In another thread, JohnGalt makes the statement that there have been no Arab or Muslim states in the area known as Palestine. When I look at the history of the area, I see several Arabic and at least one Muslim state that cover the area that I think is the general area called Palestine. I have to admit that I may be wrong mistaken with my idea of where Palestine is. I'd like the opinion of others regarding the location and boundaries of "Palestine." ******************************************************* 08-06-06, 09:18 PM JohnGalt Dennis Prager actually made the comment . I was quoting him.
Here's what some others have said relating to this topic:
Joseph Farah, of Arabic descent (and on the far-right, politically) has said:
The Holy Land was described as a vast wasteland in the 19th century. Beginning in the mid-1800s, Jews were the majority—often an overwhelming majority, especially around Jerusalem. When Jews began to return to their "promised land" early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity. In 1948, when the United Nations partitioned the land into separate Arab and Jewish states, the surrounding Arab states immediately declared war. The Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live peacefully. Many Arabs chose to leave, to be rejected, used and virtually imprisoned by Arab power brokers.
Bill Maher (on the far-left, politically) has said:
Lots of ethnic peoples, probably most, have at one time or another lost some territory; nobody's ever completely happy with their borders; people move and get moved, which is why the 20th century saw the movement of tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries around the world. There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom. If those 600,000 original Palestinian refugees had been handled with maturity by their Arab brethren, who had nothing but space to put them, they could have moved on -- the way Germans, Czechs, Poles, Chinese and everybody else has, including, of course, the Jews.
08-06-06, 09:40 PM DorianGreyed John, generally speaking, when you quote someone in support of a position that you hold, you are saying the same thing. Please don't back away from your position now. In the short time since my first post, I have found numerous references to various Arabic and/or Mulim states which, at one time or another, possessed an area called Palestine. What I want is not the opinion of those you quote to support your claim, but the opinion of those who only want facts to be used in a discussion.
08-06-06, 09:55 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: ...I have found numerous references to various Arabic and/or Mulim states which, at one time or another, possessed an area called Palestine.
"Possessed the area", yes. But a Palestinian state while in the hands of Arabs? No. There wasn't even any talk of such a thing among Arabs at the time. It wasn't until Israel seized that territory after their victory in the 1967 war did that piece of desert suddenly become the "Palestinian homeland."
Here's what liberal Thomas Friedman (and a vocal critic of Israeli policy) has said regarding this issue:
The Palestinians could have a state on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem tomorrow, if they and the Arab League clearly recognized Israel, normalized relations and renounced violence. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Israel today.
08-06-06, 09:58 PM methos Neither quote (Farah or Marr) addresses whether any "Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine" (Prager's quote that inspired the thread).
"There was no entity of Arabs called 'Palestine'", for example only says that no state bore that name. I'm not certain that even that is true. Wikipedia (various articles) claims that it was called by "the Arabic name Filastin" when it was part of an Islamic Caliphate (starting in the 630s) and until the 10th century.
Wikipedia also says that it was ruled by Muslim and or Arabic kingdoms in other periods.
The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't appear to say what it was named at that point, but does from my quick skimming, describe at least two periods of Muslim and/or Arabic rule.
EDIT: Encarta gives a similar history to the other two encyclopedias and says it was known as Filastin while ruled by Muslims.
08-06-06, 10:02 PM methos Shifting the goalposts....
08-06-06, 10:23 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by methos: Neither quote (Farah or Marr) addresses whether any "Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine" (Prager's quote that inspired the thread).
"There was no entity of Arabs called 'Palestine'", for example only says that no state bore that name.
No need to obsess over semantics. I took Prager's comment to be that no Arab instituted Palestinian state existed before Israel seized that area in the war.
I think an interesting corollary to the original question is to also ask the opinion of others regarding the location and boundaries of "Israel." Smile
One last quote from King Hussein of Jordan:
Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. . . . They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal.
08-06-06, 10:53 PM DorianGreyed There can be no doubt that the Ottoman Empire ruled the area known as Palestine, and there is no doubt that the Ottoman Empire was a Mulim empire. At one time, the Ottomans required Christians in the area to wear large wooden crosses aroynd their necks in order to be easily identified. The Ottomans also required males in Macedonia to wear fezes in the late 1800. I don't think that they were touting membership in the Shriners.
Saladin, most certainly a Muslim, a Kurd, included Palestine in his lands at one point. Since he restored Egypt to Sunnism rather than than allow it to remain Shia, he is most certainly considered a Muslim leader. He recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, returning it to Muslim control after 88 years of Crusader rule. That indicates that the Muslims ruled it before and after those 88 years.
What Methos and I have posted are universally accepted facts. In your post that I originally referred to, you said
Number of Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 0
You were wrong, weren't you? Were you just ignorant of the historical facts, or did you just choose to ignore them?
Further, you quoted BilMaher
There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine"...
From Wikipedia -
The term "Palestine" comes from the word Philistine, the name of an ethnic group which lived in the southern coast of the region. The Philistines disappeared as a distinct group by the Assyrian period. What is possibly the earliest mention of them occurs in Egyptian texts which record a people called the P-r/l-s-t (conventionally Peleset), one of the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign. The Hebrew name פלשת (Pəléšeth or P(e)léshet, translated Philistia in English) is used in the Bible to denote the coastal region inhabited by the Philistines. The Assyrian emperor Sargon II called the region Palashtu in his Annals. The Greek form Palaistinêi from which English "Palestine" is ultimately derived, was first used in the 5th century BCE by Herodotus who wrote of the "district of Syria, called Palaistinêi". The boundaries of the area he referred to were not explicitly stated, but Josephus used the name only for Philistia. Ptolemy also used the term. In Latin, Pliny wrote of a region of Syria that was "formerly called Palaestina" when describing the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.
