Maybe Israel should be moved... (1 Viewer)

[rolyaTy]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?

And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.

Where am I going wrong?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Somebody needs to PM fatguyinalittlecoat, or possibly fatguyinalittlecoat2.

 

[guest 54788]

because Jews rock and those other dudes suxz0red.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

There's a lot of room in Wyoming.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Somebody needs to PM fatguyinalittlecoat, or possibly fatguyinalittlecoat2.

Prepare for the wrath of Yankee23fan, rolyaty.

 

[saintfool]

old testament down?

 

[rolyaTy]

Somebody needs to PM fatguyinalittlecoat, or possibly fatguyinalittlecoat2.

Prepare for the wrath of Yankee23fan, rolyaty.

Wonder if he's still on his sarcastic kick.

 

[rolyaTy]

old testament down?

For the purpose of this discussion

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

because they are just using that as an excuse... if Israel weren't there nothing would change, they'd just find a different reason to be how they are...

 

[Koya]

Why bring up a non starter? If this were 1946 you would have something.

It isnt.

Why dont you ask the Palestinians to move - especially since they are Jordanian in the first place?

Maybe ask all Arabs to move.

Maybe not ask for an utterly implausible outcome. They wont "move" because not only is Israel their homeland, it is (more importantly) their home.

Honestly, it is insulting to have you ask them to move.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have a spare bedroom.

 

[Gatorman]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

The hard answer is that the jews were there first. The longer answer requires you to read up on WWI and a lot of the British thought process for the middle east. At one point, the Zionist movement was torn between israel and somewhere in southern africa (even Hitler was thinking of deporting Jews to Madagascar until the gas chamber became a cheaper alternative). The fact of the matter was that there was land set aside for Jews, Palestinians, and otehr arabs (transjordan), but the Arabs at the time would not accept this arrangement and instead told the palestinians to leave their homes so they would not be killed in the crossfire of what is now the Israeli war of independence. They lost. End of story.FOr those who are proponents of the right of return. When Castro finally dies, do I get the land back that he took from my parents? Do the indians get back most of the US? Do the Jews get their homes back in Germany?

 

[rolyaTy]

Why bring up a non starter? If this were 1946 you would have something.It isnt.Why dont you ask the Palestinians to move - especially since they are Jordanian in the first place?Maybe ask all Arabs to move.Maybe not ask for an utterly implausible outcome. They wont "move" because not only is Israel their homeland, it is (more importantly) their home.Honestly, it is insulting to have you ask them to move.

Am I anti-semitic yet? Keep me posted on when I cross that line.Is it insulting to require the arabs who were living there to move, or to accept israeli occupation?

 

[rolyaTy]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

The hard answer is that the jews were there first. The longer answer requires you to read up on WWI and a lot of the British thought process for the middle east. At one point, the Zionist movement was torn between israel and somewhere in southern africa (even Hitler was thinking of deporting Jews to Madagascar until the gas chamber became a cheaper alternative). The fact of the matter was that there was land set aside for Jews, Palestinians, and otehr arabs (transjordan), but the Arabs at the time would not accept this arrangement and instead told the palestinians to leave their homes so they would not be killed in the crossfire of what is now the Israeli war of independence. They lost. End of story.FOr those who are proponents of the right of return. When Castro finally dies, do I get the land back that he took from my parents? Do the indians get back most of the US? Do the Jews get their homes back in Germany?

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country. How far off is this summary?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I have a spare bedroom.

I'll bet they get a good rent price off of you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Wikipedia is great.Jewish Immigration

Balfour Declaration in 1917

 

[snitwitch]

It's way too late to ask, or expect Israel to move.

I think at this point they have just as much of a right to be there as anyone. People like the Iraninan president who call for Israel to be wiped off the map are just kidding themselves, and are not helping matters.

 

[Bailiver]

old testament down?

 

[rolyaTy]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.

They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's way too late to ask, or expect Israel to move.I think at this point they have just as much of a right to be there as anyone. People like the Iraninan president who call for Israel to be wiped off the map are just kidding themselves, and are not helping matters.

