Israel vs Palestine

[ISREAL63]

Israel has only one main condition that Palestinians must recognized Israel as a Jewish state this is very fair seeing as Israel is a Jewish State. You seem to have left out the part where at the end of 10 month only on the 9th month of the freeze the agree to talk only if Israel extend the freeze the Palestinians would think about talking. What happen the first 9 months? Why only at the End of the freeze they started thinking about alking

It's not that hard to understand. Palestinians didn't attend the peace talks because Israel made it seem that even if the talks succeeded they wouldn't let the Palestinians return to their homes, which is one of the key items that Palestinians have for existing in peace.

 

That is not the reason for the Palestinians not wanting to talk peace that can be settled in peace talks. But Hamas part of Palestinians government which is also a terrorist organization according to Israel, The USA, Canda and The EU. Hamas prefers to fire rockets at Israel's civilian. If they really want peace how those firing rockets at Israel's civilian promote peace? You seem to avoid admitting that they do fire rockets at Israel civilians. or that A tennager killed by Palestinians on the way home from school. or OR the Fogel massacre in which Three small children aged 11; four and just three months old were savagely murdered in their beds.

[The_Gabe]

Michael, watch the video I posted last page if you didn't. I can't reply to this topic anymore because I'm going to be gone most of the summer starting from today. All of my previous points still stand, however.

[Nomrombom]

What makes it Palestinian land? Israel won it in an armed conflict and even gave back the vast majority of 'occupied' land in a peace treaty.

You are so right :thumbsup:

 

So if Palestine invaded Israel, displaced nearly all Israelis, made them second class citizens, and violated the human rights of said Israelis in the process, it becomes Palestinian land, right? (Just clarifying)

[The_Gabe]

What makes it Palestinian land? Israel won it in an armed conflict and even gave back the vast majority of 'occupied' land in a peace treaty.

You are so right :thumbsup:

 

So if Palestine invaded Israel, displaced nearly all Israelis, made them second class citizens, and violated the human rights of said Israelis in the process, it becomes Palestinian land, right? (Just clarifying)

 

Here we go again...

 

Nobody invaded Palestine, nobody made the Palestinians leave, the Hamas are the ones violating human rights, and territory won by armed conflict while Israel is the defender does technically become Israel's land.

[ISREAL63]

What makes it Palestinian land? Israel won it in an armed conflict and even gave back the vast majority of 'occupied' land in a peace treaty.

You are so right :thumbsup:

 

So if Palestine invaded Israel, displaced nearly all Israelis, made them second class citizens, and violated the human rights of said Israelis in the process, it becomes Palestinian land, right? (Just clarifying)

 

Here we go again...

 

Nobody invaded Palestine, nobody made the Palestinians leave, the Hamas are the ones violating human rights, and territory won by armed conflict while Israel is the defender does technically become Israel's land.

The Gabe is correct. You make it sound like The Jews woke up one day and said lets go force people from their homes. NO THAT IS NOT TRUE Israel was attacked and acted in self defense and won some territory to. Israel never wanted it but it was attacked.

[TrueBeaver]

Let me know if you see something wrong with this:

 

You walk into a stranger's home, they try to kick you out, you point a gun at them, and then proceed to beat them repeatedly. Then, you tell them "Jeez, OK! You can stay in the kitchen if you want", and wonder why they are mad even though you are generous enough to let them have the kitchen all for themselves. Of course, those [bleep]ing bastards only use the kitchen to take the knives from there and try to attack you. That's really rude of them, right?

 

That's pretty much what Israel did to Palestine, and why Palestine isn't going to settle down until they get all of their lands back.

 

But we already had this argument many times before and explained in a more serious manner, so I don't think you're gonna listen this time.

 

To "make peace" in Gaza means that Gaza is all they get. Because seriously, if they "make peace" then Israel isn't even gonna bother giving them more land.

What makes it Palestinian land? Israel won it in an armed conflict and even gave back the vast majority of 'occupied' land in a peace treaty.

