What makes you think they are unbiased? Because you said so? Because they said so? Wow. I can just say I'm unbiased and so I am. Your stats are ridiculous. Now I know why we can't debate. You are ignorant. You provided a stat of the entire area of Palestine. I never said the Jews were a majority in Palestine. I said they were a majority in the areas allocated to them. You are wrong again. Read what you wrote. If you can't figure it out after that, please seek the help of a math tutor. Also, the fact that the Jews bought the land is indisputable. It is in the Peel commission report. Is that biased too? I gave you the quote from teh report. Tell me how the Peel commission report is biased? Ok, from mideastweb... Proto-Zionism Following the French Revolution and the emancipation of European Jewry however, the vague spiritual bonds of the Jews to the "Holy Land" began to express themselves in more concrete, though not always practical ways. About 1808, groups of Lithuanian Jews, followers of the Vilna Gaon (a famous rabbi and opponent of Hassidism) arrived in Palestine and purchased land to begin an agricultural settlement. The "first aliya" - The first groups of immigrants who came to the land with the idea of turning the land into a national home for the Jews are known as the "first Aliya." "Aliya" literally means "going up" and it is a term Jews have used for a long time for coming to the holy land. Beginning in the 1870s, religious and nonreligious Jews established several study groups and societies for purchasing land in Palestine and settling there. In 1870 the Alliance Israelite, an ostensibly non-Zionist organization, founded the Miqveh Yisrael agricultural school near Beit Dagan. These and similar groups established a number of early Jewish settlements including Yesod Hamaalah, Rosh Pinna, Gedera, Rishon Le Tziyon, Nes Tziyonna and Rehovot on land purchased from Arab owners with the aid of Jewish philanthropists, chiefly Lord Rothschild. Joel Solomon led a group of orthodox Jews out of Jerusalem to found Petah Tikva in 1878. Lastly, your final paragraph failed to highlight the following, "The Arab League and Palestinian institutions rejected the partition plan, and formed volunteer armies that infiltrated into Palestine beginning in December of 1947." Yes, if you don't get your way, start a war. Why negotiate? Nice foreshadowing of the Barak - Terrorist negotiations that took place during the Clinton presidency.
ummmm.....that is why i said, "those crazy mullahs, including your president." what is so difficult to understand? i didn't call Ahmadinezhad a mullah, so why are you telling me something i already know.
Well, hey... if we'd have gone around saying the Nazis were killing Jews anything could have happened couldn't it. I mean, that sort of accusation could have started a war or something. Frankly, if you want to find a country that had a vested interest in perpetuating the idea concentration camps weren't that bad you need to look a bit closer to home mate because, bluntly, we'd have LOVED the chance to use the propaganda if we thought there was a cat in hells chance anyone would believe it.
So, let me understand this... against my argument that history of 2000 years ago may, just possibly, be a tad old, your argument is the one above involving Japan, Denmark and English mini-states over the past 49 years? Is that right?
It is evident they are unbiased if you care to read and check all their facts. I guess you meant "I don't like the real stats". There would be no need to resort to personal attacks if you were really sure about you being right on the objections I made. I already posted a math example of why your way of presenting the thing is tricky. Here it is again. Your way of presenting the issue is misleading. A fictional example to make you realize. If in an hipothetical land to be partitioned you have 60% of a given ethnicity (ppl A) and 40% of another (ppl B) basing on what you say you could divide the land State A 25% (all ppl A) State B 75% (ppl B and the rest of ppl A) and positively affirm that the partition is fair because ppl B was assigned only areas with a ppl B majority. But noone neutral would really think the partition would be fair. There is no doubt jews bought land. The statement is correct. But... a big but... only 8%. At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands" belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency. You asked for stats I gave you the stats. It's not my fault if they are not how you wanted and expected to be. Actually you're changing the goalposts post after post, asking one thing (stats about arabs being the majority in the land to be partitioned) and next saying you didn't ask for that meanwhile god knows why starting to mention barak, I am always saying the same thing and it's just a "report correct history" fact. It has probably to do with the fact I am interested in an unbiased report of history and finding a peaceful agreement between the 2 parts while you only want your side to win and this means also propaganda warfare. I am not sure what you're supposed to prove by posting that. The fact some jewish immigrants bought some land in palestine in 1808 means very little. At least if you don't give a special importance to them as opposed to all the rest of human beings. Anyway since I see that you're starting to widen the subject (Barak?). I only wanted to correct you on some historical facts you got wrong. I did.