Some additional facts that may have some bearing on this:
Prior to the unification of the German states and the unification of the Italian states, Germany and Italy did not exist as states, yet there were Gernams and Italians.
I don't think that any Illini (Native Americans) are left, yet the state of Illinois does. The Cahokian mound-builders are long gone, yet the city of Cahokia exists. If, however, I am wrong, and those people show up, do they get their land back?
John, if you want to use history to make a point, you should use all of it that may pertain to the point, not hide some of it. Using only the quotes you did was disingenuous. I will also point out that at no time did the ancient state if Israel encompass all of the land of the modern state of Israel.
I am not anti-Israel. I am pro-fact, and don't like it when someone tries to pass off untruths. I have always been fond of the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Regarding the current situation in Lebanon, I have already stated that I feel that Israel is within her rights to go after Hezbollah. I just don't think it will accomplish what seems to be the goal, and think that itwill have the opposite effect. There is some evidence that it already has.
08-06-06, 10:56 PM DorianGreyed Your last post is just more spin to deflect attention to what you stated. You said what you said, and you can't change that.
08-06-06, 11:22 PM JohnGalt Sigh. I just posted some quotes I had come across regarding this issue. If they were wrong, then they were wrong. How do you know your sources aren't the ones who are wrong? Methinks you just like to disagree with me because of my politics on other issues.
No matter, I didn't intentionally lie. You, apparently, don't comprehend the definition of "lie." I assumed them to be fairly accurate because, generally speaking, the virulent anti-Semites of the world (and I'm not calling you one!) reflexively disagree with those positions, so it is usually safe to go with the position opposite of them! Am I biased? Of course I am. I'm a human being. I'm generally biased on the side of Israel compared to most Arab nations, since Israel has a better track record of freedom and treating people much, much better than most Arab nations. But just because I am biased, doesn't automatically mean I am wrong.
But let's face it; the issue of Israel/Palestine is so emotionally volatile that it compares with abortion and gay marriage. People are going to disagree on this one until the end of time. And the actual facts of one side will be vehemently opposed by the other. You want a definitive answer as to the borders? You're never going to get one! You might as well ask for a definitive answer to what is the one True Religion! Wink
The King Hussein quote does not deflect anything. It goes right to the heart of the matter. If Hussein is correct (and I believe him to be), then the issue of just where Palestine is or is not, has been so mishandled and used for propaganda purposes, that what many people assume may or may not be correct due to years of politicization, untruths and blind passion (of either love or hate) by everyone involved.
08-06-06, 11:43 PM DorianGreyed I just posted some quotes I had come across regarding this issue. If they were wrong, then they were wrong.[i] - JohnGalt
[i]How do you know your sources aren't the ones who are wrong?
Having majored in History, I know that the historical sources I use are accepted by almost 100% of historians. I also try not to use sources that some may considered biased, such as Mother Jones, Worker's World, etc. I don't think I have even used Common Dreams, but I may have. Being right in my opinions is important to me, but being right in my facts is vital, and, on the rare occasion that I make a factual mistake, I don't try to hide it or spin things. I admit that I was wrong. I make no claims to being perfect or infallible, but I do claim to be as accurate as possible. I strongly believe what my father taught me, that a man's word should be his bond.
08-07-06, 12:08 AM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I strongly believe what my father taught me, that a man's word should be his bond.
Too bad your father never taught you that the definition of a lie is when you actually know one thing and then intentionally try to deceive by telling something else.
08-07-06, 12:10 AM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Having majored in History, I know that the historical sources I use are accepted by almost 100% of historians.
08-07-06, 12:31 AM DorianGreyed The band stopped playing, John, so you can stop dancing. And accepting what nearly 100% of historians say about events that happened repeatedly over a 1000 year period is hardly "depend(ing) on an unsupported assertion."
From your Wikipedia link (Something that you conveniently left out) -
Any argument should ideally be based solely on direct evidence and the argument itself, not on the authority of the messenger drawing the conclusion from the evidence. However, it is rarely possible in common discourse to provide all the direct evidence, so an "appeal to authority" is often used as a shortcut:
* The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity. Citation to statements made by a sports or entertainment figure about foreign policy would be an example of an improper appeal to authority. * The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, then later made claims that massive quantities of vitamin C would prevent cancer in humans. This claim was in the field of medicine and thus outside his field of competence. * The authority must be interpreted correctly. This is particularly a problem in religion; where the Koran, Bible, Torah, etc., have been interpreted with varying and sometimes contradictory results. * Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle. * The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always illegitimate. The Pope claiming that the Sun revolved around the Earth was an example of an authority making a false claim biased by their religious beliefs. Many pseudoscientific theories have been promoted using argument from authority. * The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample). Lawyers sometimes find a non-representative "expert" to offer a theory which is not generally accepted (such as a so-called Twinkie defense) in hopes of winning their case. * A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to develop a consensus.[i] -------- It appears that I am covered. Please let me know when Dennis Prager becomes such an expert that his statements override 1000 years' worth of historical writings. Until then, it must be thought that either he lied or he talks about things that he really doesn't know.
