News Why Does Israel Target Civilian Water Infrastructure?

[Astronuc]

ThomasT , if you follow the reading recommendations … Pappe and Fisk … you'll get a thoroughly one-sided view.

My advice to you is always to be suspicious of people recommending particular books.

I wouldn't put Fisk in the same category as Pappé, who is criticized along with other so-called 'New Historians' as anti-Zionist.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

It is important when reading any historical book to know the perspectives and prejudices/biases of the author. While Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation, is dense, it does apparently contain factual errors as highlighted in Efraim Karsh's criticism of the book in the article http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2006/31-3/biblio31-3.htm .

. . . .
First there is the problem of simple accuracy. It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was Minister of Defence, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al-Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth.

. . . .

Another criticism of Fisk's book - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/books/review/19bron.html

One should also be familiar with Fisk and Karsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

It would be worthwhile to also read Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) and Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1922 (Harvard University Press, 1999; with *Inari Karsh).

The problem in the ME and in history in general is one of sorting through the one-sided views of the authors, when one does not know the authors or the context from direct observation or participation.

The human experience is multi-faceted, and not simply two-sided.

I find myself thoroughly distressed at the propensity toward violence and hatred by so many in the world.

 

[sirchasm]

Is Israel guilty of using US armaments in breach of US domestic laws?

Some lawyers apparently think the US should embargo arms shipments and sanction states who do ship arms (that would include itself)...
Legal arguments can be so entertaining, don't you think?

 

[Alfi]

Legal arguments can be so entertaining, don't you think?

They sure can;
right up until I remember that children and other innocents are dying while the lawyers drag any and every detail out, all the while making money.If this whole conflict one that can be solved through law?
If that's all it is, and both sides can see fit to stop killing and make their case.
Call the World court together and get it solved.

 

[kyleb]

The International Court of Justice already ruled against Israel's conquest of the West Bank in their ruling against the separation barrier back in 2004, but has no means to enforce that ruling. To enforce internal law requires UN Security Counsel resolutions, and US veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions which would cut Israel off from the ability to continue their conquest over what little of Palestine is left.

 

[Alfi]

The International Court of Justice already ruled against Israel's conquest of the West Bank in their ruling against the separation barrier back in 2004, but has no means to enforce that ruling. To enforce internal law requires UN Security Counsel resolutions, and US veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions which would cut Israel off from the ability to continue their conquest over what little of Palestine is left.

but has no means to enforce that ruling.

This seems to be a center of the greater problem. The United Nations needs to change. It's not effective as it is.
A better UN may have stopped the invasion of Iraq. Or issued the orders to have SadManInsane removed from power. Possibly with less loss of life and money or war profiteering. Who knows, it didn't happen. The Sanctions and inspections and the whole game was preempted unilaterally by one country.
A better UN should be able to go into any country and arrest any suspect for open trial.

veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions

This seems to be one of the major flaws in the system.
I'll give a look into the history and the who wants or who holds the power. Should be interesting.

 

[ThomasT]

The remainder of 3b4 authorises expulsion from and destruction of the village if there is resistance from it.

It also authorises, for a separate category of villages which are "population centers which are difficult to control continuously", expulsion from and destruction of the village even without resistance.

Thanks for the links. The above seems to reinforce the view that the Zionists were invaders engaging in a sort of ethnic cleansing and, indirectly, that the Arab forces were dispatched to protect and defend the indigenous people against what was authorized in Plan Dalet.

 

[tiny-tim]

Thanks for the links. The above seems to reinforce the view that the Zionists were invaders engaging in a sort of ethnic cleansing and, indirectly, that the Arab forces were dispatched to protect and defend the indigenous people against what was authorized in Plan Dalet.

"Invaders"? They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8, and it was the neighbouring Arab countries who broke the United Nations charter by invading.

I think you need to read the links first.

You'll find that from the 1920s to 1948 there had been widespread murder of Jews, in the hope of driving them out, the Jews had retaliated, and by 1948 had formed a regular army (the Haganah) and adopted a defensive strategy designed to allow Arabs to remain (as indeed a huge number did).

As wikipedia points out: according to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

 

[ThomasT]

"Invaders"? They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8, and it was the neighbouring Arab countries who broke the United Nations charter by invading.

I'm not interested in 'legality' per se (eg., eminent domain is often abused in this country), but, rather, to form an opinion (based on learning the truth as best I can) of whether or not the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine was morally justifiable, and whether or not the expulsion of indigenous people was an integral part of the Zionist agenda.

I think you need to read the links first.

Yes, thanks again, I'm in the process.

You'll find that from the 1920s to 1948 there had been widespread murder of Jews, in the hope of driving them out, the Jews had retaliated, and by 1948 had formed a regular army (the Haganah) and adopted a defensive strategy designed to allow Arabs to remain (as indeed a huge number did).

