Don't Expel the Jews of Gaza!

[David Ben-Ariel]

Read and weep for the Israeli Jews of Gush Katif/Gaza, on whose behalf I wrote before their illegal expulsion by the bribed Ariel Sharon (http://ezinearticles.com/?Ariel-Sharon&id=156032) and criminal company working for foreign interests. Many of them remain homeless, depressed and basically abandoned by their lying government -- their former homes history, stripped bare and destroyed by marauding Arab enemies who are now fighting among themselves, one terrorist group (Hamas) against another terrorist group (Fatah), as the daily newspapers and television reports confirm.

Don't Expel Jews from Gaza! (http://ezinearticles.com/?JewsGaza&id=449164)

[Ryokan]

Read and weep for the Israeli Jews of Gush Katif/Gaza, on whose behalf I wrote before their illegal expulsion by the bribed Ariel Sharon (http://ezinearticles.com/?Ariel-Sharon&id=156032) and criminal company working for foreign interests. Many of them remain homeless, depressed and basically abandoned by their lying government -- their former homes history, stripped bare and destroyed by marauding Arab enemies who are now fighting among themselves, one terrorist group (Hamas) against another terrorist group (Fatah), as the daily newspapers and television reports confirm.

Don't Expel Jews from Gaza! (http://ezinearticles.com/?JewsGaza&id=449164)

They had to leave. The Jews could not have held gaza without committing genocide. It was too expensive in blood, treasure, and political will.

[Durthorin]

Read and weep for the Israeli Jews of Gush Katif/Gaza, on whose behalf I wrote before their illegal expulsion by the bribed Ariel Sharon (http://ezinearticles.com/?Ariel-Sharon&id=156032) and criminal company working for foreign interests. Many of them remain homeless, depressed and basically abandoned by their lying government -- their former homes history, stripped bare and destroyed by marauding Arab enemies who are now fighting among themselves, one terrorist group (Hamas) against another terrorist group (Fatah), as the daily newspapers and television reports confirm.

Don't Expel Jews from Gaza! (http://ezinearticles.com/?JewsGaza&id=449164)


So you like the people and they worked hard. It doesn't justify stealing someone elses land if your argument is "I made better use of it than he did. So I get to keep it."

[outcast]

The land is God land and God gave it to the Jews, their is no such thing as Palastine. Palastine was the name that the Romans called Israel to upset them, Palastine name comes from the philistines who were the jews bigest enemys, read your history people, wait a minute the liberals probably have eliminated that out of school books and history by now.

Dont get your news from liberal sources, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN watch Fox News, it will help you a little or you can watch the Hal Lindsey report.

Does anyone ever ask the question why do the Arabs want Israel when they own 99% of the middle east?? cant they be content with what they already have ??

God said I will bless those who bless you (Israel, Christians) and i will curse those who curse you. end of story

[Darth Executor]

So you like the people and they worked hard. It doesn't justify stealing someone elses land if your argument is "I made better use of it than he did. So I get to keep it."

What "stealing"?

[Baobabtree]

Does anyone ever ask the question why do the Arabs want Israel when they own 99% of the middle east?? cant they be content with what they already have ?? The Arabs don't want Israel, the Palestinians who were forced out of their home land by early Zionists want to be able to live in their homeland again. "God gave the Jews this land" is no excuse for the atrocities that have occurred in Palestine.

[Nanny]

So you like the people and they worked hard. It doesn't justify stealing someone elses land if your argument is "I made better use of it than he did. So I get to keep it."
Please tell me how Israel came to "occupy" this land? Is it the same way other countries come to "occupy" land taken through warfare? In that case, are we applying a double standard when we don't demand other countries return land taken in battle?
What is the justification for the U.N. calling Israel's settlements as illegal?
Israel is in a most precarious position surrounded by enemies who want to annihilate them. Has the Palestinian government accepted the 1947 U.N. resolution calling for a Jewish state and Israel's right to exist?
IMO, this isn't a religious issue primarily but a matter of what is just and right. As a Christian, I do believe there is a Divine claim but I wouldn't make my case on that.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Does anyone ever ask the question why do the Arabs want Israel when they own 99% of the middle east?? cant they be content with what they already have ??

God said I will bless those who bless you (Israel, Christians) and i will curse those who curse you. end of story

Giving some of what was known as Palestine to the Palestinians isn't simply about giving more of the Middle East to Arabs, but about giving the land that a group of Arabs known as Palestinians some of the land that they have occupied for centuries, and where they grew up. In the introductory response, the second article gives an example about US immigration. "Imagine -- God forbid -- Bush blathering we can no longer prevent illegal aliens from taking over the Southwest, so in order to have "peace" with Mexico, we must expel the law-abiding and productive Americans living there and surrender their homes and property and businesses to Mexicans before they start terrorizing the rest of the United States to create their new homeland called Atzlan. After all, we seized those territories with superior force and must now return them to right an alleged wrong. " The Palestinians, like legal Hispanic US citizens have lived in the US since before the current nation's (US's) founding and their people were previously part of another nation that owned the land that is now the US (as parts such as CA were part of Mexico). Expelling Palestinians can be compared to expelling the decendants of early Hispanic citizens. Palestinians are supposed to be Israeli citizens too. They should be able to live under the protection of the government. If Israel is supported because the people were their first, then California should go to the Indians, not the United States.

I would support protecting the nation from outside attacks, but with regards to US suport they also have little accountability for how they treat their people even when as American's or as Christians, we should object. Just because someone has a Jew somewhere back in their family history doesn't mean they are people of God. Some are just ethnic or cultural Jews. (Somehow Romans 2:28-29 comes to mind.) I don't support kicking out a group of people including some of my Christian brothers and sisters (I have known several Palestinian Christians, they do exist), making agreements about where they can live, then breaking those agreements and treating them as second class citizens on behalf of people who don't act like they even act like they know God (yes, some do, but not all and it seems like especially in government) and doing so for Christian reasons.

Invisible Palestinians: Ideology and Reality in Israel by Rosemary Ruether (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1026)
"The systems of government operating in Israel and the occupied territories are entirely different. Israel has the structures of a Western democracy, with a representative government and courts, but the non-Israeli residents of the occupied territories are ruled by the military government. They have no civil rights: no legal redress for violations to their persons or property, and no rights of political assembly, freedom of the press or habeas corpus. Though official propagandists deny these procedures, they are demonstrably true."

“Palestinians in Israel: Discrimination and Resistance,” by Basel Ghattas (http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20001222ib.html)
Under "Overview" Israelis, for their part, assumed that Palestinians inside the Green Line would automatically support any peace agreement, and that their votes were almost unanimously secured for any “left” Israeli candidate. Few looked seriously at fundamental changes taking place in this community. The Israeli police killed 13 Palestinians and injured hundreds during the recent demonstrations in many Palestinian towns and villages inside Israel. These events reflected the Israeli government’s hostile and aggressive behavior toward its own citizens.

Under "Statistics of Discrimination" Still today, despite supposedly being equal citizens of a democratic state, the Palestinian minority continues to be subjected to systematic institutional and legal discrimination, and is completely marginalized by the Israeli government. Israeli prime ministers from left and right have recently acknowledged this discrimination, yet little has been done to bridge the wide gap that has been created between Jews and Palestinians.

[Darth Executor]

Law abiding? Most Palestinians are terrorist supporting scum. Hamas didn't elect itself. Israel has been uncommonly generous to them.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Law abiding? Most Palestinians are terrorist supporting scum. Hamas didn't elect itself. Israel has been uncommonly generous to them.
I've had several Palestinian American friends. They still have family back there and their families are not like that. Nice to see that someone believes in ethnic stereotyping and persecution.

BTW, while the number of Christian Palestinians in Israel is declining, and not entirely due to the Muslim population, approximately a quarter of the world's Palestinian population is Christian.

[dizzle]

BTW, while the number of Christian Palestinians in Israel is declining, and not entirely due to the Muslim population, approximately a quarter of the world's Palestinian population is Christian.

That is what sucks about idolizing an ethnic group and dispensational theology. So many in our country fawn over people simply based on their race, though they actively reject Christ, and totally abandon the Christians that have the unfortunate happenstance of not having the right genes. THAT is who we should be caring for.

[Jezz]

Please tell me how Israel came to "occupy" this land? Is it the same way other countries come to "occupy" land taken through warfare?
Yes.

In that case, are we applying a double standard when we don't demand other countries return land taken in battle?
By golly, you're right! After all, all those other times in recent memory when one country invaded another, we just let them have it and didn't demand that they return the land!

Like when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990! And like when we liberated a few months later, and refused to give it back to the Kuwaitis!

