Jewish RIGHT to the Land of Jerusalem

[Japhrodisiac]

There is no justification for entering another country and trying to take it over from other people simply because some ancestors thousands of years ago used to live in that territory. Religious arguments here are utterly void - any one can use a religious argument to support one's claim to some land - all you have to say is 'that's MY holy land not yours, I don't care that you might have your home here, go away!' and round and round we go in circles. The Palestinians who lived on that land had every right to stay there - it's not their fault that thousands of years ago there was a diaspora. People forget that there were Zionist terrorists who actively sought to oust the Palestinians from land that they lived on (and still today we have zionist terrorists such as Sharon, and NOT only palestinian terrorists).

Well, I suppose you are correct if we look at history as being frozen in time. For example, everything that happenened in the region before the creation of Israel being lawful, older history (many invasions, many different powers controlling the land) and more recent times, whereby the Palestinians "own" the land and have been invaded. I think you will find that history lives on and although I do not support many of the actions of the Sharon government, I do support Israel's right to a nation state at the birthplace of their culture/religion and in a land where there has been continuous population for 5800 years. I do support the Palestinians' right to a nation state (although trying to define who and what a Palestinian is seems a problem to even the most die hard western supporter)as well, and hope for a lasting peace in the region. You are right in that there have been terrorists on both sides. It is tremendously difficult to broker any peaceful arrangement when people keep blowing up each other's kids. I do know for certain that on both sides, save for a minority of crazies, that people want to live happy, peaceful and productive lives.

[Japhrodisiac]

Ciaran, I have heard your slanted reporting on this subject in many other posts. I was responding to you bashing Halomi over the head in a very ungentlemanly manner, and wanted to provide a little history lesson for those who think that the Palestinians are just poor innocent victims of a hostile Jewish nation. To think that large numbers of the so called "Palestinians" arrived after the 1982 conflict in Lebanon, and so on, and they should have rights over and above peoples that have continuously populated the area for 6 millenia..

Remember, Arabs overthrew the Turks (Ottomans) in the period of the First World War, expelling large numbers of Jewish inhabitants. The British and French negotiated the parceling of the region into various holdings.This is the real period of the beginnings of the "Nation of Palestine" from about 1917-1947. 30 years of control, and most of the present "Palestinians" being a collection of Arab peoples from many nations.

[Tinian]

There is no justification for entering another country and trying to take it over from other people simply because some ancestors thousands of years ago used to live in that territory. Religious arguments here are utterly void - any one can use a religious argument to support one's claim to some land - all you have to say is 'that's MY holy land not yours, I don't care that you might have your home here, go away!' and round and round we go in circles. The Palestinians who lived on that land had every right to stay there - it's not their fault that thousands of years ago there was a diaspora. People forget that there were Zionist terrorists who actively sought to oust the Palestinians from land that they lived on (and still today we have zionist terrorists such as Sharon, and NOT only palestinian terrorists).

Well, I suppose you are correct if we look at history as being frozen in time. For example, everything that happenened in the region before the creation of Israel being lawful, older history (many invasions, many different powers controlling the land) and more recent times, whereby the Palestinians "own" the land and have been invaded. I think you will find that history lives on and although I do not support many of the actions of the Sharon government, I do support Israel's right to a nation state at the birthplace of their culture/religion and in a land where there has been continuous population for 5800 years. I do support the Palestinians' right to a nation state (although trying to define who and what a Palestinian is seems a problem to even the most die hard western supporter)as well, and hope for a lasting peace in the region. You are right in that there have been terrorists on both sides. It is tremendously difficult to broker any peaceful arrangement when people keep blowing up each other's kids. I do know for certain that on both sides, save for a minority of crazies, that people want to live happy, peaceful and productive lives.

