To be honest, the Somali question didn't seem to make sense, so I just ignored it.

I'll try to answer your statements and questions and forgetnsults.

Its incredibly fun to blame the British for all the problems regarding involving countries and borders, but not very useful. Its quite unclear how the wars in Afganistan, Iraq and the general war on terror are the fault of the British government. The war on terror is a byproduct of the problems of the Islamic world coming to grips with modernity ( in my opinion).

I was actually saying it had moved beyond colonisation, in the same way that all existing australians, new zealanders and americans can no longer be considered colonisers of their own countries. I think this point comes when you outnumber the people or groups who were supposedly colonised.
Although you are correct in that kind of vast movements of peoples into areas that they previously never lived ended around the end of WWII.

Also you seem to deny that Israel has any legitimacy at all, and any decisions it makes are illegitimate.


World pressure didn't force millions of white south africans out of south africa, it encouraged them to change their political system and political ideas. world pressure can encourage israel to make peace, but it won't force 5 1/2 million jews out of Israel.
The Indonesians did leave East Timor, would they have left if they had 5 million settlers there? Probably not. It would appear that you have no idea how the world works. International law is what countries agree on, regardless of treaties. Thats how the world works.

To equate what is happening with the palestinians to nazi death camps is offensive.

Every country that every defeated a large stronger power paid a huge price in the loss of its people, if the palestinians were willing to lose large numbers of people in order to kill Israelis, that might convince the Israelis that violence would not solve the problem.

I also noticed that you were unable to answer any of my questions about areas A, B & C. Can someone more intelligent (can't be too hard) answer instead?

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

To be honest, the Somali question didn't seem to make sense, so I just ignored it.

I will try and make it shorter for you...

If a third party gave away something you believed was your property would you just roll over and accept it?

Its incredibly fun to blame the British for all the problems regarding involving countries and borders, but not very useful. Its quite unclear how the wars in Afganistan, Iraq and the general war on terror are the fault of the British government. The war on terror is a byproduct of the problems of the Islamic world coming to grips with modernity ( in my opinion).

In this case it is also incredibly easy to blame the British for a sizable chunk of the mess in the Middle East because they were responsible for the post WW1 land disposition in the area.

Lets get away from Israel for a second and look at the Iran/Iraq war and Gulf War 1 all borders drawn up by Britain, Kuwait was in fact part of Iraq until it was petitioned off by the British.

Now lets jump to Israel again and look at the facts, during WW1 the British made it very clear that the reward for helping Britain in the region was independence and this remained the reward until the Turks and Germans were defeated and then all of a sudden it fell off the drawing board out of preference for the Balfour agreement.

I was actually saying it had moved beyond colonisation, in the same way that all existing australians, new zealanders and americans can no longer be considered colonisers of their own countries. I think this point comes when you outnumber the people or groups who were supposedly colonised.
Although you are correct in that kind of vast movements of peoples into areas that they previously never lived ended around the end of WWII.

Actually I think you are wrong here in some respects I think the difference comes when the old and new populations become so intertwined that you can no longer separate them.

World pressure didn't force millions of white south africans out of south africa, it encouraged them to change their political system and political ideas. world pressure can encourage israel to make peace, but it won't force 5 1/2 million jews out of Israel.
The Indonesians did leave East Timor, would they have left if they had 5 million settlers there? Probably not. It would appear that you have no idea how the world works. International law is what countries agree on, regardless of treaties. Thats how the world works.

True but world pressure did force South Africa to change its policies and Indonesia to leave East Timor unfortunately world pressure is not forcing Israel to the negotiating table yet and that is how the world works.

To equate what is happening with the palestinians to nazi death camps is offensive.

Why?
If they have similarities then it is a perfectly legitimate comparison.

Every country that every defeated a large stronger power paid a huge price in the loss of its people, if the palestinians were willing to lose large numbers of people in order to kill Israelis, that might convince the Israelis that violence would not solve the problem.

I would suggest that in this case time is not on Israels side, look at the recent anthrax scare that was little more than a home grown nutter making a deadly biological component in his backyard, how long do you think it will be before one of the suicidal Palestinian groups figure out a similar process?

I also noticed that you were unable to answer any of my questions about areas A, B & C. Can someone more intelligent (can't be too hard) answer instead?

I would love to try and answer your questions but I have no idea what areas you are talking about, care to link the map with areas A, b and C on it?