08-07-06, 12:51 AM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Having majored in History, I know that the historical sources I use are accepted by almost 100% of historians.
Fine. But then you must also accept that nearly 100% of the world's intel agencies were convinced that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs. But OH NO! George W. Bush, through some sort of omnipotent knowledge on his part [i]actually knew in advance that Iraq didn't have any, but he went ahead and intentionally tried to deceive everyone when he said they did have them, knowing they would never be found in large quantities. Roll Eyes And the WMDs that have been found so far in Iraq?...well rationalize them away somehow! They don’t matter! What about the evidence that others may have been moved to Syria just before the war? Oh, forget about that! That doesn't play into your BDS! What if they eventually are used in the U.S.? That doesn't matter! All that matters is an irrational hatred of Bush.
You still haven't the foggiest clue as to the definition of a lie!
And yet you throw that term around willy nilly! I'll grant you that Bush has gone back on many of his promises – his sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States for one. But guess what? He (and the nearly 100% of the world's intel agencies) didn't lie about Iraq's WMDs! And I am getting sick of you calling me a liar! I've made mistakes. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again. I've admitted it in the past, I'll admit it in the future. I would ask for an apology from you for you calling me a liar, but I doubt I would get it. I believe that, in addition to your chronic BDS, you also suffer from JGDS. Those conditions are incurable, so don't waste your time trying to cure them. Just invest in a good dictionary so at least you'll know the definitions of the words you so irresponsibly use.
08-07-06, 01:07 AM DorianGreyed "...that nearly 100% of the world's intel agencies were convinced that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs."
Except, of course, for the ones who had a dissenting opinion (You know, that one you so often quote without identifying it as the minority opinion.) such as several in the CIA. Other than them, and, of course, the UN inspectors, most of the rest of the world was fooled by bush's stories. This is a prime example of withholding all the facts, as well you recognize.
Hey, how are those tube stories doing? Still selling them?
Sorry, John, but this story has playd out, and the record is finished.
08-07-06, 07:45 AM methos It's JG that seems to be obsessing over semantics, finding the one improbable interpretation that might still fit the facts.
There was once a state (not self-ruled, but part of larger Muslim and/or Arab nations) called Palestine (well, فلسطين/Filastin, but that's the same Arabic name used today - we can't really expect 7th century Arabs to have spoken English).
Farah's quote has nothing to do with this.
Friedman's quote has nothing to do with this.
King Hussein's quote has nothing to do with this.
Maher's quote is wrong about this ("How do you know your sources aren't the ones who are wrong?" Well, forgive me if I give 3 encyclopedias [well, 2 plus Wikipedia] more credence than Bill Maher).
Prager, excepting some improbably linguistic acrobatics, is wrong about this.
08-07-06, 11:55 AM newnickname
quote: And the WMDs that have been found so far in Iraq?...well rationalize them away somehow! They don’t matter! What about the evidence that others may have been moved to Syria just before the war?
We've been through all this bfore. There were bits and pieces of illegal weaponry in Iraq before the invasion, mostly left over from the Iran-Iraq war. The UN inspectors were doing a reasonable job of finding these and having them destroyed. They found more than the US army has done post-invasion. The official US investigation into WMD said that Hussein had wound up his WMD programs in the 1990s.
There's little solid evidence of WMD being moved to Syria. We've heard of some dumb general who said they watched them move in convoys to Syria, then still invaded Iraq to get them. And there was that ex-officer of Hussein's who ended up on the Comedy Channel.
These theories should stay on fringe websites where they belong. The Whitehouse, which would benefit greatly from being able to point to an arsenal of WMD being secretly moved just before the invasion, or to its being found post invasion, has not done so.
08-07-06, 12:49 PM newnickname
quote: But then you must also accept that nearly 100% of the world's intel agencies were convinced that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs
This sounds familiar, too. Bush & Co were the ones who insisted that the evidence was strong enough to necessitate war. Nearly 100% of other agencies did not do that. The UN isnpectors, who were in a position to know a little about it, did not think so. Bush's assertion was a mistake or a lie - and, given what we know about how the evidence for an imminently threatening arsenal of WMD was cherry-picked, there's a case to be made for the latter.
08-07-06, 01:00 PM DorianGreyed I started this thread with the hope of learning something about historical Palestine, thinking that what I had thought to be factual might not be. I wanted others to tell me their take on the location and boundaries of historical "Palestine." Unfortunately, someone else felt it necessary to try to direct the thread away from that effort. I'm sorry that happened, but, in any case, I found that, in general, what I had thought to be factual, was factual. I also learned a bit about the history of the area. Thanks to Methos and NewNickname for their input.
"I believe that, in addition to your chronic BDS, you also suffer from JGDS."
BDS is bush Derangement Syndrome, it seems. As I have said several times in the past, I do not hate bush, I hate what he has done to my country, and to the world. I can only guess that JGDS is JohnGalt Derangement Syndrome, and, again, I do not suffer from that, either. Nor do I have delusions of grandeur, a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are, and think that a psychological syndrome bears my name. Once I got over my Messianic/Alexandrian complex (by not dying in my early 30s), I am just a relatively normal man at the end of middle age, with the usual mental and physical ailments that come with age.
