West Bank.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 11:27 PM GMT
    I bring this up because of a sexy guy with dark hair has, and every time time he does he is abused, and wrongly called a racist, in an attempt too silence him.

    Last nigh I was watching a show that was in the west bank filming the conflict, and the settlers come out looking the worst, yet they try to put "all" the blame on the Arabs. When asked about the UN. they reply, we take no notice of them, as everone knows they side with the Arabs; oh please that is so fare from the truth.

    They showed how settlers are taking land that does not belong to them, and building on it, even against international law, and refuse to see what they are doing is wrong, and when asked what will you do when they pull this settlement down? They rely, we will replace it wit six of them.

    They have made travel almost imposible for the Arabs in their own homeland with check point after check point, were the settlers have freeways, that the Arabs are banned from using, and if found on it, they will be imprisoned. The settler have green gardens, because they take most of the water.

    The setters claim the Arabs are the violent ones yet they responded with tear gas, and bullets. So now the Arabs are fight back with filming the violent activities of the settlers.

    I admit the whole this is so sad, but I do now know, that the Arabs are not the ones solely at fault. Not the story I was to grow up with, via the media. It's taking a long time for the truth to start to come out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2009 3:19 AM GMT
    One young women was asked about building on land that did not belong to them. She become aggressive straight away demanding how dare you come to my home (vacant lot) and tell me, how dare you. Then she said with her American accent, and were do you won't us to go, back to the concentration camp.

    Oh please I doubt she even ever seen one. No she could go home to New York, or Florida, or Sydney, Melbourne, England.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2009 12:54 AM GMT
    Well sxydrkhair, I'm pleased this has not turned into a flame war, it seems all your hard work to educate the members of RJ that the Palestinians are not the terrorists as portrayed in the media. That they are people who are protesting about their country being sliced up, by anther country, and their homes and land taken away from them, and givern away That they are not the perpetrators, but the victims.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2009 1:12 AM GMT
    For every story of Palestinian suffering, there's an Israeli one and vice versa. Everyone's a victim in that ongoing conflict. I'm just not sure RJ is the right place to discuss this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2009 1:16 AM GMT
    NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS TOPIC!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 26, 2009 11:51 PM GMT
    Sadly so much of the root of all this trouble come about before WW2 was declared. England being such a small island, had received something like 70 thousand Jewish people, and then after Hitler had come to power, and he was making life as difficult as he could for the Jewish people, by depriving them from driving using public transport, public parks, from telling people not to shop Jewish, and so on. England during this time was receiving up to 3 thousand Jewish refugees, a month, where no-one else was receiving this many, and the US of A had set such rigid immigrant intake numbers in the 1920s, and they did not change this to help out either, they stood by and did nothing.

    So after the end of the war, England was struggling for many years, just to feed the people on it's Island. So to relive this struggle, they created a Jewish State, so they could offload many of their refugees. The trouble with this is, they needed land on foreign soil. So they took land that did not belong to them, and gave it away. When this backfired on them they could not offload it quick enough to the UN. But before they did this they were able to off load, rehouse many of their Jewish refugees to a foreign land, then wipe their hands of all the trouble that was to become of their actions.

    Albeit so much of this trouble may never of come to pass, if other countries like the US of A, had of put out a helping hand to the Jewish people of Europe, instead of truing a blind eye, and not wanting to get involved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2009 12:30 AM GMT
    The League of Nations established the Palestine Mandate after WW I (nearly a quarter century earlier than your error-filled narrative). The purpose of this mandate?

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
    || The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions

    Recall that "self-determination" was the concept of that day. The former holdings of the Ottoman Empire were to be established as independent states. 99% of the mideast was to become Arab states, and "Palestine" (then the European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland) was to be the Jewish state.

    Since there wasn't at that time (and never had been) an "Arab Palestine" or even a group of Arabs who called themselves "Palestinian", there was no irony that the League of Nations called this the "Palestine Mandate". Prior to 1948 (and moreso 1967), when people said "Palestine" they were talking about the Jewish homeland. Consider how the entry for "Palestine" begins in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

    || a geographical name of rather loose application. Etymological strictness would require it to denote exclusively the narrow strip of coast-land once occupied by the Philistines, from whose name it is derived. It is, however, conventionally used as a name for the territory which, in the Old Testament, is claimed as the inheritance of the pre-exilic Hebrews; thus it may be said generally to denote the southern third of the province of Syria.

