Palestine

raid517 · Nov 27, 2004, 03:40 PM

You just don't understand anything I said do you?

GJ

kp59583 · Nov 27, 2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

You just don't understand anything I said do you?

GJ

Oh I know what your getting at. That the Jews probably never had a majority in the region at anytime in history except based on the bible therefore how can there claim to a state be better than that of the arabs/palestinians seeing that they held it the longest. But you still can't explain why from 48-67 that Egypt or Jordan did not form an Palestinian state in the same place that they want one now.You said it was but wheres the UN membership.

http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm

I think and this my opinion the reason that it wasn't was because Egypt and Jordan wanted to keep the land for themselfs and the only reason they want it today is to get the Palestinians out of there hair.

raid517 · Nov 27, 2004, 10:18 PM

OK first you should know that the UN never existed until 1948. Secondly you should know that the history of Palestine is very mixed. It has always been regarded as a 'state within a state' - but nonetheless a predominantly Arab state for all that. (Rather as Scotland or wales are regarded as separates states within the larger state of the UK). Ownership or governance of Palestine has traditionally passed between a large number of Arab nations, from the Syrians to the Egyptians, from the Persians to the Turks, from the Iraqis to the Babylonians - and this went on pretty consistently throughout history until the British won Palestine from the Ottoman Empire after the end of the first world war. The British of course were not very interested in allowing Palestine to become an independent state - because quite simply they wanted to keep it as a part of their Empire. Moreover shortly after the British took over pressure was more or less immediately applied for them to consider the possibility of establishing a Jewish state in that region. Indeed it was only after the British took control that large numbers of Jewish immigrants began to arrive. Subsequent disputes after 1948 after the British left made the situation even more complicated and the entire region of Palestine became one of the most hotly contested regions in the world. Since 1948 there has effectively never been a period of sustained peace that lasted long enough for the aspirations of the Palestinians towards statehood and full autonomy to be fully recognised. Since that date up until the war in 1967 more or less every town, village and piece of rock in Palestine has changed ownership on practically a weekly or monthly basis - and no one sat down for any length of time to negotiate with each other in order to allow any kind of agreement to ever be reached.

A country cannot be formed without the agreement of all parties concerned - and unfortunately throughout this period no one was ever able to reach such an agreement.

Nonetheless the Palestinians have for pretty much all of this period, since indeed as far back as the Babylonians, considered themselves as having a unique national identity. Your efforts to deny them any rights by denying them their existence is a particularly despicable tactic to adopt. Would you say that the Scots have no right to consider themselves Scottish, or the Irish Irish, or the Kurds in Northern Iraq as being Kurds (who all believe that Northern Iraq is really a country called Kurdistan) or that all of the former Soviet satellite states such as the Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia have no right to believe in their own national and ethnic identities either, just because they have been invaded and administered by a foreign power at various points in their history? Or how about we just say that any country that has been occupied in the past has no right to consider itself as having any distinct national or cultural identity either? In many ways for the Palestinians the partitioning agreement was a return to a former state of affairs in which they were jointly administered by several separate ARAB states - a state of affairs that in many ways they had become quite accustomed to. But also as I have tried to point out to you on three separate instances now, many Palestinians viewed the presence of other Arab armies on their land as a guarantee against invasion by hostile forces. The Palestinians do not have any conventionally armed forces - and so traditionally they have depended on the armed support of others to guarantee their survival. What is different about the Israelis is that they are not at all sympathetic to Palestinian interests - and moreover far from being Muslims or Arabs themselves with a long and vested history in the region - the Israelis are in very large part pretty much all European and Western international imports. How would you like it if people with no conception and little care for the cultural history and sensitivities of the region came into your country and started telling you how to run your affairs?

In regard to your assertion that there may never have been a country called Palestine, if you look at any map prior to 1948 the borders of Palestine are very clearly marked out. They are recognized borders like any others and have been understood to exist for many thousands of years - and even the earliest Western visitors to the region understood that these borders were apparent to everyone who lived there as having existed for many hundreds if not thousands of years. It's like asking 'what defines the borders of Switzerland?' The answer is of course who the hell knows? Whatever it was has been lost long ago in the annals of history (and no annals does not mean anus - as one of my American friends recently asked me) so that over time idea nationhood and individual identity become something that seems inescapable - even though in reality it is nothing more than an idea that is passed from one generation to the next.

The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have been a much abused people. They have suffered horribly, from the earliest times until now - perhaps even more so than the Jews. But they have never suffered as much as they have since the formation of the Israeli state in 1948. If anyone has a right to claim autonomy, Independence and a state of their own in Palestine due to the degree of suffering they have encountered throughout the ages, it is without a doubt the Palestinians themselves.