Like the present situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, where after occuping the countries we simply decided that we like them so much that we would keep them for ourselves! And we even started building American and British settlements in Iraq, and selling the land there to British and American citizens at discount rates, just because we could!

And when Hirohito led Japan against China and South-East Asia, we were completely happy with that! We just let him have it!

And like when Hitler invaded Poland and France, and we decided he ought to be able to keep what he had gained by a fair battle!

And after the end of WWII, when the allies had driven back Germany and Japan and occupied their homelands, we kept that land for ourselves! We started building American and French and British settlements in Germany and Japan, rather than giving it back to the Germans. After all, the Germans and Japanese deserved it, right? They attacked us! They were the aggressors! They were the ones who refused to recognise our existence as sovereign nations! They deserve to have their homeland taken away from them!

Certainly, you are right to be worried about a double standard. Why would we insist that Israel stop annexing the land that they occupied for their own settlements, incorporating Palestinian land into the nation of Israel, when at every other point in history we have been content to say "the victor deserves the spoils"?

:ahem:

What is the justification for the U.N. calling Israel's settlements as illegal?
The Geneva convention, which states that it is illegal to settle on land taken by warfare.

Israel is in a most precarious position surrounded by enemies who want to annihilate them.
Oh puulleeaaze. How precarious is Israel's position really? How exactly are you measuring the "precariousness" of their position?

Are you looking at it from the point of view of the number of Israelis who have been killed by aggression from their neighbours? Well, if that's your standard of measure, then one would have to conclude that Israel's neighbours are the ones in a precarious position, because the number of non-Israelis killed over the years in battles with Israel are literally an order of magnitude greater than the number of Israelis who have died. Take last year's war in Lebanon, for example - the number of Israeli dead adds up to about 160 (~120 military and ~40 civilian) while the number of Lebanese dead adds up to about 1100 (~500 militia). Seven times more Lebanese were killed than Israelis.

Or perhaps you are evaluating it from the point of view of land lost/gained? That Israel is seriously threatened with losing the land that it has? Again, history shows otherwise. Israel has not lost any land in its battles with its neighbours. On the contrary, it continues to expand its maintain or even borders beyond the UN mandate in every conflict.

Let's face it - if you or I were forced to choose to live as an Arab in Gaza City or as a Jew in Jerusalem, we would both choose Jerusalem in a heartbeat. That's quite simply because Israel's position is far less precarious than that of her neighbours. This fact, and the history of raw numbers, proves that Israel is a much greater threat to her neighbours than her neighbours are to her. In particular, Israel is a much greater threat to the existence of Palestine than Palestine is to the existence of Israel.

Has the Palestinian government accepted the 1947 U.N. resolution calling for a Jewish state and Israel's right to exist?
The fact that Israel feels free to build settlements on Palestinian land shows that they don't really accept the right of Palestine to exist either. Quid pro quo, perhaps?

Besides which, my mother always taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that Hamas won't accept the right of Israel to exist (which is wrong) doesn't give Israel the right to steal Palestinian land (also wrong).

I also recall that Hamas agreed to acknowledge the existence of Israel in return for Israel removing its settlements - terms which Israel refused to accept.

IMO, this isn't a religious issue primarily but a matter of what is just and right. As a Christian, I do believe there is a Divine claim but I wouldn't make my case on that.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is "just and right" for a nation to keep land that they have acquired through warfare? That Israel deserve to keep the land that they have acquired from Palestine through warfare, because that is "just and right"?

[Jezz]

Law abiding? Most Palestinians are terrorist supporting scum. Hamas didn't elect itself. Israel has been uncommonly generous to them.
I suppose that, given the history of the ANC, you consider that most South Africans are also "terrorist supporting scum"?

[Jezz]

What "stealing"?
Does Israel own the land that it is occupying on the West Bank and Gaza, and where it decided to build these settlements?

If the US decided to start building American towns in Iraq, and selling US-government-subsidised house and land packages there to American citizens to encourage them to move there, would you call that "stealing"? Do you think it would be appreciated by the Iraqis?

[Darth Executor]

Does Israel own the land that it is occupying on the West Bank and Gaza, and where it decided to build these settlements?


If it took it it does, actually. And as far as I'm concerned they're entitled to it for the simple reason that the Palestinians don't know when to quit. It wouldn't be "stealing" anymore than the allies "stole" Germany after WW2. I don't have one shred of sympathy for a bunch of people who tried to wipe Israel out repeatedly. And considering nearly every Arab in the region gave up on Palestine it looks like I'm not alone.

[Darth Executor]

I suppose that, given the history of the ANC, you consider that most South Africans are also "terrorist supporting scum"?

I don't know who or what the ANC is so I couldn't tell you.

[Darth Executor]

I've had several Palestinian American friends. They still have family back there and their families are not like that. Nice to see that someone believes in ethnic stereotyping and persecution.

"most" = "your friends"? :hrm:

BTW, while the number of Christian Palestinians in Israel is declining, and not entirely due to the Muslim population,

No, I'd imagine age and disease as well as the stray bullet or bomb from a nearby Israeli-Palestinian scuffle would play a role in it as well.

PS: when I said "palestinians" I was referring to the residents of Palestine. I greatly admire the people who were brave and smart enough to leave that hellhole behind.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

"most" = "your friends"? :hrm:
You probably think my friend's families are terrorists cause they are Israeli Palestinians.


No, I'd imagine age and disease as well as the stray bullet or bomb from a nearby Israeli-Palestinian scuffle would play a role in it as well.

PS: when I said "palestinians" I was referring to the residents of Palestine. I greatly admire the people who were brave and smart enough to leave that hellhole behind.
Let me quote something from a the Palestinian Christian myspace group (http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupid=101695353&Mytoken=ABDA655B-7E8A-4A34-847D77AF83109C5326554111) I have been a member of for the last year.

"Christians are leaving the Holy Land because living conditions under Israeli occupation are desperate. The Israeli government rarely give Palestinians permits to build new homes; existing homes are often confiscated or demolished. There are few job opportunities, and medical care is inadequate. Roads are closed in and out of villages - some road are for Israeli use only. Identity cards issued by the Israeli government to Palestinians are often confiscated, preventing Palestinian from moving freely within their own territories. Water is periodically cut off and cisterns have been destroyed. Palestinian Christians are denied access to their place of worship. "

Gosh, those Palestinians are just so picky, demanding the ability to build and keep homes, have good streets and regular water, and for the Christians even a place to worship. They really should just settle for grossly substandard conditions and be glad for that because they had the misfortune to be born in a place where they happened to be born of those genetics and parents.

What the Palestinian terrorists have done is wrong, but what the Israeli government has done is also wrong. The government is to care for it's people, not oppress them. The violence promoted by people like Malcolm X and the black panthers did not make the racial discrimination in the US right. The state of the Palestinians is at least as bad. I don't see how any Christian can believe it is right for a government to do the actions bolded above.

How they are treated isn't just about terrorists. It's about children growing up in overcrowded places who are not allowed a secure place in their nation because of their ruling government. Poorer schools, automatically being treated as though they were uncaught criminals because of their race, less water, and little economic resources. Their is even religious discrimination of your own faith, not even just Christian but many are specifically Orthodox which I believe is what you are.

I'm not saying Palestinians are right. I'm just saying that everyone is wrong.

[Darth Executor]

You probably think my friend's families are terrorists cause they are Israeli Palestinians.

:lmbo: This is beyond parody. I just love the liberal psychotic urge to smear their opponents with accusations of racism.

I never said most Palestinians are TERRORISTS. I said they're, and I quote "terrorist supporting scum." I then went on to say WHY I thought so with the comment "Hamas didn't elect itself." This isn't negociable. It's not that I conjured up the idea that most palestinians are terrorist supporting scum, I got it from the fact that they democratically elected a despicable terrorist organization that slaughters fellow Palestinians who aren't as fanatical as they are about destroying Israel.

Let me quote something from a the Palestinian Christian myspace group (http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupid=101695353&Mytoken=ABDA655B-7E8A-4A34-847D77AF83109C5326554111) I have been a member of for the last year.

"Christians are leaving the Holy Land because living conditions under Israeli occupation are desperate. The Israeli government rarely give Palestinians permits to build new homes; existing homes are often confiscated or demolished. There are few job opportunities, and medical care is inadequate. Roads are closed in and out of villages - some road are for Israeli use only. Identity cards issued by the Israeli government to Palestinians are often confiscated, preventing Palestinian from moving freely within their own territories. Water is periodically cut off and cisterns have been destroyed. Palestinian Christians are denied access to their place of worship. "

Gosh, those Palestinians are just so picky, demanding the ability to build and keep homes, have good streets and regular water, and for the Christians even a place to worship. They really should just settle for grossly substandard conditions and be glad for that because they had the misfortune to be born in a place where they happened to be born of those genetics and parents.