    Indeed, the Arabs living in the region at that time denied that there was a place called "Palestine" or "Palestinians":

    Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission (1936):
    || There is no such country! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of SYRIA.

    In 1946, speaking before the Anglo-American Committee, Arab-American historian Professor Philip Hitti (Princeton University) stated:
    || There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history.


    Far be it from me to interrupt the propaganda dog & pony show that is this topic, but these issues have already been discussed at great length. If you want to learn more about the history of the region, follow this link:

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    - and Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491


    Sadly we see that some are more interested in demonizing others in order to rationalize and justify their never-ending war against Israel. Maybe one day we'll see the ilk of Samer put in an iota of effort into advocating peace and coexistence instead. That is discussed in this topic:

    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2009 3:57 PM GMT
    There are two main weaknesses in your argument:
    First, its factually wrong. (Did you literally just make all that crap up? or do you not understand the concept of research?) "Palestine" derives from the term "philistia", a federation along the Mediterranean Coast that arose around 1200 BCE. The area was conquered by the Assyrians in 722 BCE, and the Philistine ethnic identity was utterly destroyed by 600 BCE. However, that term or a similar one was used repeatedly by Greco-Roman writers when referring to the region. In 132 CE, Roman emporer Hadrian combined Philistia with the Galilee, calling it Syria Palaestina. In 390 CE, Palaestina was reorganized into three administrative units (literally, "First Palestine, Second Palestine, Third Palestine"). Starting with the Umayyad Dynasty in 661, Palaestina Prima was renamed Filastin (arabic for Palestine), which it retains to this day. This region extended from the Sinai, to Acre, to (diagonally) the Dead Sea . The area including present-day Amman and the Galilee was renamed Al Urdan (Jordan). During Ottoman rule, it was tradition to name provinces after capitals, not geographical regions, so it was officially designated under the regional headquarters as the province of Saida (Sidon, Lebanon) from 1660 to 1873, when it was reorganized and divided between the provinces of Beirut and Jerusalem. Despite is not being the name of a province, Palestine remained in widespread use, both by locals and in official correspondence, to refer to the geographic region from the river to the sea.

    Therefore, it is clearly seen that the term Palestine has been consistently used for more than two millennia to refer to the current-day Israel. The fact that a Palestinian is willing to deny his heritage and history (likely under harassing possibility of imprisonment or violent attacks on him and his male family members..this is a common theme I have found among Israeli sympathizers) does not provide evidence of truth; in fact, it merely provides evidence of the lack thereof. Historical fact clearly shows the fact of Palestine's existence.

    You are correct that there are no true Palestinian Arabs. And there is, nor was, an Arab Palestine. But thats not because of the "palestine" part, but the "arab" part. Modern Palestinians self-identify as ethnic descendants of Canaanites. Therefore, your point is trivially true and conveys no influential nor explanatory power.

    Secondly, the absence of a Palestinian state (or even the theoretical absence of the region or its people) in history does not justify the state of Israel. Looking at history, we see that thousands of Jews illegally (the British mandate was effectively the only "national" legislation of the time) immigrated to the region in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Hundreds of thousands of (what we now refer to as) Palestinians were forced from their homes by violence and threats of violence; most of them and their descendants have been living in destitution as a result. At the time of the ethnic cleansing, Jews represented only one-third of the population, yet they now retain control of 99% of the region. (The PA is such a pathetic joke that its not really worth mentioning. Plus, the IDF controls the military aspects of everything outside of Gaza; not to mention that Israel controls all of the resources of Gaza) Now, there is a theocratic Jewish state that has complete control of military and resources between the river and the sea. Regardless of affiliation, there were non-jews living in the region prior to Israel, who now cannot live a free and equal life as a non-jew. The creation and continuance of the state of Israel is an affront to the human dignity of all those who are not afforded the full rights and privileges that partially exist within those historical borders.

    oh...and finally JUSTICE FOR PALESTINE! END THE SIEGE OF GAZA!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2009 4:29 PM GMT
    They both need to do some major compromising and quit living in the past and look towards a more peaceful future. Both sides are being fools and this argument will probably continue until the end of time, or maybe it will be the cause of the end of time icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 5:08 AM GMT
    IlliniXMarine> its factually wrong. (Did you literally just make all that crap up? or do you not understand the concept of research?)