In any case here is a nice and fairly brief history of the region from ancient times up until the modern day. I seriously suggest to you that you should purely take the events it mentions as pointers to facilitate further reading - as it may be difficult to understand the context of a lot of these events if you are not fully aware of the background to what brought them to pass.

I am sure you will find that the history of that region is not so simple, nor as convenient as you appear to assume.

Best regards,

GJ

digerati · Nov 29, 2004, 05:10 AM

While I don't think the Jews have done the most they could have done to make things fair neither has the rest of the Middle East, if any other country cared all that much they would really do something BIG besides fund terrorism. The only people who truly care about the Palestinians are the Palestinians.

This has to be a group effort with the US, Israel, and the surrounding countries of Israel.

raid517 · Nov 29, 2004, 05:48 AM

Well I can go along with that - although perhaps not quite as far as you might yourself, since I really think this whole deal about Middle Eastern governments funding terrorism is a little overblown. There is terrorism in the Middle East, but there is terrorism everywhere. It would be a mistake to imagine that only one small ethnic group is wholy responsible for the majority of terrorist actions in this world. It is simply the highly selective nature of the media that often makes it seem so.

Look at the timeline I printed above and read up on some of the massacres and acts of brutal ethnic cleansing that the Jews themselves engaged in. These aren't imagined events. It is little wonder then that the Palestinians feel as bitter as they do.

But in any case in the largest part I agree. A lot of Middle Eastern governments are not so fair either - they may not appear to set an ideal example of the best way for modern societies to organise themselves. But I think that this is a cultural thing too - and that this is sometimes something that we in the West often tend to forget.

I occasionally think that if we somehow magically could offer all of the people of the Middle East the opportunity to change their governments, what would they choose? Would they choose what we term as 'freedom and democracy' or would they choose a 'theocracy' where they would be governed by their own individual religeous leaders? History has taught us that - for reasons we might not fully understand - they would generally tend to choose the latter.

It is sad though... I mean in days gone by, the world used to refer to the Jews as 'the forgotten people' but now that has changed - now it very much is the Palestinians who have been forgotten and neglected by the world.

I cannot help but feel sorry for them - in the same way I feel sorry for the Jewish people when I hear and read about what happend to them in WWII.

The saddest thing of all though, is how a people who themselves have suffered horribly in the past could not find it in themselves to develop sufficient humanity to not wish to inflict any similar degree of suffering on others.

What I wonder does suffering teach us - if it is not that we should empathise with those others in the world who suffer too? What other possible point to all the suffering we see is there?

Given the current state of affairs in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, one might be forgiven for comming to the conclusion that perhaps there is simply no point to it at all.

GJ

digerati · Nov 29, 2004, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

Well I can go along with that - although perhaps not quite as far as you might yourself, since I really think this whole deal about Middle Eastern governments funding terrorism is a little overblown. There is terrorism in the Middle East, but there is terrorism everywhere. It would be a mistake to imagine that only one small ethnic group is wholy responsible for the majority of terrorist actions in this world. It is simply the highly selective nature of the media that often makes it seem so.

Look at the timeline I printed above and read up on some of the massacres and acts of brutal ethnic cleansing that the Jews themselves engaged in. These aren't imagined events. It is little wonder then that the Palestinians feel as bitter as they do.

But in any case in the largest part I agree. A lot of Middle Eastern governments are not so fair either - they may not appear to set an ideal example of the best way for modern societies to organise themselves. But I think that this is a cultural thing too - and that this is sometimes something that we in the West often tend to forget.

I occasionally think that if we somehow magically could offer all of the people of the Middle East the opportunity to change their governments, what would they choose? Would they choose what we term as 'freedom and democracy' or would they choose a 'theocracy' where they would be governed by their own individual religeous leaders? History has taught us that - for reasons we might not fully understand - they would generally tend to choose the latter.

It is sad though... I mean in days gone by, the world used to refer to the Jews as 'the forgotten people' but now that has changed - now it very much is the Palestinians who have been forgotten and neglected by the world.

I cannot help but feel sorry for them - in the same way I feel sorry for the Jewish people when I hear and read about what happend to them in WWII.

The saddest thing of all though, is how a people who themselves have suffered horribly in the past could not find it in themselves to develop sufficient humanity to not wish to inflict any similar degree of suffering on others.

What I wonder does suffering teach us - if it is not that we should empathise with those others in the world who suffer too? What other possible point to all the suffering we see is there?

Given the current state of affairs in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, one might be forgiven for comming to the conclusion that perhaps there is simply no point to it at all.

GJ

It's not that only they have terrorism. I'm just saying other countries have adopted other means of dealing with problems. And the middle east seems to be trailing behind just like in human rights.

raid517 · Nov 29, 2004, 07:04 AM

Well if you are applying that to all of the people of the Middle East - and not just a selective few - then fair enough I can agree with that. I don't think the Jews or the Arabs are providing any particularly shining examples of how the world should go about solving it's problems.

And it wasn't always like that. Up until the disintergration of the Ottoman Empire some of the keenest scholars, scientists and mathematicians in history came out of that region. It was only the subsequent squabbling between the Europeans and the Americans over the next two world wars that finally and conclusively put an end to this. The Middle East has been in the grip of a general decline ever since then.

And in any case are our tactics really so disimilar? Pre-emptive war, targeted assasination, detention without trial - they were all concepts that until recently we all believed distinguished us appart from these so called 'uncivilised nations.' They engaged in these practices - and we didn't. Plain and simple.

But not any more.

Who knows... Maybe it really was all just BS... I mean perhaps once you scratch underneath the surface we really are all the same. But I do know that we have little cause any more to feel superior to anyone in this world. We used to think we could set the benchmark for what it meant to be democratic and free. And in that sense I think we have lost a very important fight.

GJ

digerati · Nov 29, 2004, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

Well if you are applying that to all of the people of the Middle East - and not just a selective few - then fair enough I can agree with that. I don't think the Jews or the Arabs are providing any particularly shining examples of how the world should go about solving it's problems.

And it wasn't always like that. Up until the disintergration of the Ottoman Empire some of the keenest scholars, scientists and mathematicians in history came out of that region. It was only the subsequent squwabbling between the Europeans and the Americans over the next two world wars that finally and conclusively put an end to this. The Middle East has been in the grip of a general decline ever since then.

And in any case are our tactics really so disimilar? Pre-emptive war, targeted assasination, detention without trial - they were all concepts that until recently we all believed distinguished us appart from these so called 'uncivilised nations.' They engaged in these practices - and we didn't. Plain and simple. But not any more.

Who knows... Maybe it really was all just BS... I mean perhaps once you scratch underneath the surface we really are all the same. But I do know that we have little cause any more to feel superior to anyone in this world. We used to think we could set the benchmark for what it meant to be democratic and free. And in that sense I think we have lost a very important fight.

GJ

The world is selfish. We want what we think is right to go for everyone, and we make/support governments that reflect what we think is right. That may be a trial with a lawyer, or it may be the legality to murder your wife/sister/daughter if she shames your family. Who is to really say what is right or wrong? Just move or live somewhere that reflects what you want. Don't try to force it upon anyone, no matter how nice and uplifting you think it might be, it just won't be what the person wants. If they truly wanted it that badly, they'd do it themselves or move. (Now this is different for countries that kill anyone who speaks out against it or won't allow them to move like the Soviet Union)

raid517 · Nov 29, 2004, 11:02 AM

Mmm... that's a thought... But then I don't think it's entirely practical for the entire population of the Soviet Union (when it existed) to have just upped sticks and left - even if they had been allowed to. Nor is it possible for the Palestinians to do so - nor the entire poulations of any number of other oppressed people on this Earth....

Even if everyone were to be granted the freedom to do so - there is a little more to freedom and the right to self determination than the ability to move to a new town.

But what they hey. I'm probably just being pedantic...

GJ

digerati · Nov 30, 2004, 09:44 PM

And I have no idea what pedantic means. SO THERE!

mike2h · Nov 30, 2004, 10:12 PM

hey raid! a lot of the time i do not agree with you or like your 'manner'. but i just wanted to thank you for a well thought out, informative discourse.
i have always favored israel & still do, but you have taken away the 'rosy tint'. guess i am going to have to get of my lazy ass & do some more research. again, thx.

raid517 · Nov 30, 2004, 10:12 PM

Pedantic = exacting, overly precise, overly interested in the small detail of things, an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning - espesially in circumstances where such precision is not required.

Indeed it could be argued that I am being a little pedantic right now.

GJ

digerati · Nov 30, 2004, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517

Pedantic = exacting, overly precise, overly interested in the small detail of things, an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning - espesially in circumstances where such precision is not required.

Indeed it could be argued that I am being a little pedantic right now.

GJ

I hope you aren't like that with sex o.O

raid517 · Nov 30, 2004, 10:35 PM

Lol...