Thanks for this comment. I largely agree with you. Except, however, about the issue of the Jewsih right to a nation state because they believe it is their birthplace and culture. The reason I have problems with this is that this view has bred an intolerance towards other people that already lived in that area that had a culture and religion different from the Jewish one. Call me wishy-washy, but I tend to lean toward the view of live and let live. But, as I said, as it is, both sides now have their claims to this land because of generations of people living there (though I would argue that the Palestinians have definitely had the raw deal and deserve a lot more). I think that the main reason why Westerners have a pro-Palestinian attitude (and I speak largely for Britain - which can seem two-faced seeing as the British were not very good at dealing with the problem when it all originally happened) is that they feel that the Palestinians have little voice in the matter and that they have been poorly treated by the Israeli government as well as by the surrounding arab states (who generally have treated the palestinians as pawns in their political games - all their rhetoric about arab brotherhood has been shown to be very suspect when one considers how they have treated their palestinian 'brothers' - especially Syria). Palestinians generally seem to me very disenfranchised, and the shame is that it's hard to see how their feelings of maltreatment can be solved in the present situation. The situation over the last few decades has unfortunately bred very strong extremist views on both sides and it all seems to be in a bit of a vicious cycle...

[Japhrodisiac]

There is no justification for entering another country and trying to take it over from other people simply because some ancestors thousands of years ago used to live in that territory. Religious arguments here are utterly void - any one can use a religious argument to support one's claim to some land - all you have to say is 'that's MY holy land not yours, I don't care that you might have your home here, go away!' and round and round we go in circles. The Palestinians who lived on that land had every right to stay there - it's not their fault that thousands of years ago there was a diaspora. People forget that there were Zionist terrorists who actively sought to oust the Palestinians from land that they lived on (and still today we have zionist terrorists such as Sharon, and NOT only palestinian terrorists).

Well, I suppose you are correct if we look at history as being frozen in time. For example, everything that happenened in the region before the creation of Israel being lawful, older history (many invasions, many different powers controlling the land) and more recent times, whereby the Palestinians "own" the land and have been invaded. I think you will find that history lives on and although I do not support many of the actions of the Sharon government, I do support Israel's right to a nation state at the birthplace of their culture/religion and in a land where there has been continuous population for 5800 years. I do support the Palestinians' right to a nation state (although trying to define who and what a Palestinian is seems a problem to even the most die hard western supporter)as well, and hope for a lasting peace in the region. You are right in that there have been terrorists on both sides. It is tremendously difficult to broker any peaceful arrangement when people keep blowing up each other's kids. I do know for certain that on both sides, save for a minority of crazies, that people want to live happy, peaceful and productive lives.

Thanks for this comment. I largely agree with you. Except, however, about the issue of the Jewsih right to a nation state because they believe it is their birthplace and culture. The reason I have problems with this is that this view has bred an intolerance towards other people that already lived in that area that had a culture and religion different from the Jewish one. Call me wishy-washy, but I tend to lean toward the view of live and let live. But, as I said, as it is, both sides now have their claims to this land because of generations of people living there (though I would argue that the Palestinians have definitely had the raw deal and deserve a lot more). I think that the main reason why Westerners have a pro-Palestinian attitude (and I speak largely for Britain - which can seem two-faced seeing as the British were not very good at dealing with the problem when it all originally happened) is that they feel that the Palestinians have little voice in the matter and that they have been poorly treated by the Israeli government as well as by the surrounding arab states (who generally have treated the palestinians as pawns in their political games - all their rhetoric about arab brotherhood has been shown to be very suspect when one considers how they have treated their palestinian 'brothers' - especially Syria). Palestinians generally seem to me very disenfranchised, and the shame is that it's hard to see how their feelings of maltreatment can be solved in the present situation. The situation over the last few decades has unfortunately bred very strong extremist views on both sides and it all seems to be in a bit of a vicious cycle...

You are right in that the problem should be focused on the Now of the region, as opposed to who has more of a right to which parcel of sand etc. Arab peoples had control over much more land than they do now in the region, but they decided that a military action to eradicate Jewish power and populace completely should take place. Armies were mounted and threats exchanged leading up to the six day war in 1967. I do believe that building new settlements is unforgiveable, but since it is still on the PLO charter to eliminate the state of Israel, and as Israeli troops are pulling out of occupied territories the bombings and terrorism increases, how can there be any real negotiation?

I think the plight of the Palestinians gets played up in the media. Lets see how British sentiment and perception changes as they head towards daily terrorist attacks. (I hope that this doesn't happen)

[eagle]

I Knoiw its complicated but i would say they have a right to the land as much as the Natives Americans of the USA have a right to have the USA back. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to decide but............

[Japhrodisiac]

I Knoiw its complicated but i would say they have a right to the land as much as the Natives Americans of the USA have a right to have the USA back. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to decide but............

