meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54
First off if you think Israel is a theocracy you couldnt be further from the truth. In fact some of the most controversial internal issues involve the government's unwillingness to pass laws conforming to the laws of the Sabbath.
Israel is a Jewish state for a Jewish people. If Britain said it was a British state for a British people, it would rightfully be called racist, ditto France or any other country for that matter.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54
Second the Irgun terrorists were a mere offshoot of the Irgun, were not associated with the Hagannah or the Pal mach, who compromised the majority of the indenpendece fighters. And actually SEVEN arab countries invaded Israel(none of who had any justifiable claim to the land)
There is a monument in Haifa celebrating the liberation of the Jewish population in 48. There were no Jewish inhabitants in Haifa in 1948, the inhgabitants were Christian and muslim Arabs. Many were advised by Britain to evacuate for a few days when the British pulled out because they were warned there lives would be at risk. Those that didn't were expelled at gunpoint by zionists.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54
The security fence has been effective at limiting attacks from the West Bank. That is it's objective. Secondly the so called Palestinians(which is an incorrect name for Arabs living in Israel, prior to 1948 the only Palestinians were Jews) have no terrritories except Gaza, they didnt own any before that. Before 1967 the "West Bank" was occupied by Jordan and liberated by Israel. Prior to Jordanian rule it was British rule. Prior to British rule it was Turkish rule. and seeing as how the current Palestinians didnt exist as any kind of organization or large scale community until after they were tortured and abused by their fellow arabs in the 19 years after Israeli independence, I dont see there being any justification for a "Palestinian territory"
The Palestinians is a name given to the Arab inhabitants of the land in question, we can call them whatever name you want, they are still the same people in question. As for justification for a Palestinian territory, see above in regard to Haifa and similar territories ethnically cleansed by Israel.
http://www.alnakba.org/
The Israeli argument for the seucirty fence would be more credible if in the process it wasn't annexing so much Palestinian territory.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54
In 1967 Israel had to go to War. with the straights closed the Israeli economy would crash. War was inevitable with both Syria and Egypt. That much had been clear. as to your claim that Syria did not attack Israel (from: http://www.sixdaywar.org/war.asp)
"Following an air attack by the Syrians on the first day of the war, Israel dealt a shattering blow to the Syrian air force. Hostilites continued in the days that followed, and on fifth day of the war, the Israelis mustered enough forces to remove the Syrian threat from the Golan Heights. This difficult operation was completed the following day, bringing the active phase of the war to a close."
And do some research on Syrian actions prior to the war.
I would dispute your claim and I don't see the site you cite as impartial. It is part of the Israeli account that Moshe Dyan was reluctant to start a fight with Syria because he feared intervention by their Moscow allies, after some time he was convinced by his generals to invade Syria.
EDITED Israel went to war in 1967 because it was sanction by the US. Nasser never made a statement on the issue but several of his advisers claim he expected the US not to allow an attack by Israel, thinking they would act in a similar way to the 1956 Suez crisis. However, American interests had moved on and gave Israel the go ahead. LBJ said afterwards, they had created a situation that would exist until the turn of the century. He had similar dounbts about spiralling the Vietnam conflict. I guess he was one of those politicians that never learnt from experience.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54
You rely on wikipedia as your primary source for info it seems. Wikipedia is not a valid source for info as it's information is supplied by users and is not monitored or verified with any kind of accuracy.
You criticize the Barak offer...where is your source? secondly Arafat made no counter offer. He refused till the day he died to amend the plo charter to remove the call for Israel's destruction(which he agreed to do at Oslo...but of course he was never held accountable for his oslo agreements)
http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html
< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 7/16/2007 8:30:21 AM >
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
RE: What should America do? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread