Should Israel have been created?

[DaTroof]

Posted by Dilloduck
"Interesting---So jews are to be the only people who can live all over the world but have a place to go when they are "run out" of wherever they are at?"

Are Jews the only people with a land of their own ? What do you think surrounds Isarel ?! Arab land. Thousands of square miles of it. That is where an Arab goes if he wants. The Swedes have Sweden, Russians have Russia, and the Jews have Israel. You look at Judaism and see a religion I'm begining to believe. It's a religion, a nationality, and a culture. But even if it is just a religion, what do you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are (or for that matter most Arab countries) ?! They are Muslem theological dictatorships. So everybody has there own country and other Religions keep lands where there's is the only religion. So why are you so mad at the Jews again ?!

The Palestinians have "run-out" of places to go. Yet there they are. Jordan doesn't want them and neither does Egypt. Why is that ?! It's because Palestinians are notorious troublemakers .. even by Arab standards. More importantly, I believe that the pictures that you are shown, of how Arabs live in the territories is behind this mindset that the Jew is the opressor. sad truth is that these slums exist in all Arab countries. Most a lot worse. It's the Arab mentality that the individual meens nothing while Allah hoo akbar. IT IS NOT ISRAEL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX PALESTINIAN MISTAKES. Why don't YOU go into the territories and help. I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open harms. Point being that the Palestinians (pronounced "Arabs") can go anywhere they want in the Arab and Muslim world (most are both), where it not for the fact that they have become a socio-political persona non-grata. Once again, not Israel's fault.

And I ask of you again. What are you advocating that Israel should do ?! I am getting a gut feeling that you want a 1 stae 2 people solution. Am I way off ?!

 

[dilloduck]

Posted by Dilloduck
"Interesting---So jews are to be the only people who can live all over the world but have a place to go when they are "run out" of wherever they are at?"

Are Jews the only people with a land of their own ? What do you think surrounds Isarel ?! Arab land. Thousands of square miles of it. That is where an Arab goes if he wants. The Swedes have Sweden, Russians have Russia, and the Jews have Israel. You look at Judaism and see a religion I'm begining to believe. It's a religion, a nationality, and a culture. But even if it is just a religion, what do you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are (or for that matter most Arab countries) ?! They are Muslem theological dictatorships. So everybody has there own country and other Religions keep lands where there's is the only religion. So why are you so mad at the Jews again ?!

The Palestinians have "run-out" of places to go. Yet there they are. Jordan doesn't want them and neither does Egypt. Why is that ?! It's because Palestinians are notorious troublemakers .. even by Arab standards. More importantly, I believe that the pictures that you are shown, of how Arabs live in the territories is behind this mindset that the Jew is the opressor. sad truth is that these slums exist in all Arab countries. Most a lot worse. It's the Arab mentality that the individual meens nothing while Allah hoo akbar. IT IS NOT ISRAEL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX PALESTINIAN MISTAKES. Why don't YOU go into the territories and help. I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open harms. Point being that the Palestinians (pronounced "Arabs") can go anywhere they want in the Arab and Muslim world (most are both), where it not for the fact that they have become a socio-political persona non-grata. Once again, not Israel's fault.

And I ask of you again. What are you advocating that Israel should do ?! I am getting a gut feeling that you want a 1 stae 2 people solution. Am I way off ?!

I haven't been angry at "jews" before and I'm not now. (do you ever stop yelling "anti-semite?") I disagree with ideas that some jewish people have. I could justify my anger at jews by the way AJ slings his insults but he's sorta like bully after awhile--you just ignore it. I have consistantly tried to engage in honest debate on the board as to solutions for the mid-east and my point remains--if there is to be peace, both parities will have to be responsible for it happening. No one cares whose "fault" it is any more and I personally am tired of the world expecting the US to solve it.
Guess what?-----THE US OWNS NONE OF IT !

My point on this issue is merely that it appears as though jews want to live in peace in every country in the world but if things get bad, they want a country to go hide in. If I am an oppressed minority in America where do I hide. I have no other country that I call home ! Do you encourage blacks to return to Africa if they are discriminated against ? I think not.

 

[DaTroof]

I'm not shouting anti-Semite. I am asking you why you insist that it's Israel who is not doing it's part ?! First off, Israel has repeatedly refused US intervention as a peace keeping force. It would be like Lebanon, so no thanks. What is it that Israel is doing so wrong ?! Israel should let buses blow up ?! If the answer is "no", than what should Israel do ?!

As for places to go ... Israel is a Jewish state. It's not like you couldn't live there and even become a citizen if you pleased. We have lots of Somalians where I live. They live here but have family in Somalia. What's the difference between them and Israel again ?!

I want to make 1 thing really clear. Israel is like any other nation. It will not allow your interests, namely quieting the Muslem hordes, to affect it's security. You are not an anti-semite, you are an appeaser. The Jews should live all over the world but should never have their own state because it enfuriates the racist Arab masses.

Also, you still haven't told us what you advocate should be done !!!