The balfour declaration actually said that the British viewed with favour the creation of a Jewish homeland, subject to the understanding that it would not prejudice the rights of existing inhabitants. But there had been problems prior to that as Jewish immigration started increasing back in the late 19C. And the area was nominally under Ottoman rule then.

The Europeans drew border lines. and the all the countries chose to believe and accept them. If they had chosen different lines, they would have accepted different lines.

If someone gave away my property, I might fight for it, or alternatively I might decide after 50 years of fighting getting me nothing, that different tactics were in order.

Kuwait had been independent of any control by the ottomans for more than 300 years, that is how long the ruling family of Kuwait has been dominant in that area. Iraq wasn't even a country for Kuwait to be taken away from.

All the borders are incredibly modern, the countries in question have all chosen to believe in them and define themselves by their identities

Lebanon is a territory carved out by France in which Christians were meant to be in a majority. But they define themselves as different from the syrians.

Jordan didn't exist until the British had to give Abdullah a kingdom because the Saudi family kicked him out of what would be saudi arabia.

The reason that the Arabs didn't get a massive homeland, is that the British and French were liars and wanted to expand their empires further. It wasn't part of some great conspiracy to hand land over to the Zionists.

As for colonisation, the populations don't have to become entwined, once, the colonising one becomes larger and more dominant, its stop being the colonising one and simply becomes the "population" how entwined are the aboriginal and white populations of Australia, really?


World pressure might force Israel to go to the negotiating table, but it won't get the jewish population to leave.

There is also no similarities between industrialised camps solely designed for the slaughter of millions of Jewish people and the West Band and Gaza Strip.
If over the next 3 years, the entire population of the West Bank and Gaza strip were forced in camps, starved and then gassed, then you could make comparisons. Otherwise its is just offensively incorrect.

The production of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction is incredibly difficult, you need a developed industrial infrastructure for that. If by the recent Anthrax scare you mean the one in the US in 2001, that was clearly a disgruntled scientist from a lab stealing from it. Even then it was an act of terror,but not an effective weapon. Also there is no way to use such a weapon without affecting both populations. Even the suicidal Jihad groups that want to kill Jews, don't actually want to wipe out the palestinians as well.

As for the Areas A, B & C, they were actually on the maps, that were put up earlier. the one for 2000 roughly shows them. the blobs are areas A &B, the area not hightlighted, next to the dead sea is area C. You can see in more detail on wikipedia. Its all under the "wye agreement".

Ultimately the palestinians are hoping for something they are never going to get, the land of Israel. So each day they refuse to negotiate, the area they will get, will become smaller and smaller.

As for the Israelis, they seem to think they can cut themselves with walls and roads from the population all around them, whilst still controlling the resources.

So much time and energy wasted on an unimportant and minor part of the world.

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

The balfour declaration actually said that the British viewed with favour the creation of a Jewish homeland, subject to the understanding that it would not prejudice the rights of existing inhabitants. But there had been problems prior to that as Jewish immigration started increasing back in the late 19C. And the area was nominally under Ottoman rule then.

This is all true but with the slight problem that prior to this Britain had encouraged Arab support with the promise of an independent state of their own on the exact same land they eventually tuned over to a bunch of European immigrants.
The fact is that Britain and Britain alone is responsible for the Palestinian mess.

If someone gave away my property, I might fight for it, or alternatively I might decide after 50 years of fighting getting me nothing, that different tactics were in order.

You are right eventually they will decide that different tactics are in order and the more pressure Israel applies the more likely it is that those new tactics will very destructive, there is nothing more dangerous than a people with nothing left to lose.

The reason that the Arabs didn't get a massive homeland, is that the British and French were liars and wanted to expand their empires further. It wasn't part of some great conspiracy to hand land over to the Zionists.

Never claimed Zionists prevented the formation of a Palestinian state I states that this was due the lies you mentioned above however the continued mess that the area has developed into is due to extremism part of which is Zionism.

Given that Arabs and Jews had lived in the region in relative peace for the previous 1000 years one can only assume that it is the events that began in the late 19th century that triggered the current situation and what was that event, perhaps the influx of a foreign people?

As for colonisation, the populations don't have to become entwined, once, the colonising one becomes larger and more dominant, its stop being the colonising one and simply becomes the "population" how entwined are the aboriginal and white populations of Australia, really?

Cant speak for Australia but I am convinced that the New Zealand population is so intertwined that separation is completely impossible.