GJ

K.I.L.E.R · Jan 3, 2005, 05:34 PM

Palestine is the land of David which was originally the Jew's land.

http://www.churchisraelforum.com/the...f_the_land.htm

I've watched a documentary about this as well.
As far as I'm concerned Israel just got part of it's land back.

Quote:

The stark truth today is that there never was a Palestinian nation in all the annals of human history. There never was a distinct Arab-Palestinian people. The Arab-Palestinian identity is complete fabrication, an absolute fiction, a lie and a fraud. It is all a political ruse to steal away the heritage of Israel.

Falstaff · Jan 3, 2005, 07:33 PM

its about land...not religion, although religion is a component, genetically the israelis and the palestinians are related some several thousands years ago, they are part of a quarrelsum family.

K.I.L.E.R · Jan 4, 2005, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallang_jeff

its about land...not religion,...

Try telling that to the Jewish and Muslim people.
For the Muslims and Jews, the land of Palestine never existed until recently.

The people may have been there but neither side wishes to acknowledge Palestine.

Falstaff · Jan 4, 2005, 08:57 AM

having listened to average people from the west bank and Gaza you would think they all want peace, but something always derails the peace process, it is maddening.

DarthElvis · Jan 8, 2005, 10:13 PM

Isreal might have BEEN the "land of David" or some other such nonesense. But
people seem to gloss over one simple point . The Jews left. They moved. Whether it was by their own volition or not is irrelevant, claim was lost when they moved out. (see Diaspora (sp?))
If someone moved out of their house (or was evicted), can they come back
later and tell the current occupants to get out- it's our house? If someone tried that with me I'd beat them into a coma. If they tried it with a gun, then I'd leave. Only to come back and kill them in their sleep.
The British and Americans gave the Zionists land that wasn't theirs to give. Period. How the Zionists got them to give them this land is very eye opening, but you'll have to research this yourself. Suffice to say I know where the modern terrorists learned their stuff, after all -it worked once.

kp59583 · Jan 8, 2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthElvis

Isreal might have BEEN the "land of David" or some other such nonesense. But
people seem to gloss over one simple point . The Jews left. They moved. Whether it was by their own volition or not is irrelevant, claim was lost when they moved out. (see Diaspora (sp?))
If someone moved out of their house (or was evicted), can they come back
later and tell the current occupants to get out- it's our house? If someone tried that with me I'd beat them into a coma. If they tried it with a gun, then I'd leave. Only to come back and kill them in their sleep.
The British and Americans gave the Zionists land that wasn't theirs to give. Period. How the Zionists got them to give them this land is very eye opening, but you'll have to research this yourself. Suffice to say I know where the modern terrorists learned their stuff, after all -it worked once.

You yourself said that if someone forced you from your house at gunpoint you would come back and take it back. Now why don't the Jews have that right if they were driven out?

DarthElvis · Jan 8, 2005, 11:17 PM

2000 Years invalidates their claim. And it was the Romans who evicted them, not the Palestinians. Talk to the Italians.
Also, I would'nt expect my descendants to do the job I should have done myself. I defenately would'nt expect them to avenge them selves on people that had nothing to do with my having to leave.

K.I.L.E.R · Jan 9, 2005, 06:32 AM

"2000 Years invalidates their claim."

Is this in UN law or are you just making this up?
I've never heard this rule.

Some conflicts today are the result of what had happened 2000 years ago.

DarthElvis · Jan 9, 2005, 06:54 PM

Cool, so what your saying is I can go find a nice house , on a nice peice of property. Knock on the door and kill the occupants if they don't leave because some time in the past, one of my ancestors happend to call that particular peice of land home. Cool ,I'm going house hunting after supper.
WooHoo !!! Maybe a nice place in international waters off the coast of America.

K.I.L.E.R · Jan 10, 2005, 05:51 AM

*cough* Answer my question. *cough*

Stop dodging the question. I'm simply asking a question. Can you please answer my question?

Is this in UN law or are you just making this up?
I've never heard this rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthElvis

Cool, so what your saying is I can go find a nice house , on a nice peice of property. Knock on the door and kill the occupants if they don't leave because some time in the past, one of my ancestors happend to call that particular peice of land home. Cool ,I'm going house hunting after supper.
WooHoo !!! Maybe a nice place in international waters off the coast of America.

bananaman · Jan 11, 2005, 09:37 AM

I think the idea that the land was theirs but they lost it is a flawed idea. Can any human really say where they, as a genetic human are originally from? Somewhere in Africa? Does this mean that humans can only exist in Africa. Moving on from that how many peoples have spread around the globe. I am "English" - what does this actually mean, I am pretty sure that my "blood" is not just from England, and is likely to be a mix of French, Nordic, Anglo-SAxon, Celt etc. The point is that almost every country in the world does not have its "original" inhabitants on it, it has passed through many hands (one only needs to think of the US!). Using the knowledge that you used to be there doesn’t hold that you should be there now. In the UK the Scots and the Welsh would have a pretty good case to kick out the English on the ' I was here first' grounds (that was only 1000 years ago!).

Nations must be thought of not as a land, but as a people, the Jewish nation is a group of people who have certain elements in common. The Jewish nation is not created through having a certain geographical similarity. Indeed this goes back to the above mentioned diaspora.

Some conflicts today may indeed be a result of actions that happened 2000 years ago, but they are only a result through an indirect line of consequence, and only through these events being highlighted and given particular reference by people today in order to fulfil a certain use. What I am trying to say is that history is not set in stone, it is not a factual record, it is created in the present to perform a certain function, and often validate certain claims. Having studied Archaeology I have often come across Biblical Archaeology – it is one of the forms of archaeology that must be most distrusted as it often has an ulterior motive: - the validation of the claim of land!

To Quote George Orwell:

""He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

NANA

DarthElvis · Jan 12, 2005, 01:06 AM

Bravo, well said.
Btw, I'm not aware of any U.N. law that backs up what I've said. I'm not arguing on legal ground, but moral grounds. As far as I'm concerned, the U.N. is just as flawed as any other institution.

Pompey · Jan 17, 2005, 03:48 AM

I support the Palestinians. The Jewish People were NOT the first people to inhabit the area, nor were they there the longest. It was not the Arabs who expelled them, it was the Romans, the Arabs expelled THEM. It was the Europeans who later persecuted them. The Arabs have had no problem with them, except for the obvious arguments between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

It wasn’t until the mass migration to Palastine of European Jews (Zionist movement) during the 30's, 40's and 50's that the Arabs had any real conflict with them.

Israel is a state founded on terrorism. When Britain (Palastine was part of the British empire) was leaning towards a Arab state in palastine the zionists attacked British and palastinian people, including the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo by a Jewish terrorist group (the stern gang) and many British soldiers attacked, kidnapped and murdered. Zionists also attacked palistinian villages, massacring the population (woman and children too) resulting in many civilians to flee to refugee camps. With an increasing pro-Israeli America and sympathy over the holocaust the Jews got what they wanted, a Jewish state.

Some palastinians are now in refugee camps in neighbouring countries. Most though are living in ghetto’s in the westbank and the Gaza strip. These two areas (about 22% on the land area of palastine) are now being settled by Jewish settlers, the 'houses' the palastinians live in are demolished at will for new roads connecting the Jewish settlements (and cutting off the palastinians from each other) or security instalments. Most palastinian houses don’t have a water supply while the settlers take the limited resource at will.

Its Ironic how a state founded on terrorism can’t understand why the palastinians would do it. The Jewish population suffered so much and yet they are so willing to turn around and do it to someone else. Israel continues on a zionist, expansionist corse and wont stop until America stops supporting it.