What the Palestinian terrorists have done is wrong, but what the Israeli government has done is also wrong. The government is to care for it's people, not oppress them. The violence promoted by people like Malcolm X and the black panthers did not make the racial discrimination in the US right. The state of the Palestinians is at least as bad. I don't see how any Christian can believe it is right for a government to do the actions bolded above.

How they are treated isn't just about terrorists. It's about children growing up in overcrowded places who are not allowed a secure place in their nation because of their ruling government. Poorer schools, automatically being treated as though they were uncaught criminals because of their race, less water, and little economic resources. Their is even religious discrimination of your own faith, not even just Christian but many are specifically Orthodox which I believe is what you are.

I'm not saying Palestinians are right. I'm just saying that everyone is wrong.

Umm, the Israeli government really isn't "their government". The reason why they restrict access is because Palestinians have this unfortunate habit of running around with bombs, tripping and accidentally detonating them in malls and coffee shops. All this trouble would end if the Palestinians would stop trying to wipe out Israel. The fact remains that the Palestinians have no room to make demands. They have no military might. They're without a doubt the worst terrorists (in terms of skill) in the world. The Israeli government has turned Israel into a megafortress that is extremely difficult to penetrate by suicide bombers. No nearby arab nation is willing to shed its people's blood for them anymore. Israel has made concessions in the past. Everytime they do the Palestinians assume "they're starting to win" and get even more violent, hence the current situation. If the Palestinians ever decide to start playing nice I'm sure the Israelis will withdraw and leave them alone (they have done so in the past). Until then it's a war zone, the Palestinians are their enemy and they're under no obligation to improve living conditions if it's detrimental to their national security.

[Jezz]

I don't know who or what the ANC is so I couldn't tell you.
I figured as much.

The African National Congress was the party formed to campaign for the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa. which was the major resistance force to apartheid government. Among the tactics they used to overthrow the oppressive regime were to blow up buildings and strategic targets like power stations. The apartheid government called them terrorists.

When the ANC finally succeeded in getting apartheid overturned, elections were held and the ANC - led by Nobel Peace Prize-winning Nelson Mandela - was voted into power by the "terrorist supporting scum" of South Africa. They have been in power ever since, relatively peacefully. Most people today think of them as heros, liberators - and the apartheid regime as the real terrorists.

The problem is when you have a war were the power is unevenly distributed between the two sides, the weaker side is too weak for conventional war. They have little choice other than to either submit to whatever injustice is forced on them, or to use guerrilla tactics (or "terrorist" tactics, if you like). Wars of resistance against occupying forces have always taken this form. This is what the French did during the German occupation of WWII. It is interesting, in fact, to look at how the Germans treated the French - all were treated as suspects, they were oppressed, the secret police would indiscriminately and brutally punish random groups of Frenchmen (not necessarily the original culprits) in retaliation for the deaths of Germans. No doubt they thought that the French were "terrorists" and deserving of such treatment and of having their houses taken away.

[Darth Executor]

I figured as much.

The African National Congress was the party formed to campaign for the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa. which was the major resistance force to apartheid government. Among the tactics they used to overthrow the oppressive regime were to blow up buildings and strategic targets like power stations. The apartheid government called them terrorists.

When the ANC finally succeeded in getting apartheid overturned, elections were held and the ANC - led by Nobel Peace Prize-winning Nelson Mandela - was voted into power by the "terrorist supporting scum" of South Africa. They have been in power ever since, relatively peacefully. Most people today think of them as heros, liberators - and the apartheid regime as the real terrorists.

Fascinating. I only have one comment to make about it: the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. I mean, they gave it to Sharon and Arafat...

The problem is when you have a war were the power is unevenly distributed between the two sides, the weaker side is too weak for conventional war. They have little choice other than to either submit to whatever injustice is forced on them, or to use guerrilla tactics (or "terrorist" tactics, if you like).

Submit to "injustice"? They started the war! The fact is that if they really wanted peace and prosperty they could have it in an instant. Israel isn't extending such a degree of control over Palestinian territory because they have nothing better to do, they're doing it to protect their own citizens. As I pointed out before, Israel has uprooted settlements and withdrawn from Palestinian territory as an incentive for peace and managed to achieve nothing. They gave Sinai back to the Egyptians in exchange for peace, they have a record of compromising for the sake of peace that started with the very split of the land that the UN proposed. The Palestinians don't. They're bloodthirsty murderers that don't want peace until Israel is wiped out and I have extreme difficulty conjuring up any sort of sympathy for them.

Wars of resistance against occupying forces have always taken this form. This is what the French did during the German occupation of WWII. It is interesting, in fact, to look at how the Germans treated the French - all were treated as suspects, they were oppressed, the secret police would indiscriminately and brutally punish random groups of Frenchmen (not necessarily the original culprits) in retaliation for the deaths of Germans. No doubt they thought that the French were "terrorists" and deserving of such treatment and of having their houses taken away.

This isn't unique to wars of resistance, it's what happens in all wars. And the Palestinians started this one.

[Jezz]

Does Israel own the land that it is occupying on the West Bank and Gaza, and where it decided to build these settlements?

If it took it it does, actually.
So you're saying that if X takes Y, then X owns Y?

The concept of "stealing" is something along the lines of "taking something of which one is not the owner, without the permission of its owner". You have gone and defined the concept of ownership in such a way that whatever one takes, one owns! It thus becomes impossible to "take something of which one is not the owner", because by the very fact of taking it, one becomes the owner.

No wonder you don't consider what Israel is doing as stealing - at this point, you've defined "stealing" out of existence! Nothing is stealing, according to your definition! :rofl:

Officer: Do you own this car?
Car "thief": Well, I took it. So yes, I own it.
Officer: Right you are then. On your way!

Oh well, at least it would make the job of the police easier. (Or harder, because people keeping taking their cars from them...)

And when Germany "took" Poland, did this mean that they owned it? When they took France, did this mean that they owned it?

This concept of ownership is what we find in an anarchistic society - not in a society of law and order.

And as far as I'm concerned they're entitled to it for the simple reason that the Palestinians don't know when to quit.
And I suppose that the Sioux deserved to have their land taken away too because they didn't know when to quit...

The scary thing is that there were probably not a few US citizens who actually believed that at the time...yet with the benefit of hindsight most now acknowledge that what the US did to the Sioux was wrong. It's a pity some can't take that lesson and apply it to other contexts.

It wouldn't be "stealing" anymore than the allies "stole" Germany after WW2.
:duh: And where are all the American, French, British and Russian settlements in Germany today? When did the US hold discounted land sales for US citizens in Germany in order to encourage US citizens to settle there?

See, you've actually gone and shot yourself in the foot by bringing up the example of Germany, the Allies and WW2. It clearly distinguishes the difference between occupation and ownership. You're quite right - the allies occupied Germany, but (in contrast to Israel) they did not steal it.

The allies certainly occupied Germany, but at no point did they ever claim ownership of it. Nor did they ever take any of it to build their own settlements on it. Although they occupied it, they still considered it German land, not theirs, and when the time was right and Germany was stable again, they withdrew and all of the land reverted to German sovereignty.

And that, my friend, is one important difference between what the Allies did, and what Israel is doing. I did not suggest that by merely occupying the land that Israel have stolen it. It is specifically the act of building permanent settlements on Palestinian land for Israeli civilians which constitutes an act of theft. That's the difference between occupation and annexation.

I don't have one shred of sympathy for a bunch of people who tried to wipe Israel out repeatedly. And considering nearly every Arab in the region gave up on Palestine it looks like I'm not alone.
And just who, exactly, is this "bunch of people" who tried to wipe Israel out repeatedly?

Given that we are talking about Palestine, I could surmise that the "bunch of people" you are referring to are the Palestinians. In which case, I would have to point out that you are mistaken. Palestine never tried to wipe out Israel - it was the surrounding Arab nations (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq) who "repeatedly" (ie, two, maybe three times) tried to wipe out Israel. The Palestinians themselves were not in a position to do much except flee or get caught in the crossfire. Those that fled found that they were prohibited by Israel from returning to their houses. Many of them still had the keys and the deeds, but even if they could have gotten back there they would probably have found that their house had either been bulldozed or that someone else was living there (but I guess that's not stealing, because they took it, right? :ahem:) So if your lack of sympathy for the Palestinians comes from the fact that "they" tried to wipe out Israel, your lack of sympathy is based on a faulty notion.