08-08-06, 10:56 AM bik74
quote:
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: In another thread, JohnGalt makes the statement that there have been no Arab or Muslim states in the area known as Palestine. When I look at the history of the area, I see several Arabic and at least one Muslim state that cover the area that I think is the general area called Palestine. I have to admit that I may be wrong mistaken with my idea of where Palestine is. I'd like the opinion of others regarding the location and boundaries of "Palestine."
Initally i could'nt understand the quote being discussed as to me it couldnt possibly mean what it said at first glance. But now that i see this topic, the statement did imply that no muslim state controlled Jerusalem or present Palestine. The obvious question that should come with this statement is 'how on earth did the mosques came in that place then' ?.
Muslims captured Jerusalem under Umar (the second caliph)> That was within 10 years after the death of holy prophet (peace be upon him).
Methos source says this :
The Arab conquest began 1300 years of Muslim presence in what then became known as Filastin. Palestine was holy to Muslims because the Prophet Muhammad had designated Jerusalem as the first qibla (the direction Muslims face when praying) and because he was believed to have ascended on a night journey to heaven from the area of Solomon’s temple, where the Dome of the Rock was later built. Jerusalem became the third holiest city of Islam. The Muslim rulers did not force their religion on the Palestinians, and more than a century passed before the majority converted to Islam. The remaining Christians and Jews were considered “People of the Book.” They were allowed autonomous control in their communities and guaranteed security and freedom of worship. Such tolerance (with few exceptions) was rare in the history of religion.
Muslims controlled the present Palestine from 640 to 1100 (when the first crusade began). The crusades wouldnt have started if muslims werent ruling jerusalem. Most of the Crusader construction activity was concerned with religious edifices such as churches, monasteries, pilgrim’s hostels, and a variety of other buildings which included various structures for the use of the religious orders. All through the Crusader Period, neither Muslims nor Jews were allowed to dwell in Jerusalem. Salahuddin was able to take back Jerusalem and hold/retain it when the most famous third crusade ended under UK king Richard. After the reconquest of Jerusalem, civilians were spared and churches and shrines were generally left untouched. Although Salah al-Din was faithful to his word and compassionate towards noncombatants, great efforts were taken to obliterate any signs of the Crusader occupation. Not only were the Mosques, such as the Dome of the Rock, which had been turned into churches now reverted to their original function, but quite a number of Crusader buildings were made into Muslim institutions.
The jerusalem remained in Salauhddin Ayyubbi control (& his descendants) from 1187 to 1516 (with some exceptions).
From there onwards Ottomon empire controlled the region till 1920. I think out of the 1400 year existance of muslims. They have controlled that region for about 1000 years or more.
Apologies if the above is not true.
08-08-06, 11:17 AM aminator2002 Here is what I find to be problematic with the region. We could say that the Jews were there first or that the Muslims have occupied it more, but the real problem is that there is a religious tie to government throught the Arab countries and in Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong but Israel allows participation in government by non-Jews whereas other Muslim states such as Iran and Saudi have no real democratic process and are entirely exclusionary of all religions.
To me, it wouldn't make any difference who lived where for how long if there wasn't all this death wishing going on. To me, and I am biased, it is crazy one-sided death wishing coming from the Arab people all over the Middle East that want to kill Jews and get rid of them. It may not be the case that all of them feel this way but it certainly doesn't come across that the people of Lebanon gave a crap that Hezbollah was launching rockets at Israel... they might not "support" Hezbollah but they certainly saw no reason to stop them from killing innocent people. Call them weak or unable but did they even try?
I don't think they did because it wouldn't take much for 80% of a population to do something about a minority that is loading rockets down major highways and hiding them. Could you hide a couple hundred rockets in your neighborhood if the police were doing their job? I sure couldn't.
08-08-06, 11:23 AM DorianGreyed Bik, that is the history that I learned, too. Believe it or not, that is taught in US public schools starting in about grade 6 and continuing until grade 12 in world history classes. Further, every university I am familiar with has a first year course in world history which also covers the same ground. I have no explanation how any educated person in the US would not be aware of enough of those facts to make a statement denying any Arab or Muslim state ever controling any part of Palestine. As I have said before, facts are very important to me. I don't see how anyone can be taken seriously on an issue if they aren't aware of the basic facts of that issue.
08-08-06, 11:40 AM DorianGreyed The only response I have to offer what Aminator just said is that Lebanon has no effective army, after having been an occupied country for at least 20 years, which, in my opinion, means that the people really had no say in the governing of their country. While I agree that Hezbollah's ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel, that is more of a long-range goal of theirs. Their immediate goal is a free Lebanon. Another factor is that Hezbollah is involved in more than just terrorist activities. It holds seats in the government, and, in a way very similar to the Black Panther party of the US in the 1960s and 70s, provides some social services for the people. In many cases, these services are the only social services that the Lebanese get. Hezbollah has been, in many ways, the government that Lebanon wasn't getting from the elected government.
These comments should not be taken as support of Hezbollah in any way; they are merely a set of facts about the situation as it is and a brief explanation of how it got that way.
