What Increases Tensions

[dilloduck]

Okay let me give you an example of a war in which one side had no propoganda or immorals acts yet were attacked in a war.

1) Japan attacks US by surprise on 12/07/41. No US propaganda started this war.

Do you think American propaganda started this war or that America portrayed Japan in its newspapers and movies for any other reason than to raise money to fight the war, make military weapons to fight the war waged against them and to increase the moral of its people?

If you think America has any blame in the Arab world attacking them, please list these progandist lies against the Arabs in or out of Israel.

It would be interesting to see how you find Israel to blame for wanting peace with its own murderers who are sworn to destroy the people and the county.

That will be a trick unless you use some false and misleading LIES of course.

I wasn't referring to starting a war----I was referring to conducting one !

 

[ajwps]

I wasn't referring to starting a war----I was referring to conducting one !

Okay so you say that your original meaning was propoganda used by both sides after wars are underway.

So what is your point. I am not aware that Israel has made untruthful statements or propaganda concerning the Arab terrorists attacking them from their own country.

It seems that propoganda serves two purposes. One for domestic consumption and one for international consumption.

Can you give me an example of Israeli propaganda in which the government lied about events happening in the war waged against them?

 

[freeandfun1]

He can't. He like many other Americans have justed decided it is the Jews fault as it is more comfortable that way instead of trying to find the truth. It is very clear to anybody with 1/2 a brain who is fighting justly and who are the terrorists, but that would not be PC. It is so funny how so many like dillo clain they hate PC then, when it comes to Israel, they are more PC than anybody.

 

[dilloduck]

He can't. He like many other Americans have justed decided it is the Jews fault as it is more comfortable that way instead of trying to find the truth. It is very clear to anybody with 1/2 a brain who is fighting justly and who are the terrorists, but that would not be PC. It is so funny how so many like dillo clain they hate PC then, when it comes to Israel, they are more PC than anybody.

So if Israel kills civilians it's ok?

 

[ajwps]

So if Israel kills civilians it's ok?

A moral dilemma? Israel chooses to go around finding Arab men, women and children shopping in their bazzars, going to their Mosques, sleeping at home with their families or attending Arab weddings and find it part of their nature to shoot civilians who are doing NOTHING suggestive of attacking Israel.

But if the terrorists choose to hide behind their own families and even their kids when firing Katusha rockets or hand held grenade weapons is their civilian deaths attributable to the soldiers who are killing those who have killed the children of Israel?

I think that you suspect that in every war ever waged by mankind, no civilians (collateral deaths) have ever occurred. Is it your contention that Israel is to be held to a higher standard of morality by allowing their murderers to again kill the children of Israel because they may harm the shields used by these murderers?

If you avoid this last question, I will ask it of you again?

 

[dilloduck]

A moral dilemma? Israel chooses to go around finding Arab men, women and children shopping in their bazzars, going to their Mosques, sleeping at home with their families or attending Arab weddings and find it part of their nature to shoot civilians who are doing NOTHING suggestive of attacking Israel.

But if the terrorists choose to hide behind their own families and even their kids when firing Katusha rockets or hand held grenade weapons is their civilian deaths attributable to the soldiers who are killing those who have killed the children of Israel?

I think that you suspect that in every war ever waged by mankind, no civilians (collateral deaths) have ever occurred. Is it your contention that Israel is to be held to a higher standard of morality by allowing their murderers to again kill the children of Israel because they may harm the shields used by these murderers?

If you avoid this last question, I will ask it of you again?

Both sides should be held to an equal standard. I have already said that war causes deaths on both sides. The argument in Israel/Palestine is who owns the land and what is a fair way to divide it so that all sides will be happy. It is true that terrorists organizations have hijacked the cause of the Palestinians in order to simply kill Israelis. Some Israelis feel this to be an excuse to continue to occupy arab land and increase the number of settlements in arab land. Other Israelis feel as if the settlements should be stopped and the land returned to the Arabs. I agree with the latter.

 

[freeandfun1]

Both sides should be held to an equal standard. I have already said that war causes deaths on both sides. The argument in Israel/Palestine is who owns the land and what is a fair way to divide it so that all sides will be happy. It is true that terrorists organizations have hijacked the cause of the Palestinians in order to simply kill Israelis. Some Israelis feel this to be an excuse to continue to occupy arab land and increase the number of settlements in arab land. Other Israelis feel as if the settlements should be stopped and the land returned to the Arabs. I agree with the latter.

Many agree with the latter. But that does not mean that until that matter is settled, that Israel has to stop protecting itself. If in protecting itself civilians get killed, well, then like the terrorists themselves like to say, "that is just part of the fight".

You keep drawing a moral equivalency between Israel - who specifically targets "bad guys" and sometimes accidentally kills innocents - in war - with terrorists that SPECIFICALLY attack civilians.