    Wow, you open up with such immature personal attacks and you expect that anyone will take you seriously?

    Indeed, you don’t point out anything that is factually incorrect.

    Of course, your non-argument is even more disingenuous considering that I provided just a summary with a link to another topic where all this was already discussed in greater detail – and with a multitude of references to academic sources.

    No wonder you opted to post your hack job here.
    Unlike you, I will respond point-by-point to your misconceptions and errors in the original topic.

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    - and Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 5:18 AM GMT
    TucsonGradJock> They both need to do some major compromising and quit living in the past and look towards a more peaceful future. Both sides are being fools....

    Correct on the first part, but the latter is a false equivalence.

    In 1937, the Jewish Agency accepted the principle of compromise based on partition suggested by the Peel Commission. The Arabs rejected it.

    In 1947, the Jewish Agency accepted the UN partition compromise (UNGAR 181). The Arab parties violently rejected it, resorting to war.

    In 1949, after the war, Israel was willing to accept peace based on UNGAR 194. The Arab League rejected that, issuing its infamous "3 NOs": No negotiations, No recognition of Israel, No peace (under any conditions).

    After continued Arab aggression led to another war in 1956, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the additional territories it captured, hoping that would spark a peace dialog. The Arab League repeated the "3 NOs".

    After continued Arab aggression led to another war in 1967, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242 which introduced the "land for peace" formula. Israel accepted it and, you guessed it, the Arab League reissued their "3 NOs".

    After another failed Arab war seeking Israel's destruction in 1973, Egyptian President Nasser concluded that war is not the answer. He found a ready and willing peace partner in Israel (then under perhaps it's most right-wing/hawkish government ever). Alas, no other Arab party accepted President Carter's invitation to come to Camp David. For making peace with Israel, Egypt (the largest Arab country) was expelled from the Arab League and Sadat was assassinated.

    Nearly a quarter of a century later, Arafat walked out of Camp David and then rejected the Clinton compromise parameters at Taba (telling President Clinton "I invite you to my funeral", meaning that if he accepted he would be assassinated, like Sadat). Arafat made no counter-offer because he himself was not ready to end the conflict without first destroying Israel.

    More on that in this topic:
    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    There you'll see how the real world is mirrored here on RJ by myself and Samer, with me supporting the Clinton compromise and him rejecting it out of hand and unable to tell us anything on which he is willing to compromise, not even for peace.
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Sep 28, 2009 7:37 AM GMT
    As far as I am concerned both sides use a lot of propaganda to get people to think a certain way about the other side, just fanning the flames of an issue that goes back hundreds of years so it will never be 100% solved until one side completely destroys the other
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 1:29 PM GMT
    sxydrkhair> ^ excellent post!

    It's funny how all Samer can do is cheerlead IXM's propaganda, but can't actually discuss it or respond to my refutation of it here:

    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)



    Its sad how Samer still can't tell us on what, if anything, he's willing to compromise on for peace, opting instead for never-ending war until victory (even as he whines that he is the victim):

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    - and Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 2:07 PM GMT
    meh... i think of this whole situation like this....

    My grandfather had thousands of acres of land in mexico growing up. his family lost it all durring some revolution (cant remember when or where as my grandfather was born in 1901 and no longer alive for me to ask him). They came in and took from the rich. they had two choices: stay and die or flee. Now... here we are say over a century later... if I took a small regiment with me and tried to take back that land for my family... i'd be shot on the spot for even trying.

    everything i have learned and read about how isreal was created and what not just kind of leaves me with more or less the same situation above only they actually succeded in taking back the land. What made it right then but crazy now? Personally I dont think isreal has a right to exist.. i see it as stolen land (no offense to anyone just giving my rather humble opinion). being as the way thing are.. a neutral force needs to come in that whole mess and control everything... isreal, palestine, everything... I think thats the only way there could possibly ever be any kind of peace. (if anyone plays world of warcraft think Satthrah City)

    At the same time... Im a faithful Roman Catholic. I love and beleive in Jesus Christ. i think if he couldnt even make peace there... WTF kind of chance we EVER think we have at doing it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 3:49 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidTucsonGradJock> They both need to do some major compromising and quit living in the past and look towards a more peaceful future. Both sides are being fools....