... and even that ignores two vital facts. 1. Ownership of the land wasn't considered as important as ownership of what's ON the land, usually olive trees which can provide olives for 1000 years. 2. Like most of the middle east the area has been populated partly by Bedouins who use areas of land intermittently but, nevertheless, still consider the place, in general, as home. As I said earlier, this reflects the treatment of American indians who also move about. The fact that someone moves doesn't mean he doesn't exist and that his rights should be ignored. The plain truth is that the position in the middle east has fluctuated over the past few thousand years much as it has in europe. The difference is that some of us realise that you can't ride roughshod over people without them kicking up a fuss at some point. Common sense would have indicated as much I'd have thought... obviously not as it turns out because some on here think that the Israeli position in Israel is exactly the same as the English people's position in England or the Italian people's connection to Italy. Frankly, if that's the level of the debate I think we can predict quite a few more years of bloodshed.
What are you two trying to prove? That Israel shouldn't exist and all its people should commit suicide in the name of historical fairness? What is this stupid-arse argument about?
Yeah, kill those damn Jews, FREE PALESTINE!!! Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat (insert any PA leader) at UN: Sharon: Long time ago around Moses time, Jews went for a swim in the sea. Arafat: How was the water? Sharon: Water was fabulous, but when they came out, their clothes were gone. Arafat: Oh, how did that happen? Sharon: What you mean, you don't know? Palestinians took it. Arafat: That can't be, there were no Palestinians there. Sharon: My point exactly.
Not to be a dick, but you should've said "those crazy mullahs, AS WELL AS your president" or something like that. The way you phrased it, you are including the Iranian Prez as one of the mullahs. Which is a very minor point alongside the much bigger point that this 'conference' is a freaking joke. Not a very funny one, either.
Er, who are you talking to? If you mean me I thought I'd made it pretty clear that the Israelis should come to an accomoation with the Palestinians. At the moment they seem to be moving toward imposing a settlement on them. Well, here's an idea. If they're going to impose one why not impose one that might actually work rather than one that hasn't got a cat in hell's chance. They've already offered to give up large swathes of the west bank, (and, despite saying it wouldn't happen, they've ALREADY given up Gaza). If they'd have done years ago, REGARDLESS of the Palestinian position, it would have cut the ground from beneath the old tosser, Arafat, and left him pretty much isolated.
All of this is your opinion. And all of this is beside the question. The question was about the creation of the state of Israel and the Jews' supposed lack of claim to the land that was given to them by the UN. Why are you arguing this point?
Er, well... good point I suppose. I was just replying to points made by some dude about the issue they raised. Which kinda begs the question why someone didn't ask them why they were raising it but, fair enough... I'll let it lie.
The word "analogy" isn't in my dictionary. Though the word "irony" is. It's an adjective meaning "a lot like iron." Both historical arguments, Israeli and Palestinian, are pretty feeble, thanks to the Ottoman and British Empires dispensing and ruling land for key time periods here. It wasn't always Arab land, any more than it was always Jewish, or Egyptian, or Syrian, or Persian, or Greek, or Roman, or Latin Crusader, or Turkish, or I'm sure I'm forgetting someone. Over the past 100 years, I think the Israeli claim is pretty good in comparison. Which is all beside the point. Who controls the present controls the past, who controls the past controls the future. The Palestinians have taken control of the present in the West Bank and Gaza, and if they say they want a separate state, then who are we to point out that throughout the history of the PLO they've said completely the opposite. I've never been impressed in the slightest with West Bank claims of independence by historical right, but millions on the spot disagree, so good luck to them. And if the Palestinians aren't receptive to "history says you were Jordanian/Turkish/whatever, but they don't want you, so enjoy your Israeli passports" on historical grounds, still less should Israel vote themselves out of existence because people in Los Angeles or Shropshire aren't impressed with their historical claims.
I was trying to prove that some historical facts were mentioned innacurately. And I think I did a good job. It's not my fault if people instead of saying "ah I though it was different" goes on with more fictional history or the usual tactic of ever changing subject (transforming the thread in an endless and useless discussion) coupled with personal attacks rather than just admitting they were wrong. I didn't want to prove anything else. Put down your sword, Israel is safe. What are you and the rest of the russian proisraeli armada trying to prove with the personal attacks? That i am benito and Andy is adolf? And why? Because we dared to object to an implausible version of history? I can assure you, oh heroic warrior, that both me and Andy were interested in historical fairness (which is not the petty thing you seem to think). We were not trying to exterminate all the jews worldwide by once again stating that that "jews bought the land" is a myth.
