Would the exodus of 1948 have happened if the Palestinians had weapons?

I don't think so. If the Israelies attack a village and the average Palestinian had some kind of rifle I don't think they would get that far and would abandon the whole thing.

Would the extremist of both sides of the conflict stop peaceful process if the moderates could defend themselves?

I don't think we would see rooms of slaughter Palestinians if they had guns. I don't think Palestinians would ever blow up a night club full of inocent Israelies if they had weapons to kill the ones trying to kill them.

Would Israel be able to occupy Palestinian cities?

I dont think so a sniper can hide anywher ein a city. I think an agressor would know to stay clear of city full of people that don't like them if they are armed.

So all in all would the violence be greater or larger if civilians were armed??

Look through the history books, Salty. You're wrong on so many levels.

1) Israel did not 'slaughter' civilians. Many fought, and many had fled willingly. People were allowed to stay in their villages if they surrendered peacefully. And there were many that did. Those that put up arms would be treated exactly like opposing soldiers, and trust me, you treat them the same way they'd treat you.

2) This wasn't a war that Israeli's initiated for the sake of killing people and stealing land (which you make it sound a lot like). Israel had faced extreme pressure leading up to '48, and was, shall we say- 'forced' into conflict. They never wanted a physical match.

3) Are we assuming, again that zionists are evil land-takers,- with weaponry,- while the Palestinians are innocent lambs? That is so00 wrong. Both sides had their atrocities and this shouldn't be a debate of who is evil and who is good.

I really don't want to get into another flaming match. But this sounds like a thread that will have a lot of heat and whinning. I will see...

"fled willingly"
How can you expect to write such nonsense with impunity? Consider yourself flamed:bugeye:

Alright, I set myself up for that...


The 'implied' meaning was in conjunction with Salty's claim that they were all driven from the towns. As in, 'fled'.

1) Israel did not 'slaughter' civilians. Many fought, and many had fled willingly. People were allowed to stay in their villages if they surrendered peacefully. And there were many that did. Those that put up arms would be treated exactly like opposing soldiers, and trust me, you treat them the same way they'd treat you.


Should I remind you of Lebanon ?
I am sorry but surrendering peacefully is an option ? How about if I come in to your home tomorrow and you surrender peacefully and maybe Ill let you stay .



2) This wasn't a war that Israeli's initiated for the sake of killing people and stealing land (which you make it sound a lot like). Israel had faced extreme pressure leading up to '48, and was, shall we say- 'forced' into conflict. They never wanted a physical match.


You colonize a land and you do not expect physical combat ?
And perhaps you didnt know , but there was no Israel to be leading up to 1948 , since Israel was created 1948 .


3) Are we assuming, again that zionists are evil land-takers,- with weaponry,- while the Palestinians are innocent lambs? That is so00 wrong. Both sides had their atrocities and this shouldn't be a debate of who is evil and who is good.


U propose not to question morality when people are forced to leave their homes ? When people are massmurdered one by one when they fight with rocks against tanks ? It is only since recent that the suicide bombings are the trend , and it is a trend unstoppable , and now all of a sudden when people fight back , both sides had their atrocities ? I suppose the same can be said for the Maya , the Olmec , the Aztek against the Spaniards as well ? Guns against rocks , thats the deal isnt it ?


Salty's claim that they were all driven from the towns


Are you saying they were not ? Do you actually deny the Palestinian diaspora started in 1948 ? Then I deny the holocaust just as easily , ow wait.......there's more to that than a "denial" .

Originally posted by Elbaz
Look through the history books, Salty. You're wrong on so many levels.

1) Israel did not 'slaughter' civilians. Many fought, and many had fled willingly. People were allowed to stay in their villages if they surrendered peacefully. And there were many that did. Those that put up arms would be treated exactly like opposing soldiers, and trust me, you treat them the same way they'd treat you.

Israel even admits to using terror tactics to remove Palestinians. Its even documented.

Originally posted by Elbaz
2) This wasn't a war that Israeli's initiated for the sake of killing people and stealing land (which you make it sound a lot like). Israel had faced extreme pressure leading up to '48, and was, shall we say- 'forced' into conflict. They never wanted a physical match.