Who are you talking about, the Palestinians, or the Jewish people? I would like to see Israel as a land of many religions and cultures all living peacefully together, governed by a mandate of equality and tolerance. I think that if the Muslim Arabs and Orthodox Jews could achieve some level of equality within their own cultures, the peace process could be a lot further along.

[moo_noy]

I Knoiw its complicated but i would say they have a right to the land as much as the Natives Americans of the USA have a right to have the USA back. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to decide but............

Who are you talking about, the Palestinians, or the Jewish people? I would like to see Israel as a land of many religions and cultures all living peacefully together, governed by a mandate of equality and tolerance. I think that if the Muslim Arabs and Orthodox Jews could achieve some level of equality within their own cultures, the peace process could be a lot further along.

sorry japh there is only room for one canada

[eagle]

I Knoiw its complicated but i would say they have a right to the land as much as the Natives Americans of the USA have a right to have the USA back. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to decide but............

Who are you talking about, the Palestinians, or the Jewish people? I would like to see Israel as a land of many religions and cultures all living peacefully together, governed by a mandate of equality and tolerance. I think that if the Muslim Arabs and Orthodox Jews could achieve some level of equality within their own cultures, the peace process could be a lot further along.

the question was rights to land

[eagle]

I Wish the city of Jerusalem will become a place where all religions come together in peace and harmony then i would feel they are so full of it

[CiaranM]

Ciaran, I have heard your slanted reporting on this subject in many other posts. I was responding to you bashing Halomi over the head in a very ungentlemanly manner, and wanted to provide a little history lesson for those who think that the Palestinians are just poor innocent victims of a hostile Jewish nation. To think that large numbers of the so called "Palestinians" arrived after the 1982 conflict in Lebanon, and so on, and they should have rights over and above peoples that have continuously populated the area for 6 millenia..

Japh my "bashing" of Halomi was more than 3 months ago ! what's happened now to raise the issue again. now i asked u before and i'll ask u again, what have i said on this issue that is inaccurate ??

now as for "slanted reporting". how many of the current jewish inhabitants of israel have a family history of residing there for the last 6 millenia ?

in 1948 there were approximately 650,000 jews living in israel, there are now roughly 6,500,000. more than 3 million of these were immigrants. they haven't exactly been continuously populating 78% of the former consulate of palestine for 6 millenia !!

[Japhrodisiac]

Ciaran, I have heard your slanted reporting on this subject in many other posts. I was responding to you bashing Halomi over the head in a very ungentlemanly manner, and wanted to provide a little history lesson for those who think that the Palestinians are just poor innocent victims of a hostile Jewish nation. To think that large numbers of the so called "Palestinians" arrived after the 1982 conflict in Lebanon, and so on, and they should have rights over and above peoples that have continuously populated the area for 6 millenia..

Japh my "bashing" of Halomi was more than 3 months ago ! what's happened now to raise the issue again. now i asked u before and i'll ask u again, what have i said on this issue that is inaccurate ??

now as for "slanted reporting". how many of the current jewish inhabitants of israel have a family history of residing there for the last 6 millenia ?

in 1948 there were approximately 650,000 jews living in israel, there are now roughly 6,500,000. more than 3 million of these were immigrants. they haven't exactly been continuously populating 78% of the former consulate of palestine for 6 millenia !!

650,000 as you stated marks a continuous population, does it not? Where do you think the Jews that were killed in the Holocaust recieved their ancestrty from? At what point in history do we freeze all actions, and say, ok, you are now from here, you from there and you can't return to your place of ancestry. The point that I'm trying to make here is that Jews have been continuously populating the area, despite many of them leaving during certain periods of occupation. Palestinians are..who exactly? When I spent time in Israel, I met many, many "Palestinians" from Lebanon, from Jordan, some from Syria etc. Its a mish mash term for ousted Arabs that want a homeland. I Do believe that they have a right to a safe home, to self govern, to live happy and productive lives. But, where is their ancestry? Are they descendants of the Marmeluke army? The Fatimid Egyptians? The Seljuks? The Ottoman Turks?Israel was and will always be a melting pot of cultures/religions. Lets hope they can figure out how to live together.

My apologies if it seemed that I was bashing you over the head, Ciaran. Someone started this thread back up and I did not see the long interval between Halomi bashing and now.