The only other possibility is that, because Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq are Arabic peoples, by "bunch of people" you are referring to Arabs as a group. I think this reading is supported by the fact that you referred to the "repeated" attempts to wipe out Israel by this "bunch of people", as if there were several of them (certainly, more than a few). But the only way one could legitimately reckon up several attempts by one group to wipe out Israel is if one totalled all the attempts by every Arab nation and reckoned them to "the Arabs" as a single bunch of people. One could certainly arrive at a count of "repeatedly" if one reckoned all attempts by any Arab nation to the Arab race as a whole. In which case, I will point out that it is wrong to hold a grudge against a group of people simply because they are of the same race as another bunch of people who did something that you don't like. That's called "racism".

[Darth Executor]

Ok, I don't know what's wrong with my computer but this is the third time I try to respond to this post. Since I don't feel like reciprocating the wisecracks a third time I'll just respond in point form. Furthermore, since much of your post is contingent on misrepresentation (whether intentional or not is not really relevant) I'm gonna save time and simply fix the misrepresentation then ignore everything that was rendered irrelevant by it.

So you're saying that if X takes Y, then X owns Y?

Yes.

The concept of "stealing" is something along the lines of "taking something of which one is not the owner, without the permission of its owner". You have gone and defined the concept of ownership in such a way that whatever one takes, one owns! It thus becomes impossible to "take something of which one is not the owner", because by the very fact of taking it, one becomes the owner.

- Illogical. Ownership is not timeless. If person A owned object R from time F to time G does not mean that the person who acquires the object from time G to time J did not commit theft at time G. In other words, the change of ownership does not render stealing non-existant nor did I "define stealing out of existance(I spell existence his way because it looks and sounds cooler, not because I'm illiterate)". Furthermore, I am going to launch a pre-emptive strike against future misrepresentation and state that I do not think theft is moral in most circumstances.
- Furthermore, this isn't "my" concept of ownership, it's the only concept of ownership that makes sense.


And when Germany "took" Poland, did this mean that they owned it? When they took France, did this mean that they owned it?

After they took it, yes.

This concept of ownership is what we find in an anarchistic society - not in a society of law and order.

The concept of ownership in both a chaotic and a lawful society is the same: the strong makes the rules and enforces "rights". That includes ownership.

And I suppose that the Sioux deserved to have their land taken away too because they didn't know when to quit...

Pained analogy. The Palestinians are not comparable to the Sioux because the Palestinians STARTED the war that put them under Israeli control.

:duh: And where are all the American, French, British and Russian settlements in Germany today? When did the US hold discounted land sales for US citizens in Germany in order to encourage US citizens to settle there?

Where did the big chunk of Germany that was there pre-ww2 go after ww2? Oh yeah, the Russians carved up their piece of Central Europe, including Germany. Furthermore, since Israel is still at war and WW2 was over by that time this comparison is uselss.


See, you've actually gone and shot yourself in the foot by bringing up the example of Germany, the Allies and WW2. It clearly distinguishes the difference between occupation and ownership. You're quite right - the allies occupied Germany, but (in contrast to Israel) they did not steal it.

You missed the point of my analogy. Israel is exercising control over Palestine for their own security. Against a honorable enemy like the Germans were after they were defeated settlements are not necessary, nor is an extended occupation necessary. The Palestinians are not an honorable enemy.

And that, my friend, is one important difference between what the Allies did, and what Israel is doing. I did not suggest that by merely occupying the land that Israel have stolen it. It is specifically the act of building permanent settlements on Palestinian land for Israeli civilians which constitutes an act of theft. That's the difference between occupation and annexation.

I will concede the point if in the future Israel and Palestine come to a real peace agreement and Israel doesn't uproot its settlements (which it has done before, and is the main reason why I don't think you KNOW they're permanent). Until then I'm gonna go by the current track record.


And just who, exactly, is this "bunch of people" who tried to wipe Israel out repeatedly?

Palestinians. I concede that repeatedly isn't the best word. More like continuously.

Given that we are talking about Palestine, I could surmise that the "bunch of people" you are referring to are the Palestinians. In which case, I would have to point out that you are mistaken. Palestine never tried to wipe out Israel - it was the surrounding Arab nations (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq) who "repeatedly" (ie, two, maybe three times) tried to wipe out Israel.

You are partially correct. While it was the nations you listed that really did the most damage and had the biggest and more "successful" attempts, the Palestinians did start the war and DID attempt to wipe out Israel (they're still trying, although it doesn't really look like they are since their offensive power has been reduced to laughable levels thanks to Israel's fortifications and fragmentation of Palestinian terriory). The civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#1947.E2.80.931948_Civil_War_in_mandatory_Palestine)before Israel declared independence wasn't a figment of my imagination.

[Jezz]

Ok, I don't know what's wrong with my computer but this is the third time I try to respond to this post.
If I have to have more than two goes at making a post, I usually take that as a sign that God doesn't want me to post what I am posting...

- Illogical. Ownership is not timeless. If person A owned object R from time F to time G does not mean that the person who acquires the object from time G to time J did not commit theft at time G. In other words, the change of ownership does not render stealing non-existant nor did I "define stealing out of existance".
Ok, rather than getting caught up in terminology, let me simply ask: Do you admit that Israel stole the Palestinian land at "time G"?

Furthermore, I am going to launch a pre-emptive strike against future misrepresentation and state that I do not think theft is moral in most circumstances.
Gotcha. It's only moral when Israelis are the thieves and they are stealing from "terrorists".

- Furthermore, this isn't "my" concept of ownership, it's the only concept of ownership that makes sense.
Rubbish. "If I take it, then it's mine" is not a concept of ownership at all - it's the total lack of a concept of ownership.

I had to study some contract law as part of my engineering degree. One of the first things they teach you about is the concept of "title" - that is, legal ownership. Title cannot be transferred from one person to another by illegal means (eg, theft). If I take a car from someone illegally (eg, without their permission), then it may be in my possession but legally I do not own the car - they still own it. If I "sell" it to someone, then the person I have sold it to will have to give it back to the original owner - because legally, they still owned it, and I had no right to sell it. This is the Australian comon law concept of ownership, which was inherited from English common law. I assume that US and Canadian common law on ownership would therefore be pretty much the same.

The concept of ownership in both a chaotic and a lawful society is the same: the strong makes the rules and enforces "rights". That includes ownership.
If you generalise anything enough, of course they will look the same. Eg: "The concept of ownership in both a chaotic and a lawful society is the same: both start with the letter 'o'."

There is, of course, a fundamential difference in the idea of ownership in a lawful and a lawless society. In the latter, ownership is legitimised by force. In the former, ownership is legitimised by law. The question of "law enforcement" (where "strength" becomes important) is conceptually a different one to the question of "law" proper. It is this fundamental distinction which distinguishes a lawful society from an anarchistic one. The concept of ownership is, in fact, different.

Pained analogy. The Palestinians are not comparable to the Sioux because the Palestinians STARTED the war that put them under Israeli control.
Apart from the fact that your premise is far from certain (addressed below), I should also point out that the European settlers in North America also thought that it was the Native Americans who started the war against them. Of course, it was in fact their settlement (which was the initial act of aggression) which started the conflict. This makes the analogy quite strong.

Where did the big chunk of Germany that was there pre-ww2 go after ww2? Oh yeah, the Russians carved up their piece of Central Europe, including Germany.
So I see now you've had to resort to comparing Israel's actions with those of Stalinist Russia. I'll let the force of that admission speak for itself.

Furthermore, since Israel is still at war and WW2 was over by that time this comparison is uselss.
:shrug: A distinction without difference. Whether still at war or not, it is still wrong to build settlements on occupied territory. The Allies didn't build settlements in Germany when they were still at war with Germany either.

See, you've actually gone and shot yourself in the foot by bringing up the example of Germany, the Allies and WW2. It clearly distinguishes the difference between occupation and ownership. You're quite right - the allies occupied Germany, but (in contrast to Israel) they did not steal it.

You missed the point of my analogy. Israel is exercising control over Palestine for their own security. Against a honorable enemy like the Germans were after they were defeated settlements are not necessary, nor is an extended occupation necessary. The Palestinians are not an honorable enemy.
I didn't miss the point of your analogy at all. Yes, I acknowledge that the Allies were exercising control over Germany for their own security. I dont have have a problem with that in principle. And if that's all that Israel were doing in Palestine, then we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation (at least, I would see it as far more grey than I currently do). The problem is that Israel is exercising control over Palestine while refusing to live up to its responsibilities as the controlling power to the residents of the land that they control.

In fact, it's worse than that - not only has Israel allowed infrastructure and systems in Palestine to collapse during its occupation, but it often actively contributes to it. Collective punishment is common - attacks on an entire village because of one or two suspects in it, etc. They destroy when it is their duty to protect.