08-08-06, 11:41 AM bik74 Suicide bombings are a problem (or an excuse). Hezbollah was not even present when Israel invaded Lebanon (to contol PLO). Call me ignorant and please show me the bombings in Israel by hezbullah in 2006 or even 2005 before the current crises on BBC ( relatively neutral information). I have seen their programmes with regard to Palestine rockets on israel. I fail to understand why they wouldnt report Hezbullah rocket attacks. (OR i just missed that information completely).
Jewish people (mostly) before the creation of israel had no problem doing whatever they wanted to do in that region. You always forget, Palestinain people are refugees (created by the influx of immigrants in 1930 from europe). What do you expect them to do ? It would be better for them to try and settle their issues in a non voilent way. Give a full and honest try. My opinion is 'it wont work', but still atleast try and then complain.
You again forget the other sides. Telling a people to accept us (by force) otherwise we will starve you to death isnt advisable as well. In a negotiation when one party has all the cards..... can one expect a just solution ?
I also request you to read a small debate on Glenn Beck show (page 4) AnswerPool
I saw another very good interview on BBC hardtalk yesterday of a christian priest in Palestine. Unfortunately i am not able to access/locate it. If anyone can please do so and link it over here.
DG thank you very much.
Changing the facts and history during negotiations (as seen in some examples over here) will never lead to a just solution (whatever that is). I wrote the above before you posted your comments. You are saying exactly the same thing.
I don't see how anyone can be taken seriously on an issue if they aren't aware of the basic facts of that issue.
And believe i have met some Americans who still believe Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and they have been found. Courtesy FOX NEWS.
08-08-06, 01:49 PM aminator2002
quote: Call me ignorant and please show me the bombings in Israel by hezbullah in 2006 or even 2005 before the current crises on BBC ( relatively neutral information).
From what I've heard Hezbollah has been bombing northern Israel since the beginning of 2006. Someone correct me if I'm wrong because I'm unclear of the geography a bit - are they shooting at occupied territories in the south of Lebanon or at Israel? I believe most of the pull out of Lebanon was accomplished when Syria left. Does someone have a map showing what area Israel hasn't pulled out of? I've heard it was just a small town.
Everything I read, whether Lebanon's army is weak or not, nobody was trying to do ANYTHING to stop Hezbollah (including the ineffectual UN peace keepers) to the extent that they are acting as the armed forces of Lebanon even though it represents a small fraction of the people. And yes... I know that Hezbollah is a political and social services group but the issue is that they are an army with missiles. That is the only problem I see. And that is the only thing that needs to be resolved.
If the other Muslim nations wanted to see anything good happen then perhaps it's time for them to offer to come in and help police the area. Of course Syria and Iran are out, but what about Turkey (trying desperately to get into the EU) or Saudi or Pakistan or anyone... wouldn't that be a positive step?
Wouldn't it be positive for the relations between "US" and "THEM" to see THEM do something other than just telling us how we're doing everything wrong? I have absolutely no doubt that if the people of the area weren't constantly trying to kill the people of Israel that the Israelis would make no trouble whatsoever. Moreover I'm pretty sure that if peace came and Muslims could immigrate to Israel again that they would probably choose to live there under that government than under any other in the region.
From my seat it certainly seems to be a case of getting a whole region of people to look at one thing as their enemy when it is their own governments that are their worst enemies. The hate that is generated in these kids of the Middle East is powerful and it is misdirected as all the oil money fills the pockets of a couple pigs in the region. I wonder if there will be a way to blame America for all the squandered oil money... oh yeah, our support for the Saudis. Well, I think we'd support any stable friendly government in the region with that kind of oil. Otherwise we'd be idiots.
08-08-06, 04:38 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002:
quote: Call me ignorant and please show me the bombings in Israel by hezbullah in 2006 or even 2005 before the current crises on BBC ( relatively neutral information).
July 15th rocket attacks
May 5th attacks
Thank AMI. The july 2006 (supposably) is what the current situation is all about.
MAY 5TH attacks are of year 2000 (and not 2005 and 2006). Further the story first condemns israel and then Hizbullah.
The terrorists also killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded four others in that attack. Israel entered Gaza three days later in an attempt to rescue Shalit and stop the almost constant barrage of rocket fire into Israel that began almost immediately after Israel voluntarily evacuated all of its military and 9,000 residents from the area in August 2005. Israel turned the area over to the Palestinians in hopes that it would lead to the creation of an eventual Palestinian state.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 08-08-06 06:42 PM
08-08-06, 06:41 PM DorianGreyed from Scotty's link -
The Hezbollah attacks came 17 days after three other terrorist groups abducted Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit as he patrolled the Kerem Shalom crossing on the Israeli side of the southern Gaza Strip border. The eight terrorists involved in the attack are affiliated with Hamas' Izzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) and a new terrorist organization calling itself the Army of Islam.
The terrorists also killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded four others in that attack. Israel entered Gaza three days later in an attempt to rescue Shalit and stop the almost constant barrage of rocket fire into Israel that began almost immediately after Israel voluntarily evacuated all of its military and 9,000 residents from the area in August 2005. Israel turned the area over to the Palestinians in hopes that it would lead to the creation of an eventual Palestinian state.