There's been a lot of killing by both sides. It's the context that matters, and I aim to find the truth of that.

As wikipedia points out: according to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

The parts you quoted and paraphrased (having to do with takeover and destruction of villages and population centers) seemed pretty aggressive to me. The thing is, if the Zionists had no moral right to that land, or those villages or homes, then they would be 'defending' something which they had, to put it bluntly, stolen. And, if that was the case, then any subsequent atrocities by either side are attributable to that primary cause.

But, as I've said, I don't know enough yet to have an opinion about the truth of the matter.

I have a question. I remember watching an interview (on PBS I think, but I wasn't able to find it on their website, so maybe not) with a woman doctor (I don't remember her name), a child in the late 1940's living in Palestine with her family during the formation of Israel and the Palestinian exodus. She wrote a book about it and I can't remember the title. Do you (or anyone else) know what I'm referring to?

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't put Fisk in the same category as Pappé, who is criticized along with other so-called 'New Historians' as anti-Zionist.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

It is important when reading any historical book to know the perspectives and prejudices/biases of the author. While Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation, is dense, it does apparently contain factual errors as highlighted in Efraim Karsh's criticism of the book in the article http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2006/31-3/biblio31-3.htm .



Another criticism of Fisk's book - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/books/review/19bron.html

One should also be familiar with Fisk and Karsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

It would be worthwhile to also read Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) and Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1922 (Harvard University Press, 1999; with *Inari Karsh).

...

Thanks for scholarly references here, nice post.

 

[mheslep]

Before throwing around terms like indigenous here, it would help to have some idea of the actual demographics of Palestine in the British and Ottoman periods. Keep in mind that, most likely, in 1945 Palestine already contained roughly 600k Jews and more than one million Moslems, Jews having immigrated since ~1880, but in significant numbers under the British mandate. The Arab population also grew significantly during the British period. The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.
Source:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

 

[kyleb]

They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8...

This seems like an inconsistency with your previous arguments. Is it that you do believe UN General Assembly resolutions confer rights for Jews, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=293065&page=7"?

Regardless, while the partition plan did allocate land to establish Israel, it didn't allocate any right drive anyone out of their homes, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people who were driven out if not killed in the months prior to the Arab nations attacking, and calling that ethnic cleansing defensive does nothing to change what it is. Furthermore, militant Zionists committed their own share of murders in the decades before, one notable example being the 1924 murder of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Isra%C3%ABl_de_Haan" , and how they went on to become Likud, the party of Israel's incoming Prime Minster. So, arguably they have the whole Middle East under their gun now, though obviously just Palestine under direct control.

Before throwing around terms like indigenous here...

If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well. Scans of a compilation of British Mandate period records can be found http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html" , and if you care to look though that, along with the rest of history, you'll find the term indigenous fits Palestinians like a glove.

The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.

Back then the city of Jerusalem had far smaller boundaries, which Israel has expanded greatly over the decades to what would have shifted that statistic in favor of Arabs at the time. On that note, one should consider the fact that http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg" .

 

[turbo]

If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well.

It is worth noting that George Mitchell, Obama's ME envoy is of mixed heritage - Irish and Lebanese. There is a vibrant community of Lebanese Christians in central Maine, and they hold positions of prominence in commerce, law, local governance, etc. Mitchell is well-regarded for his efforts in negotiating the Northern Ireland truce, but I fear that dealing with Israel will be an impossible task because their government is so fractious and they have a long history of moving the goalposts.

If Israel truly wants peace, they should offer to withdraw from the West Bank and give up enough territory (even a narrow corridor) to allow for a contiguous Palestine (Gaza and West Bank). Such a proposal would pull the teeth of Palestinian militants and put them out of power. I see little prospect for this, because there is a very vocal faction in Israel that demands that Israel control Jerusalem. Livni has stated publicly that Israeli settlers are the major obstacle to peace with the Palestinians, but that is of little real value. She is Likud with lipstick.

 

[tiny-tim]

Jewish majority in Jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.
Source:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

You mean WWI … that reference actually says "about 1896"

There's also an 1853 book by Cesar Famin "L'Histoire de la rivalite et du protectorat des Eglises chretiennes en Orient" (Paris: Firmin Didot freres), which puts the majority back to at least 1853 …

from the title, the author is primarily interested in Christianity (des Eglises chretienne) in the middle east, so there is no reason to believe he would have inflated the Jewish figure …

this extract from Famin is from a blog … http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html … presumably a biased blogger, but it does seem to be an exact quotation from page 49 of the book (the book isn't on books.google.com) …

"The sedentary population of Jerusalem is about 15,500 souls:"
"La population sedentaire de Jerusalem est d'environ 15,500 ames:"
Jews . . . 8,000 . . . Juifs
Muslims . .4,000 . . . Musulmans
Christians 3,490 . . . Chretiens
- - - - - - -------
. . . . . . . 15,490

There is confirmation of this (though not the exact figures) on http://books.google.com/books?id=95...s++jerusalem+-famine&client=safari#PPA362,M1" by Julius Carlebach (1977) which although not quoting from p.49, does quote these two extracts from pp.50&51 of Famin's book:

The Moslems who constitute approximately a quarter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem …

… the Jews in themselves constitute over half the population of the holy city.