Im not talking about wether or not the 48 war was Israels fault. Arab Nations didn't give a shit about the Palestinians if they did they wouldn't have kept them as refugees. Im talking about how the Israelies treated the Palestinians.

Originally posted by Elbaz
3) Are we assuming, again that zionists are evil land-takers,- with weaponry,- while the Palestinians are innocent lambs? That is so00 wrong. Both sides had their atrocities and this shouldn't be a debate of who is evil and who is good.

I really don't want to get into another flaming match. But this sounds like a thread that will have a lot of heat and whinning. I will see...

I know both sides havent handled this that well. But you have to admit if you lived in a place for 1,000 years and some European Empire (note not the USA) desides to ingnore thier promise that you have a Arab state. Then give the land to some people that have been the minority a homeland wouldnt you be weee bit upset?

I feel that if the common Palestinian had arms the atrocites on both sides would have been small to non-existant. Thats what this post is about do you disagree or agree?

Israel was attacked first and it counterattacked. It pushed back the arab agressors until israel held a tad more land than it began with. It would have stayed within the bounds set by britain had nobody attack them.

When you attack somebody you must allways recognize there is a chance you will come away with less than you came in with.

Originally posted by Elbaz
Alright, I set myself up for that...


The 'implied' meaning was in conjunction with Salty's claim that they were all driven from the towns. As in, 'fled'.

Thats exactly what happened. Attack one town and the ones around it depopulate over night.

This is pretty much agreed on by most historians. But my question is would this had happened if the Palestinians weren't unarmed?

I think the Zionists knew up front what was going to happen.

Famous quotes on Zionism (http://www.al-awda.org/index.php?page=Famous%20Quotes)

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places." David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

After paying a visit to Palestine in 1891, the Hebrew essayist Achad Ha-Am commented: " Abroad we are accustomed to believe that Israel is almost empty; nothing is grown here and that whoever wishes to buy land could come here and buy what his heart desires. In reality, the situation is not like this. Throughout the country it is difficult to find cultivable land which is not already cultivated."

Vladimir Jabotinsky (the founder and advocate of the Zionist terrorist organizations): "Has any People ever been seen to give up their territory of their own free will? In the same way, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence." Quoted by Maxime Rodinson in Peuple Juif ou Problem Juif. (Jewish People or Jewish Problem).

David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): " If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created State of Israel of the Freedom Party (Herut), a political party closely akin in its organization, method, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties." Albert Einstein, Hanna Arendt and other prominent Jewish Americans, writing in The New York Times, protest the visit to America of Menachem Begin, December 1948. Begin and Yitzhak Shamir who were members of the party became Prime Ministers.

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

Allah mathamatics said:
Should I remind you of Lebanon ?
===========

Should I remind "you" of Lebanon ?
Syria occupies Lebanon, no Arab mentions this when talking of Israels so-called "occupation".

Israel has rights to all of Israel including the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Arabs lost any rights when they broke U.N. treaties and attacked Israel.
Israel won..........they could have destroyed all the Arab nations together at the same time, and still could.

But power without character is Satanic.
Israel has shown character to handle the power God has given them.
This is more valuble than Gold.

She is a great nation and has exhibted restraint in the use of force.
The Arab people has not as yet shown they could handle such power, and the United States is commited as a servant of God to keep them from getting it until they have displayed this charcater.

The bible says they are wild-men, an unruly people.
The very word "arab" means...."to ambush".

:o
|
||
|||
(%%%%)
:vomiting:

How are there more then 6 posts and not one answers my question? All it is "OMG LOOK OVER HERE!" This goes no where so please don't post if you can't some how attach it to the subject.

Israel has rights to all of Israel including the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Arabs lost any rights when they broke U.N. treaties and attacked Israel.
Israel won..........they could have destroyed all the Arab nations together at the same time, and still could.

Just because one group does something wrong that means everybody has to have no rights?

No they couldnt the US would have bombed the be jesus out of them. Exspecially since Israel was gettin soviet support.

But power without character is Satanic.
Israel has shown character to handle the power God has given them.
This is more valuble than Gold.


Whos god your god, my god, palestinians god? Each religion promised them that land so God + another God cancles each other out.

