago, and then for well over a thousand years, they were a tiny minority.  In 1880, under the Ottoman Empire, they were 5% of the population.  FIVE PER CENT.  http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575008_9/Israel.html

"Always been there" takes on a whole new meaning when you're referring to a 5% minority.  You might as well say that blacks have "always been there" in America, and probably in much higher numbers than 5%.  Does this give them the right to throw open the borders to unlimited black legal and illegal immigration until enough of them get here to push the whites off their land and establish their own state?

<<"Palestinians" don't want a country, they want to kill Jews. If they wanted a country they have had many opportunities to either create one, or join one. >>

Why do you say this?  It's obviously a lie and everyone can see that.  All you are doing is making the Jews look like a bunch of fucking liars and bad liars at that.  OF COURSE they want a country.  They want a country called Palestine.  They don't want to be part of Israel and they don't want to leave their homes.  They want their own country, to be masters in their own home.  Who in their place would not?  Do you have any idea how absolutely fucking stupid you look when you try to maintain this bullshit?  There probably isn't one reader in this entire group who could take it seriously.

<<The real agenda for Arabs in the area is to burning desire to kill ever Jew they can find.>>

And of course the occupation has nothing to do with that.  They LOVE having been living under military occupation with no rights for 40 years.  Who wouldn't?  They love it when they're stopped on the road at checkpoints every few miles, that a giant wall goes up all around them, that their homes and orchards are bulldozed, that their children are stoned and beaten by settlers.  Who wouldn't love it? 

<<You're the one attempting to create a country out of whole cloth.>>

Like THAT'S never been done before.  The U.S.A. for example.  The Republic of India for another.  Germany and Italy, two more.  Pakistan.  Indonesia.  Canada.  Countries ARE created out of whole cloth.  Or did you think they were already there when the earth cooled?

<<If the Bush Doctrine reaches fruition sometime in the future, and Democracies replace the dictatorships currently ruling the majority of Arab countires . . . >>

Well, let's see.  The Bush doctrine, eh?   Aren't you a little bit confused about it?  If the Bush doctrine is about allowing Democracies to replace dictatorships, maybe you can explain why Bush tried to undermine and overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan and Palestinian governments.  That would be very interesting.  Also, I'd like to know why the dictatorships of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt are still supported by Bush, as they have been since he first took office.  Also how come this promoter of democracy in Arab lands doesn't tell the Israelis to allow the West Bank Arabs to vote in elections to determine how they will be governed?  It seems a little strange for such a strong supporter of "democracy" in the Arab world to also be supporting forty years of military occupation with no end in sight for the three million Arabs of the West Bank, doesn't it?

<< Israel will have peace and so will the rest of the Middle East.>>

By continuing its military occupation, it will have peace?  Seems to me that if a military occupation was going to produce peace it would have done so in forty years.  Comes a time when you gotta realize that this is not the way to produce peace.  Would they plant an apple tree and give it forty years to produce an apple?

<< Until that happens Israel has every right of sovereign nation to protect itself against the monsters promising Jewish genocide.>>

I hope that's how the millions of West Bank Arabs see it.  "Well, sure it sucks to be occupied for 40 years, but hell, we're just a bunch of genocide-promising monsters, so we deserve it.  Hey, whaddaya think?  Should we stop promising genocide and get the occupation off our backs?  Nah, let's give it another 40 years.  This is FUN!"  What I really can't understand is how you yourself don't recognize how absolutely fucking STUPID your argument sounds.  Do you REALLY think that the Jews are occupying the West Bank (and settling it as fast as they can) because there are "monsters" who are "promising" Jewish genocide?  Why are they rushing in to build settlements and raise their kids right next door to all these "monsters?"  Given their experience with previous promises of Jewish genocide, why don't they kill every "monster" who "promises genocide?"  Haven't they had 40 years to do it?  You know and I know that there are powerful political parties backing the settler movement who make no secret of why they settle the West Bank and need to drive out the Arabs - - they claim it is land promised to the Jews by God and that to settle it is a sacred duty of every Jew.  Why insult everyone's intelligence by claiming that the Jews need to settle the land to protect themselves from monsters?  The Jews themselves don't even resort to this bullshit.

[Michael Tee]

MT:  <<The Arabs aren't responsible for what they [the Jews] went through during the war.>>

sirs:  <<They [the Arabs] are the ones that took a military approach in trying to "interact" with Israel, immediately following the war>>

================================================================================

The Jews were much better organized and prepared than the Arabs, and struck first, using their underground armies to seize the Arab areas of the UN Partition Plan as soon as the Mandate ended and the last British troops left.  Literally within hours.  The Palestinian Arabs had no underground armies, and appealed to the Arab Legion (a British-officered Jordanian Bedouin force, reputedly one of the best fighting organizations in the Middle East) to defend the lands that the UN had allocated to them.  The Legion moved in and other Arab forces followed.  The Jews fought them to a standstill.