I agree, I think it is a worthless exercise to even entertain the idea. First of all, the logistics would be extremely difficult. And most importantly, what is done is done. Israel is a sovereign country that deserves to be where they are at. I do think that it would behoove them to withdrawl from all the current disputed territories.

 

[Koya]

Why bring up a non starter? If this were 1946 you would have something.It isnt.Why dont you ask the Palestinians to move - especially since they are Jordanian in the first place?Maybe ask all Arabs to move.Maybe not ask for an utterly implausible outcome. They wont "move" because not only is Israel their homeland, it is (more importantly) their home.Honestly, it is insulting to have you ask them to move.

Am I anti-semitic yet? Keep me posted on when I cross that line.Is it insulting to require the arabs who were living there to move, or to accept israeli occupation?

Never claimed that your question was anti semitic, so please lets not go to that card when it isnt (and shouldnt be) in play.That said, we have asked this VERY QUESTION countless times in this very forum.What Israeli occupation, unless you speak of the Palestinian situation. If you are, then we can go into that whole history - AGAIN - when the brothers and sisters of the Palestinians - the Jordanians - do not a thing to help their brethren's cause.The fact is, you have legitimate points, but not a legitimate question. israel is where she is. That is reality. It is a nation - a nation that, unlike its neighbors, wants to live in peace and is willing to do so. A nation that does not harm its own people, put them in harms way, nor is it a nation that spreads hatred or is run by a despot.So, to ask a democratic nation that wants only to live in peace to move is not anti semitic. It is, however, insulting.This is reality. Accept it. By even asking the question, you feed into the terrorists hand... much like ythe world forcing Israel to accept a cease fire only serves to embolding the terrorists and their methods.it is time to accept reality for what it is, and not ##### foot around. Israel is the good guy. Why are you asking them to give up their nation?Again, if it were 1946 you would have a very valid point.But, it is 2006.

 

[Koya]

It's way too late to ask, or expect Israel to move.I think at this point they have just as much of a right to be there as anyone. People like the Iraninan president who call for Israel to be wiped off the map are just kidding themselves, and are not helping matters.

I agree, I think it is a worthless exercise to even entertain the idea. First of all, the logistics would be extremely difficult. And most importantly, what is done is done. Israel is a sovereign country that deserves to be where they are at. I do think that it would behoove them to withdrawl from all the current disputed territories.

this is why, when Israel actually looks to live in peace, the very question is insulting.

 

[BlueOnion]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

In the strictest scope of "Peace in the Middle East", the easiest fix would be to move Israel, but only Israel could make that decision. I suspect their stubbornnesss is matched by the Arabs who don't want them there.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No kidding. All the problems in the world, save those lunatics in Ireland and England that don't like each other, are pretty much due to the jews.

Maybe they can move to Mexico? It could be a win win for everyone. The terrorists don't have to look bad killing babies anymore, the Jews get a homeland where there is nice weather, and they can fix it up the way they did Israel, and once they do that all the illegals that came here will want to go back.

I think I just set in motion world peace. Do I contact the Nobel committee directly, or do I need a proxy?

 

[Gigantomachia]

There's a lot of room in Wyoming.

Easy buddy, we like it that way.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

You're pretty much nailing the reasoning behind the arabs not liking Israel or wanting them there, but it is all water under the bridge. Decesions have been made, and Israel is a country that has a right to its existance, regardless of whether the reasons for creating Israel were legitimate. The focus should be on how we can get these people to coexist and stop living in the past (easier said than done).

 

[Koya]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.

They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

OMFG DO PEOPLE IGNORE THE MILLION OTHER THREADS ON THIS?Tell me - when the arabs were offered 3/4 of what became Israel in 1948, but REFUSED because they wanted NO Jewish homeland AT ALL (and the 1/4 of British Palestine that was to be given to the Jews was NOT the prime real estate, either) and instead shunned the offer, took nothing and decided they would attack Israel and kill all the Jews so they could have 100% and not 3/4, just how is that the Arabs getting the raw deal?