 

 

So if Palestine invaded Israel, displaced nearly all Israelis, made them second class citizens, and violated the human rights of said Israelis in the process, it becomes Palestinian land, right? (Just clarifying)

Well, yeah. It doesn't excuse any human rights violations, but yes it would be Palestinian land.

[Nomrombom]

The Gabe is correct. You make it sound like The Jews woke up one day and said lets go force people from their homes. NO THAT IS NOT TRUE Israel was attacked and acted in self defense and won some territory to. Israel never wanted it but it was attacked.

 

So there was nobody there when the Jews entered Palestine...?

[ISREAL63]

The Gabe is correct. You make it sound like The Jews woke up one day and said lets go force people from their homes. NO THAT IS NOT TRUE Israel was attacked and acted in self defense and won some territory to. Israel never wanted it but it was attacked.

 

So there was nobody there when the Jews entered Palestine...?

 

Do not put words in my mouth. In 1948 and in 1967 The Arab armies attacked Israel, in which Israel fought back and won.

[Nomrombom]

made the Palestinians leave

 

 

Displace

 

to take the place of; replace

 

I didn't say or mean by force.

[Nomrombom]

The Gabe is correct. You make it sound like The Jews woke up one day and said lets go force people from their homes. NO THAT IS NOT TRUE Israel was attacked and acted in self defense and won some territory to. Israel never wanted it but it was attacked.

 

So there was nobody there when the Jews entered Palestine...?

 

Do not put words in my mouth. In 1948 and in 1967 The Arab armies attacked Israel, in which Israel fought back and won.

 

I did not put any words in your mouth. I am asking you whether or not there was anyone living in Palestine when the Jews entered it.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html

 

^ An example of Jews entering Palestine.

[ISREAL63]

made the Palestinians leave

Displace

to take the place of; replace

 

I didn't say or mean by force.

 

 

Are you kidding why not just leave out the rest of the sentence as long as you get your point across. I like how you pick threw each post and choose a few words that without the rest of the sentence you can argue it. :shame:

[Nomrombom]

made the Palestinians leave

Displace

to take the place of; replace

 

I didn't say or mean by force.

 

 

Are you kidding why not just leave out the rest of the sentence as long as you get your point across. I like how you pick threw each post and choose a few words that without the rest of the sentence you can argue it. :shame:

 

Ever thought it might mean I have conceded being incorrect on the other parts, or that I am trying to clarify my position?

 

I like how you pick threw [sic] each post and insult me without considering that I might be doing above things. :shame:

[ISREAL63]

Do not put words in my mouth. In 1948 and in 1967 The Arab armies attacked Israel, in which Israel fought back and won.

 

I did not put any words in your mouth. I am asking you whether or not there was anyone living in Palestine when the Jews entered it.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html

 

^ An example of Jews entering Palestine.

 

The Jews have a right to their homeland they bought all the land they settled on till the 1947-48 when they were attacked. The Arabs didn't need to sell the land to the Jews, but they did.

 

Are you kidding why not just leave out the rest of the sentence as long as you get your point across. I like how you pick threw each post and choose a few words that without the rest of the sentence you can argue it. :shame:

 

Ever thought it might mean I have conceded being incorrect on the other parts, or that I am trying to clarify my position?

 

I like how you pick threw [sic] each post and insult me without considering that I might be doing above things. :shame:

 

There is no excuse to cut up a sentence and post just 3 words from it, unlike you i replied to your whole sentence not just the words that suit me :wink: . So why don't you argue correctly and not cut up what you like and i won't call you out for doing that.

[Nomrombom]

Do not put words in my mouth. In 1948 and in 1967 The Arab armies attacked Israel, in which Israel fought back and won.

 

I did not put any words in your mouth. I am asking you whether or not there was anyone living in Palestine when the Jews entered it.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html

 

^ An example of Jews entering Palestine.