The same blogger in http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/jerusalem-population-in-19th-century.html" also quotes the figures from two books by French and Arab authors giving Jewish majorities in 1872 and 1874 (and a French book based on the Prussian consul's figures on 1858 showing a Jewish minority)

Of course, there has been a joint Christian-Jewish majority in the city of Jerusalem since well before 1800 (sorry, I have no link for this ).

 

[kyleb]

Yet the Christian community wanted not part an Jewish state, nor did the Jewish community of the time. And again, what was called Jerusalem back then is only a small portion of what is called Jerusalem today, and the latter long had an Arab majority.

And yeah, Turbo, Mitchell is a promising appointment, but a few men can only do so much with a huge lobby against them, and what looks to be Likud running Israel soon isn't going to make that any easier. The settlers are really minor obstacle compared to the powermongers running the show, most of the settlers are only there for the economic incentives and tax breaks those powermongers give them.

 

[math_04]

Well, Israel has a right to defend itself as any country would but I just feel they made a strategic blunder. By bombing large areas of the Gaza Strip, they did kill a few Hamas members but lots of civilians were also caught up unfortunately. This represented a victory for Hamas and probably boosted other Islamist terrorist groups in the Middle East.

As I watched all the children crying and the women mourning, I knew this war and events leading up to it will breed a whole new generation of angered youths. I watched a documentary called 'Inside Hamas' and it showed how Hamas was an ineffective government that later on, did not enjoy the support of many of Gaza's residents. The PLO itself is inherently corrupt and also does not enjoy much support. The problem with Palestine is there is not effective AND peaceful government, both current parties are either terrorists or corrupt.

I think Israel will need to make a brave decision and stop the blockade of Gaza, let the trucks through and tell Hamas that we are ready to make the next step, now you must do the same. It is a hard choice but for the sake of security, bombing is not going to help. Of course, if Hamas is unwilling to do it, then Israel needs to occupy Gaza again. At least then, the Arab nations and the rest of the world will see how difficult and futile it is to make peace with a group bent on destroying a country.

There is nothing wrong with Israel, but this time, it made the wrong choice. Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak may have done it to win the elections but it really backfired.

 

[kyleb]

I take it you didn't read the thread, but rather just dropped into talk over us, eh Math?

 

[mheslep]

...If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well. Scans of a compilation of British Mandate period can records can be found http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html" , and if you care to look though that, along with the rest of history, you'll find the term indigenous fits Palestinians like a glove...

Agreed it fits the Palestinians there before WWII and displaced by the war, and it also fits many of the Jews there before WWII. Indigenous-to-Palestine does not accurately describe all of the ~10m ethnic Palestinians now living throughout the world.

 

[kyleb]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

 

[Evo]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

Maybe I have misunderstood what you meant. Are you denying occupation of these lands by Jews for thousands of years? Here is a timeline just dating from the Ottoman period.

http://www.jcrc.org/downloads/israel/jcrc_israel-timeline_5.pdf

 

[kyleb]

I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of the Arabs we call Palestinians today are descendants of those who occupied the region for thousands of years, along side the few Jews you refer to, while the vast majority of ancestors of the Jews we call Israelis today lived elsewhere over the last few thousand years. Again, the bulk of that colonization prior to Israel's declaration of statehood can be seen in the British Mandate period records I linked above. Notably, see Table 3 here:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6583.html

 

[Evo]

I agree that a large portion of the Jews that inhabit Israel were born in other parts of the world. I'm also not in agreement with the decision to hand them a country, at the same time I have to admit that it's true that they were there originally, but they were conquered and driven out. Would that scenario mean that the US should give back the country to the American Indians because they were here first?

 

[mheslep]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

Everybody 'colonizes' (to settle, to inhabit) initially Kyleb, and as far as I tell the evidence shows that Jewish settlers did little displacement of Palestinians before WWII. I did not say that the time-lines or the numbers of Arab and Jewish settlers are identical. I simply assert the visible, again, that many thousands of Jews after being born there or living most of their lives there prior to 1945, some of them going back many generations, are indigenous to Palestine.

The discussion changes once we consider the millions of Palestinians living today, as many of them have never set foot in Palestine. They lay claim to Palestine as descendants, and once you do that nearly all Jews, everywhere, are descendant from 70 AD Judea.