The raw deal is that an intelligent poster such as yourself, after we discuss this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, contends the Arabs got a raw deal when they actually refused a very good deal. In the end, they got what they deserved at the time... and sadly this generation has to deal with those consequences.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No kidding. All the problems in the world, save those lunatics in Ireland and England that don't like each other, are pretty much due to the jews.

I don't think rolyaty is trying to be Mel Gibson here.

 

[NCCommish]

No kidding. All the problems in the world, save those lunatics in Ireland and England that don't like each other, are pretty much due to the jews.Maybe they can move to Mexico? It could be a win win for everyone. The terrorists don't have to look bad killing babies anymore, the Jews get a homeland where there is nice weather, and they can fix it up the way they did Israel, and once they do that all the illegals that came here will want to go back.I think I just set in motion world peace. Do I contact the Nobel committee directly, or do I need a proxy?

Typing up the app now.

 

[shake zula]

Somebody needs to PM fatguyinalittlecoat, or possibly fatguyinalittlecoat2.

Prepare for the wrath of Yankee23fan, rolyaty.

I already sense a disturbance in the force....

 

[Gigantomachia]

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

You're pretty much nailing the reasoning behind the arabs not liking Israel or wanting them there, but it is all water under the bridge. Decesions have been made, and Israel is a country that has a right to its existance, regardless of whether the reasons for creating Israel were legitimate. The focus should be on how we can get these people to coexist and stop living in the past (easier said than done).

Not sure how it has a "right" to its existence? How is that right any more of a right than the arabs justifying bombing the #### out them for not wanting them there?

 

[rolyaTy]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

In the strictest scope of "Peace in the Middle East", the easiest fix would be to move Israel, but only Israel could make that decision. I suspect their stubbornnesss is matched by the Arabs who don't want them there.

I agree that it would fix the problem.What's ironic to me is that the same thing that got Israel recognition as a country, basically the decision of other people other than the present inhabitants of the region, could solve this issue.What if the arab countries were to get together and draft a resolution or agreement called the 2006 agreement, which states that Israel should be moved to another part of the arab empire which is not populated, while the palestinians and other inhabitants would be given back their land and given a country, supplied arms by Iran and Syria, etc. This would be the equivalent of the 1919 agreement, and it would solve the problems, right?That's what gets me, is that people decided to give land to the jews for a nation against teh wishes of the inhabitants, and yet, if Israel was forced to be moved by the agreement of other nations, against their wishes, it'd be exactly the same deal that people are poitning back to now to establish the legitimacy of israel.

 

[Koya]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

In the strictest scope of "Peace in the Middle East", the easiest fix would be to move Israel, but only Israel could make that decision. I suspect their stubbornnesss is matched by the Arabs who don't want them there.

STUBBORNESS????It is stubborn to not want to move YOUR ####### HOME?God. Are people this dense? Im really frustrated already. the ONE nation there that wants to live in peace, that doesnt preach hate to its people, that doesnt subjogate its own people, and you have the GAUL to call them STUBBORN for not wanting to "move" their home?Again, its 2006. Stop asking the good guys to move because other people want and try to make them dead.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not sure how it has a "right" to its existence? How is that right any more of a right than the arabs justifying bombing the #### out them for not wanting them there?

I'm just saying that what is done is done. What right would the US have to keep this country if Native Americans started to send suicide bombers into shopping malls? I'm not a big fan of a lot of decisions made in the past, but we can't go around the world undoing all of them. If we did, I would have to start packing my things.

 

[rolyaTy]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.

They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

OMFG DO PEOPLE IGNORE THE MILLION OTHER THREADS ON THIS?Tell me - when the arabs were offered 3/4 of what became Israel in 1948, but REFUSED because they wanted NO Jewish homeland AT ALL (and the 1/4 of British Palestine that was to be given to the Jews was NOT the prime real estate, either) and instead shunned the offer, took nothing and decided they would attack Israel and kill all the Jews so they could have 100% and not 3/4, just how is that the Arabs getting the raw deal?