 

The Jews have a right to their homeland they bought all the land they settled on till the 1947-48 when they were attacked. The Arabs didn't need to sell the land to the Jews, but they did.

 

 

There. My question has been answered fully and clearly. No need to make an issue of it.

 

Are you kidding why not just leave out the rest of the sentence as long as you get your point across. I like how you pick threw each post and choose a few words that without the rest of the sentence you can argue it. :shame:

 

Ever thought it might mean I have conceded being incorrect on the other parts, or that I am trying to clarify my position?

 

I like how you pick threw [sic] each post and insult me without considering that I might be doing above things. :shame:

 

There is no excuse to cut up a sentence and post just 3 words from it, unlike you i replied to your whole sentence not just the words that suit me :wink: . So why don't you argue correctly and not cut up what you like and i won't call you out for doing that.

 

Why shouldn't I? I'm not replying to words that "suit me," I'm replying to the part of his post for which I had something to clarify. :wink: So why don't you realize that I am making everyone's life easier by cutting out parts I am not responding to and I won't have to argue with you about that.

[Napalm]

 

You walk into a stranger's home, they try to kick you out, you point a gun at them, and then proceed to beat them repeatedly. Then, you tell them "Jeez, OK! You can stay in the kitchen if you want", and wonder why they are mad even though you are generous enough to let them have the kitchen all for themselves. Of course, those [bleep]ing bastards only use the kitchen to take the knives from there and try to attack you. That's really rude of them, right?

 

That's pretty much what Israel did to Palestine, and why Palestine isn't going to settle down until they get all of their lands back.

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand?

 

The General Assembly resolution called upon Britain to evacuate a seaport and sufficient hinterland to support substantial Jewish migration, by February 1, 1948

 

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

 

Now, if you pay attention, you can see the word "evacuate" is used there. That means that people were taken from where they were residing and relocated to somewhere else. Why? So that Jewish immigrants could take that land. Is that not being forced out of the lands that were rightfully theirs? To take half of a country and say "this is no longer yours, now this belongs to a Jewish state that is going to be built here". An unfair partition that gave most of the lands to a newcoming minority. Of course there would be an armed retaliation. It's common sense to defend what is yours.

[Nifflin]

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

[The_Gabe]

 

You walk into a stranger's home, they try to kick you out, you point a gun at them, and then proceed to beat them repeatedly. Then, you tell them "Jeez, OK! You can stay in the kitchen if you want", and wonder why they are mad even though you are generous enough to let them have the kitchen all for themselves. Of course, those [bleep]ing bastards only use the kitchen to take the knives from there and try to attack you. That's really rude of them, right?

 

That's pretty much what Israel did to Palestine, and why Palestine isn't going to settle down until they get all of their lands back.

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand?

 

The General Assembly resolution called upon Britain to evacuate a seaport and sufficient hinterland to support substantial Jewish migration, by February 1, 1948

 

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

 

Now, if you pay attention, you can see the word "evacuate" is used there. That means that people were taken from where they were residing and relocated to somewhere else. Why? So that Jewish immigrants could take that land. Is that not being forced out of the lands that were rightfully theirs? To take half of a country and say "this is no longer yours, now this belongs to a Jewish state that is going to be built here". An unfair partition that gave most of the lands to a newcoming minority. Of course there would be an armed retaliation. It's common sense to defend what is yours.

 

First point: The British still had control over them. It wasn't theirs.

 

Second point: Taking one word out of a wiki (lol?) article means nothing at all to me. I don't trust that site for anything.

 

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

[Napalm]

 

You walk into a stranger's home, they try to kick you out, you point a gun at them, and then proceed to beat them repeatedly. Then, you tell them "Jeez, OK! You can stay in the kitchen if you want", and wonder why they are mad even though you are generous enough to let them have the kitchen all for themselves. Of course, those [bleep]ing bastards only use the kitchen to take the knives from there and try to attack you. That's really rude of them, right?