If you have a controlling power that won't look after the people under their control, and hinders or actively opposes the attempts of those who try, then of course people are going to get downtrodden and frustrated. The Germans behaved "honourably" in defeat in large part due to the honourable way in which they were treated by their occupiers. If the Allies had treated them as the Israelis treat the Palestinians, I would not be surprised if the Germans had reacted in a similar way.

As for being "dishonourable" - well, that's just laughable. Israel has been far from honourable. Building new settlements outside of the UN mandated area is a dishonourable act. It is dishonourable because it indicates an ulterior motive (ie, the desire for more land) and thus points to a conflict of interest. The honourable thing to do when there is a conflict of interest is to withdraw from one of the conflicting interests. (the desire for more land conflicts with the stated goal of security for the land already held). Another example where Israel has reneged on a promise is in their failure to provide a reliable safe corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, and for frequently denying people passage between the two areas. This has had a demoralising effect on people who work in one area while living in the other, or who have family in one area while living in the other, etc.

When you keep a people as depressed and downtrodden and for as long as Israel has done to the Palestinians, then sooner or later they will revolt against you.

I will concede the point if in the future Israel and Palestine come to a real peace agreement and Israel doesn't uproot its settlements (which it has done before, and is the main reason why I don't think you KNOW they're permanent). Until then I'm gonna go by the current track record.
Oh come on. To quote Amira Hass (a Jewish reporter who has lived in Gaza):

Built at a cost of billions of shekels for the needs of a tiny Jewish minority, the network of bypass roads [for Jewish settlements] will play no small part in Israel's negotiations over remaining territory. Anyone who invests a fortune in roads does not intend to dismantle the communities that use them.

Do the settlers go to these new settlements with the impression that they are only going to be there until the conflict is over? Did the person who started this thread complaining about the possible expulsion of Jewish settlers from Gaza seem to be of the opinion that these were intended to be temporary settlements?

As for the "current track record" - yes, I grant that Israel has uprooted settlements here and there in the past - at the same time that they have increased the settlement building activity elsewhere. You cite this as if it were an example of Israel "giving concessions" to Palestine - yet as with most other such "concessions" they have made, they give $1 with the right hand while taking $5 with the left. That is their track record.

You are partially correct. While it was the nations you listed that really did the most damage and had the biggest and more "successful" attempts, the Palestinians did start the war and DID attempt to wipe out Israel (they're still trying, although it doesn't really look like they are since their offensive power has been reduced to laughable levels thanks to Israel's fortifications and fragmentation of Palestinian terriory). The civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#1947.E2.80.931948_Civil_War_in_mandatory_Palestine)before Israel declared independence wasn't a figment of my imagination.
No, the civil war was not a figment of your imagination. The conclusions that you have drawn from it are. Here are some examples of what are figments of your imagination:

1. The idea that they started a war to "wipe out" Israel. By your own admission, Israel did not yet exist when this conflict took place. It is a complete and utter anachronism to cite this conflict as an attempt to wipe out Israel.
2. The idea that the Arabs started that conflict. I found nothing in the article (nor in the more detailed version here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_mandatory_Palestine)) that established this, nor did the article itself make that claim. There is as much evidence to suggest that the conflict was started by militant Zionists as there is to suggest that it was started by disgruntled Arabs.
3. This idea that you seem to have that the Zionist Jews were innocent victims, just minding their own business, when suddenly they were attacked by marauding Arab oppressors. The article gives a number of examples of attacks carried out by Jewish Zionists against Arabs and British soldiers which could only be described as terrorist attacks. Here is one:

For example, on December 30, in Haifa, members of the clandestine militant Zionist group, Irgun, threw two bombs at a crowd of Arab workers who were queueing in front of a refinery, killing 6 of them and injuring 42.

It is clear that the civil war (like the later occupation) was hardly as black and white as you are painting it - with the innocent Jewish residents having to defend themselves against Arab aggressors bent on their destruction. From the very beginning, the Zionists were just as aggressive as the Arabs were.

And please do note that the period of native Arab revolt was very brief (the native Arabs didn't have many weapons because they were forbidden under British mandate rule) - only a couple of months. After that, the foreign Arab nations began to intervene and most of the locals (those who were able) simply fled to get out of the crossfire. So what I said is 95% true - it was not the native Palestinian Arabs who tried to wipe out Israel, but the Arabs in surrounding countries. You continue to assign guilt to the Palestinians for the transgressions of their neighbours, simply because they happen to be of the same race.

It is also important to remember that, at this early stage, because Israel did not yet exist, the Arabs had just as much right to fight for the establishment of an Arab state as the Jews had to fight for the establishment of a Jewish state. It is only after Israel had been firmly established that you can consider it illegitimate for them to try and establish an Arab state in its place. The only way you can appeal to some kind of right for Israel to exist before it actually existed, is if you appealed to the authority of the UN. But then, if you do that, then why arbitrarily reject that same authority when it granted the right of a Palestinian state to exist, and declare Israel's settlement-building activities illegal? You can't have your cake and eat it.

I think I should reiterate at this point that I do not think that Palestinian Arabs are completely innocent in this whole affair either. If ever there was a thread that attempted to paint the Palestinians as being completely innocent in the entire affair, I would likely respond in a similar manner in that thread (such threads are few and far between in the Western world, though). What I can't stand, though, is the idea that Israel is somehow completely pure, can do no wrong, and shares no part in the blame for the evils that are from time-to-time inflicted upon it. Or how when an individual or small group of Arab Palestinians performs a terrorist act, this is generalised to "the Palestinians" and they share the blame collectively. Over and over again in your posts in this thread, you have used the term "the Palestinians" and assigned them collective guilt. Whereas when an individual or small group of Jews, like Igrun, or Baruch Goldstein, or Yigal Amir, performs a terrorist act, the blame stays with them and is not referred to all Jews. It's the double standard that I object to.

[Darth Executor]

If I have to have more than two goes at making a post, I usually take that as a sign that God doesn't want me to post what I am posting...

I'm sorry, some of us don't have a telepathic link to God's mind so forgive our perseverence.


Ok, rather than getting caught up in terminology, let me simply ask: Do you admit that Israel stole the Palestinian land at "time G"?

No. In fact I already stated I don't think Israel's takeover of Palestinian land isn't theft. I would not admit it was theft even if they exercised complete control over Gaza and the West Bank and kicked out every single Palestinian there.

Gotcha. It's only moral when Israelis are the thieves and they are stealing from "terrorists".

No, it's moral when retrieving an object that was stolen from you already. It's not applicable in this case because it isn't theft of any kind, plain and simple.

Rubbish. "If I take it, then it's mine" is not a concept of ownership at all - it's the total lack of a concept of ownership.

I had to study some contract law as part of my engineering degree. One of the first things they teach you about is the concept of "title" - that is, legal ownership. Title cannot be transferred from one person to another by illegal means (eg, theft). If I take a car from someone illegally (eg, without their permission), then it may be in my possession but legally I do not own the car - they still own it. If I "sell" it to someone, then the person I have sold it to will have to give it back to the original owner - because legally, they still owned it, and I had no right to sell it. This is the Australian comon law concept of ownership, which was inherited from English common law. I assume that US and Canadian common law on ownership would therefore be pretty much the same.

Fascinating but Canadian, Australian and US law is not universal. It is an application of my conept of ownership: the strong decides.


If you generalise anything enough, of course they will look the same. Eg: "The concept of ownership in both a chaotic and a lawful society is the same: both start with the letter 'o'."

There is, of course, a fundamential difference in the idea of ownership in a lawful and a lawless society. In the latter, ownership is legitimised by force. In the former, ownership is legitimised by law. The question of "law enforcement" (where "strength" becomes important) is conceptually a different one to the question of "law" proper. It is this fundamental distinction which distinguishes a lawful society from an anarchistic one. The concept of ownership is, in fact, different.

Your distinction is meaningless. Law is legitimised by force. If the law does not have the power to enforce its laws it's completely maningless.

Apart from the fact that your premise is far from certain (addressed below), I should also point out that the European settlers in North America also thought that it was the Native Americans who started the war against them. Of course, it was in fact their settlement (which was the initial act of aggression) which started the conflict. This makes the analogy quite strong.

What they thought and what reality was is not relevant nor does it make your analogy stronger.

So I see now you've had to resort to comparing Israel's actions with those of Stalinist Russia. I'll let the force of that admission speak for i lf.

Remember, remember the 3rd of november. :ahem:


:shrug: A distinction without difference. Whether still at war or not, it is still wrong to build settlements on occupied territory. The Allies didn't build settlements in Germany when they were still at war with Germany either.

As I explained already the settlements serve a security purpose and as such whether there is still a war is essential to the issue.