The raw deal is that an intelligent poster such as yourself, after we discuss this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, contends the Arabs got a raw deal when they actually refused a very good deal. In the end, they got what they deserved at the time... and sadly this generation has to deal with those consequences.

How about this.I come over to your house, and say that a buddy of mine and me came to an agreement. We want you to hear about it. Well koya, we decided to take over one of hte bedrooms in your house and make it mine. It's going to be ROLYATY's bedroom, BUT we're willing to let you have 3/4 of the remaining house. Great deal huh?

BTW, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, I'm moving in. ALso, i'm bringing stuff in with me, supplied by my powerful buddies, which will eventually allow me to expand to take over most of your house, and make you subject to my rules. I hope you are happy with this arrangement Koya.

Just think, that after abotu 20 years of us living like this, it'll be water under the bridge. Lets not focus on how unfair it was that I did this, came and took your house, made it mine, and tehn slowly moved you out, possibly into the broom closet with some scraps from teh dinner table. No koya, it's water under the bridge. lets move on and discuss how we can move forward from the point where you're in the broom closet.



[knock, knock, knock]

 

[Koya]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

In the strictest scope of "Peace in the Middle East", the easiest fix would be to move Israel, but only Israel could make that decision. I suspect their stubbornnesss is matched by the Arabs who don't want them there.

I agree that it would fix the problem.What's ironic to me is that the same thing that got Israel recognition as a country, basically the decision of other people other than the present inhabitants of the region, could solve this issue.What if the arab countries were to get together and draft a resolution or agreement called the 2006 agreement, which states that Israel should be moved to another part of the arab empire which is not populated, while the palestinians and other inhabitants would be given back their land and given a country, supplied arms by Iran and Syria, etc. This would be the equivalent of the 1919 agreement, and it would solve the problems, right?That's what gets me, is that people decided to give land to the jews for a nation against teh wishes of the inhabitants, and yet, if Israel was forced to be moved by the agreement of other nations, against their wishes, it'd be exactly the same deal that people are poitning back to now to establish the legitimacy of israel.

what about the 75% of british palesetine that would have been all arab?eh?EH?WHAT THE #### ABOUT THAT? Or are you going to (like SOOOO many sadly do) conveniently ignore the tons of facts and history that do not support the contention that the Arabs really got a bad deal. The arabs GOT THE DEAL THEY ASKED FOR. Literally.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

It just depends on how far back you want to go for a starting place to decide who was where "first", as if that really matters any more. You want to throw out the Old Testament as support for the Jewish claim, fine, but it's the Jews themselves who would point you to that. By disregarding their #1 piece of evidence, you may not be anti-semitic, but you're definitely stacking the deck against them. Plus, not all "Mideasterners" are arab. The Egyptians are African, the Iranians are Persians, just to name two. I think we lump them all into the category of "Arab" because of their religion, so it's impossible to exclude religion from either side of the equation.

Even if we were to remove religion, they would probably fall back on the old tribal feuds they used to have before they were conquered by Islam. In that respect, Larry Boy made an excellent point.

 

[rolyaTy]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

In the strictest scope of "Peace in the Middle East", the easiest fix would be to move Israel, but only Israel could make that decision. I suspect their stubbornnesss is matched by the Arabs who don't want them there.

STUBBORNESS????It is stubborn to not want to move YOUR ####### HOME?God. Are people this dense? Im really frustrated already. the ONE nation there that wants to live in peace, that doesnt preach hate to its people, that doesnt subjogate its own people, and you have the GAUL to call them STUBBORN for not wanting to "move" their home?Again, its 2006. Stop asking the good guys to move because other people want and try to make them dead.

Your general objectivity, rational views, and ability to engage in reasoned debate flies out the window the moment anything jewish enters the picture. It's perfectly reasonable to question the legitimacy of anything without having people fly off the handly and curse and stomp their feet about people being dense or missing other times it's been talked about.I'd have no problem with you starting a thread that discussed whether the indians had a right to take back their land from americans.

 

[Koya]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.

They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

OMFG DO PEOPLE IGNORE THE MILLION OTHER THREADS ON THIS?Tell me - when the arabs were offered 3/4 of what became Israel in 1948, but REFUSED because they wanted NO Jewish homeland AT ALL (and the 1/4 of British Palestine that was to be given to the Jews was NOT the prime real estate, either) and instead shunned the offer, took nothing and decided they would attack Israel and kill all the Jews so they could have 100% and not 3/4, just how is that the Arabs getting the raw deal?

The raw deal is that an intelligent poster such as yourself, after we discuss this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, contends the Arabs got a raw deal when they actually refused a very good deal. In the end, they got what they deserved at the time... and sadly this generation has to deal with those consequences.

How about this.I come over to your house, and say that a buddy of mine and me came to an agreement. We want you to hear about it. Well koya, we decided to take over one of hte bedrooms in your house and make it mine. It's going to be ROLYATY's bedroom, BUT we're willing to let you have 3/4 of the remaining house. Great deal huh?

BTW, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, I'm moving in. ALso, i'm bringing stuff in with me, supplied by my powerful buddies, which will eventually allow me to expand to take over most of your house, and make you subject to my rules. I hope you are happy with this arrangement Koya.

Just think, that after abotu 20 years of us living like this, it'll be water under the bridge. Lets not focus on how unfair it was that I did this, came and took your house, made it mine, and tehn slowly moved you out, possibly into the broom closet with some scraps from teh dinner table. No koya, it's water under the bridge. lets move on and discuss how we can move forward from the point where you're in the broom closet.



[knock, knock, knock]

Like I said, how about you ignore all the history and facts that run counter to your argument and just make the Israelis out to be the bad guy.Most of the world seems to like it that way, anyway.

It was NOT Arab land. It was British controlled. Turk before then.... Romans..... I could continue.

There was a solution that was seen as a compromise. Israel has ALWAYS been willing to compromise. Your precious arabs only compromise is when all Jews are dead.

But yeah, support them. Way to go.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Not sure how it has a "right" to its existence? How is that right any more of a right than the arabs justifying bombing the #### out them for not wanting them there?

I'm just saying that what is done is done. What right would the US have to keep this country if Native Americans started to send suicide bombers into shopping malls? I'm not a big fan of a lot of decisions made in the past, but we can't go around the world undoing all of them. If we did, I would have to start packing my things.

Interesting logic.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No kidding. All the problems in the world, save those lunatics in Ireland and England that don't like each other, are pretty much due to the jews.Maybe they can move to Mexico? It could be a win win for everyone. The terrorists don't have to look bad killing babies anymore, the Jews get a homeland where there is nice weather, and they can fix it up the way they did Israel, and once they do that all the illegals that came here will want to go back.I think I just set in motion world peace. Do I contact the Nobel committee directly, or do I need a proxy?

Typing up the app now.

Sweet. Can I invite Teddy Kennedy to the ceremony when I win? I have a whole ****load of water jokes that would kill if he was actually there to act like Clinton did at the Imus speech.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

STUBBORNESS????It is stubborn to not want to move YOUR ####### HOME?God. Are people this dense? Im really frustrated already. the ONE nation there that wants to live in peace, that doesnt preach hate to its people, that doesnt subjogate its own people, and you have the GAUL to call them STUBBORN for not wanting to "move" their home?Again, its 2006. Stop asking the good guys to move because other people want and try to make them dead.

I agree with you here to a point. But why won't Israel remove themselves from the occupied terratories and completely remove any 'legitamte' gripe that the arabs currently have? Its going to take some unilateral moves on the part of Israel, including cessation of occupied lands and possible prisoner releases to show that they are acting in good faith. And then, if they still face threats from the Arab world (which I am sure they will), there will be no doubt as to who is in the right in the conflict.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

No kidding. All the problems in the world, save those lunatics in Ireland and England that don't like each other, are pretty much due to the jews.Maybe they can move to Mexico? It could be a win win for everyone. The terrorists don't have to look bad killing babies anymore, the Jews get a homeland where there is nice weather, and they can fix it up the way they did Israel, and once they do that all the illegals that came here will want to go back.I think I just set in motion world peace. Do I contact the Nobel committee directly, or do I need a proxy?