I am not sure how you or anybody else can draw a moral equivalency. Again, you are just being PC to pick on Israel. They did not attack their neighbors first, but to know that, you would have to read history and once you discovered the truth, you would have to admit you were wrong and that would not fit in the PC world within which you live within. Therefore, you will never seek nor admit the truth.

 

[dilloduck]

Many agree with the latter. But that does not mean that until that matter is settled, that Israel has to stop protecting itself. If in protecting itself civilians get killed, well, then like the terrorists themselves like to say, "that is just part of the fight".

I think everyone has the right to defend themselves and have never said otherwise.

You keep drawing a moral equivalency between Israel - who specifically targets "bad guys" and sometimes accidentally kills innocents - in war - with terrorists that SPECIFICALLY attack civilians.

I think targeting civilians is to be condemned.

I am not sure how you or anybody else can draw a moral equivalency. Again, you are just being PC to pick on Israel. They did not attack their neighbors first, but to know that, you would have to read history and once you discovered the truth, you would have to admit you were wrong and that would not fit in the PC world within which you live within. Therefore, you will never seek nor admit the truth.

Who attacked who first PRIOR to 1948? Don't confuse me with someone who doesn't read history.

 

[ajwps]

Both sides should be held to an equal standard. I have already said that war causes deaths on both sides.

That statement of yours is really a dilly.

Both sides should be held to equal standards so then Israel should bomb Islamic Mosques, Muslim families going to visit relatives, bomb Muslim buses in Gaza full of children and kill babies in their mother's arms. What is fair for one if fair for both you say.

If Israel bombs terrorist leaders from blackhawk helicopters, then by golly, the Arabs should be able to bomb Sharon and his cabinett. EQUAL STANDARDS

The argument in Israel/Palestine is who owns the land and what is a fair way to divide it so that all sides will be happy.

Okay who owns the land of Israel won by the blood of young Israelis from those who attacked them to grab the land from the Jews? Maybe you can show me a land grant to the Arabs in Israel from Queen Ezabella of Spain? What do you mean who owns the land?

It is true that terrorists organizations have hijacked the cause of the Palestinians in order to simply kill Israelis. Some Israelis feel this to be an excuse to continue to occupy arab land and increase the number of settlements in arab land. Other Israelis feel as if the settlements should be stopped and the land returned to the Arabs. I agree with the latter.

What and who you agree with is totally irrelevant. It is all from perspective. The Israeli's have a definite border to their land from history and from wars waged against them. The Arabs feel the land is theirs because Arafat, Bush and the World Court at the Hgue told them it was theirs.

I say the land belongs to the American Indians because the white man stole it from them. The Indians are planning to take it up the UN where resolutions can be passed and meaningless sanctions against white America. I agree with the latter.

 

[ajwps]

Who attacked who first PRIOR to 1948? Don't confuse me with someone who doesn't read history.

History is clear on this point.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_arab_countries.php

Immediately after the adoption of United Nations Resolution 181 (II) on November 29, 1947, to partition the country into Jewish and Arab states with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, Arab delegates declared their opposition to partition and their determination to fight it by force if necessary. Palestinian Arabs (including veterans of the 1936-9 Arab Revolt, members of Arab youth organizations, and police) quickly initiated hostilities against the Jewish population. They were soon joined by volunteers from neighboring Arab states. Jewish forces were organized mostly in the Haganah (underground militia) with a fulltime component of about 4,000, most of those members of the Palmach.

The early Arab attacks resembled the Arab Revolt of 1936-9, with attacks on villages and terrorism in the cities. A volunteer "Arab Liberation Army" led by the Syrian Fawzi el Kawukji attacked in the Jezreel Valley, while volunteers from Jebel Druze staged an attack near Haifa. Both were unsuccessful.

 

[dilloduck]

History is clear on this point.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_arab_countries.php

Jastrow correctly predicted that the intertwining of religion and nationality -- political zionism -- would have negative consequences. Whereas non-Jews have only one country and one loyalty -- Americans are American, the French are French, etc. -- Jews are seen as having split loyalties. They are both citizens of the country in which they live and also supporters of the Jewish state. Thus, Jews who live outside of Israel (occupied Palestine) are seen as being less than totally loyal to the country where they reside. This political difference adds to the anti-semitism that already exists, just as Jastrow predicted.

