17 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoThere are few Native Americans left anywhere now.
There is a majority Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories, and 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinian Arabs. There are few Native Americans left anywhere now.
Does that mean that if the Israelis succeed in killing off the majority of palestinians they win the right to Israel, because then there will only be a few palestinians left?
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoNo, but it'll mean that the Palestinian revolutionaries will be forced to basically give up.
[b]There are few Native Americans left anywhere now.
Does that mean that if the Israelis succeed in killing off the majority of palestinians they win the right to Israel, because then there will only be a few palestinians left?[/b]
17 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76So, ALL Palestinians have to accept the two State solution or it's a no go?
I'm not talking about what their leaders say. I'm talking about what their media and schools and religious leaders say. Do I need to scour the net for examples of calls for the destruction of Israel and killing of the Jews that occur regularly in Palestinian society, or will you concede them and save me the time?
Regarding your assertion that the Arab countr ction of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al-Farida,_Lebanon_pre-1967_war.jpg
There's a lot more killing of Palestinians by Jews than Jews by Palestinians. Will you concede that?
Your statements regarding the 1967 War continue to be nonsense. Regardless of numbers, the Israelis and the Arabs knew who was militarily superior; the Israeli army had knocked aside a numerically superior Egyptian army (ANOTHER sneak attack) in 1956 without too much trouble. It seems you didn't bother to read the statements of Israel's leaders in 1967; they knew that the war would be a virtual walkover. The CIA projections, known to the Israelis, was that the war would be won in a week. Hey, they actually got something right for a change!
Your father, like yourself, are recipients and believers in Zionist propaganda which makes it out that Israel is vulnerable to Arab aggression. In truth, Israel was and is a military superpower, easily capable of defeating all the Arab armies combined. The tens of billions of dollars in modern military arms and equipment the US has provided are a major factor in that superiority and the propaganda is absolutely necessary to keep people in the US willing to pony up cash for Israel's military benefit. But just cause Daddy was a dupe in 1967 doesn't mean you should be one in 2009.
What the Arab media said or didn't say in 1967 is utterly irrelevant. Israel's leaders knew that they didn't face destruction or even any likelihood of war; like the US invasion of Iraq, the Israeli attack on their neighbors was a war of choice, not necessity. Stop believing fairy tales and wiki; pick up something by Norman Finkelstein regarding the 1967 war. Maybe you'll learn something.
EDIT: Here I'll help: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-the-june-1967-war/
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoMuch of world history is nothing more than battles over land - whoever had the best army would get to occupy the best land. The history of almost any given piece of land will produce a lengthy series of invasions where a new group of people would boot out (or enslave) the previous occupants.
Nope. They don't. Why? We were here first.
The Israeli-Palestinian territory is no exception - at different times during the past 4000 years, it has been possessed by various groups of pagans, Romans, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Each of these groups could argue that the land "belongs" to them because they occupied it at some point.
17 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by scherzoFine. so, right now BOTH live there.
Not according to the Palestinians still living there.
Who had it first? Well, it depends when you're counting from. Jews have always lived in that area for thousands of years and so have Arabs. Jews have had no sovereignty in the area for 2,000 years because they were not powerful enough to take sovereignty. First they lived under the Romans and then under a whole succession of rulers, including Turks, Arabs, etc. When the Jews were powerful enough to take sovereignty over the area, they did.
So, what do we do about it now? We can keep screaming at each other "you're an oppressor!" "you're a terrorist!" "We had the land first!" "No, we had the land first!" "Our God promised it to us!" "No, you're an infidel so you get nothing!"
A fat lot of good that's going to do us all.
Or, we can look at the facts on the ground and come to an agreement that we ALL can live with going forward. Personally, I think two states is the way to go. You want to try to figure out a one state solution? Good luck. If enough people living in the area buy into it so that it can work; more power to you.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I believe the phrase for what you're doing is "beating the bush" or "beating around the bush" or something. We had our land taken from us by the Israelis, who are continuing to occupy our land and oppress our people, and we want the land back. No need to get into arguments about who had it when. We had it when the Zionists took it.
Fine. so, right now BOTH live there.
Who had it first? Well, it depends when you're counting from. Jews have always lived in that area for thousands of years and so have Arabs. Jews have had no sovereignty in the area for 2,000 years because they were not powerful enough to take sovereignty. First they lived under the Romans and then under a whole successio ...[text shortened]... h people living in the area buy into it so that it can work; more power to you.