She is a great nation and has exhibted restraint in the use of force.
The Arab people has not as yet shown they could handle such power, and the United States is commited as a servant of God to keep them from getting it until they have displayed this charcater.


Only because the USA makes them.

Now please if the common Palestinians were armed would there be an increase in violence or lessen violence?

I dont understand some of you people, this world can be so cruel.
Lets hope and pray for peace.

I want a little peace as well. (what little is possible) Its just Im willing to take a little shortcut to get there.

I just dont think a day of peace is worth a day of oppression. (Personally I dont think peace is something you can pray over because for a diety to create it would entail violating free will)

Just because one group does something wrong that means everybody has to have no rights?
==============
One group..?........All the Arab nations together attacked Israel, not "one group"






No they couldnt the US would have bombed the be jesus out of them. Especially since Israel was gettin soviet support.
==============
Wrong, America is Israel's ally.....They would have intervened if Israel was losing, but that never happened because.....

God fights for them.
Let's just look at the records.
A Dozen nations against One. They won.
300 planes shot down by Israel, with no loses but one mechanical failure.....
The list could go on and on....

Sounds just like when they fought in Joshua's time.
Israel is back..
It was foretold, and so shall it be....

Originally posted by TheVisitor
Just because one group does something wrong that means everybody has to have no rights?
==============
One group..?........All the Arab nations together attacked Israel, not "one group"


Not ever arab attacked Israel. In your case if one Israel kills a palestinian then all Israels are murderers.

Originally posted by TheVisitor
No they couldnt the US would have bombed the be jesus out of them. Especially since Israel was gettin soviet support.
==============
Wrong, America is Israel's ally.....They would have intervened if Israel was losing, but that never happened because.....

God fights for them.
Let's just look at the records.
A Dozen nations against One. They won.
300 planes shot down by Israel, with no loses but one mechanical failure.....
The list could go on and on....

Sounds just like when they fought in Joshua's time.
Israel is back..
It was foretold, and so shall it be....

Not during the 1948 war. We deffinetly werent their allies. the US was very anti-semtic. We also didn't want a socialist soviet sponsored state taking control of the middle east. We would have intervened and blown thier tanks into the dirt. Rember what we did to Israel during the Suez Cannal crisis? We basically said gtfo or you gonna get bombed.

How about in the 70s when they almost lost they took incredible amount of loses?

NOW BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT HASNT BEN ANSWER BY ANYBODY!

Should I remind "you" of Lebanon ?
Syria occupies Lebanon, no Arab mentions this when talking of Israels so-called "occupation".


First of all , both Lebanon and Syria are part of Arabia , and however the relations are between one people , is not the concern of the Euro's nor the Amerikans .

And Israel is not just "occupation" , its colonization . And into the sea will the colonizers be driven , perhaps Ha-Shem can open it again as he did for the Hebrews , the true people of Israel .


Israel has rights to all of Israel including the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Arabs lost any rights when they broke U.N. treaties and attacked Israel.
Israel won..........they could have destroyed all the Arab nations together at the same time, and still could.


First of all , we're approaching matters unconventionally nowadays , Israel is one big fucking nightmare for each of its 6 million Inhabitants , I dont consider that a situation one would wish to find itself in , totally terrorized the fuck out of its mind .

Rights ? Israel has no rights not even for Tel Aviv , lets not start speaking of Gaza West Bank or Golan , a bunch of invading billionaire NAZI'S I do not consider having ANY rights . They can have the right to be terrorized 24/7 if they wish .


But power without character is Satanic.
Israel has shown character to handle the power God has given them.
This is more valuble than Gold.


Satanic is only your imagination of life . The power of God ? Of witch God , of Yhweh , of Ha-Shem , of Jesus Christ ?


She is a great nation and has exhibted restraint in the use of force.
The Arab people has not as yet shown they could handle such power, and the United States is commited as a servant of God to keep them from getting it until they have displayed this charcater.


She is a he , Jacob is Ysrael . And indeed u are right , the Arab peoples have not shown , but the Palestinian people proved to be barve people who after 55 years of occupation still are striking back and with more determination than ever .


The bible says they are wild-men, an unruly people.
The very word "arab" means...."to ambush".


