Bush Plans Iran Invasion

[Bikerman2004]

I was reading last night about the conflict between the Jews and Romans when Jerusalem was attacked by Titus around 70 A.D. As I already mentioned, the Jews formed part of a Roman province in the Middle East.
Certainly then, the Jews were based on this same piece of land way before the Palestinians and Islam became a factor to bear in mind.
I don't really see why the Jews should severe their historical links in the Middle East to accommodate the Arabs and Islam - a belief system that never even existed in the first century A.D.
Also, given the number of Arab countries already based in the Middle East, it makes more sense to me to accommodate the Palestinians throughout these countries.
Much of the problem, of course, is linked to religion and culture. The whole history of Israel and Christianity is tied up in the Middle East. European and American Christians travel to Israel in order to experience this history for themselves. Moreover, being a deeply religious country, the U.S. also has a conception of preserving the history of Israel (the biblical land).
Realistically, I don't imagine Israel will ever abandon their present geographical location to accommodate the Arabs.
The militaristic stance Israel adopts is basically down to the reality of the situation after millions of Jews were murdered in the second world war.
The last point is that despite anti semitism in the world at the present time, Jewish influence is quite strong in American and European culture. Were it not for the Jews there would have been no Orthodoxy, Catholicism or European heritage. Western culture has mostly been influenced by Greek, Roman and Jewish cultural influences and all of these come way before Islam ever entered the scene.

It still doesn't excuse removing people from their homes and expelling them from their land. I do agree that Israel is here to stay. Arguing whether its legal or not is not going to return the Palestinians to Israel.

 

[Carrera]

But why is it assumed this is "their" (the Palestinians') land?
Historically the land belongs to Israel. Even the Romans conceded that reality which is why they allowed the Jews to govern their own affairs, maintain their religious traditions and enforce much of their own legal system. They adopted the same system in Greece, allowing the Greeks to preserve their Olympic games and festivals.
When Caligula wanted to place his statue of himself as a god in Jerusalem the Romans promptly bumped him off for rocking the boat and disturbing the political equilibrium.
Who would argue that the pyramids and sphinx don't belong to the Egyptians?
What deeply rooted ancient historical connection do the Palestinians have with Israel (even in the time of the Greco/Roman Empires?)
I don't see why so many concessions should be made to the Arabs when the Arabs don't have any such ancient historical connection to the so-called Holy Land?
I'm not saying the Palestinians don't have any rights in this matter but fail to see why so many people seem to be siding with an Islamic viewpoint but at the expense of Israel.

It still doesn't excuse removing people from their homes and expelling them from their land. I do agree that Israel is here to stay. Arguing whether its legal or not is not going to return the Palestinians to Israel.

 

[Bikerman2004]

But why is it assumed this is "their" (the Palestinians') land?
Historically the land belongs to Israel. Even the Romans conceded that reality which is why they allowed the Jews to govern their own affairs, maintain their religious traditions and enforce much of their own legal system. They adopted the same system in Greece, allowing the Greeks to preserve their Olympic games and festivals.
When Caligula wanted to place his statue of himself as a god in Jerusalem the Romans promptly bumped him off for rocking the boat and disturbing the political equilibrium.
Who would argue that the pyramids and sphinx don't belong to the Egyptians?
What deeply rooted ancient historical connection do the Palestinians have with Israel (even in the time of the Greco/Roman Empires?)
I don't see why so many concessions should be made to the Arabs when the Arabs don't have any such ancient historical connection to the so-called Holy Land?
I'm not saying the Palestinians don't have any rights in this matter but fail to see why so many people seem to be siding with an Islamic viewpoint but at the expense of Israel.

I understand what you're saying. But the Palestinians were removed from their homes with no compensation. They got nothing. That is wrong. On the other hand it is also wrong to promise Jewish people a homeland, just to get their money, then fail to follow through.

 

[Carrera]

I agree. They should be compensated. They shouldn't have been humiliated or ill-treated by the Israeli army.
However, there is no way the Palestinians would ever give up their belief that the so-called Holy Land belongs to them. They remain convinced Israel doesn't hava a right to exist on a land they inhabited thousands of years ago, way before Islam was ever appeared.

I understand what you're saying. But the Palestinians were removed from their homes with no compensation. They got nothing. That is wrong. On the other hand it is also wrong to promise Jewish people a homeland, just to get their money, then fail to follow through.

 

[Bikerman2004]

I agree. They should be compensated. They shouldn't have been humiliated or ill-treated by the Israeli army.
However, there is no way the Palestinians would ever give up their belief that the so-called Holy Land belongs to them. They remain convinced Israel doesn't hava a right to exist on a land they inhabited thousands of years ago, way before Islam was ever appeared.

I agree. As it stands now they will stay locked in their death struggle. Only when Israel decides to vacate the land which isn't going to happen, or the Palestinians decide to accept the West Bank as their land which they partially did in 1988 will there be any chance.