 

[kyleb]

I agree that a large portion of the Jews that inhabit Israel were born in other parts of the world.

That isn't what I suggested. Rather, the vast majority of the Jews that inhabit Israel are solely descended from people who lived elsewhere for a couple thousand years.

I'm also not in agreement with the decision to hand them a country, at the same time I have to admit that it's true that they were there originally, but they were conquered and driven out. Would that scenario mean that the US should give back the country to the American Indians because they were here first?

It means we need to address reality as it exist now, including Israel refusal to give Palestinians civil rights in defense of it's ethnic-nationalist nature. Hence, we must convince Israel to respect Palestine's right to exist as a sovereign nation in what little of their homeland Palestinians still hold legal right to, and arrange compensation for the refugees Israel has displaced. That is the two-state solution Israel has been allowed to disregard over decades of US backing.

Everybody 'colonizes' (to settle, to inhabit) initially Kyleb, and as far as I tell the evidence shows that Jewish settlers did little displacement of Palestinians before WWII. I did not say that the time-lines or the numbers of Arab and Jewish settlers are identical.

You are obfuscating the difference between a small amount of Arab immigration coming to live along with the existing population, and a mass Jewish colonialist movement which ethnically cleansed the region of much of that indigenous population shortly after WWII.

I simply assert the visible, again, that many thousands of Jews after being born there or living most of their lives there prior to 1945, some of them going back many generations, are indigenous to Palestine.

And again, the Jews few that were there generations ago had no interest overcoming the many Arabs who lived along side them to ethnic-nationalist state, it was the colonists who came from Europe to do that.

The discussion changes once we consider the millions of Palestinians living today, as many of them have never set foot in Palestine. They lay claim to Palestine as descendants,...

Rather the few millions who are considered Palestinians today but have never set foot in Palestine are refuges of the ethnic cleansing discussed above, as they have been since their birth in refugee camps near their families homelands in what is now Israel. However, such facts are a stark change in the discussion which was about indigenous populations which militant Zionists drove out in 1948.

...and once you do that nearly all Jews, everywhere, are descendant from 70 AD Judea.

Many for sure, but Jews had spread far from the region in the centuries before. Furthermore, some Palestinians are bound to be descendants of Jews of that time and others as well, along with those of the many other Semitic people of the region.

 

[drizzle]

...Of course, there has been a joint Christian-Jewish majority in the city of Jerusalem since well before 1800 (sorry, I have no link for this ).

You and other members keep saying that Jews live in Palestine ages ago, but what I’ve known and most of you know that Jews live in every country by diverse percentages that shouldn’t be a reason to OCCUPY Palestine, as for the religious back ground that they the Jews should live there and their father Jacob (Israel) was born there (correct me if I’m wrong in this)…if anyone reads carefully they’ll eventually know the holy land is prohibited for the Jews (as a punishment from God Allah) after they refuses to enter the holy land and fight alongside prophet Moses (peace be upon him) against the Canaanites who were there saying:

"Go, you and your Lord and fight, indeed here [sitting] we are [waiting]." (Quran 5:24)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Moses#The_Holy_Land_.5BJerusalem.5D"

According to the Quran, Moses encourages the Israelites to enter Canaan, but they are unwilling to fight the Canaanites, fearing certain defeat. Moses responds by pleading to Allah that he and his brother Aaron be separated from the rebellious Israelites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Judaism"

I’m pretty sure there also are other than Qur’an like Torah that do discuss this, an interview in Fox news with a religious jew man who said that jew people have no right establish Israel in the name of Judaism, here’s the link;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeaZuj7ruwM"


this reminds me the historical meeting between two leaders general de Gaulle and king Faisal of Saudi that was held in Paris 1967 where the general changes his opinion in giving arms to Israel, I only have an Arabic Biography book (author Aldwaleby) as a reference but I’m sure you guys can find one, maybe you can humanino:shy:.

i wouldn't say I'm so much cheering them on as believing they should have their place. all i see from the muslims is that they want the jews dead, so it's very difficult for me to sympathize with them. the jews are occupying a small speck of land that is their traditional homeland, while their muslim brothers occupy the vast majority of land in the region. i don't see what's unfair about it, and i see the muslims as a thousand times more aggressive. but i wasn't raised with jews, so maybe you've developed some negative feelings towards them that I'm not privy to.

just to make things right, the Muslims do not hate Jews as a belief, it just what they see from those who live in Israel (that is 100% Jew state)whom killing their Muslim brothers and sisters and the fact that Muslims will exterminate the Jews only who live in the holy land and agreed to the occupation of that land. but along the history you can see that the Muslim world do accept Jews to live among them following God’s orders;