Quote verses please , or shut up .
And where did u get the idea Arab=Ambush ?
It is ridiciouless , you obviously have no understanding of either latin (Arabus) , nor the semitic languages (Yarab) , hey....even the bible for that matter .


One group..?........All the Arab nations together attacked Israel, not "one group"


There are no Arab nations , there is just one Arab people , perhaps you might divide into north and south , shiaa or sunni , but do not start with that "Arab Nations" bullshit since we all know Syria , Lebanon etc are no real fucking nations . And the most interesting thing , is that it would be the Arab Union Israel would be fighting with (Egypt-Syria-Iraq) , instead of these "nations" u speak of , ofcourse Israel made sure such a unity wasnt gonna happen , and now even is making sure there cant even be one strong Arabic state . I do find it remarkable though how such a people's unconventional movement like Hizbollah beated Israels ass , and is ready to do it anytime again .


God fights for them.
Sounds just like when they fought in Joshua's time.


So G-d is a bit confused huh ? I mean , surely in Yshua's time he helped the Hebrews , but now he's confusing them with some Slavic-Germano-Turks ?

Im just happy MoonGod Allah beated Ha-Shems ass when he sended Nebuchadnizzar to Jerusalem to destroy's Salomons temple some 300 years before Yshua arrived .

How long do u think it will take till the 200 m man prophecy gets fulfilled ? I say within 10-15 years , or dont u believe your own scriptures ?

Have a nice day

And for the original question , ofcourse it would have made a difference if the Arabs were armed in 48 , but hey they were under Brittish occupation . Ofcourse arms never could have been allowed by the colonists .

Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics
And for the original question , ofcourse it would have made a difference if the Arabs were armed in 48 , but hey they were under Brittish occupation . Ofcourse arms never could have been allowed by the colonists .

Thank you :D

I know colonies didnt get weapons. That was one of ghandi's complaints.

Originally posted by TheVisitor
God fights for them.
Let's just look at the records.
A Dozen nations against One. They won.
300 planes shot down by Israel, with no loses but one mechanical failure.....
The list could go on and on....


October 6, 1973, Israel lost and retreated later totally from occupied Sinai/Egypt. Did god fight with the Egyptians that day? It must have been so, because the defeat of the Israelis was horrible.

They also had their butt wipped in Lebanon. They currently occupy misely tiny area that they called Israel. Their real plans go from Euphrates river to the Nile river....but they're unsuccessfull.

I don't think it would have made a difference if the Palestineans were armed in 1948. This is because Jordan, Syria, and Egypt WERE and they happened to attack Israel then. The amount of fighting would have been the same, had it been from the Palestineans or from the other Arab countries.

This is gonna big one since I left it for a day. But before I get started I would just like to verify the fact that this has become a kind of flaming match between pro and anti-Israeli's - Just as I predicted. IE back and forth whinning about why the other person is wrong. You know I'll be glad to join, though. I have no choice now to the afflication that I got myself in to.

Allah's Mathematics,
Should I remind you of Lebanon ?
I am sorry but surrendering peacefully is an option ? How about if I come in to your home tomorrow and you surrender peacefully and maybe Ill let you stay .
Yes surrendering peacefully is always an option. But usually a less desirable one for bullies that think they can come in and take my lunch money. Instead to be woken up by a different reality that I wasn't weak enough to be crushed by gangsters in the first place. That's pretty much what has happened all along. Violence has always been initiated by Israeli opposition. And no, 1967 only came amongst open Arab plans to invade Israel. Just like having someone threaten to kill you, Israel had a responsibility to itself to figh before the knife was at it's throaght. Same thing with lebbanons hunger for Israeli blood.

Like I said though, atrocities happen everywhere, and the suicide bombings and crude military techniques that been employed by Arabs seem to dwarf any Israeli war-piddles that may have occured. Remember, I'm not denying that Israel had never done anything bad,-I'm simply pointing out that using those points as a proponent of your argument is equal to me saying that gang-bangers are innocent because their parents didn't teach 'em right.

You colonize a land and you do not expect physical combat ?

