quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

don't think so? lets go back a mere 2100ish years....

The Jewish–Roman wars were a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 CE. The revolts integrated nationalist, religious and ethnic elements, all spiraling towards violence between Jewish, Roman, and Greek populations. While the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 CE) were nationalist rebellions, striving to restore an independent Judean state, the Kitos War was more of an ethno-religious conflict, mostly fought outside of Judea province. Hence, some sources use the term Jewish-Roman Wars to refer only to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), while others include the Kitos War (115–117 CE) as one of the Jewish–Roman wars.

The Jewish–Roman wars had an epic impact on the Jews, turning them from a major population in the Eastern Mediterranean into a scattered and persecuted minority. The Jewish-Roman Wars are often cited as a disaster to Jewish society.[4] The events also had a major impact on Judaism, after the central worship site of Second Temple Judaism, the Second Temple in Jerusalem, was destroyed by Titus' troops. Although having a sort of autonomy in the Galilee until the 4th century such as the Council of Jamnia (or Yavne), and later a limited success in establishing the short-lived Sassanid Jewish Commonwealth in 614-17 CE, Jewish dominance in parts of the Southern Levant was regained only in the mid-20th century, with the founding of the state of Israel in 1948.


did you see ANY mention of arabs? or muslems?

any mention of synagogues being destroyed?

nooo

so what does that tell us? that the arab/mulsems came AFTER this time period which makes them either SQUATERS or INVADERS, you pick.

ever hear about that dome at the rock thing?

you know the place the where the arab's tore down a jewish temple and built their own temple..

which would strongly IMPLY they INVADED and tore down an EXISTING structure to build their own...

I've heard of squatters moving into and claiming existing structure, so far never heard of em tearing one down and building a NEW ONE

care to show some actual HISTORY that refutes what I have shown or just going to call me a doo doo head again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

pretty much every empire that's ever existed has invaded that area and put it under military rule and the WHOLE TIME the Hebrew people where THERE..
let's not forget the people who now call themselves Palestinians, started out as Persian INVADERS, making them the Johnny come latelys not the Hebrews

The oral and written sources are conflicting but there is little debate that the Israelites were taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the first Temple Approx 6th C BCE. The Babylonian Talmud was written by Jews in exile during those times. It was the Persians who returned the Jews to Jerusalem with the promise to rebuild the Temple. Folowing the conquests of the Persians by Alexander the Jews remained in exile throughout Asia Minor from Damascus to Alexandria where a great Library was constructed to house the Greek translated Torah. Greek was the 'lingua franca' throughout the Levant during the Hellenistic Period. The Jews were expelled again when they rebelled against the Romans. It stretches the imagination to believe the Jews were the indigenous people throughout all that time of comings and goings. And really? The Palestinians started out as Persians? Historical revisionism is a fun game but that don't make it necessarily so.

quote:

I feel they had a legitimate claim all along, and it took the holocaust for the rest of the world to say, "HEYY maybe they have a good point here"! maybe they do deserve a place of their own and MAYBE it should be someplace they have already been for THOUSANDS of years

The Biblical claim is that some iron age god gave the land to his chosen people who invaded and slew the inhabitants. I know of no 'legitimate' claim. Can you be more specific? I reject the Biblical foundation of ownership. The Palestinians had deeds to their properties registered with the Ottoman empire before the Hagana and the Stern Gang destroyed their farms and 400 villages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It's hard to label it as apartheid, Israel is a small country of misplaced people who dealt with a very massive tragedy in a post modern world and who have fought hard and accomplished recognition through their relentless desire to succeed.

So, these tragically misplaced people just happened to show up one day in the villages and farmlands of Palestine? And the Zionist movement was not born before the Nazi Holocaust? Humans have an amazing ability to recreate the History of events to fit their own ideologies, I think. You should go back and refresh your knowledge of what happened.

Very easy to label apartheid comments that appeared in the article you linked. Jim Crow deja vu?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
really? so explain to me WHY they returned the Gaza strip when after the 6 day war they basicly owned it, the Sinai peninsula, Golan heights, and the whole of the west bank territory?
why would they give all that land BACK, if their intent was to STEAL IT?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
really? so explain to me WHY they returned the Gaza strip when after the 6 day war they basicly owned it, the Sinai peninsula, Golan heights, and the whole of the west bank territory?
why would they give all that land BACK, if their intent was to STEAL IT?