 

[Carrera]

Which leads us right round in a big circle back to Iran.
If America doesn't attempt to stop the Mullahs going nuclear, Israel will act in its own interests. Given the history of the Hollocaust and the small size of Israel, I doubt it will tolerate such a serious threat as a nuclear Iran in the Middle East.
I think military conflict is very much on the cards.

I agree. As it stands now they will stay locked in their death struggle. Only when Israel decides to vacate the land which isn't going to happen, or the Palestinians decide to accept the West Bank as their land which they partially did in 1988 will there be any chance.

 

[limerickman]

I was just stating where each side gets its arguments. Never stated anything about legality. I stated that the Jews used the declaration, League of Nations, and the UN as their claim. At no point did I ever state they were legal claims.

Well the creation of Israel is either legal or illegal.

You claim to have outlined both sets of arguments.
But essentially, the question comes down to 1948 and the legality of the situation of Israel being annexed out of Palestinian land.

I have no difficulty with you (or anyone else) arguing Israel's case.
You support the right of Israel to exist in Palestine - that is your perogative.
I oppose the creation of Israel in Palestine and I have stated this throughout.
I believe that Israel is the cause of the problems within the Middle East.

The Jews can try to retain the land that they robbed in 1948 - they can invoke whatever declaration that choose to try to vindicate their claim.

The fact remains, that the entire territory that is now called Israel was stolen
in 1948 by the Jews, from the people who were living there at that time.
Until this injustice is rectified, I cannot see any peace.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Well the creation of Israel is either legal or illegal.

You claim to have outlined both sets of arguments.
But essentially, the question comes down to 1948 and the legality of the situation of Israel being annexed out of Palestinian land.

I have no difficulty with you (or anyone else) arguing Israel's case.
You support the right of Israel to exist in Palestine - that is your perogative.
I oppose the creation of Israel in Palestine and I have stated this throughout.
I believe that Israel is the cause of the problems within the Middle East.

The Jews can try to retain the land that they robbed in 1948 - they can invoke whatever declaration that choose to try to vindicate their claim.

The fact remains, that the entire territory that is now called Israel was stolen
in 1948 by the Jews, from the people who were living there at that time.
Until this injustice is rectified, I cannot see any peace.

How about you go tell the Palestinians that they have the moral ground. Let's see just how far that gets them. We can cry and feel sorry for the Palestinians all day long. That is not going to get the land back. At this point it doesn't matter if it is legal or illegal. Perhaps you would like to articulate a solution that is within the reality of the situation.

 

[limerickman]

How about you go tell the Palestinians that they have the moral ground. Let's see just how far that gets them. We can cry and feel sorry for the Palestinians all day long. That is not going to get the land back. At this point it doesn't matter if it is legal or illegal. Perhaps you would like to articulate a solution that is within the reality of the situation.

The Palestinians have the moral ground.
That is not in dispute.

The issue is how to engineer a solution.

Two solution options spring to mind.
That the Jews/Israel's pay money to the Palestinians for the land that they stole in 1948 and those Palestinians who are paid give up their claim.
Or for the entire relocation/destruction of the entity called Israel.

 

[Bikerman2004]

The Palestinians have the moral ground.
That is not in dispute.

The issue is how to engineer a solution.

Two solution options spring to mind.
That the Jews/Israel's pay money to the Palestinians for the land that they stole in 1948 and those Palestinians who are paid give up their claim.
Or for the entire relocation/destruction of the entity called Israel.

First option is possibly viable. I have doubts it will placate many. Second option is not within reality.

There are some steps that could be taken that would lead to peace.
The Israelis need to pull out of the occupied territories.
The Israelis need to offer compensation.
The Palestinians need to cease the suicide bombings. They also need to tell the Arab nations that their situation is a Palestinian one. That includes publically telling Hamas and Hezbollah that they are not wanted or needed.

 

[limerickman]

First option is possibly viable. I have doubts it will placate many. Second option is not within reality.

There are some steps that could be taken that would lead to peace.
The Israelis need to pull out of the occupied territories.
The Israelis need to offer compensation.
The Palestinians need to cease the suicide bombings. They also need to tell the Arab nations that their situation is a Palestinian one. That includes publically telling Hamas and Hezbollah that they are not wanted or needed.

Hezbollah.
Hezbollah successfully forced the jews/israeli's out of Lebannon in the early 1980's and have underpined the relative calm of Lebannon - so the issue of Hezbollah being involved in Palestine is factually incorrect.

(Great program recently on BBC about Lebannon and how Hezbollah have set up medical and educational services throughout Lebannon).
As regards Hamas, they operate there because of General Sharon and his shooting 3 year old kids and bulldozing houses etc.

Essentially, this discussion is pretty fruitless.
Personally, I do not believe that jews/israeli's ever want peace.