You usually colonize a land when nobody is living on that parcel of land. And the majority of places that Israeli's 'colonized' was un-inhabitable, disease-ridden swampland. Hardly a thing to kill over unless you're like the guy in that car commercial. The idea was mass migration to a future way of life. So where do you think I'm wrong? It's like me saying that I hate the capitalistic Chinese for colonizing 1/4 of China town. Pure racism. If you ask me, the China town in my city is a colourful and valuable piece of our identity. And I think the Palestinians should have felt the same way for Jews. The fact is, the grand majority of anti-zioinist Palestinians were ethno-centric and couldn't bear to live in a changing world. Look where that brought the luddites?

And by the way, I use the term 'Israel' freely to categorize the group of zionists Jews living or migrating to the region. I'll remind you that Israel should have existed before '48. With peaceful, permanent borders. Ever remember who made the decision to trash that plan and bash horns with their weaker rival? (It was the Palestinians with their vengeful pact brothers.)

U propose not to question morality when people are forced to leave their homes ? When people are massmurdered one by one when they fight with rocks against tanks ? It is only since recent that the suicide bombings are the trend , and it is a trend unstoppable , and now all of a sudden when people fight back , both sides had their atrocities ? I suppose the same can be said for the Maya , the Olmec , the Aztek against the Spaniards as well ? Guns against rocks , thats the deal isnt it ?

Hmm...I question the morality of all those that claim to be victims -on the underhand, when on the upperhand- will jump on the opportunity to kill their innocent contemporaries. And you know what I'm talking about. Nobodies perfect. Including the Israeli's. What you're proposing is to question only the morality (which is something I find of little value) of Israel, while completely ignoring that of the 'victims' who share a worse, or equally disgusting belief system. And so I say: 'chamesh'. THe rocks they throw at Israel will come back to them, and if the Palestinians continue to refuse peace, it will not be forcefed with tanks, but will instead result in continued malnutrition of a bully that refuses to eat his vegetables and grow up. Palestinians extremists are using their situation as a shield to reality and their oversized ego's. Which is something the UN continues to support. And as long as they do that, the suffering will go on. I've seen some very workable solutions, and let's face it, the PA has admitted that they will accept nothing short of 100%. Is that peaceful comprise, or surrender on Israel's behalf?

Are you saying they were not ? Do you actually deny the Palestinian diaspora started in 1948 ? Then I deny the holocaust just as easily , ow wait.......there's more to that than a "denial" .

I think you're missing a very crucial fact, AM(that'll be your nickname). A huge number of the people that 'fled' were criminals or extremists that wanted to avoid the penalties of their actions. Fleeing a town is much preffered to spending the rest of your life in a prison workyard or even capital punishment. Some innocent people died, or fled out of fear for being falsely accused or unrightfully punished. Atrocities happen! That isn't the amount of a war the Israeli's were flung into. Some atrocities were unavoidable for the times. I sure as hell expect it. But I remind you there are two dimensions to the policty, that is:
1) Real innocents were allowed to stay and surrender without penalty.
2) Criminals were very common, as were possible criminals and threats to security. How many were militants or the like? I'll bet you anything that it was a way life for so many of the even non-extremist Palestinians. This isn't saying every person of that opinion deserved prison. Heck no. Only that they shouldn't expect to be treated as innocent civilians in a war they support.

These are the facts. If the Arab coalition had gotten deep into Israel, I can't even imagine the crimes they virtually pledged to commit.

Salty,
Israel even admits to using terror tactics to remove Palestinians. Its even documented.

In what contexts? Link please. I'm well aware that they use terror tactics and have admitted to it -specifically nowadays with hezbollah and other terrorists. And again, I've never denied that atrocities have taken place. I recall stating exactly that only a few senteces below...So What contexts?

Im not talking about wether or not the 48 war was Israels fault. Arab Nations didn't give a shit about the Palestinians if they did they wouldn't have kept them as refugees. Im talking about how the Israelies treated the Palestinians.

In some situations, badly. There were atrocities, and pseudo-atrocities as you can read above. Something I can't say the Arabs wouldn't have outdone in that war had they had the chance. Really, they pretty much pledged carnage. Thank heavens they didn't get the chance. I don't wish it on the worst of my enemies.

I know both sides havent handled this that well. But you have to admit if you lived in a place for 1,000 years and some European Empire (note not the USA) desides to ingnore thier promise that you have a Arab state. Then give the land to some people that have been the minority a homeland wouldnt you be weee bit upset?