 

That's pretty much what Israel did to Palestine, and why Palestine isn't going to settle down until they get all of their lands back.

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand?

 

The General Assembly resolution called upon Britain to evacuate a seaport and sufficient hinterland to support substantial Jewish migration, by February 1, 1948

 

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

 

Now, if you pay attention, you can see the word "evacuate" is used there. That means that people were taken from where they were residing and relocated to somewhere else. Why? So that Jewish immigrants could take that land. Is that not being forced out of the lands that were rightfully theirs? To take half of a country and say "this is no longer yours, now this belongs to a Jewish state that is going to be built here". An unfair partition that gave most of the lands to a newcoming minority. Of course there would be an armed retaliation. It's common sense to defend what is yours.

 

First point: The British still had control over them. It wasn't theirs.

 

Second point: Taking one word out of a wiki (lol?) article means nothing at all to me. I don't trust that site for anything.

 

We are talking about a resolution that started a civil war. It is a fact that it happened. The resolution passed. This was the beggining of the war between the Israelis and the arabs. Are you seriously denying it's authenticity because I took it from wikipedia? Is that your whole argument about it?

 

And yes, the british still had control over the lands. This doesn't mean that Palestine didn't exist as a state, it was just administrated by the British, as if it were a colony. And the british opossed to the Partition plan, even when it pased.

 

Here's the Statement of the Principal Accredited Representative, Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore on a session of the League of Nations regarding the administration of Palestine by the British.

 

[...]As I understand the mandate, the Palestine mandate is an A mandate. The essence of that is that it marks a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[...]

You can find the full speech here, but I don't expect you to read it as it's too long.

 

As you can see, the British recognized the Palestinian's right to the land. The only difference between the British mandate and what could come after is the political administration, which would eventually be granted to the Palestinians.

 

 

 

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

[The_Gabe]

 

You walk into a stranger's home, they try to kick you out, you point a gun at them, and then proceed to beat them repeatedly. Then, you tell them "Jeez, OK! You can stay in the kitchen if you want", and wonder why they are mad even though you are generous enough to let them have the kitchen all for themselves. Of course, those [bleep]ing bastards only use the kitchen to take the knives from there and try to attack you. That's really rude of them, right?

 

That's pretty much what Israel did to Palestine, and why Palestine isn't going to settle down until they get all of their lands back.

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand?

 

The General Assembly resolution called upon Britain to evacuate a seaport and sufficient hinterland to support substantial Jewish migration, by February 1, 1948

 

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

 

Now, if you pay attention, you can see the word "evacuate" is used there. That means that people were taken from where they were residing and relocated to somewhere else. Why? So that Jewish immigrants could take that land. Is that not being forced out of the lands that were rightfully theirs? To take half of a country and say "this is no longer yours, now this belongs to a Jewish state that is going to be built here". An unfair partition that gave most of the lands to a newcoming minority. Of course there would be an armed retaliation. It's common sense to defend what is yours.

 

First point: The British still had control over them. It wasn't theirs.

 

Second point: Taking one word out of a wiki (lol?) article means nothing at all to me. I don't trust that site for anything.

 

We are talking about a resolution that started a civil war. It is a fact that it happened. The resolution passed. This was the beggining of the war between the Israelis and the arabs. Are you seriously denying it's authenticity because I took it from wikipedia? Is that your whole argument about it?

 

And yes, the british still had control over the lands. This doesn't mean that Palestine didn't exist as a state, it was just administrated by the British, as if it were a colony. And the british opossed to the Partition plan, even when it pased.

 

Here's the Statement of the Principal Accredited Representative, Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore on a session of the League of Nations regarding the administration of Palestine by the British.

 

[...]As I understand the mandate, the Palestine mandate is an A mandate. The essence of that is that it marks a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[...]

You can find the full speech here, but I don't expect you to read it as it's too long.

 

As you can see, the British recognized the Palestinian's right to the land. The only difference between the British mandate and what could come after is the political administration, which would eventually be granted to the Palestinians.