 

[DaTroof]

You do realize that you contradict yourself all the time Dillo. Clear example ..
"I haven't been angry at "jews" before and I'm not now. (do you ever stop yelling "anti-semite?")" and a sentence later you write "I could justify my anger at jews by the way AJ slings his insults". So which is it. You are angry at Jews or not ?!? I have also never said that you are "angry" with Jews, so the whole calling you anti-semitic is way off. You are quite biased, but so am I.

 

[dilloduck]

You do realize that you contradict yourself all the time Dillo. Clear example ..
"I haven't been angry at "jews" before and I'm not now. (do you ever stop yelling "anti-semite?")" and a sentence later you write "I could justify my anger at jews by the way AJ slings his insults". So which is it. You are angry at Jews or not ?!? I have also never said that you are "angry" with Jews, so the whole calling you anti-semitic is way off. You are quite biased, but so am I.

sorry--I should have said " If I were angry at jews,I could justify it by AJ and his corny insults". I just honestly disagree with the opinion of some jews. You have to admit it's tough to do that without the bigot stuff popping up.
(contradict myself "all the time " ???--I think not)

 

[DaTroof]

Alright .. not all the time. And, yes, even I have disagreed with AJ on many a point. When you get 2 Jews together you end up w/3 opinions. The one thing I am really sensitive to is the notion that Israel is somehow halting this peace process. Israel has given back the Saini. It has negotiated peace with Jordan. It didn't drive out all the Arab poulation in 1967, even though the world wouldn't have blinked an eye if it did. For once I'd like you to say "Israel has really restrained itself considering the military disproportionality. Maybe the Palestinians should stop teaching their children lies about how the situation came to be as it is, and accept some internal responsibility. Maybe they should accept that Israel is building this wall because of their continued refusal to support moderate leaders within their ranks." Have you ever heard of the victor begging for peace. Many people sound like this is what Israel must strive for ... coexistance. I suggest that seperation is a more viable option. At least for now. Israel doesn't need to appease the Palestinians. Their motives are so opaque that it's like a writting on the wall. I think that the idea of Israel being on the front line of a cultural clash has been lost on you. Let me make it easy for you ... Why was Margaret Hassan murdered ?! Islam !!! Pure and simple. This is a war of cultures and morals. A Western woman aiding Muslems is unacceptable to fundemental Islam. Non-Muslems are to be subserviant to Muslems.

You still haven't said what you are advocating ?! Do you see a beautiful land with 2 peoples living as brothers with mutual respect ?! I am dying to know, so please do clue me in.

 

[dilloduck]

Alright .. not all the time. And, yes, even I have disagreed with AJ on many a point. When you get 2 Jews together you end up w/3 opinions. The one thing I am really sensitive to is the notion that Israel is somehow halting this peace process. Israel has given back the Saini. It has negotiated peace with Jordan. It didn't drive out all the Arab poulation in 1967, even though the world wouldn't have blinked an eye if it did. For once I'd like you to say "Israel has really restrained itself considering the military disproportionality. Maybe the Palestinians should stop teaching their children lies about how the situation came to be as it is, and accept some internal responsibility. Maybe they should accept that Israel is building this wall because of their continued refusal to support moderate leaders within their ranks." Have you ever heard of the victor begging for peace. Many people sound like this is what Israel must strive for ... coexistance. I suggest that seperation is a more viable option. At least for now. Israel doesn't need to appease the Palestinians. Their motives are so opaque that it's like a writting on the wall. I think that the idea of Israel being on the front line of a cultural clash has been lost on you. Let me make it easy for you ... Why was Margaret Hassan murdered ?! Islam !!! Pure and simple. This is a war of cultures and morals. A Western woman aiding Muslems is unacceptable to fundemental Islam. Non-Muslems are to be subserviant to Muslems.

You still haven't said what you are advocating ?! Do you see a beautiful land with 2 peoples living as brothers with mutual respect ?! I am dying to know, so please do clue me in.

I can appreciate your sensitivity when you are accused of blocking peaceful solutions and do feel as tho Israel has operated with restraint in many areas. I am confused by the messages that come out of Israel so I assume others are too. Some Israelis want coexistance--some want separation and some want an all out war against their Muslim neighbors.
What I want as a solution here is unimportant as it is Israel and its' Mulsim neighbors are those who must live with the outcome. I advocate that Israel come up with a firm proposal and stick with it ! Whether it be all out war, coexistance or separation. Pick what it is that you will be satisfied with and is realistic and work toward those ends. Whichever way you decide to go will not please everyone.

 

[DaTroof]

If it where up to me I'd choose seperation. I believe that those are the steps that are now seriously being undertaken. A wall. Unilateral withdrawl. I think Sharon and enough Israelis to keep him in office want seperation. They are understandabely tired of the stonewalling and complaining and the death. Enough is enough.

 

[ajwps]

sorry--I should have said " If I were angry at jews,I could justify it by AJ and his corny insults". I just honestly disagree with the opinion of some jews. You have to admit it's tough to do that without the bigot stuff popping up.
(contradict myself "all the time " ???--I think not)

You say that you 'honestly' disagree with the opinions of SOME Jews like AJ and his corny insults?