I understand what you're trying to say. But I completely and fully disagree with it. The arabs wanted complete propriety over the land. Israel had accepted numerous resolutions. But again, it didn't quite work like that with all the rejection by Arabs. Had the Arabs tried to pull a war sooner, they've had had a complete dominance to victory. I'll also remind you, though, that in those times, Israeli's had settled the un-inhabited desert and swamplands. Alot of the hatred stemmed from racism and jeolousy. Read the china-town example above.

On the question of whether or not I agree -- neither. Palestinians weren't completly devoid of weaponry, and let's get real here. In 1948, the Isreali's weren't exactly a super-power. Ben Gurion won battles by swimming stealthily along the beach - as a favourite example. The problem is that your question doesn't really incorporate hardline facts. So it can't be answered with an open hand by anybody who really understands what's going on. Now, it can be made genuine with lots of links and stuff.

Coldrake,
What does you're link prove. I think it..um..'humbly' shows that some zionists are assholes, and other people have nothing better to do but document it. And then there are the people that propogate these harmful stereotypes...

Elbaz,
It's a shame that I still have faith in humanity, you sexy bastard...

Xevious

The amount of fighting would have been the same, had it been from the Palestineans or from the other Arab countries.


It all depends on what arms they would have had , the very victory of Israel is the evidence of what u can do with amazing material and couple of people . Lets see if Israel could have become an independent state if it would have settled in the Ukraine instead of Palestine . The other Arabs were sold out by the Russians and weak after the struggle for independance , their armes were nothing compared to what Israel had .

elbaz

Yes surrendering peacefully is always an option


I hope you will do the same when you are surrounded by hostile forces , we dont .


But usually a less desirable one for bullies that think they can come in and take my lunch money. Instead to be woken up by a different reality that I wasn't weak enough to be crushed by gangsters in the first place. That's pretty much what has happened all along.


That is because you have taken over this bullies home town .
How sick is it to call a couple of fucking civillians bullies when you are the ones with tanks ?


Violence has always been initiated by Israeli opposition. And no, 1967 only came amongst open Arab plans to invade Israel. Just like having someone threaten to kill you, Israel had a responsibility to itself to figh before the knife was at it's throaght. Same thing with lebbanons hunger for Israeli blood.


How about you coming in and declaring a state ? Do people just have to accept that ? Will U accept when i come to your home town ? Or will you fight and then I would have to defend myself by massmurdering you "bullies' .


Like I said though, atrocities happen everywhere, and the suicide bombings and crude military techniques that been employed by Arabs seem to dwarf any Israeli war-piddles that may have occured. Remember, I'm not denying that Israel had never done anything bad,-I'm simply pointing out that using those points as a proponent of your argument is equal to me saying that gang-bangers are innocent because their parents didn't teach 'em right.


It is not about atrocities , and you can not equalize the 2 sides by claiming its atrocities either . It is an army against civillians who have organzied themselves . But besides , its not about that in teh first place , it is about colonizing a land and a people .
Oh , and your comparation of gangbangers has no logics either .


You usually colonize a land when nobody is living on that parcel of land. And the majority of places that Israeli's 'colonized' was un-inhabitable, disease-ridden swampland. Hardly a thing to kill over unless you're like the guy in that car commercial. The idea was mass migration to a future way of life. So where do you think I'm wrong?


You are wrong when you migrated into habitit towns . Sure it started out with some small migrations into uninhabited territory , but that was before ww2 even , and there were already Jews in Palestine anyways , so what ? Why do u stop there in your argument , because when Israel declared independence in 48 , it was no uninhabited swampland they claimed independant . And that was just the first 600.000 , now there are 5 M .


It's like me saying that I hate the capitalistic Chinese for colonizing 1/4 of China town. Pure racism. If you ask me, the China town in my city is a colourful and valuable piece of our identity. And I think the Palestinians should have felt the same way for Jews. The fact is, the grand majority of anti-zioinist Palestinians were ethno-centric and couldn't bear to live in a changing world. Look where that brought the luddites?