    Correct on the first part, but the latter is a false equivalence.



    With all due respect, mate, you and sxydrkhair may think both sides aren't being fools, but I can pretty much guarantee you that the rest of the world watching your endless, bordering on insane, bickering sees it differently. I have little doubt that what is going on right here at RJ between you two mirrors what is going on over there in the real world. It's pathetic and so ridiculous that after all these years you cannot come to a compromise for the sake of your people. Neither side will get everything they want, but at least they will get peace.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 4:41 PM GMT
    TucsonGradJock said
    Caesarea4 saidTucsonGradJock> They both need to do some major compromising and quit living in the past and look towards a more peaceful future. Both sides are being fools....

    Correct on the first part, but the latter is a false equivalence.



    With all due respect, mate, you and sxydrkhair may think both sides aren't being fools, but I can pretty much guarantee you that the rest of the world watching your endless, bordering on insane, bickering sees it differently. I have little doubt that what is going on right here at RJ between you two mirrors what is going on over there in the real world. It's pathetic and so ridiculous that after all these years you cannot come to a compromise for the sake of your people. Neither side will get everything they want, but at least they will get peace.


    Hear hear!

    It is tiresome, bordering on being extremely so now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 5:47 PM GMT
    TucsonGradJock> They both need to do some major compromising and quit living in the past and look towards a more peaceful future. Both sides are being fools....

    Caesarea4> Correct on the first part, but the latter is a false equivalence. ...The real world is mirrored here on RJ by myself and Samer, with me supporting the Clinton compromise and him rejecting it out of hand and unable to tell us anything on which he is willing to compromise, not even for peace.

    TGJ> I have little doubt that what is going on right here at RJ between you two mirrors what is going on over there in the real world. It's pathetic and so ridiculous that after all these years you cannot come to a compromise for the sake of your people. Neither side will get everything they want, but at least they will get peace.

    Do you think that repeating your false equivalence will make it true?

    I just detailed for you how Israel and the Jewish Agency were open to compromise in 1937, 1947, 1949, 1956 and 1967... only to have it categorically rejected by the Arab parties who instead opted for violence, terrorism and war. Why did you ignore this? How good can your model be when it fails to consider 70+ years of history as well as current events?

    When one Arab party (Sadat) finally came around, Israel (despite then being ruled by perhaps its most hawkish government ever) was there to make peace with him (Egypt was then expelled from the Arab League and Sadat assassinated). It took a few more decades for Arafat and the PLO to come around (and that had more to do with his weakened position after supporting Saddam in 1990 than a real desire for compromise or peace). At Camp David, as one Russian journalist put it, Barak "unmasked" Arafat by agreeing to the Clinton compromise parameters only to have Arafat walk out - without a counter-offer.

    At Camp David and later at Taba, there were (according to an Arab newspaper) some 28 proposals made by the Americans and the Israelis for shared sovereignty of the Temple Mount area. Arafat said no to all, demanding total control over all of it - including the Wailing Wall area, refusing to compromise on anything (his top aid literally said: "why not 100%"?.

    I, like most Israelis, remain open and committed to compromise and peaceful coexistence.
    Samer, like most Palestinian Arabs, rejects compromise and prefers endless war to destroy Israel (even as he pretends to be the victim).

    Don't take my word for it, see what each of us said (and didn't say) here:

    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)


    I invite you to follow the link, read what was said, and then comment over there.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 6:31 PM GMT
    Ryan_Andrew> I dont think isreal has a right to exist.. i see it as stolen land

    You think Arab Palestine (which has never existed in history) has a right to exist because Arab empires invaded, conquered and colonized the Jewish homeland, occupying it from 638-1071 CE, but that Jews didn't have the right to PURCHASE back that land and Israel doesn't have a right to exist - despite Jews living on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for over 3300 years and being the only nation to ever independently self-govern there?

    Here's a couple quotes for you to consider from the 1936 Peel Commission Report:

    || The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the SALE of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

    || The shortage of land is due less to PURCHASE by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was BOUGHT.