I was trying to prove that some historical facts were mentioned innacurately. And I think I did a good job. It's not my fault if people instead of saying "ah I though it was different" goes on with more fictional history or the usual tactic of ever changing subject (transforming the thread in an endless and useless discussion) coupled with personal attacks rather than just admitting they were wrong. I didn't want to prove anything else. Put down your sword, Israel is safe. What are you and the rest of the russian proisraeli armada trying to prove with the personal attacks? That i am benito and Andy is adolf? And why? Because we dared to object to an implausible version of history? I can assure you, oh heroic warrior, that both me and Andy were interested in historical fairness (which is not the petty thing you seem to think). We were not trying to exterminate all the jews worldwide by once again stating that that "jews bought the land" is a myth.
What about 'twit'? So we're starting 100 years ago, are we? A while ago you tried to make some half-baked point arguing with me when I said that 2000 years ago was a bit too long... (actually, you failed. You proved my point - but we'll let that go for now). Now you're saying that 100 years is a reasonable period. It's amost exciting wondering what you're going to come up with next. Interesting phrase. What's it mean? Sounds like you're saying we should believe Zionist propoganda. Well, sorry mate. I won't believe that any more than I believe the Palestinian stuff. I want to see EVIDENCE. No - who controls the weapon systems controls the future - for you, anyway. Those of us who have moved beyond the 19th century realise that just because we won a military conflict does NOT give us the right to kick people up the backside and out into the street. It wasn't right when the Arabs tried to do it to you. It's not right now you're doing it to them. Well, some of them, anyway. The point is that a similar position, (in fact, a BETTER one), could have been reached YEARS ago, (without most of the bloodshed and bitterness), if the Israelis had stopped the massive build-up in settler numbers in the west bank and Gaza. Hang on a minute... so the Palestinians have to accept they're Jordanian or Turkish, (where you get that from I don't know but we'll let that go for a minute), but many of the Jewish settlers in the west bank don't have to accept their Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian, etc. Is that correct? Is that what you're saying? Who said anything about voting themselves out of existence? What the hell are you babbling about?
The problem is your historical fairness is based on bias and the inability to reason. I love your explanation as to why mideastweb is unbiased-because they say so. That ranks up there with IM using recipeland.com as a cite for his argument.
Sure - it's there right next to your picture. EL PLUS GRANDE SNAP, MOTHER********ER! You misspelled "Oh, my God, you're right - my Denmark example was INCREDIBLY stupid, and it showed how shallow my understanding of the history of the place really is." You're welcome to fly to Tel Aviv and tell everyone you're not impressed with their EVIDENCE. I'm sure the country will be Jew-free within the hour, the Middle East will live in peace and happiness, and Shropshire will be able to boast its first Nobel Peace Prize winner. Maybe actually flying there is too expensive, but they certainly need to know what you think. At least send a postcard. Try this address: To: Israelis c/o Ariel Sharon's Blood Clot 100 No Right To Exist Street Genocide Gardens, Jerusalem Postcode: 4815162342
I think its about time someone asked Israel about how England should go about handing back all of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.
Well lets look at this a little bit shall we? It has been posted here numerous times before, and certainly will be again, but the plans were for both Israel and Palestine to have a Nation from divided land. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria though ended up with the land instead of Palestine. Then after Israel became a nation those same arab states all started numerous wars attempting to grab the land that Israel had and Israel pummeled them. This of course is a very general and condensed version of what happened and there are quite a few details that should be added to get a truly accurate historical accounting of what happened. But this is the gist of it all. Israel wisely put in settlements and created a buffer in the West Bank and Gaza and frankly they should not give any land back until the arab states all recognize Israel and her right to exist, and all sign non-aggression treaties and trade agreements with Israel. All funding for Terrorists has to stop as well. I am all for Palestine having their own nation, but not at the cost of Israel losing her nation. Also the arabs and pals have been the aggressors in these wars and the fighting. When they commit to peace then a peace will become reality. But they have to first commit to it.