According to Israel's Channel 10, Hezbollah offered to exchange the two soldiers and Shalit for thousands of prisoners. [13] The terrorist group specifically demanded the release of Lebanese militant Samir Kuntar, who was jailed in 1979 for killing three family members and a police officer. [14] Hamas' spokesman in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, said the kidnapping of the two soldiers Wednesday would strengthen Hamas' position as a whole. It was unclear whether Hamas was informed of the attack. [15]
Throughout Wednesday, fighting in Gaza continued, with two rockets fired into Israel. [16]
Hezbollah's attack is believed to be connected to the IDF's attempted strike earlier Wednesday on top Hamas terrorist Mohammad Deif in Gaza. Deif, 36, who was moderately wounded, has been on Israel's most wanted terrorist list for his direct involvement in several terrorist attacks, including suicide bus bombings in 1995 and 1996. -------- It appears that the "constant barrage of rocket fire into Israel that began almost immediately after Israel voluntarily evacuated" was from the Gaza Strip, and not Lebanon. I am not certain that is what the article is saying, however. The article seems to be a bit disjointed and unclear. It seems to jump from Hezbollah to Gaza with no connecting lines. At one point, it seems to have Hezbollah offering to exchange a prisoner that, according to the article, was captured by Hamas in Gaza.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16165 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The United States on Monday condemned rocket attacks by Lebanon's armed group Hezbollah against Israel while urging Israel to exercise restraint in its response.
"We have made it very clear to the Lebanese government that they need to control the situation in southern Lebanon," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
Hezbollah reportedly fired mortars and rockets at Israeli troops in a disputed border area Monday. Israel responded with airstrikes and artillery shelling of suspected guerrilla hideouts.
Four Hezbollah guerrillas were reportedly killed in the Israeli counterattack.
The latest Hezbollah attack showed the need of implementing UN Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for the disarming of militias in Lebanon, McCormack said.
While saying that Israel had a right to self-defense, the spokesman also urged Israel to use restraint its response to avoid escalating tensions in the region.
As a military group in Lebanon, Hezbollah played an important role in fighting Israel, which ended its 22 years of occupation in south Lebanon in May 2000.
bik74, take notice of the date.
Again in 2005.
quote:
Officer Killed as Hezbollah Increases Attacks in Israel
(IFM) Israel Defense Forces Captain Sharon Elmakias who was killed in a Hezbollah-staged roadside bomb attack on Sunday, was laid to rest Monday at the Atlit cemetery, Israel radio, Kol Yisrael reported. Elmakias, a 23-year-old from Atlit, had served in the Golani Brigades for five years and was due to leave the army in two months. He is survived by his parents and two sisters. Three other soldiers were wounded in the Hezbollah attack during which an explosive device was detonated as an IDF convoy passed through the Har Dov area in northern Israel.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Hezbollah has stepped up its involvement in terrorist operations in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. A senior defense official said that the Lebanese terror group had invested at least $9 million in 2004 to carry out attacks against targets in Israel - a sum which represents about 10 percent of the group's annual budget. The official added that during last year, Hezbollah had been responsible for about 20 percent of the operations against Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Hezbollah’s attack on Sunday sparked heavy exchanges of fire between IDF forces and the terror group’s members, which lasted for almost three hours. Retaliatory fire from IDF gunship killed a French officer serving with UNIFIL, and wounded a Swedish soldier from the international peacekeeping force.
Iran cash link to Israel attacks Marie Colvin, Jerusalem April 04, 2005 PALESTINIAN fighters have revealed that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group is paying up to $US9000 ($11,600) for each attack aimed at breaking the fragile truce with Israel.
Ref All of this, and Israel should not attack them. ************************************************************************* 08-08-06, 07:37 PM Sarai Usually, when people say that Palestine was never a state, they mean that it was never a state in the classic sense of the word, meaning a sovereign political territory (or, in common speach, an independent country). That is correct to my knowledge. Palestine was conquered by the the Arabic Empire (which was predominantly run by Arab Muslims), parts were briefly conquered by the Christian West and then reconqered by the Arabs, and then it was conquered by Ottoman Empire (which was predominiantly run by Turkish Muslims) and then it was a British protectorate and then part of it was conquered by Jews and the rest of it was administered by Egypt and Jordan and then it was occupied by Israel - so it was always under foreign control. The land has been under Arab and Muslim control, but there has never been an independent state called Palestine, and Palestinians themselves have never had their own state. I think it is strange and compelling that both Palestinians and Jews have such tragic histories.
I haven't read this thread in its entirety, but it seemed to me that everyone was missing the point, so after a quick skim I decided to post this. Sorry if someone already pointed this out and I missed it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sarai, 08-08-06 08:24 PM
08-08-06, 08:44 PM DorianGreyed Sarai, you may be right that Prager meant what you say he meant, but what he said was something different. Below is a direct quote from the article that was quoted:
Number of Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 0
That certainly means what most of us have taken it to mean. -------- Scotty, your first link doesn't seem to match the date you claim. When I followed it, I saw the following:
Iran cash link to Israel attacks Marie Colvin, Jerusalem April 04, 2005
I didn't look at your other links.
08-08-06, 09:01 PM Scotty
quote: Scotty, your first link doesn't seem to match the date you claim. When I followed it, I saw the following
You are right. My mistake. I went back and corrected it. It is the right link now.
08-08-06, 09:17 PM DorianGreyed Scotty is quoting from The Peoples Daily Online from China???? Eek
08-09-06, 01:07 AM newnickname I knew it! He's a commie agitator! Big Grin
To be fair, the information is easily checked and there's no reason to doubt this particular piece of news from the government of China.