Why should the middle east pay for Europes mistake

Nov 27, 2004, 10:18 PM	#33
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	OK first you should know that the UN never existed until 1948. Secondly you should know that the history of Palestine is very mixed. It has always been regarded as a 'state within a state' - but nonetheless a predominantly Arab state for all that. (Rather as Scotland or wales are regarded as separates states within the larger state of the UK). Ownership or governance of Palestine has traditionally passed between a large number of Arab nations, from the Syrians to the Egyptians, from the Persians to the Turks, from the Iraqis to the Babylonians - and this went on pretty consistently throughout history until the British won Palestine from the Ottoman Empire after the end of the first world war. The British of course were not very interested in allowing Palestine to become an independent state - because quite simply they wanted to keep it as a part of their Empire. Moreover shortly after the British took over pressure was more or less immediately applied for them to consider the possibility of establishing a Jewish state in that region. Indeed it was only after the British took control that large numbers of Jewish immigrants began to arrive. Subsequent disputes after 1948 after the British left made the situation even more complicated and the entire region of Palestine became one of the most hotly contested regions in the world. Since 1948 there has effectively never been a period of sustained peace that lasted long enough for the aspirations of the Palestinians towards statehood and full autonomy to be fully recognised. Since that date up until the war in 1967 more or less every town, village and piece of rock in Palestine has changed ownership on practically a weekly or monthly basis - and no one sat down for any length of time to negotiate with each other in order to allow any kind of agreement to ever be reached. A country cannot be formed without the agreement of all parties concerned - and unfortunately throughout this period no one was ever able to reach such an agreement. Nonetheless the Palestinians have for pretty much all of this period, since indeed as far back as the Babylonians, considered themselves as having a unique national identity. Your efforts to deny them any rights by denying them their existence is a particularly despicable tactic to adopt. Would you say that the Scots have no right to consider themselves Scottish, or the Irish Irish, or the Kurds in Northern Iraq as being Kurds (who all believe that Northern Iraq is really a country called Kurdistan) or that all of the former Soviet satellite states such as the Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia have no right to believe in their own national and ethnic identities either, just because they have been invaded and administered by a foreign power at various points in their history? Or how about we just say that any country that has been occupied in the past has no right to consider itself as having any distinct national or cultural identity either? In many ways for the Palestinians the partitioning agreement was a return to a former state of affairs in which they were jointly administered by several separate ARAB states - a state of affairs that in many ways they had become quite accustomed to. But also as I have tried to point out to you on three separate instances now, many Palestinians viewed the presence of other Arab armies on their land as a guarantee against invasion by hostile forces. The Palestinians do not have any conventionally armed forces - and so traditionally they have depended on the armed support of others to guarantee their survival. What is different about the Israelis is that they are not at all sympathetic to Palestinian interests - and moreover far from being Muslims or Arabs themselves with a long and vested history in the region - the Israelis are in very large part pretty much all European and Western international imports. How would you like it if people with no conception and little care for the cultural history and sensitivities of the region came into your country and started telling you how to run your affairs? In regard to your assertion that there may never have been a country called Palestine, if you look at any map prior to 1948 the borders of Palestine are very clearly marked out. They are recognized borders like any others and have been understood to exist for many thousands of years - and even the earliest Western visitors to the region understood that these borders were apparent to everyone who lived there as having existed for many hundreds if not thousands of years. It's like asking 'what defines the borders of Switzerland?' The answer is of course who the hell knows? Whatever it was has been lost long ago in the annals of history (and no annals does not mean anus - as one of my American friends recently asked me) so that over time idea nationhood and individual identity become something that seems inescapable - even though in reality it is nothing more than an idea that is passed from one generation to the next. The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have been a much abused people. They have suffered horribly, from the earliest times until now - perhaps even more so than the Jews. But they have never suffered as much as they have since the formation of the Israeli state in 1948. If anyone has a right to claim autonomy, Independence and a state of their own in Palestine due to the degree of suffering they have encountered throughout the ages, it is without a doubt the Palestinians themselves. In any case here is a nice and fairly brief history of the region from ancient times up until the modern day. I seriously suggest to you that you should purely take the events it mentions as pointers to facilitate further reading - as it may be difficult to understand the context of a lot of these events if you are not fully aware of the background to what brought them to pass. I am sure you will find that the history of that region is not so simple, nor as convenient as you appear to assume. Best regards, GJ Last edited by raid517; Nov 28, 2004 at 10:06 AM.

Nov 29, 2004, 05:48 AM	#35
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well I can go along with that - although perhaps not quite as far as you might yourself, since I really think this whole deal about Middle Eastern governments funding terrorism is a little overblown. There is terrorism in the Middle East, but there is terrorism everywhere. It would be a mistake to imagine that only one small ethnic group is wholy responsible for the majority of terrorist actions in this world. It is simply the highly selective nature of the media that often makes it seem so. Look at the timeline I printed above and read up on some of the massacres and acts of brutal ethnic cleansing that the Jews themselves engaged in. These aren't imagined events. It is little wonder then that the Palestinians feel as bitter as they do. But in any case in the largest part I agree. A lot of Middle Eastern governments are not so fair either - they may not appear to set an ideal example of the best way for modern societies to organise themselves. But I think that this is a cultural thing too - and that this is sometimes something that we in the West often tend to forget. I occasionally think that if we somehow magically could offer all of the people of the Middle East the opportunity to change their governments, what would they choose? Would they choose what we term as 'freedom and democracy' or would they choose a 'theocracy' where they would be governed by their own individual religeous leaders? History has taught us that - for reasons we might not fully understand - they would generally tend to choose the latter. It is sad though... I mean in days gone by, the world used to refer to the Jews as 'the forgotten people' but now that has changed - now it very much is the Palestinians who have been forgotten and neglected by the world. I cannot help but feel sorry for them - in the same way I feel sorry for the Jewish people when I hear and read about what happend to them in WWII. The saddest thing of all though, is how a people who themselves have suffered horribly in the past could not find it in themselves to develop sufficient humanity to not wish to inflict any similar degree of suffering on others. What I wonder does suffering teach us - if it is not that we should empathise with those others in the world who suffer too? What other possible point to all the suffering we see is there? Given the current state of affairs in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, one might be forgiven for comming to the conclusion that perhaps there is simply no point to it at all. GJ Last edited by raid517; Nov 29, 2004 at 05:55 AM.