Can the China Town become independant too ? And no the Palestinians were not ethnocentric , perhaps you didnt know it but the Jew was not a stranger to Arabia , the Ashkenazim was . There Jewish communities all over the Arab world , and they claiming independance would even be more just than the crime called Israel .


And by the way, I use the term 'Israel' freely to categorize the group of zionists Jews living or migrating to the region. I'll remind you that Israel should have existed before '48. With peaceful, permanent borders. Ever remember who made the decision to trash that plan and bash horns with their weaker rival? (It was the Palestinians with their vengeful pact brothers.)


Sure , Israel could have been independant while Arabia was colonized by the Lovely Brits and French , and before that the Ottomans....and before that , hey guess what , before that there was Khazaria , your little Ashkenazim Israel .


Hmm...I question the morality of all those that claim to be victims -on the underhand, when on the upperhand- will jump on the opportunity to kill their innocent contemporaries. And you know what I'm talking about. Nobodies perfect. Including the Israeli's. What you're proposing is to question only the morality (which is something I find of little value) of Israel, while completely ignoring that of the 'victims' who share a worse, or equally disgusting belief system. And so I say: 'chamesh'. THe rocks they throw at Israel will come back to them, and if the Palestinians continue to refuse peace, it will not be forcefed with tanks, but will instead result in continued malnutrition of a bully that refuses to eat his vegetables and grow up. Palestinians extremists are using their situation as a shield to reality and their oversized ego's. Which is something the UN continues to support. And as long as they do that, the suffering will go on. I've seen some very workable solutions, and let's face it, the PA has admitted that they will accept nothing short of 100%. Is that peaceful comprise, or surrender on Israel's behalf?


I care little for morality as well . I only care for the dialectic laws of oppression when it comes to any form of politics , and so with Israel . You can say chamesh all you want , I know your genes want to yell out finf , its all good . And who cares for the belief system of the Palestinians , I sure dont . Same as I dont care for the belief system of that Ashkenazim sect , weither its Masortim , Haredim or Chilonim . And now that you have firearms to shoot with , you even wish the rocks to return ?
But you are right , we wont accept anything other then 100% , because it has been enough . I suggest those who have children and love them leave the land and go where they came from , because there is no peacefull future for them in Israel . And those who support zionism to death , to death shall it be . One day it will be enough and the Arabs will drive the Jews into the sea , not even peacefully surrendering will be an option , and we'll just have to see if the messiah comes down and saves them .


I think you're missing a very crucial fact, AM(that'll be your nickname). A huge number of the people that 'fled' were criminals or extremists that wanted to avoid the penalties of their actions. Fleeing a town is much preffered to spending the rest of your life in a prison workyard or even capital punishment. Some innocent people died, or fled out of fear for being falsely accused or unrightfully punished. Atrocities happen! That isn't the amount of a war the Israeli's were flung into. Some atrocities were unavoidable for the times. I sure as hell expect it. But I remind you there are two dimensions to the policty, that is:
1) Real innocents were allowed to stay and surrender without penalty.
2) Criminals were very common, as were possible criminals and threats to security. How many were militants or the like? I'll bet you anything that it was a way life for so many of the even non-extremist Palestinians. This isn't saying every person of that opinion deserved prison. Heck no. Only that they shouldn't expect to be treated as innocent civilians in a war they support.


Do you actually call 5 million refugees criminals and extremists ?
Ánd stop the atrocities bullshit , or accept the damn holocaust to be an atrocity as well .
1)Allowed to stay ? This kind of reasoning is sick man . You come into a people's city , and you allow them to stay ?
2)Criminals to you yes , because you are the enemy , Israel . May they all be criminals .


These are the facts. If the Arab coalition had gotten deep into Israel, I can't even imagine the crimes they virtually pledged to commit.


Now try to imagine the crimes we are to commit the day Israel falls .


In 1948, the Isreali's weren't exactly a super-power


USA was


Coldrake,
What does you're link prove. I think it..um..'humbly' shows that some zionists are assholes, and other people have nothing better to do but document it. And then there are the people that propogate these harmful stereotypes...


It only shows perfectly the true Zionist state of mind . It symbolizes Sharons victory over his people's leadership .
This is not stereotyping , this represents the situation .

There will never be peace in the state of Israel .