Arguments about Who Started It in the Middle East seem particularly pointless. It depends how far back you go.
Just another opnion:
'Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.
Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.
In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation"...
...On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.'The Guardian
08-09-06, 04:27 AM Fourbrick2 Also from the same article in the Guardian
"The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".
A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.
Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive."
As I mused in an earlier post, looks like it could be an "engineered" response.
08-09-06, 07:18 AM aminator2002 Missing the point on that newnickname... would you expect Israel to NOT have a plan?
08-09-06, 08:33 AM bik74 Well from my original point, can we conclude that BBC has made no such points/reports that 'Hezbullah' is firing rockets on israeli civilians since years ?
The Peoples Daily Online from China does report these incidents a long time ago, yes Scotty. But you missed one point.
from the report : The United States on Monday condemned rocket attacks by Lebanon's armed group Hezbollah against Israel while urging Israel to exercise restraint in its response.
Its only stating the point of view of USA & not its own. Further the report states :
Hezbollah reportedly fired mortars and rockets at Israeli troops in a disputed border area Monday. Israel responded with airstrikes and artillery shelling of suspected guerrilla hideouts.
Its was just the usual circle of violence. No one is entirely right. UK prime minister & USA presidents are again making their case based on exaggerated lies. Time to know who the master is.
08-09-06, 08:40 AM bik74 Sarai, if Palestine was never an independant state, is it justified to make them refugees ? If the forefather of Palestinian converted to Islam (from judaism or christanity), do they loose their rights over the land ? The fact is Jews have occupied that place based on the few verses from the Bible and 90% of the christians (from USA) support it on account of those bible verses. Now give me an opinion 'if this is or isnt jewish and christian jehad' ?
08-09-06, 11:05 AM DorianGreyed "...based on the few verses from the Bible and 90% of the christians..."
It is a great deal more than just a few verses. Biblical Israel was never as large as the current state of Israel, but there is ample mention of it in the Old Testament, much more than just "a few verses."
08-09-06, 11:40 AM VelvetVoice Greetings! Just throwing my two cents in.
Biblical Christians, and for that matter true Jews, know that God does not need our help in order to set Armageddon in motion. In fact, if you read The Revelation, there is not a single weapon used in God's army. When Jesus comes, he will merely wave His mighty hand, and the wicked will be thrown into a pit.
The US government is not acting on promises of God found in the Bible. They are sort of "protecting an endangered species". The Jews associate themselves most closely with the Middle East, their national identity is rooted there. Sure, we could have declared a US state as a homeland, but then they would be subject to US laws.
And it isn't about owning property, it's about giving a people a place to live so they will never be persecuted (but apparently everyone wants to exterminate the Jewish population). Even the US could not handle all the immigrants we have. They need a place to go that they will always be welcomed to.
08-09-06, 11:51 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: "...based on the few verses from the Bible and 90% of the christians..."
It is a great deal more than just a few verses. Biblical Israel was never as large as the current state of Israel, but there is ample mention of it in the Old Testament, much more than just "a few verses."
Being honest i havent read those claims. But just to be clear ...... does the bible say it again and again the current land belongs to the jews forever. And if it does , items in bold need to be seen as well. Jews the relegion or jews the race ? But still DG, my question. Would you not describe this as a christian and jewish jehad ? And how about Jermiah chapter 8. Wouldnt that negate much of these claims ?
VV its ok for jews to get a homeland being the endangered species. The point still remains. 'What was the crime or fault of the Palestinans ?' Why should they pay for the crimes of the holocaust.
Too many questions. I know.
08-09-06, 11:54 AM juanruiz
quote: When Jesus comes, he will merely wave His mighty hand, and the wicked will be thrown into a pit.
If works have nothing to do with salvation, why will the wicked be thrown into a pit?
08-09-06, 12:16 PM aminator2002 juan... this isn't the religion forum....
08-09-06, 12:19 PM VelvetVoice Bik-The Bible does not guarantee the Jews that land forever. God made a covenant with them that essentially means "follow my laws and stay within My covenant, and I guarantee My protection forever". The Jews were warned continually through the prophets to forsake their evil living and come back to God with a full heart. They never did that as a people. They were exiled twice, once to Egypt and once to Babylon, and still they did not repent from faithlessness and corruption.
I don't see this as an issue that the Palestinians are 'paying for the sins of the Holocaust'. Why can't the Arabs give a piece of land to the Jews? I don't see that as asking too much.
Abraham was blessed and had many descendants, but the true Jew or believer was supposed to look forward to the New Jerusalem, meaning the Kingdom of Heaven. We know from Jesus that this kingdom can never exist on earth.
JR-Works play no part in salvation, but we do works to please our Commander-in-Chief (no, not Bush!). We are not forced to do anything to earn salvation. The point I was making was that we are not required to fight a physical battle with anyone. The battle is spiritual, fighting for our faith daily against temptation, and that is the most difficult battle of all (the one against our own heart's corruption). When Christ returns, will he find faith on the earth?
08-09-06, 12:21 PM aminator2002
quote: a bit disjointed and unclear.
I have heard from multiple sources that over the course of 2006 Hezbollah has fired numerous rockets at Israel. I would like to get to the bottom of that... Yeppi made claims of this so perhaps we can get to the bottom of it.