    Consider that the Arabs weren't being displaced by Jews so much as by other Arabs. Indeed, the Arab population grew most precisely in the areas of British and Jewish development. In Haifa (new port and industry), between the world wars the Arab population grew by 290%. In Jaffa (adjacent to Tel Aviv) by 158%. In Jerusalem (where Jews had pioneered development outside the old city walls) 131%. Yet in Nablus (currently the largest city in what previously was Trans/Jordan's so-called "West Bank") the Arab population over that same period grew by only 42%. In Bethlehem, 38%. In Jenin (closer to Jewish areas, which is why it recently gained infamy as the departure point of suicide bombers) "only" 78%.

    If you could buy back your grandfather's land, would you consider that you "stole" it? Or do you think that those who forcefully took it from him, with no remuneration, are those who stole it?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 28, 2009 10:46 PM GMT
    Yes both sides are at fault
    and both Palestianians and the Israeli's have the right to live in paece but when you have people having to go through checkpoints to go to work
    to have to show identification just to go to the store
    not being able to govern themselves'

    You gonna have a shitload of trouble that's going to come back at you
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2009 11:08 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidRyan_Andrew> I dont think isreal has a right to exist.. i see it as stolen land

    You think Arab Palestine (which has never existed in history) has a right to exist because Arab empires invaded, conquered and colonized the Jewish homeland, occupying it from 638-1071 CE, but that Jews didn't have the right to PURCHASE back that land and Israel doesn't have a right to exist - despite Jews living on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for over 3300 years and being the only nation to ever independently self-govern there?

    Here's a couple quotes for you to consider from the 1936 Peel Commission Report:

    || The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the SALE of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

    || The shortage of land is due less to PURCHASE by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was BOUGHT.


    Consider that the Arabs weren't being displaced by Jews so much as by other Arabs. Indeed, the Arab population grew most precisely in the areas of British and Jewish development. In Haifa (new port and industry), between the world wars the Arab population grew by 290%. In Jaffa (adjacent to Tel Aviv) by 158%. In Jerusalem (where Jews had pioneered development outside the old city walls) 131%. Yet in Nablus (currently the largest city in what previously was Trans/Jordan's so-called "West Bank") the Arab population over that same period grew by only 42%. In Bethlehem, 38%. In Jenin (closer to Jewish areas, which is why it recently gained infamy as the departure point of suicide bombers) "only" 78%.

    If you could buy back your grandfather's land, would you consider that you "stole" it? Or do you think that those who forcefully took it from him, with no remuneration, are those who stole it?



    It really doesnt matter if they have been living there that entire time fact is it was broke up by ceaser back in the day and so what if they still lived there? that still does not make it right to just come and upppity take arms and be like SCREW THIS we are taking it back? no... If Harry Truman hadn;t be lobbied by his best friend whom happened to be jewish.. isreal would never have been recignized and we woudlnt be having this conversation. Either way, like someone said.. both sides are screwed up. that whole part of the world needs to be done away with already and put under the strict control of a neutral party. I could honestly careless what happens over there so long as Ameriacn troops are not over there and american weapons are not being used because sooner or later that mess makes it way back here. If isreal wants to be all big and bad ass then do so alone. Might be harsh and again no offense but i could careless if that whole part of the world nuked itself. the way it looks... pretty much heading that way. better over there than here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2009 4:00 AM GMT
    sxydrkhair> They only owned around 7% of Palestine, while about 93% of historical Palestine was owned by present day Palestinians

    FAIL. Given that the vast majority of the land was not privately owned, we don't even need to go through the numbers in the great detail as I did previously. While it's true that Jews only privately owned 8.6% of the land, the fact of the matter is that only 3.3% of the land was privately owned by resident Arabs.

    To see how artificial and manufactured Samer's figures are, one need only consider that the Negev desert accounted for some 80% of the territory allocated to Israel by the 1947 UN partition compromise (and that this land was not privately owned).