[CiaranM]

Well, Ciaran, the Arab states are just as culpable for the situation in Gaza and the West Bank and Jerusalem because they were just as culpable as Israel for the start of the 1967 war. And few nations that win territory in war just turn around and give it back. Right or wrong, that's the way of the world, not some unique sin of Israel.

You've said Israel doesn't appear ready to give up control of east Jerusalem or the West Bank. Appear is the operative word there, Ciaran. You can't say ulitmately what the Israelis will do in the future. We could just as easily say the Palestinians don't appear to be ready give up killing innocent Israelis women and children even if they get the West Bank and Jerusalem.

i can accept that the arab states were just as responsible as israel for the start of the 1967 war, but i don't believe they are currently as responsible for the prevailing situation.now as for nations not giving back territory they win in a war, why was saddam not allowed to keep kuwait ? i don't believe he should have been allowed to keep it, but why do different rules/standards apply. there are several UN resolutions specifically ruling than israel should withdraw to it's pre 1967, it ain't going to happen any time soon.

now loburt as for ur second point, is it really meant as a serious comment ? numerous israeli leaders and politicians have made i t quite clear they have no intention of giving up the major settlements in the west bank or east jerusalem.

and as for what the israeli's will do in the future, i would have thought the continuing expansion of the settlements and building a great big f**king wall around them is a pretty good indication of their future intentions.

[CiaranM]

650,000 as you stated marks a continuous population, does it not? Where do you think the Jews that were killed in the Holocaust recieved their ancestrty from? At what point in history do we freeze all actions, and say, ok, you are now from here, you from there and you can't return to your place of ancestry. The point that I'm trying to make here is that Jews have been continuously populating the area, despite many of them leaving during certain periods of occupation. Palestinians are..who exactly? When I spent time in Israel, I met many, many "Palestinians" from Lebanon, from Jordan, some from Syria etc. Its a mish mash term for ousted Arabs that want a homeland. I Do believe that they have a right to a safe home, to self govern, to live happy and productive lives. But, where is their ancestry? Are they descendants of the Marmeluke army? The Fatimid Egyptians? The Seljuks? The Ottoman Turks?Israel was and will always be a melting pot of cultures/religions. Lets hope they can figure out how to live together.

My apologies if it seemed that I was bashing you over the head, Ciaran. Someone started this thread back up and I did not see the long interval between Halomi bashing and now.

japh, sure a small population of jews have been continuously populating that area for several, but after the diaspora it was a VERY small population maybe 10-15,000. surrounded by a much larger arab population. jews did not start returning in large numbers until the 1800's and even then the real influx didn't start until after 1940. so basically the VAST majority of jews living in israel now do not have recent links to this country.

you ask the question who are Palestinians, well who or what is an israeli ?? is it any jew born anywhere in the world ? do they all have the right to return ?

i mean isreal now is a mish mash of jewish ppl from all over the world.

no worries about bashing me over the head, i probably need it now and then, but i see loburt's on my case now as well. see what u started japh !!

[killerflix]

="CiaranM

now as for nations not giving back territory they win in a war, why was saddam not allowed to keep kuwait ?

...ehhhh....last time I checked, saddam lost the war...

[CiaranM]

="CiaranM

now as for nations not giving back territory they win in a war, why was saddam not allowed to keep kuwait ?

...ehhhh....last time I checked, saddam lost the war...

not the one against kuwait he didn't.

[killerflix]

interesting concept...so, japan keeps manchuria, hitler keeps france and the north koreans get seoul?

[Loburt]

i can accept that the arab states were just as responsible as israel for the start of the 1967 war, but i don't believe they are currently as responsible for the prevailing situation.now as for nations not giving back territory they win in a war, why was saddam not allowed to keep kuwait ?

Well, Ciaran, Saddam didn't voluntarily give up Kuwait. It took another war to get him out of there. Most states don't voluntarily give up territory they conquer, not just Israel.

there are several UN resolutions specifically ruling than israel should withdraw to it's pre 1967, it ain't going to happen any time soon.

Once again, Ciaran, this is where your obvious bias, that several contributors to this thread have pointed out, reveals itself.

The resolution also stated that Israel should be allowed to exist in peace and security. Have the Palestinians (or the Saudis and others who are paying for suicide bombers) lived up to their end of the bargain?

Absolutely not. But you only bring up the part that pertains to Israel.

Clear bias on your part, Ciaran, Your not credible on this issue at all.