There is also no similarities between industrialised camps solely designed for the slaughter of millions of Jewish people and the West Band and Gaza Strip.
If over the next 3 years, the entire population of the West Bank and Gaza strip were forced in camps, starved and then gassed, then you could make comparisons. Otherwise its is just offensively incorrect.

So the fact that essential materials are prevented from getting into these areas, the populace is specifically one race/religion and they have next to no rights and regularly lose land and facilities to the nation that has put them there bares no similarities to say the Warsaw Ghetto of 1942 or perhaps to avoid those nasty Nazi comparisons we could equate them to the one Britain built for the Boers?

The production of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction is incredibly difficult, you need a developed industrial infrastructure for that. If by the recent Anthrax scare you mean the one in the US in 2001, that was clearly a disgruntled scientist from a lab stealing from it. Even then it was an act of terror,but not an effective weapon. Also there is no way to use such a weapon without affecting both populations. Even the suicidal Jihad groups that want to kill Jews, don't actually want to wipe out the palestinians as well.

Really?
I think you will find that you can produce even simple mustard gases with a High School education (I know we did it in 4th form (about year 10) Chemistry) and that with a basic degree in Biology you have all the knowledge you need to purify agents to at the very least a dangerous level add to this the ability to purchase basic scientific equipment such as incubators over the internet and you have a situation where it is almost impossible to prevent such an action if carried out by determined people.

Ultimately the palestinians are hoping for something they are never going to get, the land of Israel. So each day they refuse to negotiate, the area they will get, will become smaller and smaller.

As for the Israelis, they seem to think they can cut themselves with walls and roads from the population all around them, whilst still controlling the resources.

I hardly think it is only the Palestinians negotiating in bad faith, Israel is only offering agreements that they know can never be accepted, would you accept a state that had no fixed borders and no right of self defense?

So much time and energy wasted on an unimportant and minor part of the world.

I disagree, it may be a minor and unimportant part of the world but it is consuming a huge proportion of the worlds aid and humanitarian supplies that quite frankly would be better spent elsewhere, how much better off would the US be if it wasn't pumping billions into keeping both sides going (ironically money to build Palestinian infrastructure that the weapons they sold the Israelis blew up).

I have to admit though I suspect the worlds best course of action is to nuke the region and forget it.

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

To be honest, the Somali question didn't seem to make sense, so I just ignored it.

If you cannot understand the question I would suggest that you certainly don't have enough brain power to be commenting on the world Events, or anything else above schoolyard games.

I'll try to answer your statements and questions and forgetnsults.

Sometimes there is no other answer for gross ignorance,... Sorry, it's just a fact of life.

Its incredibly fun to blame the British for all the problems regarding involving countries and borders, but not very useful.

It's not fun,... it's fact, unpalatable ,... most certainly, but it cannot be denied.

I note that you are very eager to sign away the rights and freedoms of another people just to cover the stupidity of an earlier act of crass stupidity, and at the same time you state in a previous post that the Palestinians haven't the will to fight for what is rightfully theirs, in your last post to MontyB, you admit that you may not have the guts to fight for your own rights should you be placed in the same circumstances.

How very odd, do you have any idea of what you actually think,.... or are you just rock hopping from one unsuccessful excuse to another? You are squirming, but alas you have stepped on your own tongue.

I was actually saying it had moved beyond colonisation, in the same way that all existing australians, new zealanders and americans can no longer be considered colonisers of their own countries. I think this point comes when you outnumber the people or groups who were supposedly colonised.

You think?? have you any backing for this based on any known International agreements or conventions? You see, the world is not run on what you "think"

Just for your own elucidation I can tell you that Australian government is now effectively a "renter" of Australia as we actually pay every Aboriginal a "reconciliation payment" over and above all other payments. This is in effect "Rent"

Also you seem to deny that Israel has any legitimacy at all, and any decisions it makes are illegitimate.

Can you state one fact that gives the state of Israel any legitimacy? It was not their land,.... ever. It has been shown several times on this forum that at best, the Jews were only ever a minority in that area of the Middle East. They became an even smaller majority once the greater part of them moved into Europe 1200 years ago, yet they insist that they still own the mythical land of their dreams.

If you feel that the Jews have legitimate case for previous ownership of Israel, I have a Question: "What would happen to me, if I were to go back to England today and attempt to throw the present owners out of lands owned by my ancestors only 150 years ago"?