The Quran calls them "People of the Book", i.e., those who received Divine scriptures before Muhammad (P). Muslims are told to treat them with respect and justice and do not fight with them unless they initiate hostilities or ridicule their faith. The Muslims ultimate hope is that they all will join them in worshipping one God and submit to His will. "Say (O Muhammad): O people of the Book (Jews and Christians) come to an agreement between us and you, that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall take no partners with Him, and none of us shall take others for Lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are those who have surrendered (unto Him)." (Quran 3:64)

http://www.hammoude.com/Faq25.html"

PEACE

 

[Werg22]

You and other members keep saying that Jews live in Palestine ages ago, but what I’ve known and most of you know that Jews live in every country by diverse percentages that shouldn’t be a reason to OCCUPY Palestine, as for the religious back ground that they the Jews should live there and their father Jacob (Israel) was born there (correct me if I’m wrong in this)…if anyone reads carefully they’ll eventually know the holy land is prohibited for the Jews (as a punishment from God Allah) after they refuses to enter the holy land and fight alongside prophet Moses (peace be upon him) against the Canaanites who were there saying:

Please do not use arguments resting on religious beliefs. Read the guidelines.

 

[drizzle]

Please do not use arguments resting on religious beliefs. Read the guidelines.

look at other related threads you’ll find the same even tiny-tim do so
maybe I should post it in the right of return thread but it all show the same talk.

 

[kyleb]

I am not sure what posts you are referring to, but there is a difference between discussing theological perspectives making a religious argument. The former is allowed on this forum but the latter is not. Regardless, what you are quoting from Quran is taken way out of context, as it refers to an event preceding the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, as detailed in the Book of Numbers. What the Rabbi in the interview you linked is referring to is detailed latter throughout Tanakh, and also vaguely eluded to in Quran 17:104. Put simply, both scriptures are historically understood to suggest that the the Kingdom of Israel will be reestablished in fulfillment of prophesy, but though the will of God rather than by that of people imposing their own as the State of Israel is now.

 

[Proton Soup]

Put simply, both scriptures are historically understood to suggest that the the Kingdom of Israel will be reestablished in fulfillment of prophesy, but though the will of God rather than by that of people imposing their own as the State of Israel is now.

now that is a religious argument

 

[kyleb]

Also note that Israel isn't 100% Jewish, but rather has 20% minority of Arabs who weren't displaced by Israel, with the majority of them being Muslim. Most of that Israeli-Arabs protests against Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian territory and all the violence of the occupation that comes with it, as do many Israeli-Jews, but unfortunately not nearly enough to stop it.

 

[tiny-tim]

"exterminate …"

look at other related threads you’ll find the same even tiny-tim do so

Where? It is very wrong to accuse people without giving a reference

I certainly have not used religious arguments (though I have replied when others have misquoted the Torah or Koran).

just to make things right … the fact that Muslims will exterminate the Jews only who live in the holy land and agreed to the occupation of that land …

you think that will make things right?

or you think Muslims think that will make things right?

PEACE

exterminate first, then peace?

 

[Vanadium 50]

exterminate first, then peace?

"If you want peace, work for genocide".

 

[mheslep]

"If you want peace, work for genocide".

Idi Amin Dada?

 

[drizzle]

Where? It is very wrong to accuse people without giving a reference

I certainly have not used religious arguments (though I have replied when others have misquoted the Torah or Koran).

which make this true that you use religious books to prove your point, you and others. look in the right of return thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=285958&page=6"

besides these are not religious discussions, I’m not saying do God exist? these are facts have happened and documented by these books, you and I know that and probably others, as for the other quote I didn’t polish the Muslims off, their Quran demand them not to kill Jews or others because of their religion as you'll see in the last ref of this post.

Also note that Israel isn't 100% Jewish, but rather has 20% minority of Arabs who weren't displaced by Israel, with the majority of them being Muslim. Most of that Israeli-Arabs protests against Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian territory and all the violence of the occupation that comes with it, as do many Israeli-Jews, but unfortunately not nearly enough to stop it.

who serves in the army? and who of the civilians you mentioned are allowed to carry arms? There was a documentary titled (Occupation 101) posted earlier in another thread I think it was in the “who won israel vs gaza ??” thread;

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=285444&page=3"

it shows this clearly.

you think that will make things right?... exterminate first, then peace?

what Israel is doing since then and right now is the same thing that makes you get annoyed that much, and you (not in person but who ever supports Israel’s policy) are not suppose to see people get angry of what is going on there (or maybe you don't care ), targeting schools .. oh yah they ((Israel)) report there were rockets fired from there 2 years ago!? oh or maybe that’s why they shoot almost everywhere in Gaza, cause there were places fighters have gone by through the last several years!
that sounds like: you know that you can make excuses to yourself if you are aiming for something and you have the upper hand, off course you wouldn’t have to give any if you are doing right things and wouldn’t harm anyone!.

and by the way, if that happen (war by right) Islam (in general) forbidden Muslims to kill old people, women, children and cut trees! Only who fights, I’ll link this, it has several references of what I’ve said from Quran and prophet’s words (peace be upon him).

http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080104155333AAYQifQ"



off course you know that many Jews around the world don't agree of such a state there (Israel)

 

[drizzle]

"If you want peace, work for genocide".

isn't that what Israel doing?

 

[nottheone]

If it wasn't for Hamas there would be a Palestinian state now, all the territory that Israel took in the war would be returned, there would be peace and Israel would be loved by all the Arabs. This is definitely all Hamas's fault. And if you believe any of that I have the deed to a very large island just south of Ct for sale, and I am not giving it back to the people I took it from.

Israel will only allow peace if it's forcibly dragged, kicking and screaming, to the table. Get used to it, they will never willingly allow a Palestinian state on their own. As we did to native americans, they sent the Palestinians to a small piece of stinking desert and it is a lot easier to justify that then to justify a State of Palestinian Stinking Desert.

It will only happen one of two ways. Either we get a president with balls enough to sever relations with them if they don't do it (unlikely since presidents, balls and brains don't go together) or the European union embargo's them. The latter might happen eventually since Israel is superceded by only US in creating hatred.

We should force them to do it. Israel is a valuable ally and it's in our best interest for them to straighten out and fly right. Their conflict with the Arabs does not help us at all.

 

[turbo]

Recently, we have heard from Sec of State Clinton that $900 M will be produced from the US to fund the rebuilding of Gaza. I would like to propose that this year's aid payment from the US to Israel be reduced by that same $900 M, since they are the ones who destroyed wells, pumping stations, waste treatment plants, schools, and hospitals that now must be rebuilt. I would place at least 50% of any other scheduled US-to-Israel aid on hold until Israel's government agrees to a 2-state solution resulting in a contiguous Palestine. It is high time that the US taxpayer stop paying for this madness. We have been financing the oppression of the Palestinians for decades with no peace in sight. Enough.

 

[Art]

Recently, we have heard from Sec of State Clinton that $900 M will be produced from the US to fund the rebuilding of Gaza. I would like to propose that this year's aid payment from the US to Israel be reduced by that same $900 M, since they are the ones who destroyed wells, pumping stations, waste treatment plants, schools, and hospitals that now must be rebuilt. I would place at least 50% of any other scheduled US-to-Israel aid on hold until Israel's government agrees to a 2-state solution resulting in a contiguous Palestine. It is high time that the US taxpayer stop paying for this madness. We have been financing the oppression of the Palestinians for decades with no peace in sight. Enough.

I'd go a lot further. Under international law the occupying force is responsible for feeding, clothing and housing civilians under it's control. As the occupying force Israel should be made to pay for all the reconstruction and food aid supplied to Palestinians. This would serve two purposes. First the cost of it would greatly increase Israel's enthusiasm to end it's occupation and secondly they would think twice about launching massive air, land and sea attacks if they had to carry the cost of putting everything back together again. If Israel refuses to live up to it's legal obligations then the UN should immediately implement a war crimes tribunal.

It is tragic that European and US taxpayers in providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians, by paying the costs of Israel's occupation for them, have in effect subsidised Israel for the past 40 years thus allowing them to evade any permanent solution for Palestinians.

Not only does Israel not offer any thanks to us taxpayers for carrying their burden they destroy the infrastructure we paid for and put every obstacle possible in the way of UN relief efforts.

 

[Proton Soup]

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

as for trying to extort israel into rebuilding gaza, i doubt that is going to happen. and i do wonder what we would lose in the process. probably a lot valuable middle-east intelligence that we rely on the israelis for.

 

[nottheone]

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

as for trying to extort israel into rebuilding gaza, i doubt that is going to happen. and i do wonder what we would lose in the process. probably a lot valuable middle-east intelligence that we rely on the israelis for.

It isn't cowardly to avoid fighting automatic weapons with muskets. And their intel gathering doesn't stop at our borders.

 

[Proton Soup]

egypt doesn't need muskets, they have tanks.

 

[kyleb]

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

Egypt's tin-pot dictatorship is propped up by billions in US aid to keep the population suppressed as they are increasingly enraged by Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Furthermore, the entire Arab legal backs the peaceful resolution to the conflict on the basis of international law as outlined in the Saudi Initiative and as they constantly vote for at the UN along with the rest of the world every year, with only US veto power allowing Israel's conquest of Palestine to continue.

as for trying to extort israel into rebuilding gaza, i doubt that is going to happen.