Have the Saudis, Syrians and some others even signed a peace deal with Israel? Should Israel give back the Golan Heights to a nation that is still technically at war with it and won't come to the table? Bollocks.

Furthermore, when the subject of why the Palestinian leaders haven't clamped down on terrorism comes up in conversation you just whine "oh, but they can't do that because that's hard. That would put them at risk."

So, Israel has to live up to all its obligations, but Palestinians get a free pass on terrorism because stopping it is just so damn hard.

Obvious and inexcusable bias on your part.

Rabin took a great risk to make peace, and paid for it with his life.

Sharon, as unappetizing as he is, is taking risks now. And paying a political price for it and risks the same fate as Rabin.

But the Palestinians? Oh, it's just so hard to get them stop blowing up women and children so don't put too much pressure on them.

Blow it out your behind, Ciaran. They haven't lived up to the UN resolutions either.

Be fair, although it's obvious to most people here that when it comes to this issue you are incapable of that.

now loburt as for ur second point, is it really meant as a serious comment ? numerous israeli leaders and politicians have made i t quite clear they have no intention of giving up the major settlements in the west bank or east jerusalem.

and as for what the israeli's will do in the future, i would have thought the continuing expansion of the settlements and building a great big f**king wall around them is a pretty good indication of their future intentions.

You're damn right I'm serious Ciaran. I'm sure a few years back you would have said the exact same thing about Gaza. But they are pulling out. So you have no idea what will happen in the future.

While Sharon and the right wing extremists may cling to the idea of a Greater Israel, most Israelis do not. Sharon can't go against the will of the majority of Israelis and he wont' be around forever anyway.

Furthermore, it often takes a right winger to do the hard things necessary to make peace with enemies. Witness Rabin. Witness Nixon with China.

I'm not saying Sharon is that man. Personally I detest him and I wish he were gone. But in the end, you don't have a crystal ball and you have no idea what he will eventually do. And if he doesn't tatke that great risky leap towards full peace, someone else after him will do it.

Despite your biased and prejudiced point of view.

[CiaranM]

there are several UN resolutions specifically ruling than israel should withdraw to it's pre 1967, it ain't going to happen any time soon.

Once again, Ciaran, this is where your obvious bias, that several contributors to this thread have pointed out, reveals itself.

The resolution also stated that Israel should be allowed to exist in peace and security. Have the Palestinians (or the Saudis and others who are paying for suicide bombers) lived up to their end of the bargain?

Absolutely not. But you only bring up the part that pertains to Israel.

Clear bias on your part, Ciaran, Your not credible on this issue at all.

Have the Saudis, Syrians and some others even signed a peace deal with Israel? Should Israel give back the Golan Heights to a nation that is still technically at war with it and won't come to the table? Bollocks.

Furthermore, when the subject of why the Palestinian leaders haven't clamped down on terrorism comes up in conversation you just whine "oh, but they can't do that because that's hard. That would put them at risk."

So, Israel has to live up to all its obligations, but Palestinians get a free pass on terrorism because stopping it is just so damn hard.

Obvious and inexcusable bias on your part.

Rabin took a great risk to make peace, and paid for it with his life.

Sharon, as unappetizing as he is, is taking risks now. And paying a political price for it and risks the same fate as Rabin.

But the Palestinians? Oh, it's just so hard to get them stop blowing up women and children so don't put too much pressure on them.

Blow it out your behind, Ciaran. They haven't lived up to the UN resolutions either.

Be fair, although it's obvious to most people here that when it comes to this issue you are incapable of that.

now loburt, while i will accept i am more sympathetic towards the palestinian situation, that is because i feel they have been dealt the worst hand in the ongoing conflict in the middle east. however, urself and japh and halomi would appear to be just as biased (if not more so) towards israel's position.

and again u r claiming i have said things i never said, ie.