I didn't miss the point of your analogy at all. Yes, I acknowledge that the Allies were exercising control over Germany for their own security. I dont have have a problem with that in principle. And if that's all that Israel were doing in Palestine, then we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation (at least, I would see it as far more grey than I currently do). The problem is that Israel is exercising control over Palestine while refusing to live up to its responsibilities as the controlling power to the residents of the land that they control.

:lmbo: Israel has no responsibility to the residents. The only reason why they're there is because the residents won't leave them alone.

In fact, it's worse than that - not only has Israel allowed infrastructure and systems in Palestine to collapse during its occupation, but it often actively contributes to it. Collective punishment is common - attacks on an entire village because of one or two suspects in it, etc. They destroy when it is their duty to protect.

It's not their duty to protect their enemy, that's the most asinine assessment I've seen in a while.

If you have a controlling power that won't look after the people under their control, and hinders or actively opposes the attempts of those who try, then of course people are going to get downtrodden and frustrated. The Germans behaved "honourably" in defeat in large part due to the honourable way in which they were treated by their occupiers. If the Allies had treated them as the Israelis treat the Palestinians, I would not be surprised if the Germans had reacted in a similar way.

The Israelis are treating the Palestinians the way they do because the latter don't want to surrender. I've explained this to you repeatedly but it appears I am having a conversation with a brick wall.

As for being "dishonourable" - well, that's just laughable. Israel has been far from honourable. Building new settlements outside of the UN mandated area is a dishonourable act. It is dishonourable because it indicates an ulterior motive (ie, the desire for more land) and thus points to a conflict of interest. The honourable thing to do when there is a conflict of interest is to withdraw from one of the conflicting interests. (the desire for more land conflicts with the stated goal of security for the land already held). Another example where Israel has reneged on a promise is in their failure to provide a reliable safe corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, and for frequently denying people passage between the two areas. This has had a demoralising effect on people who work in one area while living in the other, or who have family in one area while living in the other, etc.

Yeah, withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza strip, it worked so well last time. :ahem:

When you keep a people as depressed and downtrodden and for as long as Israel has done to the Palestinians, then sooner or later they will revolt against you.

They "revolted" before Israel did anything to them.


Oh come on. To quote Amira Hass (a Jewish reporter who has lived in Gaza):

Built at a cost of billions of shekels for the needs of a tiny Jewish minority, the network of bypass roads [for Jewish settlements] will play no small part in Israel's negotiations over remaining territory. Anyone who invests a fortune in roads does not intend to dismantle the communities that use them.

Do the settlers go to these new settlements with the impression that they are only going to be there until the conflict is over? Did the person who started this thread complaining about the possible expulsion of Jewish settlers from Gaza seem to be of the opinion that these were intended to be temporary settlements?

The last set of settlers they uprooted certainly thought they were gonna stay there forever and didn't. Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you would have the guts to bring up the OP when it directly contradicts your claims.

As for the "current track record" - yes, I grant that Israel has uprooted settlements here and there in the past - at the same time that they have increased the settlement building activity elsewhere. You cite this as if it were an example of Israel "giving concessions" to Palestine - yet as with most other such "concessions" they have made, they give $1 with the right hand while taking $5 with the left. That is their track record.

Substantiate please.


No, the civil war was not a figment of your imagination. The conclusions that you have drawn from it are. Here are some examples of what are figments of your imagination:

1. The idea that they started a war to "wipe out" Israel. By your own admission, Israel did not yet exist when this conflict took place. It is a complete and utter anachronism to cite this conflict as an attempt to wipe out Israel.

I don't recall any such admission. Furthermore, that it did not exist "officially" isn't really relevant.

2. The idea that the Arabs started that conflict. I found nothing in the article (nor in the more detailed version here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_mandatory_Palestine)) that established this, nor did the article itself make that claim. There is as much evidence to suggest that the conflict was started by militant Zionists as there is to suggest that it was started by disgruntled Arabs.

You must've missed the first paragraph:

In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community. Soon thereafter, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came one after the other, killing dozens of victims on both sides in the process, a bloody situation that was not helped by fact that no one intervened to put a stop to the escalating violence.


3. This idea that you seem to have that the Zionist Jews were innocent victims, just minding their own business, when suddenly they were attacked by marauding Arab oppressors.

I don't have this idea.

It is clear that the civil war (like the later occupation) was hardly as black and white as you are painting it - with the innocent Jewish residents having to defend themselves against Arab aggressors bent on their destruction. From the very beginning, the Zionists were just as aggressive as the Arabs were.

As aggressive, no doubt, but for different reasons. Furthermore, the Israelis have kept their religious fanatics in check. The Palestinians elected them to office.

And please do note that the period of native Arab revolt was very brief (the native Arabs didn't have many weapons because they were forbidden under British mandate rule) - only a couple of months. After that, the foreign Arab nations began to intervene and most of the locals (those who were able) simply fled to get out of the crossfire. So what I said is 95% true - it was not the native Palestinian Arabs who tried to wipe out Israel, but the Arabs in surrounding countries. You continue to assign guilt to the Palestinians for the transgressions of their neighbours, simply because they happen to be of the same race.

The foreign arab nations intervened on behalf of the Palestinians. I don't recall the Palestinians ever asking them to go away and admitting defeat. If they have feel free to substantiate it at your convenience.

It is also important to remember that, at this early stage, because Israel did not yet exist, the Arabs had just as much right to fight for the establishment of an Arab state as the Jews had to fight for the establishment of a Jewish state. It is only after Israel had been firmly established that you can consider it illegitimate for them to try and establish an Arab state in its place. The only way you can appeal to some kind of right for Israel to exist before it actually existed, is if you appealed to the authority of the UN. But then, if you do that, then why arbitrarily reject that same authority when it granted the right of a Palestinian state to exist, and declare Israel's settlement-building activities illegal? You can't have your cake and eat it.

Actually, yes I can. I can appeal to the UN authority in the former because it was their land and as such have the right to give it to whoever they want. That does not mean I must accept their authority after they gave the land. Once you give someone something it's not yours anymore. What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it anyway?

I think I should reiterate at this point that I do not think that Palestinian Arabs are completely innocent in this whole affair either. If ever there was a thread that attempted to paint the Palestinians as being completely innocent in the entire affair, I would likely respond in a similar manner in that thread (such threads are few and far between in the Western world, though). What I can't stand, though, is the idea that Israel is somehow completely pure, can do no wrong, and shares no part in the blame for the evils that are from time-to-time inflicted upon it. Or how when an individual or small group of Arab Palestinians performs a terrorist act, this is generalised to "the Palestinians" and they share the blame collectively.

As it should be when Palestinians overwhelmingly vote an internationally recognized terrorist organization to office. If they hadn't elected Hamas into power I'd see them in a much better light than I do now. Furthermore, I have never, ever claimed that Israel is "pure" or completely innocent. I have claimed that the conflict is the Palestinians fault (which it is). That Israel has done bad things in the process isn't really relevant to that point, as I don't believe things would be different even if they hadn't.

Over and over again in your posts in this thread, you have used the term "the Palestinians" and assigned them collective guilt.

Yeah, it's too bad 80% of them make the rest look bad. :ahem:

Whereas when an individual or small group of Jews, like Igrun, or Baruch Goldstein, or Yigal Amir, performs a terrorist act, the blame stays with them and is not referred to all Jews. It's the double standard that I object to.

Yeah, because they're not state-sanctioned by the Israeli government. The Israelis wiped out their terrorist organizations. The Palestinians put them into office.

EDIT: I forgot my self-righteous ending speech.

The reason why I got involved in this thread is over accusations of "stealing". I don't consider the taking of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip theft for the same reason why I don't consider a cop giving you a ticket for speeding theft: Palestine is guilty of a violation and the ruling power (Israel) is exercising its right to penalize them for it. If they want to take ALL of the Palestinian land, they're welcome to it. It's fair punishment for a wipe out attempt. Of course, I think they're too chivalrous (and it pains me to portray an abortionist nation as "chivalrous", believe me) to do that but they could if they wanted to.

Furthermore, I don't believe you are being "fair and balanced", mainly because you keep accusing Israel of "collective punishment", something that is innate to anything worthy of the name "war". Innocent people get harmed in a war, thanks for the update Mike Wallace, couldn't do without you.

[Jezz]

I'm sorry, some of us don't have a telepathic link to God's mind so forgive our perseverence.
It is precisely because I don't have a telepathic link to God's mind that I have to rely on signs such as that one. You need to ask the question: who put the obstacles there, and why? Is it perseverence, or obstinance?

No. In fact I already stated I don't think Israel's takeover of Palestinian land isn't theft. I would not admit it was theft even if they exercised complete control over Gaza and the West Bank and kicked out every single Palestinian there.