It won't, but it would be the just thing to do.

and i do wonder what we would lose in the process. probably a lot valuable middle-east intelligence that we rely on the israelis for.

This is like looking for intelligence in the bottom of a bottle, and drinking more to cure the hangover.

 

[tiny-tim]

As we did to native americans, they sent the Palestinians to a small piece of stinking desert …

Most of the desert of Palestine was given to Israel by the UN (the Negev desert, that large triangle that goes down to Eilat).

The West Bank and the Gaza strip are (mostly) not desert … the Gaza strip in particular is a reasonably fertile coastal plain.

Even the small desert part could be made fertile if the Palestinians wanted … the Israeli settlers did so, but the Palestinians destroyed everything and allowed the cultivated area to return to desert, when the settlers left.

UNWRA handouts have propped up the Gaza economy, apparently giving no incentive for agricultural development.

It is tragic that European and US taxpayers in providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians, …

Why don't the very rich Arab countries provide such relief?

Unfortunately, they like their Palestinian neighbours even less than the Americans do.

Furthermore, the entire Arab legal backs the peaceful resolution to the conflict on the basis of international law as outlined in the Saudi Initiative …

(i assume you mean the Arab League)

They don't back it with money.

And they back a peaceful resolution, as you say, so they are against the military efforts of Hamas

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

Egypt are not cowards. Egypt fought an honourable war in 1973, and has made and kept an honourable peace ever since Anwar Sadat.

Egypt has no intention whatever of fighting Israel.

Egypt is anti-Hamas, and the economic sanctions against the Gaza strip are a joint Egyptian-Israeli affair.

 

[kyleb]

Most of the desert of Palestine was given to Israel by the UN (the Negev desert, that large triangle that goes down to Eilat).

You missed his point. However, sure, the UN gave Israel the Negev which cut Palestinians off from the Gulf of Aqaba, even though Palestinians owned far more land in the Negev at the time of the partition.

Even the small desert part could be made fertile if the Palestinians wanted … the Israeli settlers did so, but the Palestinians destroyed everything and allowed the cultivated area to return to desert, when the settlers left.

I'd ask you to prove your claim here that everything was destroyed, but I know you can't.

UNWRA handouts have propped up the Gaza economy, apparently giving no incentive for agricultural development.

Rather, Gaza's attempts to build their economy though agriculture have been rotting under Israeli blockade:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031801329.html

Why don't the very rich Arab countries provide such relief?

Why do you ingore that they do? Here is one example:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/19/saudis-offer-1-billion-to-repair-gaza/

Unfortunately, they like their Palestinian neighbours even less than the Americans do.

The Arab nations aren't the ones backing Israel's conquest of Palestine with diplomatic, economic and military aid, is is us Americans who do that. Again, the Arab League backs the peaceful resolution to the conflict on the basis of international law as outlined in the Saudi Initiative, and as they constantly vote for peaceful resolution at the UN along with the rest of the world every year, while we only offer refusal along with hollow gestures of sympathy.

They don't back it with money.

What, you want them to pay Israel to respect international law? Or are you just rambling on with your absurd claim that Arab nations don't give Palestinians aid?

And again, Egypt's tin-pot dictatorship is propped up by billions in US aid to keep the population suppressed as they are increasingly enraged by Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

 

[nottheone]

egypt doesn't need muskets, they have tanks.

The analogy that went over your head was that their weapons, including their tanks, are relatively muskets compared to Israeli weapons. The Israeli's have the brains to design first class weapons and the funding (from US) to make them. You need to get past your prejudices and look at things objectively.

 

[tiny-tim]

Arab League aid promises

Why don't the very rich Arab countries provide such relief?

Why do you ingore that they do? Here is one example:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/19/saudis-offer-1-billion-to-repair-gaza/

hmm … I'll believe that when I see the actual money.

Here's a http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1215929.stm" showing that of $1bn promised by the Arab League countries six moths earlier, only $8mn had arrived …

and this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601797_pf.html" …

In 2002, when oil prices were hovering around $21 a barrel, nearly two dozen Arab nations joined to pledge yearly contributions of $660 million to support the Palestinian Authority's annual budget. Now, even with oil prices more than six times higher and the Palestinian Authority bordering on financial ruin, only a handful of Arab countries are sending even a small portion of the money they promised, according to data examined by The Washington Post.