Furthermore, when the subject of why the Palestinian leaders haven't clamped down on terrorism comes up in conversation you just whine "oh, but they can't do that because that's hard. That would put them at risk."

now what i have actually said, and if memory is correct in was in conversation not on this website, was that the palestinian authority was not strong enough to take on hamas in an armed struggle and would have to presuade them to cease the violence through dialogue. don't forget israel and palestine had lived side by side since oslo (1993) fairly peacefully until sharon visited the site of al-Aqsa in a move designed to increase tensions in the region. also during this period israel continued to expand it's settlements in direct breach of the oslo agreement. now Abbas is once again trying to deal with the militants through dialogue and negotiation.

as for the golan heights syria and israel had the geneva meeting in 2000 (i believe), but with the israeli refusal to move back to it's 1967 borders and the US acting as the "dishonest broker" the talks collapsed.

again the same thing happened with the palestinians at camp david in 2000, but because the israeli's r the natural allies of the us, immediately the us (and the media) blamed the syrians and the palestinians for the failure of both summits.

as for blowing up women and children, israel blows up more of then than the palestinians can ever hope to do.

rabin took risks, but he was killed by an israeli jew not a palestinian.

sharon is a war criminal and there are several european countries he can visit as he will be arrested and tried as such.

i have to say loburt i am disappointed in ur post. u know i don't agree with the use of violence and u know i believe the palestinians must move away from violence and pursue their objectives through only peaceful means. however, u imply i turn a blind eye to the use of violence by the palestinians and that is simply not true. however, they have lived under occupation and severe hardship since 1967. they r extremely poor. their leadership was weak and inefficient (and deliberately kept that way). they have little infra structure or semblance of goverment. hamas is extremely strong and well supported. however, a ceasefire is place (although fragile) yet israel continues to expand it's settlements and build it's wall on palestinian territory. is this the way forward towards peace ? israel also refuses to enter negotiations on a final settlemnet. is this the way to peace ?

i don't see that i am any more biased that other contributers to this debate.

[Loburt]

Listen Ciaran,

I haven't had tiime yet to read through your entire post and respond point by point. But I'm going to immediately respond to the first one:

Neither Japhy, Halomi nor I are biased in favor of Israel. Halomi said some postiive things about Israelis and nothing negative about Palestinians. That prompted you to attack her in an ungentlemanly way. I fail to see how saying somethig positive about Israel or Israelis proves bias.

Both Japhy and I have several times acknowledged the crimes, humand rights violations and other bad things that Israel has done and is doing. We don't like them and we want it to change.

You, however, never acknowlegde the long list of crimes committed by Palestinians.

Anytime anyone raises a point you immediately turn it back to the crimes of the Israelis without ever acknowledging the disgusting and iexcusable acts of some Palestinians.

On this topic, as noted by many observers here, you are not honest. You are biased.

[CiaranM]

Listen Ciaran,

I haven't had tiime yet to read through your entire post and respond point by point. But I'm going to immediately respond to the first one:

Neither Japhy, Halomi nor I are biased in favor of Israel. Halomi said some postiive things about Israelis and nothing negative about Palestinians. That prompted you to attack her in an ungentlemanly way. I fail to see how saying somethig positive about Israel or Israelis proves bias.

Both Japhy and I have several times acknowledged the crimes, humand rights violations and other bad things that Israel has done and is doing. We don't like them and we want it to change.

You, however, never acknowlegde the long list of crimes committed by Palestinians.

Anytime anyone raises a point you immediately turn it back to the crimes of the Israelis without ever acknowledging the disgusting and iexcusable acts of some Palestinians.

On this topic, as noted by many observers here, you are not honest. You are biased.

loburt u r starting to sound scutfargus here, u r right and everyone else is wrong unless they agree with u. as i have said b4 in many conversations with u i DO NOT agree with the palestinian use of violence against israel. however, the palestinian violence is a direct result of the illegal occupation of their land in direct contravention of international law and several UN resolutions.

and the notion that i am biased while u, japh and halomi r not is so absurd as to be laughable.

again loburt i am extremely disappointed u feel the need to label me as dishonest. please show me 1 dishonest thing i have said here. if u can't i feel u should withdraw that remark.

just because u don't agree with me doesn't mean i am wrong ....

[Loburt]

Ciaran, when it comes to this issue you are intellectually dishonest.

I will not withdraw that remark.

You take a subject that is very gray and turn it into black and white. That's not something Japhy or I have done.

Your last post contained your first acknowledgement of Palestinian violence. And yet once again you throw it right back and blame the Israelis. The Palestinians are never at fault in anything you write. And if someone so much as says Israel has done anything worthy of praise you respond with an obscenity-laced pro-Palestinian rant that never mentions the horrors for which they are responsible.

Several times in these forums I have criticized Israel and said some of their policies and actions are wrong.

You never do the same for the Palestinians. It's always the fault of the Israelis in your posts. That's clear bias.

