Posted on 11/16/2001 1:16:15 PM PST by ExiledInTaiwan
Click here for the book: Origin of Conflict
They were also closing off the Gulf of Aqaba (sp?), where Israel had a port city and which it needed for shipping, if I remember my distant history books correctly.
They do. They are called "reservations." Say, why don't you just think of Israel as a Jewish reservation?
Was it owned by the Muslims? Oops, no, couldn't have been, could it? Say, check out your Bible, Jews lived in Israel before Christianity OR Islam even existed. Oh, I forgot, you're the one who thinks that Shakespeare, Chaucer, and now Herodotus should be referenced when analyzing history, but not the Bible.
Fair and square.
The Zionists schemed and killed and stole and lied and did whatever else they could to achieve their stated goal which was to grab as much Arab land as they possibly could.
Documentation, please. If they paid money for the land, they bought it. If they paid money to the owner of the land, the owner sold it. If they killed when attacked, it's called war.
First of all, why do Pro-Pals state that Arabs should have Israel because they were there before present-day European Jews, but turn around and ignore the claim that, BY THE SAME LOGIC, Jews should have it because they were there before present-day Muslims?
Secondly, 500 years of statehood vs 0 days of statehood is not some minor variation. Try holding your breath for 500 years and you'll notice it's a significant amount of time.
Sounds decent, get them jobs somewhere else. Much kinder than the Muslim way of getting rid of "undesirables."
...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...
Squatters on land not their own, in other words, and even the Turkish authorities agreed with the Jews that they had no right to be there.... you're making an excellent case for your opposition.
This is not the case. We have them because they are part of how poeple are made. You may chose your own viewpoint on the Creator, whether it be a he, she or pair of dice, but all men are made the same. Darwin proved this, and modern DNA substantiates it. The Founders were quite clear in their viewpoint on the matter, and they you don't understand or agree with them. It's a free country, and the Creator doesn't not make us with knowledge installed.
I do not agree, however, that the rights are "self-evident"
I would say that your powers of observation are delimited by your prejudices. Perhaps the fault of a government school, or just a lack of knowledge of the world and of the behaviour of man in general.
(for if they were, why did it take tens of thousands of years for humanity to produce a government that finally recognized them?)
A good question, but I am not going to write a book. Evolution threads don't fare well here as the ignorance and pre-conceptions founded in our racist history still dominate a lot of people's thinking.
and I don't believe they are given by a god because I'm an atheist
That's backwards you know. You weren't created first and then the world.
and even if I weren't, no one has ever yet produced a Biblical verse saying anything like "I, God, confer upon humans the right to live. I myself cannot even violate that right."
Silly notion. Again, you define the answer, then go looking for the questions. You won't resolve anything that way, but you will peg yourself tight in a little box of your own fabrication. Given that you profess atheism, why should I begin to imagine you have spent much time with the Bible or with any religious studies? Why then should I think you know anything about that which you have predefined as not relevant to your life?
Therefore, the right to live exists only among people who have declared it to be so and can back it up with force.
A pointless process and argument. Some might call you quite unlikeable and small minded.
Do either the Jews or the Muslims have this right? (The Israelis might, I don't know.)
Given that you defined the terms and the approach for yourself, you should not be surprised at your answers, but neither should you take them as all encompassing. I suggest you do some more study and reasoning until you get to first base. That's not saying you have to change your end conclusions, just that you have to do less pre-judging and over simplyfying before you start out. Your understanding of the founders and history is truly superficial. I can't imagine you could learn more about them and still stick to your veiwpoints though.
He's been pointed to the facts numerous times and ignores them. The Jews purchased land AND then enforced the Resolution 181 borders which were delineated along (largely) Arab and Jewish density of population areas. The fact that the Arabs rejected the Partition Resolution and Israel was able to add a little more is a testament against the Arabs not the Jews. And now Arafat has been talking about resurrecting Resolution 181 again and chucking 242 and 338. What a laughable bunch these Arab Islamics.
Don't bother calling me a bigot. Some things are just self evident FACTS. Strangely enough, I live by probably 30 Muslims.I never even gave them a second thought. Always spoke and found them unfriendly, however, my neighbor that is Hindu, is nice and very friendly. Came to my home, had Thanksgiving with us last year.
I do not know how anyone would want to live their life practicing hatred and envy. SAD
In other words, you don't know whether, when, where, or how these rights are installed either.
I would say that your powers of observation are delimited by your prejudices. Perhaps the fault of a government school, or just a lack of knowledge of the world and of the behaviour of man in general.
In other words, you don't know how these rights are "self-evident" either.
(for if they were, why did it take tens of thousands of years for humanity to produce a government that finally recognized them?)
A good question, but I am not going to write a book.
In other words, you don't know either.
(no one has ever yet produced a Biblical verse saying anything like "I, God, confer upon humans the right to live. I myself cannot even violate that right.")
Given that you profess atheism, why should I begin to imagine you have spent much time with the Bible or with any religious studies? Why then should I think you know anything about that which you have predefined as not relevant to your life?
In other words, you've never seen evidence that God said man had the right to live either.
Some might call you quite unlikeable and small minded.
In other words, you can't refute a word I've said so you just call me names.
I suggest you do some more study and reasoning until you get to first base.
In other words, you have no answers so will I please stop asking these questions.
If Zionists began it then the Arab nations finished it. The score is even. I make no apology for Zionism. BTW> You are full of bull about being an American firster. I have a way of telling you are fake. You don't pass this test.
In your book the Arab nations get a free pass for evicting 800,000 Jews. And have nothing to do with Israel.This is nonsense.
Let's face it. You're just another Islam firster.
Spin. That may be the percentage they bought by today's size. But examine it more closely. 50% of Israel is as uninhabitable today as it was back then. They didn't take anyone's land in the Negev desert... only a handful of nomads lived there. That makes it 12%.
Furthermore, the size of the borders of 1948 were larger than the original partition by about 30%. That brings the number up to 16%. Then, throw in the land given to Israel by the British and the Catholic Church, and you arrive at number about 20% larger.
So, apx 20% of the land was purchased by the Jews.
Now, take the logic one step further. If a town is 80% Jewish, and the residents decide to join Israel, all of the town becomes an Israeli town. All the roads, the sidewalks, and the adjacent land. Plus the 20% owned by the non-Jews also becomes "Israeli land" even if it is deeded to an individual. You are spinning the facts to make it appear sinister, when in actuality logic dictates that just because the Jewish National Fund only owned X% that the rest was stolen. Nonsense. That property still remained in the hands of the person it was deeded to, it's simply that the sovereignty of the location of that land had changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.