    For those with mathematical capacity: The area allocated to Israel by the UN was 14.92 million dunams. Samer himself admits that by 1947 Jews owned 7% of the 26.3 million dunams of western Mandate Palestine, which is 1.84 million dunams. The Negev desert is 12.5 million dunams. Combined these account for 14.34 out of the 14.92 million dunams. Samer would have us believe that Arabs owned 93% of the land? Yet only 3.9% remains unaccounted for (14.34/14.92 = 96.1%). If we accept my figure of 3.3% Arab [private] ownership, that gives us a total of 99.4% (OK, I'll admit it, I've got a 0.6% error in my figures, which obviously have some rounding issues. Samer, though, is so far off - 90% - that it's not even funny and yet it's hard not to laugh - especially since he keeps spamming these outrageous figures).



    sxydrkhair> Since 1948, Israeli government still continuing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

    Complete nonsense given that Israel didn't even hold these territories from 1948-1967 and given that the population has skyrocketed oer the last 42 years.

    What is true is that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were completely ethnically cleansed of Jews by invading Arab armies in 1948. Not a single one remained, not even in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. That's what ethnic cleansing is. Sadly for Samer its only use is as a slogan, a sound-bite, to demonize Israel (in order to rationalize and justify not ending the war to destroy it).


    Samer's tedious and repetitive BS continues:

    sxydrkhair> the Israeli illegal occupation and brutal apartheid?

    The Israeli administration is legal, effectively authorized by UNSCR 242 (which is legally binding). It established the "land for peace" formula and calls on peace to be negotiated and then for Israel to withdraw to the borders to be agreed upon. (It does not require an immediate, unconditional or even full Israeli withdrawal - all of which would be true had Israel illegally seized these territories rather than take control of them in a defensive war).

    Once again what we see is that Samer can't really make an argument beyond superficial sloganeering and spamming sound-bites.


    sxydrkhair> Israel or Mossad helped create Hamas. In the late 1980s....

    This lie has also been discussed at great length in other topics. Samer previously claimed that Israel established Hamas in the 1970s (it wasn't founded until 1987). From Samer's lie, a person unfamiliar with the facts would assume that Israel established and armed Hamas much as the US did the Mujahadeen. Nothing could be further from the truth which is that Israel allowed Hamas, then a charity engaged in social welfare rather than terrorism, to collect money abroad and build mosques. (You'd think Samer would applaud this rather than twist it to demonize Israel, but....)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2009 4:44 AM GMT
    You think Arab Palestine (which has never existed in history) has a right to exist because Arab empires invaded, conquered and colonized the Jewish homeland, occupying it from 638-1071 CE, but that Jews didn't have the right to PURCHASE back that land and Israel doesn't have a right to exist - despite Jews living on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for over 3300 years and being the only nation to ever independently self-govern there?

    Ryan_Andrew> so what if they still lived there? that still does not make it right to just come and upppity take arms and be like SCREW THIS we are taking it back?

    What part of "sale", "purchase" and "bought" (the words used to describe Jewish land acquisitions by the 1936 Peel Commission) didn't you understand?!

    Jews did NOT "take arms" to take land.
    That's what the Arabs did.
    Both in 638 and in 1948.
    (And they keep on trying.)

    So Jews lived there, Arabs invaded and conquered, and you are asking what does it matter that Jews lived there? (Does it similarly not matter that your grandfather lived on his land?)

    The mind boggles. Arabs invade, conquer, occupy and colonize the Jewish homeland and you say nothing, but you pipe up about Jews BUYING back their own land?


    GQJock> both Palestianians and the Israeli's have the right to live in paece

    Who prevented peace in 1947? 1949? 1956? 1967? 1973? ...2000?


    GQJock> when you have people having to go through checkpoints to go to work... You gonna have a shitload of trouble that's going to come back at you

    You are saying that airport security is what causes hijackings and planes being blown up?
    Or perhaps you reversed cause and effect?

    Checkpionts came as a result of Arab terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.


    GQJock> to have to show identification just to go to the store

    Simply not true. At the time the intifadah began in 2000, there were no Israeli soldiers or checkpoints in the area where 98% of the Arab population lived. They were completely under PA security control. So if they had to show ID to go to the store, you should complain about Arafat, Abbas or Hamas.


    GQJock> not being able to govern themselves'

    This is a long-standing problem. During the Mandate period, rather than learn to govern they were more interested in murdering Jews (e.g. massacres in 1920-21, 1929 and 1936-1939).

    Granted a state in 1948 on nearly half of the 20% of historic Palestine that was granted to Jews after WW I, they chose to go to war to destroy Israel.