I'm sure there were a lot of missed opportunities and both sides made serious errors, but it's not correct to say that the Arabs "are the ones that took a military approach."  That's the kind of bullshit that Leon Uris and others were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to put into third-rate novels like "Exodus" cranked out specially for the occasion, but it's as far from the truth as you can get.  The Jews struck first and the Arab Legion very reluctantly responded to the pleas of the Palestinian Arabs when no one else seemed ready to come to their rescue. 

[sirs]

MT:  <<The Arabs aren't responsible for what they [the Jews] went through during the war.>>

sirs:  <<They [the Arabs] are the ones that took a military approach in trying to "interact" with Israel, immediately following the war>>
================================================================================
The Jews were much better organized and prepared than the Arabs, and struck first

Only AFTER the military impediments & blockades placed by Egypt, as well as Jordan, with the massing of their militaries on Israel's borders.  It was shrewd not to wait until the Arabs unleashed everything.  This tangent regarding who stuck who 1st, has already been hashed over a multitude of times, and even Js, no allie of Israel what-so-ever, conceded how Israel was provoked to act. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Only AFTER the military impediments & blockades placed by Egypt, as well as Jordan, with the massing of their militaries on Israel's borders.  It was shrewd not to wait until the Arabs unleashed everything.  This tangent regarding who stuck who 1st, has already been hashed over a multitude of times, and even Js, no allie of Israel what-so-ever, conceded how Israel was provoked to act. >>

I think there has been a shift in context here.  I was discussing the 1948 war.  When I said that the Arabs did not cause the problems the Jews had experienced during the war (WWII) you responded that after the war (which I took to be after WWII) the Arabs interacted with the Jews with military force, I assumed you were referring to the War of Independence of 1948, which began as soon as the Mandate ended.  That's the only conflict I have been referring to in this thread.

[hnumpah]

Rich - There has never been a country called Palestine.

Moi - Never said there was.

Sirs - Which of course, was the whole point of this tangent.

No, the whole point of this tangent was your quote that "There was no land of "Palestine"..."

You did not say country; neither did I. I merely pointed out that the land in question has been known as Palestine for quite some time.

Like I said, read, learn, repeat as necessary...

[Richpo64]

>>OK, there was never an independent nation-state called Palestine.<<

Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

[sirs]

Rich - There has never been a country called Palestine.

Moi - Never said there was.

Sirs - Which of course, was the whole point of this tangent.

No, the whole point of this tangent was your quote that "There was no land of "Palestine"..."

And I made it PAINFULLY CLEAR that I was asking for borders, legitimate recognized boundries, as some recognized governmental run body of LAND, that would validate your claim of Palestine.  I've been focused on the OBJECTIVE part of this tangent "Land", while you've been trying to redirect it to subjective term "Palestine", with interjections of some Palestinians who owned private property.  Thankfully, this is now cleared up, as you yourself have conceded there is no such governmental agency or recognized/organized run modern day Palestine, pre or post war.  Why it took this long and required to drain this much water from a rock to get this concession is beyond me.  Outside of perhaps some tweaked need to try and prove me wrong

[hnumpah]

Maybe you should read the Mandate as it was given to Britain in 1923 and see what boundaries it specified. I told you, you have your answer. I'm not your lackey, to spell it all out for you.

...you yourself have conceded there is no such governmental agency or recognized/organized run modern day Palestine, pre or post war.

I conceded nothing. The mandate gave Britain administrative control over the region, until Israel was granted its independence. Then followed the war of 1948, and Israel's grab of all the land it could get and claim as a 'buffer'.

So don't be so arrogant as to claim some sort of victory yet.

[sirs]

Your problem here H, which is a frequent problem, is that you have taken it upon yourself to establish my parameters of the discussion.  You concluded that in "Land", I was obviously referring to some nomadic region of area, kinda like the Sahara (though I think that even the Sahara, has more definative boundries than modern day "Palestine").  It's similar to when the left claims what Bush really meant about "Mission Accomplished" or "Mushroom cloud".  Despite my crystal clear follow-up query that made it specific to an organized region & borders, consistent with a recognized country, you're still convinced that my original reference remains focused on some "area", which you could then supposedly debunk

You were wrong in the 1st place, which is why it took this long to squeeze water from your pre-disposed rock of rhetoric.  You concession is duely noted.

[hnumpah]

Um, no.

Like I said: Read.

There are borders.

There is a government administration.

Answered your follow-up before you followed-up, if you will.

See you around, Sirs. I've had enough of your arrogance for one day.

[sirs]

Rich; There has never been a country called Palestine.

Never said there was.

Point thus conceded, case closed.