Because "how" matters. They didn't want to gain it by military conquest. They wanted to gain it by subversive and underhanded methods. You can't really steal something you gained through military conquest, now can you? [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

my guess is if they'd stop attacking and be GOOD NEIGHBORS the Israeli's would leave em alone...

and the PROOF of this is when Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel they gave em the Sinai peninsula back and said, now we're friends lets work together and BUILD SOMETHING GOOD!

sorry but ACTUAL HISTORICAL VERIFIABLE EVENTS show us that all it takes for Israel to be good neighbors is you STOP TRYING TO KILL THEM!

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

EXACTLY!!!! Thank you, DS. Acquiring land by military conquest inevitably leads to a day of judgment upon the legitimacy of the taking.

quote:

If , for instance, you did not like me, hard to believe, and you had a home on a hill overlooking mine... And you could shoot down into my home from the protection of the hill you lived on I would have no choice but to take it from you or give up... That is exactly what Israel did legitimately... It was the fault of the Palestinians and their allies that the land was lost. So crying over lost land will do no good until you would stop trying to kill me.

quote:

There is NO solution other than compromise and land grabs and political propaganda such as the ICC crap will just continue to torture all in the Middle East.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

EXACTLY!!!! Thank you, DS. Acquiring land by military conquest inevitably leads to a day of judgment upon the legitimacy of the taking.

Probably every inch of the planet has been warred over at one time or another

quote:

They have historical claim to the land yes, and none of the current circumstances are of their choosing,

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

EXACTLY!!!! Thank you, DS. Acquiring land by military conquest inevitably leads to a day of judgment upon the legitimacy of the taking.

Probably every inch of the planet has been warred over at one time or another

The purpose of international organizations and tribunals is to avoid the horrors of the past.

A history of madness does not justify a future of madness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

EXACTLY!!!! Thank you, DS. Acquiring land by military conquest inevitably leads to a day of judgment upon the legitimacy of the taking.

Probably every inch of the planet has been warred over at one time or another

The purpose of international organizations and tribunals is to avoid the horrors of the past.
A history of madness does not justify a future of madness.

So I take it from your demeanor that we are to cherry pick what qualifies as "madness" according to our own racial or religious or political (etc) prejudices then

quote:

regarding the "occupied lands" lets not forget USA STILL to this day is in military occupation of japan and east Germany... no one even cares, no one questions it in the least. so how is this different from the spoils of war from the 6 day war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
my guess is if they'd stop attacking and be GOOD NEIGHBORS the Israeli's would leave em alone...
and the PROOF of this is when Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel they gave em the Sinai peninsula back and said, now we're friends lets work together and BUILD SOMETHING GOOD!
sorry but ACTUAL HISTORICAL VERIFIABLE EVENTS show us that all it takes for Israel to be good neighbors is you STOP TRYING TO KILL THEM!

I don't know if the bolded part of your statement is true, as far as the Holy Grounds, water and electricity access as well as not invading territories they should not, Israel has to be willing to sacrifice here. They have historical claim to the land yes, and none of the current circumstances are of their choosing, however, they need to not only understand but respect that they will have to see the Palestinians as equals and to have equal claim to the holy land. That is the most fair circumstance but life isn't fair, is it?
This is about territory both nations hold sacred, there has to be some element of empathy towards that for the Israelis. The crazy part is the borders are superficial, they are all semitic people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


don't think so? lets go back a mere 2100ish years....

The Jewish–Roman wars were a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 CE. The revolts integrated nationalist, religious and ethnic elements, all spiraling towards violence between Jewish, Roman, and Greek populations. While the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 CE) were nationalist rebellions, striving to restore an independent Judean state, the Kitos War was more of an ethno-religious conflict, mostly fought outside of Judea province. Hence, some sources use the term Jewish-Roman Wars to refer only to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), while others include the Kitos War (115–117 CE) as one of the Jewish–Roman wars.