I'm on the phone with them now. Never mind someone beat me to it.

 

[rolyaTy]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.

They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

OMFG DO PEOPLE IGNORE THE MILLION OTHER THREADS ON THIS?Tell me - when the arabs were offered 3/4 of what became Israel in 1948, but REFUSED because they wanted NO Jewish homeland AT ALL (and the 1/4 of British Palestine that was to be given to the Jews was NOT the prime real estate, either) and instead shunned the offer, took nothing and decided they would attack Israel and kill all the Jews so they could have 100% and not 3/4, just how is that the Arabs getting the raw deal?

The raw deal is that an intelligent poster such as yourself, after we discuss this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, contends the Arabs got a raw deal when they actually refused a very good deal. In the end, they got what they deserved at the time... and sadly this generation has to deal with those consequences.

How about this.I come over to your house, and say that a buddy of mine and me came to an agreement. We want you to hear about it. Well koya, we decided to take over one of hte bedrooms in your house and make it mine. It's going to be ROLYATY's bedroom, BUT we're willing to let you have 3/4 of the remaining house. Great deal huh?

BTW, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, I'm moving in. ALso, i'm bringing stuff in with me, supplied by my powerful buddies, which will eventually allow me to expand to take over most of your house, and make you subject to my rules. I hope you are happy with this arrangement Koya.

Just think, that after abotu 20 years of us living like this, it'll be water under the bridge. Lets not focus on how unfair it was that I did this, came and took your house, made it mine, and tehn slowly moved you out, possibly into the broom closet with some scraps from teh dinner table. No koya, it's water under the bridge. lets move on and discuss how we can move forward from the point where you're in the broom closet.



[knock, knock, knock]

Like I said, how about you ignore all the history and facts that run counter to your argument and just make the Israelis out to be the bad guy.Most of the world seems to like it that way, anyway.

It was NOT Arab land. It was British controlled. Turk before then.... Romans..... I could continue.

There was a solution that was seen as a compromise. Israel has ALWAYS been willing to compromise. Your precious arabs only compromise is when all Jews are dead.

But yeah, support them. Way to go.

lol again.I'm not making israeli's out to be the bad guy.

I'm saying it was a raw deal. The israeli's benefitted from it, the palestinians or arabs in that region didn't. This was decided on by people NOT in the region, that affected people IN the region, to the benefit of the israeli's and teh detriment of the arabs who were previously living there.

 

[Koya]

I don't understand why the people of the area where Israel was created should be forced to move away, to abandon their homes and their land, just because other countries decided to put the Jews there. Can someone explain to me why this is fair for the people who were living there?And if an Israeli nation was created after WW2 and was placed by other countries, without the consent of those who actually lived there, why not just move them and put Israel somewhere that won't be a problem? Seems like the arabs who are pissed off actually have a really good point and that moving israel does seem to be the fair thing to do.Where am I going wrong?

In the strictest scope of "Peace in the Middle East", the easiest fix would be to move Israel, but only Israel could make that decision. I suspect their stubbornnesss is matched by the Arabs who don't want them there.

STUBBORNESS????It is stubborn to not want to move YOUR ####### HOME?God. Are people this dense? Im really frustrated already. the ONE nation there that wants to live in peace, that doesnt preach hate to its people, that doesnt subjogate its own people, and you have the GAUL to call them STUBBORN for not wanting to "move" their home?Again, its 2006. Stop asking the good guys to move because other people want and try to make them dead.

Your general objectivity, rational views, and ability to engage in reasoned debate flies out the window the moment anything jewish enters the picture. It's perfectly reasonable to question the legitimacy of anything without having people fly off the handly and curse and stomp their feet about people being dense or missing other times it's been talked about.I'd have no problem with you starting a thread that discussed whether the indians had a right to take back their land from americans.