 

 

 

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

 

I'm not going to reply to this atm, too tired. I will get back to you tomorrow.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Half of this debate has been stolen by certain individuals using smoke and mirror tactics, or simply denying the premise of another person's arguments, rather than actually discussing the meat of the issue.

 

It's a shame really, and if this little thread is a microcosm of the real situation then it's no wonder this issue remains so violently unresolved.

[Nifflin]

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

 

This pretty much sums up the generic Israeli attitude, of course there are exceptions but this is basically it. They were wronged, they need a state to protect themselves, that makes it OK to use any and all force necessary to get what they want.

 

Also, I would like to point out that the British ended up caving to the demands of Zionist groups that used terrorism quite extensively (I've cited this multiple times in this thread). It's not like they just signed the lands over, many Brits and other foreigners were killed by Zionist terrorists before Israel was created. The British planned on eventually letting the Palestinians form a state, they were brutally attacked and terrorized and caved in to that. Should the British have stood up to Zionist terrorism? Probably. Does the fact that they didn't change what the Zionist terrorists did? Nope.

 

These are from Wikipedia but provide some good background on notable instances of Zionist terrorism if anyone is interested;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 

And a list of attacks, notice that they target both Palestinians and British;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_193

[The_Gabe]

 

You walk into a stranger's home, they try to kick you out, you point a gun at them, and then proceed to beat them repeatedly. Then, you tell them "Jeez, OK! You can stay in the kitchen if you want", and wonder why they are mad even though you are generous enough to let them have the kitchen all for themselves. Of course, those [bleep]ing bastards only use the kitchen to take the knives from there and try to attack you. That's really rude of them, right?

 

That's pretty much what Israel did to Palestine, and why Palestine isn't going to settle down until they get all of their lands back.

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand?

 

The General Assembly resolution called upon Britain to evacuate a seaport and sufficient hinterland to support substantial Jewish migration, by February 1, 1948

 

Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

 

Now, if you pay attention, you can see the word "evacuate" is used there. That means that people were taken from where they were residing and relocated to somewhere else. Why? So that Jewish immigrants could take that land. Is that not being forced out of the lands that were rightfully theirs? To take half of a country and say "this is no longer yours, now this belongs to a Jewish state that is going to be built here". An unfair partition that gave most of the lands to a newcoming minority. Of course there would be an armed retaliation. It's common sense to defend what is yours.

 

First point: The British still had control over them. It wasn't theirs.

 

Second point: Taking one word out of a wiki (lol?) article means nothing at all to me. I don't trust that site for anything.

 

We are talking about a resolution that started a civil war. It is a fact that it happened. The resolution passed. This was the beggining of the war between the Israelis and the arabs. Are you seriously denying it's authenticity because I took it from wikipedia? Is that your whole argument about it?

 

The fact that you took one word out of an article on wiki does concern me, yes. So I am denying that.

 

And yes, the british still had control over the lands. This doesn't mean that Palestine didn't exist as a state, it was just administrated by the British, as if it were a colony. And the british opossed to the Partition plan, even when it pased.

 

Here's the Statement of the Principal Accredited Representative, Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore on a session of the League of Nations regarding the administration of Palestine by the British.

 

[...]As I understand the mandate, the Palestine mandate is an A mandate. The essence of that is that it marks a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[...]

You can find the full speech here, but I don't expect you to read it as it's too long.

As you can see, the British recognized the Palestinian's right to the land. The only difference between the British mandate and what could come after is the political administration, which would eventually be granted to the Palestinians.

 

It did not matter whether or not the British did have control of it, but the fact was it was very unorganized. When the civil war started Palestine government collapsed and Israel government did not. "The Arab states contributed to the chaos by being able neither to determine Arab Palestine's political future nor to let the Palestinians shape their own destiny."

Here's a quote from another article "When riots broke out, middle-class Palestinians sent their families to neighboring countries and joined them after the situation deteriorated." Another example of how it wasn't an evacuation.