As time passes it is becoming increasingly clear that Britain did a great disservice to the inhabitants of Palestine by giving away land that it did not own. Present-day problems can be traced to this tragic violation of property rights, coupled with the false premise of political zionism, which Jastrow exposed in 1919.
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/mcgee.html

go further back in history AJ

 

[ajwps]

Jastrow correctly predicted that the intertwining of religion and nationality -- political zionism -- would have negative consequences. Whereas non-Jews have only one country and one loyalty -- Americans are American, the French are French, etc. -- Jews are seen as having split loyalties. They are both citizens of the country in which they live and also supporters of the Jewish state. Thus, Jews who live outside of Israel (occupied Palestine) are seen as being less than totally loyal to the country where they reside. This political difference adds to the anti-semitism that already exists, just as Jastrow predicted. As time passes it is becoming increasingly clear that Britain did a great disservice to the inhabitants of Palestine by giving away land that it did not own. Present-day problems can be traced to this tragic violation of property rights, coupled with the false premise of political zionism, which Jastrow exposed in 1919.
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/mcgee.html
go further back in history AJ

Actually Dilloduck you should look not to a Jastrow but to the actual documentation of those days in 1919 Israel. Sometimes reality is greater than that composed in the mind of man who had little knowledge of events happening between the Jews and Arabs in the then Palestine. It seems that the British had little to do with anything in those days.

http://amislam.com/feisal.htm

Agreement Between the King of Hijaz and Khadim al-Haramayn as-Sharifayn, Emir Feisal Ibn al-Hussein al-Hashemi, and the President of the World Zionist Organization, Dr. Chaim Weizmann (January 3, 1919)


January 3, 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organisation, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:

ARTICLE I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

ARTICLE II

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

ARTICLE III

In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2d of November, 1917.

ARTICLE IV

All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

ARTICLE V

No regulation nor law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

ARTICLE VI

The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

ARTICLE VII

The Zionist Organisation proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

ARTICLE VIII

The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

ARTICLE IX

Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration. Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.

Chaim Weizmann
Feisal Ibn al-Hussein.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually Dilloduck you should look not to a Jastrow but to the actual documentation of those days in 1919 Israel. Sometimes reality is greater than that composed in the mind of man who had little knowledge of events happening between the Jews and Arabs in the then Palestine. It seems that the British had little to do with anything in those days.

http://amislam.com/feisal.htm

On the contrary---read article IX again !

 

[ajwps]

On the contrary---read article IX again !

Oh contraire, --- what has Article IX to do with Britain giving away land it did not own as per Jastrow? What sort of dispute was Britain asked to settle when both parties in 1919 were getting along peache-keen? As I said "what little did Britain have to do with anything in that time frame"? Give an example from historical documents rather than someone's opinion.

What point do you think you are trying to make?

It appears that you have failed to comprehend history of Israel in 1919 or for that part any other time.

 

[freeandfun1]

go further back in history AJ

Did history start in 1919 or 1890 or hell, in 1776 for that matter?

If you start saying "go further back in history" just about nobody "owns" the land they occupy. Since Judaism is, say, a FEW THOUSAND years older than Islam, if you "go further back in history" the rightful owners of Israel are currently occupying the land - the JEWS.

 

[dilloduck]

wasn't talking religion here free---was referring to politics.

 

[ajwps]

Did history start in 1919 or 1890 or hell, in 1776 for that matter?

If you start saying "go further back in history" just about nobody "owns" the land they occupy. Since Judaism is, say, a FEW THOUSAND years older than Islam, if you "go further back in history" the rightful owners of Israel are currently occupying the land - the JEWS.

Freeandfund our somewhat obstinate friend Dillo likes to selectively pick one particular historical time period or year as the start of all the Arab's aspirations for their homeland in Israel.

Dillo and the arab atd2000 fail to comprehend the fact that Israel is currently a sovereign country in which the Arabs occupy Israeli territory.

That fact confuses them to the point of exposing their own bias.

 

[dilloduck]

Freeandfund our somewhat obstinate friend Dillo likes to selectively pick one particular historical time period or year as the start of all the Arab's aspirations for their homeland in Israel.

Dillo and the arab atd2000 fail to comprehend the fact that Israel is currently a sovereign country in which the Arabs occupy Israeli territory.

That fact confuses them to the point of exposing their own bias.

Look----The UN and Britain did a piss poor job in dealing wth Palestine. The Brits were being killed by the Zionists and couldn't keep the Zionist and Arabs from each others throats so they left. They washed thier hands of the matter and dumped it into the UNs lap who did a piss poor job at it too. While Israel feels that borders are firmly defined either by document or spoils of war, the arabs do not agree.Thus there is tension over land in addition to religious disagreements. If Israel doesnt resolve this (which it can by force) the war of terror will continue. Perhaps the Israeli politicians need this to continue to recieve money and be in charge !

 

[freeandfun1]

wasn't talking religion here free---was referring to politics.

In the early days, religions were politics. you cannot separate the two as we like to think. they are, historicaly, tied together in many places of the world. that is how MOST of today's international borders were originally established. BY THE (A) CHURCH.

 

[dilloduck]

In the early days, religions were politics. you cannot separate the two as we like to think. they are, historicaly, tied together in many places of the world. that is how MOST of today's international borders were originally established. BY THE (A) CHURCH.

So which entity established the boundries of Israel ?