I remember watching a BBC video that showed the "old" Hezbollah rockets and the new ones which discussed the somewhat consistent shooting of rockets but now I seem unable to track this story down very well.
I would also like to understand the area of Southern Lebanon that was occupied. That area is not related to the Gaza strip but I feel like the two are interchanged in stories and I'm just plain confused now.
Can someone put some clear bullet points together for me?
08-09-06, 12:22 PM VelvetVoice Actually, Ami, I think this is the perfect place to bring politics and religion together. That way I can demonstrate the moderate view of radical Christianity. Application vs theory. Best practices vs fundamentalism.
08-09-06, 12:29 PM juanruiz
quote: juan... this isn't the religion forum....
I didn't bring it up, just responded.
08-09-06, 12:33 PM aminator2002 and I was kidding, and it is interesting to hear the Christian view of the Revelation from VV.
08-09-06, 12:41 PM juanruiz
quote: That way I can demonstrate the moderate view of radical Christianity.
Sounds like an oxymoron.
08-09-06, 02:11 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by VelvetVoice: I don't see this as an issue that the Palestinians are 'paying for the sins of the Holocaust'. Why can't the Arabs give a piece of land to the Jews? I don't see that as asking too much.
VV wont answer the other part as we will go off topic. There are soo many ways i can respond to the above statement...... USA is huge , would it be ok if we muslims ask a small part of it ? It wont be too much.
U r taking arabs as one people. Arabs range from Morroco to Iraq. Palestine is a very small part in it. Its not like i have 1000 house and its ok you can take one. Its every individual (nation) for himself. If saudis have saudia arabia, kuwaitis have kuwait etc etc what benefit does that give to the palestinian ? Your statement above , sorry is a bit childish. Please dont take offence.
but if its just about a small piece of land. I do believe most arabs (even Hamas) is ready to accept 1967 borders , which includes recognition of Israel. Would you support and promote this idea ?
Just give us a piece of land, its not too much. Confused
you have made the above point in an apologetic way to defend israel. plz let louis farrakhan have a small piece of homland in USA. Its not too much he is asking.
the bottom line is all the three relegion started from that area. And the fact its filled with muslims, is something the other 2 relegions have to live with.
08-09-06, 02:34 PM VelvetVoice Well, you can think it's childish, and maybe it is, but too bad. I'd be all for giving a piece of the US to a people to settle, but it would have to be the piece we give you. We did it for the Indians, and we are still doing it today. Just check out the CT casinos and see the money they make every day with the reparations. Just remember that you need to follow US rules. Muslims would also be welcome here too, except you would still need the US government. No separate militia, no kings. Isn't Farrakhan the Nation of Islam guy? That's always been their goal, to be separate.
I wonder, if we followed this train of thought for each of these scenarios, what would each of these groups want? What would be the Muslim solution for Israel? Everyone, think about it, what should be done in the Middle East?
In one of these threads, someone stated the Palestinians were not a people/county until recently? They should declare themselves a country first. What would they want as a people?
I don't know enough about the 1967 or 1948 borders to speak about them. But in all of this we need to recognize the state of Israel.
Oh, and another thing. I'm not talking religion here, since religion should be of the heart and of the mind. The trouble I have with Islam is that the religion and government are one in the same. In the US, religious affiliations are not the basis of party lines. Although they may influence thought in a small way, no religion overtly endorses political parties or candidates, it is unconstitutional to do so.
08-09-06, 02:59 PM bik74 My question was a muslim state (or any other state) in USA in response to your statement 'why cant arabs give a piece of land'.
You forget jews were already living in that area (not in majority). What you have said with regard to simple settlement, to date many cases in history, jews have not been stopped from settling in Arab. Try comparing like with like. Jews kicked out the palestinians and made a seperate state. I asked would the same be allowed in USA by muslims (or any other nation) ? You do have soo much land and much of it is still unoccupied. Lets not have double standards of justice.
Why does anyone have a problem accepting that Palestinans have been wronged.
08-09-06, 03:23 PM DorianGreyed "But still DG, my question. Would you not describe this as a christian and jewish jehad ?"
Of course it is a jihad for some, but I don't think it is for the majority of either Christians or Jews. Different groups often have different reasons for joining together to accomplish a specific goal.
"Why does anyone have a problem accepting that Palestinans have been wronged."
I don't think that any reasonable person would deny that the Palestinians have been wronged, just as I don't think that any reasonable person would deny that the Jews have been wronged. The problem is finding a way to address both of these wrongs. So far, that has eluded everyone. It may be possible that there is no solution.
08-09-06, 08:00 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by bik74: Sarai, if Palestine was never an independant state, is it justified to make them refugees ? If the forefather of Palestinian converted to Islam (from judaism or christanity), do they loose their rights over the land ?
The fact is Jews have occupied that place based on the few verses from the Bible and 90% of the christians (from USA) support it on account of those bible verses. Now give me an opinion 'if this is or isnt jewish and christian jehad' ?
Bik, I don't think it is justified to "make Palestinians refugees." However, I don't think the situation has ever been that simple. I also don't think it is simply a religious issue, for either side. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is one of those issues that I can't form an opinion on. I sympathize with both sides, and I don't know who is right.
The only thing I know about this particular conflict is that if ever there was a need for a leader like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr, it is there.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