Nov 29, 2004, 07:04 AM	#37
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well if you are applying that to all of the people of the Middle East - and not just a selective few - then fair enough I can agree with that. I don't think the Jews or the Arabs are providing any particularly shining examples of how the world should go about solving it's problems. And it wasn't always like that. Up until the disintergration of the Ottoman Empire some of the keenest scholars, scientists and mathematicians in history came out of that region. It was only the subsequent squabbling between the Europeans and the Americans over the next two world wars that finally and conclusively put an end to this. The Middle East has been in the grip of a general decline ever since then. And in any case are our tactics really so disimilar? Pre-emptive war, targeted assasination, detention without trial - they were all concepts that until recently we all believed distinguished us appart from these so called 'uncivilised nations.' They engaged in these practices - and we didn't. Plain and simple. But not any more. Who knows... Maybe it really was all just BS... I mean perhaps once you scratch underneath the surface we really are all the same. But I do know that we have little cause any more to feel superior to anyone in this world. We used to think we could set the benchmark for what it meant to be democratic and free. And in that sense I think we have lost a very important fight. GJ Last edited by raid517; Nov 29, 2004 at 08:17 AM.

Nov 29, 2004, 11:02 AM	#39
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Mmm... that's a thought... But then I don't think it's entirely practical for the entire population of the Soviet Union (when it existed) to have just upped sticks and left - even if they had been allowed to. Nor is it possible for the Palestinians to do so - nor the entire poulations of any number of other oppressed people on this Earth.... Even if everyone were to be granted the freedom to do so - there is a little more to freedom and the right to self determination than the ability to move to a new town. But what they hey. I'm probably just being pedantic... GJ Last edited by raid517; Nov 30, 2004 at 10:04 PM.

Nov 30, 2004, 10:12 PM	#41
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	hey raid! a lot of the time i do not agree with you or like your 'manner'. but i just wanted to thank you for a well thought out, informative discourse. i have always favored israel & still do, but you have taken away the 'rosy tint'. guess i am going to have to get of my lazy ass & do some more research. again, thx. __________________

Nov 27, 2004, 03:40 PM	#31
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	You just don't understand anything I said do you? GJ

Nov 29, 2004, 05:10 AM	#34
digerati Everyones life has worth Join Date: May 2003 Location: My Yellow Bug Posts: 3,779 Rep Power: 0	While I don't think the Jews have done the most they could have done to make things fair neither has the rest of the Middle East, if any other country cared all that much they would really do something BIG besides fund terrorism. The only people who truly care about the Palestinians are the Palestinians. This has to be a group effort with the US, Israel, and the surrounding countries of Israel.

Nov 30, 2004, 09:44 PM	#40
digerati Everyones life has worth Join Date: May 2003 Location: My Yellow Bug Posts: 3,779 Rep Power: 0	And I have no idea what pedantic means. SO THERE!

Nov 30, 2004, 10:35 PM	#44
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Lol... GJ

Jan 3, 2005, 07:33 PM	#46
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	its about land...not religion, although religion is a component, genetically the israelis and the palestinians are related some several thousands years ago, they are part of a quarrelsum family. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jan 4, 2005, 08:57 AM	#48
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	having listened to average people from the west bank and Gaza you would think they all want peace, but something always derails the peace process, it is maddening. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jan 8, 2005, 10:13 PM	#49
DarthElvis HardwareHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 0	Isreal might have BEEN the "land of David" or some other such nonesense. But people seem to gloss over one simple point . The Jews left. They moved. Whether it was by their own volition or not is irrelevant, claim was lost when they moved out. (see Diaspora (sp?)) If someone moved out of their house (or was evicted), can they come back later and tell the current occupants to get out- it's our house? If someone tried that with me I'd beat them into a coma. If they tried it with a gun, then I'd leave. Only to come back and kill them in their sleep. The British and Americans gave the Zionists land that wasn't theirs to give. Period. How the Zionists got them to give them this land is very eye opening, but you'll have to research this yourself. Suffice to say I know where the modern terrorists learned their stuff, after all -it worked once.

Jan 8, 2005, 11:17 PM	#51
DarthElvis HardwareHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 0	2000 Years invalidates their claim. And it was the Romans who evicted them, not the Palestinians. Talk to the Italians. Also, I would'nt expect my descendants to do the job I should have done myself. I defenately would'nt expect them to avenge them selves on people that had nothing to do with my having to leave. Last edited by DarthElvis; Jan 8, 2005 at 11:32 PM.