The Jewish–Roman wars had an epic impact on the Jews, turning them from a major population in the Eastern Mediterranean into a scattered and persecuted minority. The Jewish-Roman Wars are often cited as a disaster to Jewish society.[4] The events also had a major impact on Judaism, after the central worship site of Second Temple Judaism, the Second Temple in Jerusalem, was destroyed by Titus' troops. Although having a sort of autonomy in the Galilee until the 4th century such as the Council of Jamnia (or Yavne), and later a limited success in establishing the short-lived Sassanid Jewish Commonwealth in 614-17 CE, Jewish dominance in parts of the Southern Levant was regained only in the mid-20th century, with the founding of the state of Israel in 1948.


did you see ANY mention of arabs? or muslems?

any mention of synagogues being destroyed?

nooo

so what does that tell us? that the arab/mulsems came AFTER this time period which makes them either SQUATERS or INVADERS, you pick.

ever hear about that dome at the rock thing?

you know the place the where the arab's tore down a jewish temple and built their own temple..

which would strongly IMPLY they INVADED and tore down an EXISTING structure to build their own...

I've heard of squatters moving into and claiming existing structure, so far never heard of em tearing one down and building a NEW ONE

care to show some actual HISTORY that refutes what I have shown or just going to call me a doo doo head again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

This is about territory both nations hold sacred, there has to be some element of empathy towards that for the Israelis. The crazy part is the borders are superficial, they are all semitic people.

I think I've finally figured out why nothing makes sense over there, with regards to Israel and Palestinians. It's coming down to religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
This is about territory both nations hold sacred, there has to be some element of empathy towards that for the Israelis. The crazy part is the borders are superficial, they are all semitic people.

I think I've finally figured out why nothing makes sense over there, with regards to Israel and Palestinians. It's coming down to religion.

While religion is useful if we want to know one of the main demarcation points between the two sides, it fails to supply a satisfactory raison d'etre for the conflict.
To me it is clearly about land and who is entitled to inhabit it. The goal of the Palestinians is to achieve their own State to control their own destiny in their homeland. For Zionists it is about establishing a homeland predominantly or exclusively the for Jewish people - which has already been achieved - and expanding the borders of that land as far as possible in all directions - which is still a work in progress.
The settlement/colonial project had made a neat cleavage of the land into two sections - one Israeli and one Palestinian, the Two State Solution - impossible. The levels of Israeli colonisation of land earmarked for a Palestinian State is such that it will take a Israeli internal civil war to dislodge the estimated 100,000 ideological or religious colonists (roughly one sixth of all colonists) and re-integrate them into Israel proper. No sane person would want this.
That leaves a One State Solution as the only option. It is possible for both sides to exist in harmony in some kind of bi national State, provided it is democratic and all citizens enjoy the same rights privileges and obligations. The question is how long is it going to take before all sides come to the conclusion that this is the only viable option left? The history of the conflict and the intransigence displayed by both sides suggest there is little cause for optimism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
This is about territory both nations hold sacred, there has to be some element of empathy towards that for the Israelis. The crazy part is the borders are superficial, they are all semitic people.

I think I've finally figured out why nothing makes sense over there, with regards to Israel and Palestinians. It's coming down to religion.

While religion is useful if we want to know one of the main demarcation points between the two sides, it fails to supply a satisfactory raison d'etre for the conflict.
To me it is clearly about land and who is entitled to inhabit it. The goal of the Palestinians is to achieve their own State to control their own destiny in their homeland. For Zionists it is about establishing a homeland predominantly or exclusively the for Jewish people - which has already been achieved - and expanding the borders of that land as far as possible in all directions - which is still a work in progress.
The settlement/colonial project had made a neat cleavage of the land into two sections - one Israeli and one Palestinian, the Two State Solution - impossible. The levels of Israeli colonisation of land earmarked for a Palestinian State is such that it will take a Israeli internal civil war to dislodge the estimated 100,000 ideological or religious colonists (roughly one sixth of all colonists) and re-integrate them into Israel proper. No sane person would want this.
That leaves a One State Solution as the only option. It is possible for both sides to exist in harmony in some kind of bi national State, provided it is democratic and all citizens enjoy the same rights privileges and obligations. The question is how long is it going to take before all sides come to the conclusion that this is the only viable option left? The history of the conflict and the intransigence displayed by both sides suggest there is little cause for optimism.

I don't think they'll ever be able to coexist as one nation. I can't see how a two-nation solution could even happen, either. It's not like there are, literally, two separate territories; there are three (Israel, Gaza Strip, West Bank). Could a 3-state solution be stable?

But, we still have two religious ideologies fighting over some of the same land (ie. Jerusalem). Why? Religious reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Religious ideologies are in conflict in many places in the world. The Zionist founders were secular, many even atheists, and of course political socialists. Religious differences are only a handy strawman, IMO.