    You'd think that during the Egyptian and Jordanian "occupations", from 1948-1967, PLO terrorism would have been directed at Egypt and Jordan. (It was directed at Israel. So much for the idiotic line that "it's the occupation, stupid").

    The root of self-government came after 1967, under the Israeli administration, which allowed elections. After Oslo, the PA became the largest per capita recipient of international aid - and still it couldn't govern, plagued by corruption and cronyism, etc. For 7 years development aid (including from Israel) poured in. There were joint efforts to create jobs (e.g. the Erez Industrial Center).

    That all went down the tubes when Arafat, after walking out of Camp David (having rejected the paradigm of compromise) re-turned to his old friends of violence and terrorism. Hamas took it to the next level, even attacking places like the Erez Industrial Center.

    GQJock, you remind me of the line by an Al Jazeera editor in "Control Room", who pointed out that when a sewer backs up in Damascus... they blame Israel. You're a bright guy, why do you treat this subject in such a shallow way?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2009 1:44 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidYou think Arab Palestine (which has never existed in history) has a right to exist because Arab empires invaded, conquered and colonized the Jewish homeland, occupying it from 638-1071 CE, but that Jews didn't have the right to PURCHASE back that land and Israel doesn't have a right to exist - despite Jews living on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for over 3300 years and being the only nation to ever independently self-govern there?

    Ryan_Andrew> so what if they still lived there? that still does not make it right to just come and upppity take arms and be like SCREW THIS we are taking it back?

    What part of "sale", "purchase" and "bought" (the words used to describe Jewish land acquisitions by the 1936 Peel Commission) didn't you understand?!

    Jews did NOT "take arms" to take land.
    That's what the Arabs did.
    Both in 638 and in 1948.
    (And they keep on trying.)

    So Jews lived there, Arabs invaded and conquered, and you are asking what does it matter that Jews lived there? (Does it similarly not matter that your grandfather lived on his land?)

    The mind boggles. Arabs invade, conquer, occupy and colonize the Jewish homeland and you say nothing, but you pipe up about Jews BUYING back their own land?



    I think SxyDrkHair Said it best.... its bullshit for you to say they BOUGHT the land: "They only owned around 7% of Palestine, while about 93% of historic Palestine was owned by present day Palestinians under the British Mandate. 80% of the Palestinian people were DISPOSSESSED of their homes, farms, and businesses." The difference between my grandfathers situation and any jewish situation is that they had owned they land since the time mexcio was conlinized by Spain which is a very long fucking time. And they had no choice... they just came with force and ran them off their land... and they were not paid anything for it. You said that isreal dosent take part in ethnic cleansing but thats also a crock of shit. Im sure you/we all remember when all thoes bombing were happening in isreal and the israeli government invaded palistinian lands to go in and get the accused terrorist and the leaders of organizations like hamas with full force. They went in to a refugee camp where people were there just trying to get away from all the military action and ended up right in the middle of it by force. In fact because of this very action the UN security council met and was supposed to luanch a full investigation as to why the hell it happened. I never heard anything after that about this incident. I used to actually back and support isreal until I started getting in to the history of it all.... than the picture is not so in Isreal's favor. I agree with SxyDrkHair this also that yeah... isreal shouldnt have american weapons. I wish we could take them all back. Oh well... all I know is pray that I never or anyone else I know ever wins any major office cause I/we would certinaly end all ties with isreal. Let them deal with their own problem that whole neck of the woods needs to just nuke each other and be done with it and it is sad that alot of innoccent people would be and continue to be affected by this BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2009 5:01 PM GMT
    Peel Commission Report> sale... purchase... bought

    Ryan_Andrew> its bullshit for you to say they BOUGHT the land

    Except that I'm not the one who said so, the Peel Commission - which came to investigate Arab complaints, said so. Again:

    || The shortage of land is due less to PURCHASE by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was BOUGHT.


    RA> "They only owned around 7% of Palestine, while about 93% of historic Palestine was owned by present day Palestinians under the British Mandate."

    Samer is lying through his teeth and he knows it. Previously, in addition to the chart above, he also provided another one showing that the majority of the land was not privately owned - his own sources contradicted each other (which happens often as there is no internal consistency to what he says; if I say that 2+3=5 he'll simultaneously argue that 2+3=4 and that 2+3=6 - just so long as he can try cast doubt or fool someone into believing that 5 is wrong.)

    Samer's lie is as invalid as me claiming that any land in Mexico not owned by your grandfather must have been owned by me, as if there is no other option for ownership. It is complete "bullshit", and I've already provided the correct numbers (within a fraction of a percent):

    The area allocated to Israel by the UN was 14.92 million dunams. Samer himself admits that by 1947 Jews owned 7% of the 26.3 million dunams of western Mandate Palestine, which is 1.84 million dunams. The Negev desert is 12.5 million dunams. Combined these account for 14.34 out of the 14.92 million dunams. Samer would have us believe that Arabs owned 93% of the land? Yet only 3.9% remains unaccounted for (14.34/14.92 = 96.1%). If we accept my figure of 3.3% Arab [private] ownership, that gives us a total of 99.4% (OK, I'll admit it, I've got a 0.6% error in my figures, which obviously have some rounding issues. Samer, though, is so far off - 90% - that it's not even funny and yet it's hard not to laugh - especially since he keeps spamming these outrageous figures).


    RA> "80% of the Palestinian people were DISPOSSESSED of their homes, farms, and businesses."

    Again, quoting the Peel Commission:

    Peel Commission> The shortage of land is due less to PURCHASE by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population

    The discussion then centered on "shortage of land", not "dispossession" because an earlier inquiry led by Louis French had already established that no such thing had happened.

    Once again Samer is lying by playing fast and loose with the timeline. What he refers to is the Arab flight due to the Arab war in 1948. (No Arab war, no Arab refugees - or Jewish ones, either.)


    RA> The difference between my grandfathers situation and any jewish situation is that they had owned they land since the time mexcio was conlinized by Spain

    LOL. Jews have purchased and owned land in Israel not only since before Spain colonized the new world, but since before Spain came to be.

    Speaking of Spain, do you even know that Spain was conquered and occupied by Arab invaders for longer - and more recently - than Israel was? Aside from a frew brief incursions, the foreign Arab dynasties (empires) were repelled from Eretz Yisrael in 1071. They remained in Spain through 1491.

    The Spanish reconquered their land. Do you also accuse them of "stealing" it?


    RA> You said that isreal dosent take part in ethnic cleansing but thats also a crock of shit. Im sure you/we all remember when all thoes bombing were happening in isreal and the israeli government invaded palistinian lands to go in and get the accused terrorist and the leaders of organizations like hamas with full force.

    So you don't know the meaning of ethnic cleansing? An invasion (even as you falsely describe) is not "ethnic cleansing". Are you saying that US forces in Falujah and Afghanistan are guilty of "ethnic cleansing"?

    Here's a real example of ethnic cleansing. In 1948 the Arab Legion (British armed, trained and led) attacked Israel and seized Judea & Samaria. All Jews living in this region who didn't flee were killed. They also took over all of eastern Jerusalem, destroying 58 synagogues as they got rid of the Jews (thus was born so-called "Arab East Jerusalem" and the "West Bank" - that's the part of eastern/Trans-Jordanian Palestine, Palestine east of the Jordan River, that was west of the river).


    RA> I used to actually back and support isreal until I started getting in to the history of it all

    That's odd given that you still don't seem to know much about the conflict (only repeating Samer's sound-bites and slogans which at best contribute more heat than light and are intended to mislead rather than inform) and frankly rather than learning you seem to want to disregard data (e.g. the Peel Commission) and invent "facts" based on your mistaken notions.

    It's further odd given that the better educated someone is about the conflict, the more likely they are to support Israel.


    RA> it is sad that alot of innoccent people would be and continue to be affected by this BS.

    Still you prefer to selectively and one-sidedly demonize Israel, which betrays that you don't really care to end the conflict. Indeed, despite this topic being pointed out, you don't care to talk about making peace (and ignore that while I and most Israelis favor compromise and peaceful coexistence, Samer and most Palestinian Arabs do not).

    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)


    Follow the link, share with us your visions of peace (beyond nuking the region).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2009 2:47 PM GMT
    Like I said I don't care. all I have to say if isreal thinks of going over and blowing the shit out of Iran... as they most likely will do... they stand alone and if a nuke ends up their ass... NOT OUR PROBLEM! Flat.... fuck it!