 

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

 

 

I'm not saying that, but sometimes, there's really no other way to protect and secure your people. If existing means having to violate a bit of human rights of those who refuse to acknowledge you exist, then I do.

 

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

 

This pretty much sums up the generic Israeli attitude, of course there are exceptions but this is basically it. They were wronged, they need a state to protect themselves, that makes it OK to use any and all force necessary to get what they want.

 

Also, I would like to point out that the British ended up caving to the demands of Zionist groups that used terrorism quite extensively (I've cited this multiple times in this thread). It's not like they just signed the lands over, many Brits and other foreigners were killed by Zionist terrorists before Israel was created. The British planned on eventually letting the Palestinians form a state, they were brutally attacked and terrorized and caved in to that. Should the British have stood up to Zionist terrorism? Probably. Does the fact that they didn't change what the Zionist terrorists did? Nope.

 

These are from Wikipedia but provide some good background on notable instances of Zionist terrorism if anyone is interested;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 

And a list of attacks, notice that they target both Palestinians and British;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_193

 

"Terrorism by Jews is an aberration that is widely condemned, whereas terrorism by Palestinians is a norm that is widely acclaimed. " A few acts of terrorism by the Jews does not disprove a trend. I do not support acts of terrorism by anyone, but blaming it all on Jews in the great stats of Israel is completely false and biased.

[Napalm]

It did not matter whether or not the British did have control of it, but the fact was it was very unorganized. When the civil war started Palestine government collapsed and Israel government did not. "The Arab states contributed to the chaos by being able neither to determine Arab Palestine's political future nor to let the Palestinians shape their own destiny."

Here's a quote from another article "When riots broke out, middle-class Palestinians sent their families to neighboring countries and joined them after the situation deteriorated." Another example of how it wasn't an evacuation.

 

First of all, let's look at this graph.

 

Source.

 

You can see that between 1941 and 1950 there's a sudden rise in the jewish population. This, we can attribute to the end of WWII, and the end of the British Mandate and the application of the Partition Plan, okay? Now, about the partition plan, as its name implies, it was the idea to split the territory of Palestine, where palestinians (and a very small jewish minority) lived in prior to the dissolution of the British Mandate, and give each party (The Zionists and the Palestinians) roughly half of the lands. Now, common sense should tell you that if you split a land you are taking a part from the total. The total belonged to the palestinians before the jews came. Therefore, land was taken from the palestinians and given to the Jews. Now, if lands were taken from the Palestinians, this means that before this happened those lands were rightfully theirs, and with the partition, they stopped having the right to inhabit those lands. Therefore, the palestinians who inhabited those lands had to leave. That is, they were evacuated and jewish immigrants were accomodated in those lands.

 

Because if none of this happened, then there would have been no reason for a civil war to take place. Because everything would have been fine and the palestinians would be living in their lands. But they weren't. Because they were evacuated. And that was the beggining of the conflict.

 

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

I'm not saying that, but sometimes, there's really no other way to protect and secure your people. If existing means having to violate a bit of human rights of those who refuse to acknowledge you exist, then I do.

 

So basically you are saying that Israel is above the law and it should be left to their opinion wether they decide to follow the human rights or not. How does that make you any better than the so called terrorists who want their lands back?

[Nifflin]

 

I'm not saying that, but sometimes, there's really no other way to protect and secure your people. If existing means having to violate a bit of human rights of those who refuse to acknowledge you exist, then I do.

 

Gabe, I deny your existence. Does that now mean you can violate me however you want?

 

 

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

 

This pretty much sums up the generic Israeli attitude, of course there are exceptions but this is basically it. They were wronged, they need a state to protect themselves, that makes it OK to use any and all force necessary to get what they want.