Insteadof starting ANOTHER thread on this, how about yous ee the rational discussions in the myriad other threads. I never claimed objectivity here, btw. I understand that. However, just because I am not objective doesnt mean that I am wrong here, either.So stop blaming the one "good guy" in the region. Please. It is utterly counterproductive.The Middle East has a LOT of unfairness. Dont burden the Jews and the Israeli's with an unfair proportioning of blame by asking a non starter question while ignoring anything that demonstrates your assertions as misguided (ie the 3/4 vs 1/4 split).There was NEVER a Palestine run by Palestinian Arabs. Yet you give them some claim above and beyond others? Was it fair that the Brits controlled the region? Or the Turks? It was reality.The reality today is the Arabs wouldnt accept even a tiny tiny sliver of a Jewish state and instead they begged for murder and war. Sadly, we as a world are still reaping the rewards of that mode of thought which is prevelant even today.

 

[NCCommish]

No kidding. All the problems in the world, save those lunatics in Ireland and England that don't like each other, are pretty much due to the jews.Maybe they can move to Mexico? It could be a win win for everyone. The terrorists don't have to look bad killing babies anymore, the Jews get a homeland where there is nice weather, and they can fix it up the way they did Israel, and once they do that all the illegals that came here will want to go back.I think I just set in motion world peace. Do I contact the Nobel committee directly, or do I need a proxy?

Typing up the app now.

Sweet. Can I invite Teddy Kennedy to the ceremony when I win? I have a whole ****load of water jokes that would kill if he was actually there to act like Clinton did at the Imus speech.

It's your award ceremony.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.

They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

OMFG DO PEOPLE IGNORE THE MILLION OTHER THREADS ON THIS?Tell me - when the arabs were offered 3/4 of what became Israel in 1948, but REFUSED because they wanted NO Jewish homeland AT ALL (and the 1/4 of British Palestine that was to be given to the Jews was NOT the prime real estate, either) and instead shunned the offer, took nothing and decided they would attack Israel and kill all the Jews so they could have 100% and not 3/4, just how is that the Arabs getting the raw deal?

The raw deal is that an intelligent poster such as yourself, after we discuss this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, contends the Arabs got a raw deal when they actually refused a very good deal. In the end, they got what they deserved at the time... and sadly this generation has to deal with those consequences.

How about this.I come over to your house, and say that a buddy of mine and me came to an agreement. We want you to hear about it. Well koya, we decided to take over one of hte bedrooms in your house and make it mine. It's going to be ROLYATY's bedroom, BUT we're willing to let you have 3/4 of the remaining house. Great deal huh?

BTW, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, I'm moving in. ALso, i'm bringing stuff in with me, supplied by my powerful buddies, which will eventually allow me to expand to take over most of your house, and make you subject to my rules. I hope you are happy with this arrangement Koya.

Just think, that after abotu 20 years of us living like this, it'll be water under the bridge. Lets not focus on how unfair it was that I did this, came and took your house, made it mine, and tehn slowly moved you out, possibly into the broom closet with some scraps from teh dinner table. No koya, it's water under the bridge. lets move on and discuss how we can move forward from the point where you're in the broom closet.



[knock, knock, knock]

The people that you think "own" the land, didn't and don't, and didn't for rouhgly 1500 years before the creation of the current Israel. So your metaphor is wrong on every level.I still think we should go with my Mexico idea. I mean, even if the Mexicans didn't want the jews there and started with the terrorism tactics, I gotta think that being bombed by lawn tools and landscaper equipement is better then rockets.

 

[Koya]

Maybe I'm lacking on my knowledge of the situation, but wasn't the Israeli nation setup as an agreement between other nations besides those actually living on the land? Wasn't it some kind of political decision that decided there would be an israeli state there, and it was then recognized by those nations and assumed to exist from that poitn onward?

It wasn't realized or achieved through war, but it was the decision of other nations, putting israel there, supplying them with weapons, and in turn these weapons and technology were used to further expand their holdings and to further defend their country.

How far off is this summary?

This is a good read. It goes back further than just the decision made in WWII. Jewish immigration began in earnest in the 1880's, and British colonial rule established a decleration that there would be a Jewish homeland in 1917.