Out of 22 Arab nations that made pledges, only three -- Algeria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- have contributed funds this year, while oil-rich countries such as Libya, Kuwait and Qatar have sent nothing and still owe the Palestinian government more than $700 million in past-due pledges.
…
One senior U.S. official … said he is puzzled by their failure to meet their pledges in a period of phenomenal oil wealth.
…
Arab diplomats … said there is little trust that the Palestinian Authority will use their contributions wisely …
…
"Most of them make the pledges reluctantly, on the basis that the United States wanted them to do it," said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland.

though I have to admit (I was unaware of this) that Saudi Arabia does appear to have fulfilled its promises …

Many members of the Arab League that committed to make annual contributions do not have oil riches and have paid on average about 4 percent of what they pledged since 2002, according to U.S. figures. But some of the worst offenders are oil producers. Through the first half of 2008, Bahrain has paid 13 percent of its total pledges, Libya 14 percent, Oman 23 percent, Kuwait 35 percent, Algeria 73 percent and the United Arab Emirates 92 percent.
Saudi Arabia has paid just shy of 100 percent …

 

[kyleb]

Sure, the Saudis are rich enough to overlook the fact that much of their charity gets sucked up Fatah's corruption and wasted by their complacency with Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank, while other Arab nations are more fugal, but claiming they don't give aid to Palestinians is a misrepresentation.

 

[Art]

More evidence of changing attitudes towards Israel

Britain drops Israel embassy move

The UK Foreign Office has dropped plans to move the British embassy in Tel Aviv into a skyscraper because of concerns over the building owners.

A spokeswoman said it was not satisfied with the company's involvement in settlement activity in the West Bank - which contravenes international law.

Israel's ambassador to London said the decision was "appeasement to those who slander Israel".

The UK has recently moved to toughen its policy towards Israeli settlements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7926850.stm

And

UK restores links with Hezbollah

Britain says it is re-establishing contacts with the political wing of the Lebanese movement Hezbollah.

The move follows "positive political developments" in Lebanon, officials from the UK Foreign Office said.

It comes about 10 months after Hezbollah signed a unity accord in Lebanon and joined the government.

Only last year, the government put Hezbollah's military wing on a list of proscribed organisations over its alleged training of insurgents in Iraq.

"We are exploring certain contacts at an official level with Hezbollah's political wing, including MPs," said a spokesperson for the Foreign Office.

The spokesperson said the UK was doing "all it can" to support Lebanon's unity government, of which Hezbollah's political wing is a part.

"Our objective with Hezbollah remains to encourage them to move away from violence and play a constructive, democratic and peaceful role in Lebanese politics, in line with a range of UN Security Council Resolutions."

The spokesperson said Britain would continue to have no contact with Hezbollah's military wing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7927025.stm

 

[kyleb]

I am dissapointed that the BBC doesn't mention the name of the tycoon holds ownership in the skyscraper allong with ties to the settelment industry. At least http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5847932.ece" goes that far:

The embassy had frozen plans to move into a new tower block part-owned by Lev Leviev, Israel's wealthiest man, who made his fortune in diamonds.

And on the subject of diamonds, questions into his dealings there don't get much mainstream press, but http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/31549/":

Leviev’s alliance with Angola’s central government, which won the country’s civil war, led to his gaining primary control of the country’s rough-diamond supply in 2000. A security company contracted by Leviev was accused this year by a local human-rights monitor of participating in practices of “humiliation, whipping, torture, sexual abuse, and, in some cases, assassinations.” Leviev’s formal response to the report did not directly address the abuses but touted his charitable activities in Angola.

Also of note is http://nymag.com/realestate/vu/2007/10/38348/" :

As late as July, Mann and Leviev neither confirmed nor denied the condo rumors. They were “exploring their options.” But residents were on edge, their fears running from massive rent hikes to flat-out evictions, and for some, the worst-case scenario happened almost immediately. Over the spring and summer, as lease after lease expired and got renewed, the building’s market-rate renters saw their rents rise by jaw-dropping sums all across the price spectrum. Apartment 3KS, a two-bedroom, went from $6,000 a month to $14,865. The monthly rate for one five-bedroom went overnight from $24,000 to $35,000. It is rumored that the monthly rent for at least one particularly spacious unit rose to $54,000—an impressive figure even for the rarefied Manhattan luxury-rental market.

This goes down to the heart of what is wrong with Israel; as long as we have tycoons like that pushing the settlement industry, the possibly of a peaceful resolution to this conflict is bleak.

 

[Art]

The US is also beginning to change it's public stance in relation to Israel,

Clinton rebukes Israel over demolition plan

Orders to bulldoze Palestinian apartments in East Jerusalem spark first criticism by US Secretary of State

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticised Israel's plans to demolish more than 80 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as "unhelpful" and a violation of its international obligations.

In the first public rebuke of a specific Israeli policy since the new US administration took office, Mrs Clinton indicated the plan contravened the provisions in the five-year-old internationally agreed "road-map" that calls for a halt to all settlement activity.

Mrs Clinton said after meeting the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbbas: "Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the 'road-map'... It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ukes-israel-over-demolition-plan-1637734.html

 

[kyleb]

That isn't a really change in stance as Rice called Israel's actions "unhelpful" too, it is just lip-service.