You justify it by saying Israelis have killed more Palestinians than vice versa.

Well, British soldiers have killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed Brits. So by your logic I guess we shouldn't criticize the London train bombers.

You don't even really read what we write. Look at your previous post where you're going on about how an Israeli killed Rabin.

Exactly, Ciaran. That was my whole point from the post you barely read before launching into another one of your dogmatic biased rants. Try actually reading what we write before spewing your one-sided propaganda.

Just as Israeli leaders put their lives at risk against the extremists in their own society to take steps towards peace, so must Palestinian leaders do the same.

And, thankfully, some have.

But yes, whether your memory is up to par or not, you did in fact say "it's too hard" for the Palestinian leaders to do something like that. I remember the conversation clearly.

Believe me, it's not just Halomi, Japhy and me. I've gotten other PMs telling me its pointless debating with you because it's like talking to a brick wall. And on this issue they are right about that.

By constantly attacking one side while rarely if ever criticizing the sins of the other you contribute nothing useful or constructive to these discussions.

You demand an example of your intellectual dihonesty. Okay, here's one.

You frequently bring up Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions be not withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. Yet, as pointed out several times to you, the resolution also call on the Arabs to guarantee Israel's right to exist in peace and security. They have not done that and so they have also failed to comply with the UN resolution.

Yet you persist in using the fact that Israel has not complied with the resolution in your posts without ever acknowledging that the Arabs have also failed to comply. You know that's the truth, but you ignore it.

That is intellectually dishonest.

[CiaranM]

Ciaran, when it comes to this issue you are intellectually dishonest.

I will not withdraw that remark.

You take a subject that is very gray and turn it into black and white. That's not something Japhy or I have done.

Your last post contained your first acknowledgement of Palestinian violence.

Several times in these forums I have criticized Israel and said some of their policies and actions are wrong.

You never do the same for the Palestinians. It's always the fault of the Israelis in your posts. That's clear bias.

You justify it by saying Israelis have killed more Palestinians than vice versa.

Well, British soldiers have killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed Brits. So by your logic I guess we shouldn't criticize the London train bombers.

You don't even really read what we write. Look at your previous post where you're going on about how an Israeli killed Rabin.

Exactly, Ciaran. That was my whole point from the post you barely read before launching into another one of your dogmatic biased rants. Try actually reading what we write before spewing your one-sided propaganda.

But yes, whether your memory is up to par or not, you did in fact say "it's too hard" for the Palestinian leaders to do something like that. I remember the conversation clearly.

Believe me, it's not just Halomi, Japhy and me. I've gotten other PMs telling me its pointless debating with you because it's like talking to a brick wall. And on this issue they are right about that.

By constantly attacking one side while rarely if ever criticizing the sins of the other you contribute nothing useful or constructive to these discussions.

You demand an example of your intellectual dihonesty. Okay, here's one.

You frequently bring up Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions be not withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. Yet, as pointed out several times to you, the resolution also call on the Arabs to guarantee Israel's right to exist in peace and security. They have not done that and so they have also failed to comply with the UN resolution.

Yet you persist in using the fact that Israel has not complied with the resolution in your posts without ever acknowledging that the Arabs have also failed to comply. You know that's the truth, but you ignore it.

That is intellectually dishonest.

loburt sometimes u really r full of ****. in several discussions with u i have repeatedly said i DO NOT believe in the palestinian use of violence in their struggle with israel, something u choose to forget. and i didn't say it was too hard for the palestinian leadership to take on the militants, i said they weren't STRONG enough to do so. don't forget the israeli's have constantly attacked members of the palestinian police force and their stations. at present the PA is NOT strong enough to confront hamas. at best it would lead to a bitter civil war, at worst it would lead to hamas winning and assumming leadership of the palestinian movement and this is a distinct (and not very pleasant) possibility.

yes i said an israeli killed rabin, but u didn't, u just said he paid for it with his life. ppl could easily assume he was killed by a palestinian, so who is being intellectually dishonest now loburt ??

yes the arabs should make peace with israel, but until israel agrees to return to it's 1967 borders this is not going to happen. suppose a catch 22 or chicken and egg scenario.

and loburt i have lost count of the number of ppl who have told me arguing with u is a waste of time, so don't come that numerous pm's crap. if someone's got something to say here's the place to say it.

and if u really want to look at bias look at the US's record in vetoing resolutions against israel in the UN.