...

No, it's moral when retrieving an object that was stolen from you already. It's not applicable in this case because it isn't theft of any kind, plain and simple.

...

Fascinating but Canadian, Australian and US law is not universal. It is an application of my conept of ownership: the strong decides.
(Emphasis added)

Well, at least now you are backtracking from your claim in the previous post (post 23) that 'this isn't "my" concept of ownership'. As I pointed out earlier, this is in fact your concept of ownership, it is indistinguishable from anarchy, and you have defined theft out of existence.

Your distinction is meaningless. Law is legitimised by force. If the law does not have the power to enforce its laws it's completely maningless.
It isn't at all meaningless to draw a distinction between them. The distinction is foundational to the functioning of most Western democracies - it is called "Separation of Powers". We distinguish between the judicial (judging legitimacy) and executive (enforcement) arms of government. If the distinction between law and law enforcement were meaningless, then the distinction between judge and policeman would be too.

Remember, remember the 3rd of november. :ahem:
A nice way of trying to draw attention away from the fact that you tried to justify Israel's position by appealing to the example of Stalinist Russia.

As I explained already the settlements serve a security purpose and as such whether there is still a war is essential to the issue.
The presence of settlements makes the security situation worse as it puts the warring parties literally within a stone's throw of each other. If civilian settlements were such a good way to achieve security, the US would be building civilian settlements in various parts of Iraq right now.

:lmbo: Israel has no responsibility to the residents.
The Geneva convention states that the occupying power has a duty to protect civilians during a conflict.

The only reason why they're there is because the residents won't leave them alone.
Most of the residents would leave them alone if they weren't there. Indeed, most of the residents wouldn't even be able to harass Israelis, were it not for the fact that the Israelis deliberately put themselves within stone-throwing distance.

It's not their duty to protect their enemy, that's the most asinine assessment I've seen in a while.
The Geneva convention states that the occupying power has a duty to protect civilians during a conflict.

The Israelis are treating the Palestinians the way they do because the latter don't want to surrender. I've explained this to you repeatedly but it appears I am having a conversation with a brick wall.
You've explained this to me repeatedly? I count this as the second time. Moreover, a "brick wall" is someone who doesn't address your points, and I addressed this one last time you asked.

The fact is, it doesn't matter if the Palestinians don't want to surrender - Israel have no right to treat them that way. The Palestinians' lack of a desire to surrender and to drive out their occupiers is due in no small part to the way that they are being treated.

Yeah, withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza strip, it worked so well last time. :ahem:
"Last time"? There was no last time. Since the 1967 war, they've never withdrawn from the West Bank. It is unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to stop their fight for freedom until they are free.

The last set of settlers they uprooted certainly thought they were gonna stay there forever and didn't. Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you would have the guts to bring up the OP when it directly contradicts your claims.
There is no contradiction. As you point out, the settlers certainly didn't think that they would be temporary, so either their government lied to them or they intended them to be permanent acquisition (ie, theft).

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a good thing if a thief gives back some of what they stole. But it would have been better if they gave back everything that they had stolen, and better still if they hadn't stolen it in the first place.

As for the "current track record" - yes, I grant that Israel has uprooted settlements here and there in the past - at the same time that they have increased the settlement building activity elsewhere. You cite this as if it were an example of Israel "giving concessions" to Palestine - yet as with most other such "concessions" they have made, they give $1 with the right hand while taking $5 with the left. That is their track record.

Substantiate please.
From this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166364,00.html) about Sharon's "unilateral withdrawal" from the Gaza strip in 2005:

But Sharon, who concluded that the Gaza settlements were too difficult to defend and that keeping Gaza posed a threat to the Jewish character of Israel, said he intended to keep building Jewish homes in the West Bank.

At a meeting of parliament's security committee, Sharon said Israel would create territorial contiguity between Israel's internationally recognized border and the areas that house most of the 230,000 West Bank settlers — a plan that likely would expand the West Bank's Jewish population.

This has in fact happened. According to this Ha'aretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/811480.html) tells, the settler population in the West Bank grew by 1.5% in the year ending 2005, with a total population of 253,748. The following year, the population grew by nearly 6% - for a total population of 268,379 at the end of 2005. That's a growth of about 14,500 people. According to the same article, the entire settler population evacuated from Gaza was only about 8,500.

This (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2003/Address+by+PM+Ariel+Sharon+at+the+Fourth+Herzliya.htm) is what Sharon said when he announced the unilateral withdrawal plan:

Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements.

Even an Israeli PM as hard-line as Sharon acknowledged that Israel had an obligation to not expropriate land for construction of settlements. And yet here you are trying to convince us that Israel as the right to expropriate as much land as it desires - even if they "kicked out every Palestinian that lives there".

Note also that the above article reports this:

Israel drew protests from the United States and European Union last month by announcing it would turn a former army base in the West Bank called Maskiot into a settlement to house 60 families evacuated more than a year ago from the Gaza Strip.

(This article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/809723.html) goes into more depth about Maskiot.)

Whatever happened to "no construction of new settlements"? Whatever happened to Israel behaving honourably in all of their dealings with the Palestinians and never reneging on any of their obligations? So blatant was this violation that it even drew criticisms from the US government.

1. The idea that they started a war to "wipe out" Israel. By your own admission, Israel did not yet exist when this conflict took place. It is a complete and utter anachronism to cite this conflict as an attempt to wipe out Israel.

I don't recall any such admission.
You wrote of "[t]he civil war before Israel declared independence..." (emphasis added). If it was before Israel declared independence, then Israel did not yet exist.

Furthermore, that it did not exist "officially" isn't really relevant.
Of course it's relevant. That it did not exist "officially" means that it doesn't exist, period. In the same way that the Palestinian state doesn't exist. It is nonsense to cite a civil war as an example of a people trying to wipe out a nation which did not exist. Indeed, if that's what the war was trying to accomplish, it would be an oxymoron to call it a "civil" war. There is as much evidence to suggest that this war was about the Jews' efforts to wipe out the state of Palestine as there is to suggest that it was about the Arabs' efforts to wipe out "Israel".

In the Mel Gibson movie "Maverick", when Maverick was talking about the Native Americans and the conflict with them, he says sarcastically: "I figure it's their fault, too, for being on our land before we got here." Your "it's the Palestinians' fault" argument reminds me very much of our present conversation. You're right - the conflict is the Palestinians' fault for being on Israeli land before Israel got there. The fact that Israel hadn't got there yet isn't at all relevant. :ahem:

You must've missed the first paragraph:

In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community. Soon thereafter, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came one after the other, killing dozens of victims on both sides in the process, a bloody situation that was not helped by fact that no one intervened to put a stop to the escalating violence.
I didn't miss it at all. It just doesn't say what you say it says.

The bit that you emboldened states that the Arabs were upset and the Jews were happy at the announcement of the formation of a Jewish state. However, it gives absolutely no indication of whether or does say whether the first shot/rock was fired/thrown by an overly-joyous Zionist or by an overly-discontent Arab. Not even the more detail article gives a hint - it points out that the initial expression of discontent of the Arabs was a 3-day general strike (ie. a peaceful protest). And like the main article, it says that violence broke out, without saying who caused it. Though it gives enough examples to show that the Jews were also capable of senseless and indiscriminate violence against Arabs, and therefore equally capable of starting the conflict as the Arabs.

So while the articles make it clear that elements on both sides were capable of mindless and indiscriminate violence against the other (and thus equally capable of starting such a conflict), neither of them say who started the civil war (indeed, it is probably impossible to say). Your brain supplied the missing "facts" when you read the articles in order to suit your argument.

3. This idea that you seem to have that the Zionist Jews were innocent victims, just minding their own business, when suddenly they were attacked by marauding Arab oppressors.

I don't have this idea.
The idea is implicit in the notion that "the Palestinians started it", which is the heart of your entire argument.

From the very beginning, the Zionists were just as aggressive as the Arabs were.

As aggressive, no doubt, but for different reasons.
Rubbish. They were aggressive for exactly the same reasons - they both wanted their own state in the same geographical area.

Furthermore, the Israelis have kept their religious fanatics in check. The Palestinians elected them to office.
The Israelis keep their religious fanatics in check? Perhaps you ought to read the accounts of some people who actually live there:

Yaqoub, translated in English as Prophet Jacob, is the settlement nearest our home. The night of the attack was dark without shadows, but we peered into the night from our windows trying to see. We could only hear shooting and shouting in Hebrew: Mavet Learaveem-Death for Arabs.

...