History also shows us that these people have managed to antagonise just about everyone, at various times.
That is why they have been on the receiving end from practically everyone.

When they're given an inch (as in 1948), they stole a mile.
Perhaps this is why they have suffered throughout history - other people recognised what they were dealing with at various times, and they acted accordingly.

Your country plays a dangerous game indulging them, as your country does.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Hezbollah.
Hezbollah successfully forced the jews/israeli's out of Lebannon in the early 1980's and have underpined the relative calm of Lebannon - so the issue of Hezbollah being involved in Palestine is factually incorrect.

(Great program recently on BBC about Lebannon and how Hezbollah have set up medical and educational services throughout Lebannon).
As regards Hamas, they operate there because of General Sharon and his shooting 3 year old kids and bulldozing houses etc.

Essentially, this discussion is pretty fruitless.
Personally, I do not believe that jews/israeli's ever want peace.

History also shows us that these people have managed to antagonise just about everyone, at various times.
That is why they have been on the receiving end from practically everyone.

When they're given an inch (as in 1948), they stole a mile.
Perhaps this is why they have suffered throughout history - other people recognised what they were dealing with at various times, and they acted accordingly.

Your country plays a dangerous game indulging them, as your country does.

I'm sorry. I thought I was discussing the situation with a rational person. Please accept my apologies.

 

[limerickman]

I'm sorry. I thought I was discussing the situation with a rational person. Please accept my apologies.

You were offering solutions to a situation which would maintain the unacceptable, status quo, of the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

 

[Bikerman2004]

You were offering solutions to a situation which would maintain the unacceptable, status quo, of the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

And you are condoning terrorism. It is indeed pointless to continue this discussion with your irrational thought.

 

[limerickman]

And you are condoning terrorism. It is indeed pointless to continue this discussion with your irrational thought.

That's why I said it was a fruitless exchange.

One side (you) advocating the existence of Israel in Palestine.

Other side (me) advocating the existence of Israel outside of the Middle East.

 

[Bikerman2004]

That's why I said it was a fruitless exchange.

One side (you) advocating the existence of Israel in Palestine.

Other side (me) advocating the existence of Israel outside of the Middle East.

You're being facetious now. You would use the same argument whether Israel was in Argentina, Uganda, Kenya, or wherever. Your problem isn't with the existance of Israel it is with the Jews.

 

[limerickman]

You're being facetious now. You would use the same argument whether Israel was in Argentina, Uganda, Kenya, or wherever. Your problem isn't with the existance of Israel it is with the Jews.

I fundamentally object to the creation of Israel in Palestine.
But that doesn't mean that I would be against arriving at a solution, outside of Palestine.

I think the question that ought to be asked is - how come the Jews have been on the receiving end for so long.
Others say that they have simply been victims of racism/bigotry.
I do not believe that racism/bigotry, alone, can adequately explain why many different people/nations felt antagonistic to the Jews, throughout history.

Part of the antagonise is because the Jews, as a race, refused to assimilate in to European (and other) societies.
Part of the antagonism is because non-Jews could not accept a race of people, who rejected Jesus Christ.
Part of the antagonism is because sterotypes of Jews (rightly or wrongly) were based upon their Jewish behaviour and Jewish customs.

I will acknowledge that racism/bigotry played their part in this antagonism.

 

[Bikerman2004]

I fundamentally object to the creation of Israel in Palestine.
But that doesn't mean that I would be against arriving at a solution, outside of Palestine.

I think the question that ought to be asked is - how come the Jews have been on the receiving end for so long.
Others say that they have simply been victims of racism/bigotry.
I do not believe that racism/bigotry, alone, can adequately explain why many different people/nations felt antagonistic to the Jews, throughout history.

Part of the antagonise is because the Jews, as a race, refused to assimilate in to European (and other) societies.
Part of the antagonism is because non-Jews could not accept a race of people, who rejected Jesus Christ.
Part of the antagonism is because sterotypes of Jews (rightly or wrongly) were based upon their Jewish behaviour and Jewish customs.

I will acknowledge that racism/bigotry played their part in this antagonism.

So in others words you would be ok with taking Argentinian land and giving it to the Jews. Just as long as it isn't Palestine? Forgive me for not understanding your logic. Then you would start a thread entitled "Fix the Israel problem and we'll have peace in South America".

 

[limerickman]

So in others words you would be ok with taking Argentinian land and giving it to the Jews. Just as long as it isn't Palestine? Forgive me for not understanding your logic. Then you would start a thread entitled "Fix the Israel problem and we'll have peace in South America".

If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland.

But that did not happen in Palestine.

 

[Bikerman2004]

If the inhabiting population of a territory, agreed to the annexing of that territory, then no I wouldn't have a problem with the creation of a homeland.

But that did not happen in Palestine.

What makes you think the Argentines would be accepting of Jews? You've stated they were a viable alternative to Palestine.