There wont be peace in israel until people stop trying to kill them, thats for sure. First step toward peace in the area: stop all sucide bombers and even the threat of their use.

Good post but you are wrong about this.

Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

USA was

I mean your not wrong about the USA being a super power but it was the USSR that was supporting the Israelies in the 1948 war.

Yes surrendering peacefully is always an option. But usually a less desirable one for bullies that think they can come in and take my lunch money. Instead to be woken up by a different reality that I wasn't weak enough to be crushed by gangsters in the first place. That's pretty much what has happened all along. Violence has always been initiated by Israeli opposition. And no, 1967 only came amongst open Arab plans to invade Israel. Just like having someone threaten to kill you, Israel had a responsibility to itself to figh before the knife was at it's throaght. Same thing with lebbanons hunger for Israeli blood.

Well why don't the Israelies let the Palestinian refugees have thier land back then? That would be a peaceful means to end this violence. Make Israel a Federal goverment. And have the Palestinian cities governthemselves.

The reason Israel never initates violence is because you don't hear about it. Do you think a Palestinian would really strap on dynamite and a go into a shopping center if for no reason? Palestinians as a group are very western. So don't try and say something like "they have 10,000 virgin women waiting for them in heaven." because they are not doing this for god.

You usually colonize a land when nobody is living on that parcel of land. And the majority of places that Israeli's 'colonized' was un-inhabitable, disease-ridden swampland. Hardly a thing to kill over unless you're like the guy in that car commercial. The idea was mass migration to a future way of life. So where do you think I'm wrong? It's like me saying that I hate the capitalistic Chinese for colonizing 1/4 of China town. Pure racism. If you ask me, the China town in my city is a colourful and valuable piece of our identity. And I think the Palestinians should have felt the same way for Jews. The fact is, the grand majority of anti-zioinist Palestinians were ethno-centric and couldn't bear to live in a changing world. Look where that brought the luddites?

And by the way, I use the term 'Israel' freely to categorize the group of zionists Jews living or migrating to the region. I'll remind you that Israel should have existed before '48. With peaceful, permanent borders. Ever remember who made the decision to trash that plan and bash horns with their weaker rival? (It was the Palestinians with their vengeful pact brothers.)

Jews have been living in peace with Palestinians for over 1,000 years. Under the Islamic emprie they were not persecuted. Under the Ottoman empire they were both not persecuted. It wasn't untill this upsurge of imigrants comming in and taking the Palestinians actual land. Not swamp land. If this were true then the refugees would have some place to return to.

Hmm...I question the morality of all those that claim to be victims -on the underhand, when on the upperhand- will jump on the opportunity to kill their innocent contemporaries. And you know what I'm talking about. Nobodies perfect. Including the Israeli's. What you're proposing is to question only the morality (which is something I find of little value) of Israel, while completely ignoring that of the 'victims' who share a worse, or equally disgusting belief system. And so I say: 'chamesh'. THe rocks they throw at Israel will come back to them, and if the Palestinians continue to refuse peace, it will not be forcefed with tanks, but will instead result in continued malnutrition of a bully that refuses to eat his vegetables and grow up. Palestinians extremists are using their situation as a shield to reality and their oversized ego's. Which is something the UN continues to support. And as long as they do that, the suffering will go on. I've seen some very workable solutions, and let's face it, the PA has admitted that they will accept nothing short of 100%. Is that peaceful comprise, or surrender on Israel's behalf?

There are zionist extremist also. Don't act like Palestinians never get killed buy angry Israelies extremist. Its a spiral of hate.

In what contexts? Link please. I'm well aware that they use terror tactics and have admitted to it -specifically nowadays with hezbollah and other terrorists. And again, I've never denied that atrocities have taken place. I recall stating exactly that only a few senteces below...So What contexts?

Do you want pictures of blown up palestinian villages? Women and children runing toward other arab nations? I guess i was wrong Israel still hasnt admited but 1,000,000 to 500,000 of a whole country cant just be criminals that fear they are going to jail. Why did they take all thier land then? I mean the war will eventually be over that dosent mean thier land is up for grabs.

Peace will never happen untill Israel respects the Arabs rights and the outside world keeps promoting terrorism.