Jan 9, 2005, 06:32 AM	#52
K.I.L.E.R Kronos, Father of Zeus Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 162 Rep Power: 0	"2000 Years invalidates their claim." Is this in UN law or are you just making this up? I've never heard this rule. Some conflicts today are the result of what had happened 2000 years ago. __________________ P4 1.8Ghz Intel i845 mobo R300 768mb RAM SBLive Windows XP Home

Jan 9, 2005, 06:54 PM	#53
DarthElvis HardwareHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 0	Cool, so what your saying is I can go find a nice house , on a nice peice of property. Knock on the door and kill the occupants if they don't leave because some time in the past, one of my ancestors happend to call that particular peice of land home. Cool ,I'm going house hunting after supper. WooHoo !!! Maybe a nice place in international waters off the coast of America.

Jan 11, 2005, 09:37 AM	#55
bananaman banana muncher Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,254 Rep Power: 64	I think the idea that the land was theirs but they lost it is a flawed idea. Can any human really say where they, as a genetic human are originally from? Somewhere in Africa? Does this mean that humans can only exist in Africa. Moving on from that how many peoples have spread around the globe. I am "English" - what does this actually mean, I am pretty sure that my "blood" is not just from England, and is likely to be a mix of French, Nordic, Anglo-SAxon, Celt etc. The point is that almost every country in the world does not have its "original" inhabitants on it, it has passed through many hands (one only needs to think of the US!). Using the knowledge that you used to be there doesn’t hold that you should be there now. In the UK the Scots and the Welsh would have a pretty good case to kick out the English on the ' I was here first' grounds (that was only 1000 years ago!). Nations must be thought of not as a land, but as a people, the Jewish nation is a group of people who have certain elements in common. The Jewish nation is not created through having a certain geographical similarity. Indeed this goes back to the above mentioned diaspora. Some conflicts today may indeed be a result of actions that happened 2000 years ago, but they are only a result through an indirect line of consequence, and only through these events being highlighted and given particular reference by people today in order to fulfil a certain use. What I am trying to say is that history is not set in stone, it is not a factual record, it is created in the present to perform a certain function, and often validate certain claims. Having studied Archaeology I have often come across Biblical Archaeology – it is one of the forms of archaeology that must be most distrusted as it often has an ulterior motive: - the validation of the claim of land! To Quote George Orwell: ""He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." NANA __________________

Jan 12, 2005, 01:06 AM	#56
DarthElvis HardwareHeaven Newbie Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 0	Bravo, well said. Btw, I'm not aware of any U.N. law that backs up what I've said. I'm not arguing on legal ground, but moral grounds. As far as I'm concerned, the U.N. is just as flawed as any other institution.

Jan 17, 2005, 03:48 AM	#57
Pompey DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 362 Rep Power: 0	I support the Palestinians. The Jewish People were NOT the first people to inhabit the area, nor were they there the longest. It was not the Arabs who expelled them, it was the Romans, the Arabs expelled THEM. It was the Europeans who later persecuted them. The Arabs have had no problem with them, except for the obvious arguments between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It wasn’t until the mass migration to Palastine of European Jews (Zionist movement) during the 30's, 40's and 50's that the Arabs had any real conflict with them. Israel is a state founded on terrorism. When Britain (Palastine was part of the British empire) was leaning towards a Arab state in palastine the zionists attacked British and palastinian people, including the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo by a Jewish terrorist group (the stern gang) and many British soldiers attacked, kidnapped and murdered. Zionists also attacked palistinian villages, massacring the population (woman and children too) resulting in many civilians to flee to refugee camps. With an increasing pro-Israeli America and sympathy over the holocaust the Jews got what they wanted, a Jewish state. Some palastinians are now in refugee camps in neighbouring countries. Most though are living in ghetto’s in the westbank and the Gaza strip. These two areas (about 22% on the land area of palastine) are now being settled by Jewish settlers, the 'houses' the palastinians live in are demolished at will for new roads connecting the Jewish settlements (and cutting off the palastinians from each other) or security instalments. Most palastinian houses don’t have a water supply while the settlers take the limited resource at will. Its Ironic how a state founded on terrorism can’t understand why the palastinians would do it. The Jewish population suffered so much and yet they are so willing to turn around and do it to someone else. Israel continues on a zionist, expansionist corse and wont stop until America stops supporting it. Why should the middle east pay for Europes mistake __________________ One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer. Last edited by Pompey; Jan 17, 2005 at 03:51 AM. Reason: left something out