World pressure didn't force millions of white south africans out of south africa, it encouraged them to change their political system and political ideas. world pressure can encourage israel to make peace, but it won't force 5 1/2 million jews out of Israel.
The Indonesians did leave East Timor, would they have left if they had 5 million settlers there? Probably not. It would appear that you have no idea how the world works. International law is what countries agree on, regardless of treaties. Thats how the world works.

Thank you,... you have agreed that the world works on International agreements. So when are the Israelis going to abide by them?

Your child like semantics about it not being world opinion that forced the South Africans to hand over power is stupid beyond belief. You use the mealy mouthed terminology of a diplomat. "They weren't "forced" they were "encouraged" FAIL!!!!

To equate what is happening with the palestinians to nazi death camps is offensive.

It is certainly most offensive to the Palestinians, they are the ones being harassed, beaten and murdered by an occupying force who has no respect for International conventions.

Israeli Murder of Civilians

I can get any amount of similar material should you need further convincing.

Every country that every defeated a large stronger power paid a huge price in the loss of its people, if the palestinians were willing to lose large numbers of people in order to kill Israelis, that might convince the Israelis that violence would not solve the problem.

If the Jews in pre WWII Europe had been willing to lose a large number,.... etc., Do you see where this leads? .... An idiotic statement at the very best.

The Palestinians were never in a position to defend their land, just as the jews were never in a position to resist the Nazis. This has since been exacerbated by the billions of US taxpayer dollars and military aid given to the occupying Israeli forces.

I also noticed that you were unable to answer any of my questions about areas A, B & C. Can someone more intelligent (can't be too hard) answer instead?

I see no AB & C? and as far as I can see I have countered all of your statements. After all I had dissected them and answered each part in turn as I have this post.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Can you state one fact that gives the state of Israel any legitimacy? It was not their land,.... ever. It has been shown several times on this forum that at best, the Jews were only ever a minority in that area of the Middle East. They became an even smaller majority once the greater part of them moved into Europe 1200 years ago, yet they insist that they still own the mythical land of their dreams.

Complete tosh, of course. See previous thread history. History says no.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Complete tosh, of course. See previous thread history. History says no.

Actually history doesn't say no, history indicates that it was a shared land much like the rest of the world is today and has been throughout recorded time.

However I am up for any information that says this area was discovered and inhabited solely by the Jews, the problem is that people persist in using somewhat nefarious logic to validate Jewish claims to the region such as "Jews have inhabited the region for thousands of years" and it is true however it conveniently overlooks the fact that there were other races and religions there at the same time and I suspect are still there today.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Complete tosh, of course. See previous thread history. History says no.

Only if you live in complete denial of the facts as known,.... but then again religion has a habit of distorting the truth, doesn't it?
Prior to 1950, there was never a time when the Jews were a majority in this area, sources have previously been posted on this forum (several times) supporting this as you well know. Neither is there anything outside of "Jewish History" that would support the claim that they were there first. You can go right back to the first men coming our of Africa 115- 150,000 years ago if you wish. It was in fact one of the first areas outside Africa to be occupied by man, and you think that they were Jews? Haha,... ahhhh, priceless.

Even if they were there first, that gives the European Jews no right of return 1200 years after they left, as has also been amply demonstrated here before.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

In short there is no credible record to back your statement.

Hmmm,... why is it that I feel like I'm on a Merry go round again????

Yes, your merry-go-round is indeed still rolling, a dedicated promoter of the Ummah.

I have dry-roasted your peanuts so many times on this issue that I am no longer interested in repeating myself, it is all here on these threads under 'Del Boy', establishing that Israel has indeed exactly what you claim it does not , historically; in facts, not bluster.

Take yourself a look back and all will be revealed. Bother to read the facts from earliest days. Israel has every claim, tick every box. I am not prepared to lay it all out again for you.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Yes, your bandwagon is indeed still rolling, a dedicated promoter of the Ummah.

I have dry-roasted your peanuts so many times on this issue that I am no longer interested in repeating myself, it is all here on these threads under 'Del Boy', establishing that Israel has indeed exactly what you claim it does not , historically; in facts, not bluster.

Take yourself a look back and all will be revealed. Bother to read the facts from earliest days. Israel has every claim, tick every box. I am not prepared to lay it all out again for you.

There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:

As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.

If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.

If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back.

So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:

The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from: The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from: The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from: The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of: The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from: The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from: The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from: The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from: The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from: The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from: The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from: The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from: The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from: The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.