[Loburt]

Well Ciaran, if you want to look at bias at the UN, look at the Zionism is racism resolution which the Arabs bought with money and threats of witholding oil.

Would they be an honest broker? Go ahead and say yes and continue proving your intellectual dishonesty.

I never implied Rabin was killed by a Palestinian and anyone familiar enough with this subject to be reading this thread knows that. More dishonesty on your part.

I'm full of sh*t?

Once again, your use of obscenities shows what a loser you are on this topic.

I know what you said in person, Ciaran, so you can deny it to the moon, but you're not being honest.

I have told people who have commented what a foul-mouthed, obnoxious, close-minded and dogmatic prick you can be in these forums that you are actually a great guy and much more reasonable in person.

But not in these forums you're not. You're everything they say you are.

And you are full of it.

[Japhrodisiac]

I really don't like the flavour that this thread has taken on. I think that Ciaran opened a can of worms by name calling and being an ass to Halomi which got Loburt and I on the march to even things out a bit. Loburt is probably being heavy handed at the moment, but is doing so to get you (Ciaran) to admit to your bias on this subject, which I think at this point is obvious. I dont particularly mind that you have a bias, People study an issue and come to a point of view based on their interpretation of events. Just admit to it.

I will admit to a slight bias in favour of Israel on this topic. I am Jewish, have spent time there and have extended family that lives in Israel. Its a beautiful but twisted place. A place to see much of man's folly played out in blood, due to religious and political rigidity on both sides. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to live there aside from religious reasons, and I am an atheist, although I could be talked into Buddhism, I like the clothes.

I am interested in the area from an historical perspective, and there are many intriguing political and sociological events going on worthy of investigation. Arab nations and community world wide use the Palestinian situation as an example of western hostility towards Arab peoples. Arab people world wide pay for acts of terrorism within Israel to keep the situation going. Then they in turn teach their children how hateful the Jews are and how they will not be happy until every Muslim Arab is dead.

Jewish Israeli leaders opened a huge can of worms by taking Golan, Sinai and Gaza but in military terms, what were the options? To let troops and tanks mount on their borders, while broadcasting threats over radio, publishing the imminent attack in newspapers then when israel fired the fist shot, they cried to the world that Israel started a war to sieze more land? Laughable, but politically clever. This level of deciept and dishonesty is frankly part of the Arab culture, to manipulate facts and to this end they have been very effective with the world press.

Look at a map of the region, and see why in military terms Israel needed to maintain control over these territories. Without these captures, and hostile neighbors on all sides who all signed treaties to eliminate Israel, including Jordan who was once an ally to Israel. Israel would have been completely cut off of supply lines, and allowed Arab armies to close right in on them. Has the situation changed so much? Anwar Sadat was killed for his moderate stand on the position, signing a peace treaty with Israel. The current leader of the Palestinians is a noted terrorist. It still exists today to eliminate Israel on the PLO charter. Bombings increase when Israel pulls troops out of territories in an effort to comply with agreements. Where do you go from here?

[CiaranM]

I really don't like the flavour that this thread has taken on. I think that Ciaran opened a can of worms by name calling and being an ass to Halomi which got Loburt and I on the march to even things out a bit. Loburt is probably being heavy handed at the moment, but is doing so to get you (Ciaran) to admit to your bias on this subject, which I think at this point is obvious. I dont particularly mind that you have a bias, People study an issue and come to a point of view based on their interpretation of events. Just admit to it.

I will admit to a slight bias in favour of Israel on this topic.

i think i did just about here

now loburt, while i will accept i am more sympathetic towards the palestinian situation, that is because i feel they have been dealt the worst hand in the ongoing conflict in the middle east. however, urself and japh and halomi would appear to be just as biased (if not more so) towards israel's position.

however according to loburt i am the only 1 here biased in anyway, which is complete rubbish. what i (and i assume most other ppl here) post is my opinion, my view, my belief. so off course that is biased in the sense it is what i in my judgement believe to be the truth. or if loburt likes "my view of the truth".

if u want a "fair and balanced view" go watch fox don't read my posts!!

appreciate ur answer japh, but don't agree it was me opened the can of worms. u got at me about something i had posted 3 months ago and then loburt comes wading in, as i told u he would. so thanks for that mate.