You have every right to disagree with anyone you choose but you do not have a right to speak for the American people. You alone do not make a majority opinion of America or the world concerning Israel.

I say that you are neither a bigot nor an anti-semite. It is my opinion that you base your assertions on flaud and irrelevant conclusions formed in your cranium.

And I am also entitled to my own opinions.

 

[dilloduck]

You say that you 'honestly' disagree with the opinions of SOME Jews like AJ and his corny insults?

You have every right to disagree with anyone you choose but you do not have a right to speak for the American people. You alone do not make a majority opinion of America or the world concerning Israel.

I say that you are neither a bigot nor an anti-semite. It is my opinion that you base your assertions on flaud and irrelevant conclusions formed in your cranium.

And I am also entitled to my own opinions.

Opine away my jewish buddy ! I have never claimed to speak for a majority of Americans.

 

[ajwps]

Opine away my jewish buddy !

It seems that we both opine with our own opinions.

I have never claimed to speak for a majority of Americans.

You said:

"""No one cares whose "fault" it is any more and I personally am tired of the world expecting the US to solve it.""""

Are you claiming to speak of the world's expectations of Americans or are you speaking for a majority of American's expectations to solve anything for an allied Democratic country?

 

[tooldtocare]

No

-

 

[eots]

 

[georgephillip]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

Divide and conquer has worked for imperial empires for centuries.
Israel is its latest manifestation and the first to possess 200-400 nuclear weapons.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

 

[Sunshine]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWII the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

The choice was either put them there, or allow them to immigrate to the USA. So yes, it was the right thing to do. I would rather them be fighting for their lives over there than here. If they had come here, the Muslims would be chasing them here. There is no doubt about that and terrorist attacks would have started HERE way before 9-11. Plus, historically, it was/is their homeland and that IS NOT debatable.

9-11 was not the first islamic terrorist activity in this country. They have been going on as far back as I can remember. Mostly hijackings and such.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

Divide and conquer has worked for imperial empires for centuries.
Israel is its latest manifestation and the first to possess 200-400 nuclear weapons.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

And Britain thought nothing about giving Palestine to the Jews. They never gave a rat's ass about the rights of natives anywhere.

 

[tooldtocare]

9-11 was.,..,.,.,.,.

An inside job sweetie. But if you want to see whats under the covers you are going to have to be gentile with me ok my plump dumpling

-

 

[tooldtocare]

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:

Ya right ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons.

King David hotel was commandeered by the British army who set up their Head Quarters in the hotel. That HQ had a full guard detail of WWII veterans, communications center and a full complement of staff officers.

October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office
exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

The British are familiar with these folks. If you are not killing other people they are murdering their own.

November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants. [Notice they will even murder their own]

These people are really really the true “terrorists” then and NOW -

 

[georgephillip]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

Divide and conquer has worked for imperial empires for centuries.
Israel is its latest manifestation and the first to possess 200-400 nuclear weapons.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

And Britain thought nothing about giving Palestine to the Jews. They never gave a rat's ass about the rights of natives anywhere.

The Irish would likely agree:

"Storrs’ analogy was no accident. Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule..."

"Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Menachem Begin normally take credit for creating the 'facts on the ground' policies that have poured more than 420,000 settlers into the Occupied Territories. But they were simply copying Charles I, the English King, who in 1609 forcibly removed the O’Neill and O’Donnell clans from the north of Ireland, moved in 20,000 English and Scottish Protestants, and founded the Plantation of Ulster.

"The 'removal' was never really meant to cleanse Ulster of the Irish.

"Native labor was essential to the Plantation’s success and within 15 years more than 4,000 native Irish tenants and their families were back in Ulster. But they lived in a land divided into religious castes, with the Protestant invaders on top and the Catholic natives on the bottom."

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

Race is set against race, tribe against tribe, and religion against religion in the vested interest of the ruling economic class. It always comes back to the class war, imho.

 

[Wolverine1984]

As we all know, after the terrible Jewish persecution in WWI the allied nations under the hospices of the UN created the state of Israel in the former British mandate of Palestine. With the benefit of hindsight, was this a good idea?

While there is little doubt the terrible plight the Jews experienced in WWII and even before that, but is that enough of a reason to cede land to them? Historically the land had been Jewish, but not for many, many years. I don't think the Jewish people have a better or worse claim on the land than the Egyptians, Turks and other Semetic tribes.

Now of course the question is moot. Isreal exists and it would not be just, nor advantageous to displace them. However, as a thought on alternative historical outcomes, what say you?

The first British Military Governor of Jerusalem was completely clear on why Israel had to be created:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

Divide and conquer has worked for imperial empires for centuries.
Israel is its latest manifestation and the first to possess 200-400 nuclear weapons.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

Israel is its latest manifestation and the first to possess 200-400 nuclear weapons.

I'm glad to see that you and Israel are in such good relations ...
So good in fact that they admitted to you and you alone that they have nuclear weapons. And you are such a good friend of the Israeli minister of defense that he told you the number of weapons Israel has.