Reading it now. Thanks!I just think the arabs in that region really did get a raw, raw deal, dealt to them by other countries who supported Israel. Sure, there was an influx of jews into that area, and sure there was a plan to setup a homeland, but from the perspective of those who lived there at that time, it's as if the rights to their own land were removed by the decisions of other countries. No real war, just basically usher in the jews, declare them a country, supply htem with weapons, and let the oppression begin.

They didn't obtain the land legitimately to begin with, through war (as legitimate as war is for obtaining land). And what chance did the former inhabitants have against ridiculously technological weapons that Israel suddenly came into possession of? Essentially, they were forceably removed from their land, by the decisions and support of other nations, not by war or conflict.

OMFG DO PEOPLE IGNORE THE MILLION OTHER THREADS ON THIS?Tell me - when the arabs were offered 3/4 of what became Israel in 1948, but REFUSED because they wanted NO Jewish homeland AT ALL (and the 1/4 of British Palestine that was to be given to the Jews was NOT the prime real estate, either) and instead shunned the offer, took nothing and decided they would attack Israel and kill all the Jews so they could have 100% and not 3/4, just how is that the Arabs getting the raw deal?

The raw deal is that an intelligent poster such as yourself, after we discuss this TIME AND TIME AGAIN, contends the Arabs got a raw deal when they actually refused a very good deal. In the end, they got what they deserved at the time... and sadly this generation has to deal with those consequences.

How about this.I come over to your house, and say that a buddy of mine and me came to an agreement. We want you to hear about it. Well koya, we decided to take over one of hte bedrooms in your house and make it mine. It's going to be ROLYATY's bedroom, BUT we're willing to let you have 3/4 of the remaining house. Great deal huh?

BTW, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, I'm moving in. ALso, i'm bringing stuff in with me, supplied by my powerful buddies, which will eventually allow me to expand to take over most of your house, and make you subject to my rules. I hope you are happy with this arrangement Koya.

Just think, that after abotu 20 years of us living like this, it'll be water under the bridge. Lets not focus on how unfair it was that I did this, came and took your house, made it mine, and tehn slowly moved you out, possibly into the broom closet with some scraps from teh dinner table. No koya, it's water under the bridge. lets move on and discuss how we can move forward from the point where you're in the broom closet.



[knock, knock, knock]

Like I said, how about you ignore all the history and facts that run counter to your argument and just make the Israelis out to be the bad guy.Most of the world seems to like it that way, anyway.

It was NOT Arab land. It was British controlled. Turk before then.... Romans..... I could continue.

There was a solution that was seen as a compromise. Israel has ALWAYS been willing to compromise. Your precious arabs only compromise is when all Jews are dead.

But yeah, support them. Way to go.

lol again.I'm not making israeli's out to be the bad guy.

I'm saying it was a raw deal. The israeli's benefitted from it, the palestinians or arabs in that region didn't. This was decided on by people NOT in the region, that affected people IN the region, to the benefit of the israeli's and teh detriment of the arabs who were previously living there.

What raw deal? They didnt have their own land to begin with, and Britain was going to give the ma country (them being "Palestinians")THEY REFUSED. They didnt want a good solution, they wanted the entire cake. In the end, that got them nothing.

Yet you blame Israel.

You should blame the Arabs for the plight of those who used to live in British controlled Palestine. THEY are the ones that are most to blame. But that might be too difficult and entail an actual understanding of history. Not a cursory glance at the past.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No kidding. All the problems in the world, save those lunatics in Ireland and England that don't like each other, are pretty much due to the jews.Maybe they can move to Mexico? It could be a win win for everyone. The terrorists don't have to look bad killing babies anymore, the Jews get a homeland where there is nice weather, and they can fix it up the way they did Israel, and once they do that all the illegals that came here will want to go back.I think I just set in motion world peace. Do I contact the Nobel committee directly, or do I need a proxy?

Typing up the app now.

Sweet. Can I invite Teddy Kennedy to the ceremony when I win? I have a whole ****load of water jokes that would kill if he was actually there to act like Clinton did at the Imus speech.

It's your award ceremony.

It moved.