 

Also, I would like to point out that the British ended up caving to the demands of Zionist groups that used terrorism quite extensively (I've cited this multiple times in this thread). It's not like they just signed the lands over, many Brits and other foreigners were killed by Zionist terrorists before Israel was created. The British planned on eventually letting the Palestinians form a state, they were brutally attacked and terrorized and caved in to that. Should the British have stood up to Zionist terrorism? Probably. Does the fact that they didn't change what the Zionist terrorists did? Nope.

 

These are from Wikipedia but provide some good background on notable instances of Zionist terrorism if anyone is interested;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 

And a list of attacks, notice that they target both Palestinians and British;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_193

 

"Terrorism by Jews is an aberration that is widely condemned, whereas terrorism by Palestinians is a norm that is widely acclaimed. " A few acts of terrorism by the Jews does not disprove a trend. I do not support acts of terrorism by anyone, but blaming it all on Jews in the great stats of Israel is completely false and biased.

 

The difference I think is in perception. To some people fighters are terrorists, to others they are heroes. That goes for both sides. I never blames it all on the Zionists, I understand their motives entirely. I just think it's wrong to portray the British as really wanting a Jewish state. They didn't really want that, they were forced into that by Zionist terrorism. What they had planned on was for Palestine to eventually become it's own state, that was supposed to be the send result of the protectorate system.

 

Edit: That quote is from an incredibly biased, Israeli source. Lets keep misinformation to a minimum please?

[The_Gabe]

 

I'm not saying that, but sometimes, there's really no other way to protect and secure your people. If existing means having to violate a bit of human rights of those who refuse to acknowledge you exist, then I do.

 

Gabe, I deny your existence. Does that now mean you can violate me however you want?

 

Your example is completely unreasonable. One person does not equal a whole nation. You did not read my whole post. I'm talking about security of a nation, and existence as a second reason, not the primary one.

 

 

 

Palestinians are denied the right of return. It is outlined as one of the basic human rights. Israel therefor violates their human rights. I can copy and past my post from earlier if you really, REALLY need to see it again.

 

Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.

 

Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands?

 

This pretty much sums up the generic Israeli attitude, of course there are exceptions but this is basically it. They were wronged, they need a state to protect themselves, that makes it OK to use any and all force necessary to get what they want.

 

Also, I would like to point out that the British ended up caving to the demands of Zionist groups that used terrorism quite extensively (I've cited this multiple times in this thread). It's not like they just signed the lands over, many Brits and other foreigners were killed by Zionist terrorists before Israel was created. The British planned on eventually letting the Palestinians form a state, they were brutally attacked and terrorized and caved in to that. Should the British have stood up to Zionist terrorism? Probably. Does the fact that they didn't change what the Zionist terrorists did? Nope.

 

These are from Wikipedia but provide some good background on notable instances of Zionist terrorism if anyone is interested;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 

And a list of attacks, notice that they target both Palestinians and British;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_193

 

"Terrorism by Jews is an aberration that is widely condemned, whereas terrorism by Palestinians is a norm that is widely acclaimed. " A few acts of terrorism by the Jews does not disprove a trend. I do not support acts of terrorism by anyone, but blaming it all on Jews in the great stats of Israel is completely false and biased.

 

The difference I think is in perception. To some people fighters are terrorists, to others they are heroes. That goes for both sides. I never blames it all on the Zionists, I understand their motives entirely. I just think it's wrong to portray the British as really wanting a Jewish state. They didn't really want that, they were forced into that by Zionist terrorism. What they had planned on was for Palestine to eventually become it's own state, that was supposed to be the send result of the protectorate system.

 

Edit: That quote is from an incredibly biased, Israeli source. Lets keep misinformation to a minimum please?

 

The British didn't want one, that may be true; however, the quote above explains what happens. They could have easily prevented what happened, but they didn't. Also, it doesn't matter if that quote is biased or not (which is hilarious to me because you've posted many biased links), it doesn't make it false. And if you call that misinformation, then does that mean I can call all of your biased sources "misinformation"? That's not even close to what you call a realistic debate.