Settlers never come in the day. Like the fox to a barnyard, they sneak in at night. They come fully armed and often with Israeli soldiers. The noise we make sometimes seems our only defense. If they do not kill our people, they destroy property and terrorize our children. Even without Israeli imposed curfews, few Arab people leave their homes at night. People stop work around 3 or 4 p.m. in order to be home and in the house by dark. Towns like Hebron, Salfeet, Bir-Zeit, Sufat and Beit-Hanina are like ghost towns after 6 p.m.
(From here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/102.html), emphasis added.)

Far from keeping their fanatics in check, the military often gives them an escort while they go on their marauding rampages.

Also from this article (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/508/re1.htm):

The Israeli army spokesman brushed the incident aside, saying that if Jews are not safe on the roads, Arabs are not going to be safe either. Earlier the same day, a band of settlers attacked Arab olive orchards in the villages of Abud, Nabi Saleh, and Sinjel, uprooting hundreds of ancient trees and vandalising property. The raid took place in full view of Israeli soldiers, who are deployed to provide protection for the marauding settlers.

The settlers' wanton violence didn't even spare United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who has just wrapped up a visit to the occupied territories to examine Israeli human rights violations. While visiting the Tel Rumeida neighbourhood—where settler violence and vandalism has reached unprecedented proportions—Robinson's entourage was fired at by settlers on Monday. The group threw heavy objects and iron bars at journalists covering her fact-finding mission.

As for your second comment, "they elected them to office": well, two can play at that game. Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres (not Ariel Sharon, as you incorrectly asserted in an earlier post) were awarded the Nobel Peace prize for the Oslo agreement, which was an agreement to give back the Palestinians some (not all) of the land that they had taken since 1967. The Israelis were so pleased with their attempts at peace that they murdered Rabin, and when Peres succeeded him they voted him out at the next election.

The foreign arab nations intervened on behalf of the Palestinians. I don't recall the Palestinians ever asking them to go away and admitting defeat. If they have feel free to substantiate it at your convenience.
What is your point? Even if they had wanted to ask the foreign Arab nations to stay out of it, how could they have asked them? Do you propose that their non-existent government should have put in a request on behalf of their citizens?

It is also important to remember that, at this early stage, because Israel did not yet exist, the Arabs had just as much right to fight for the establishment of an Arab state as the Jews had to fight for the establishment of a Jewish state. It is only after Israel had been firmly established that you can consider it illegitimate for them to try and establish an Arab state in its place. The only way you can appeal to some kind of right for Israel to exist before it actually existed, is if you appealed to the authority of the UN. But then, if you do that, then why arbitrarily reject that same authority when it granted the right of a Palestinian state to exist, and declare Israel's settlement-building activities illegal? You can't have your cake and eat it.

Actually, yes I can.
Ok, let me rephrase that: Clearly you can apply a double standard. But you ought not to.

I can appeal to the UN authority in the former because it was their land and as such have the right to give it to whoever they want. That does not mean I must accept their authority after they gave the land. Once you give someone something it's not yours anymore. What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it anyway?
Your argument is a complete red herring, because we're not talking about the land that the UN gave to Israel. We're talking about the land that the UN allocated for the Arab state of Palestine. The UN has demanded that Israel stop building settlements on and stop occupying the later, not the former.

As it should be when Palestinians overwhelmingly vote an internationally recognized terrorist organization to office. If they hadn't elected Hamas into power I'd see them in a much better light than I do now.
-"Overwhelmingly"? Hamas was elected with only 42.9% of the vote. That means the majority of Palestinians didn't vote for Hamas.

-If Israel hadn't rendered the previous government completely ineffective, then Hamas probably would not have been voted into power. Part of the reason Hamas achieved even that level of popularity was because of its welfare and philanthropic activities - building hospitals and schools, etc. If Israel had done their duty in providing these services (as the allies did during their occupation of Germany), or at the very least supported (or not hindered) the government in doing the same, then the people wouldn't have had a reason to vote for Hamas.

-You make a point about Hamas' terrorist status as being "internationally recognised". Again playing the double standard, I see - it is also internationally recognised that Israel's settlement building and occupation is illegal and that the settlements are a major barrier to peace. (As an aside: note that some nations - notably UK and Australia - distinguish between the political and militant wings of Hamas, outlawing the latter while seeing the former as legitimate.)

Furthermore, I have never, ever claimed that Israel is "pure" or completely innocent. I have claimed that the conflict is the Palestinians fault (which it is). That Israel has done bad things in the process isn't really relevant to that point, as I don't believe things would be different even if they hadn't.
You're splitting hairs. When you say "the conflict is the Palestinians [sic] fault", by extension you are claiming "the conflict is not Israel's fault". It is precisely this claim that I am objecting to - in this conflict, both are at fault ("faultless" and "innocent" are synonyms). You can't lay the blame for the conflict completely with either side, and the fact that Israel has done bad things in the process is relevant because they have worsened the conflict in doing so.

Yeah, it's too bad 80% of them make the rest look bad. :ahem:
Given that your argument depends so heavily on this "fact", I think you have a duty to substantiate it for the sake of your own intellectual honesty.

EDIT: I forgot my self-righteous ending speech.

The reason why I got involved in this thread is over accusations of "stealing". I don't consider the taking of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip theft for the same reason why I don't consider a cop giving you a ticket for speeding theft: Palestine is guilty of a violation and the ruling power (Israel) is exercising its right to penalize them for it. If they want to take ALL of the Palestinian land, they're welcome to it. It's fair punishment for a wipe out attempt. Of course, I think they're too chivalrous (and it pains me to portray an abortionist nation as "chivalrous", believe me) to do that but they could if they wanted to.
You analogy to the cop doesn't hold, because the cop is acting within his own borders. Israel is acting outside of its own borders.

Furthermore, I don't believe you are being "fair and balanced", mainly because you keep accusing Israel of "collective punishment", something that is innate to anything worthy of the name "war". Innocent people get harmed in a war, thanks for the update Mike Wallace, couldn't do without you.
No, collective punishment is not innate to anything worthy of the name war (if it was, then the Geneva convention on war which specifically prohibits collective punishment would be nonsensical). You are equivocating by treating "collective punishment" as being synonymous with "killing innocent people".

Innocent people die in a war in three ways:

-accidentally, despite the best efforts to avoid their death while attacking legitimate targets
-through negligence, through insufficient effort to avoid their death while attacking legitimate targets
-on purpose, through deliberate targeting.

The first is called "collateral damage", and is, as you say "innate" in war. The last two are increasingly more severe forms of "collective punishment". I'm not criticising Israel for the first, which would indeed be unfair and unbalanced. I'm criticising them for the latter two. For example (from here (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/508/re1.htm)):

Earlier, the Israeli army had opened fire on the school of T'kou, injuring a number of students, one seriously. On Sunday, Israeli gunners bombed the Khadouri agronomy college in Tulkarm, inflicting irreparable damage. On Tuesday, the Israeli occupation army imposed a hermetic closure on Palestinian cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, barring some three million Palestinians from leaving or returning to their towns. The closure comes among a new wave of threats by several Israeli officials against Palestinians in the wake two separate shootings in the West Bank and Ramallah that resulted in the death of four Israelis. Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Benyamin Benalizer threatened to turn the roads into "killing fields".

"We will retaliate at a time and place of our choosing", Benalizer warned ominously, ignoring the legions of Palestinians killed by Israeli army soldiers and settlers with virtual impunity. (Emphasis added.)

Note that he does not say "we will find those responsible and bring them to justice", but rather threatens to retaliate at a time and place of their choosing - ie, he is not concerned with punishing those responsible, but for punishing "the Palestinians" in general. That's the very definition of collective punishment.

Now for my "self-righteous ending speech": The main weaknesses of your argument are:

-Making a big deal out of international opinion when it agrees with you, and ignoring you when it doesn't.
-Coming up with your very own definition of "theft" in order to prove that Israel didn't steal the Palestinian land.
-Appealing to Stalin for a precedent for your idea of theft.
-Asserting that the Palestinians are at fault for starting the conflict.

As I feel that these points are sufficient to reveal the weakness of your position to anyone reading, and because I'm sick of discussing this topic :smile:, this will be my last post in this thread. You may have the last word. God bless.

[Jezz]

I know that I said I wouldn't post again in this thread, but I need to correct a significant typo. :blush:

This has in fact happened. According to this Ha'aretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/811480.html) tells, the settler population in the West Bank grew by 1.5% in the year ending 2005, with a total population of 253,748. The following year, the population grew by nearly 6% - for a total population of 268,379 at the end of 2005. That's a growth of about 14,500 people. According to the same article, the entire settler population evacuated from Gaza was only about 8,500.
The emboldened bit should have read "at the end of 2006". I realise that the context would probably have made this obvious, but I thought I would be on the safe side.