To the victor goes the spoils
80Should Israel return to the 1967 borderline?
Historically speaking there was no Palestinian Nation prior to 1967. The 'Palestinian' nation was a creation of the United Nations, a name to give the Arab's who had settled in Jerusalem. The war in 1967 was Israel's way of defending Jerusalem to outside invaders. So the question or President Obama's assumption that Israel needs to return to a 1967 borderline with Palestine is false.
It would be like saying the Kurds of Turkey, and Iraq deserve to have their land back and a return to their borders. Since they were never a nation there is little chance that Iraq and Turkey would go for something like that.
The West Bank and Gaza, historically part of Israel, are myths created to regain territory lost in the wars waged against Israel by Jordan and Egypt. In the 1967 war, Jordanians were driven out of Judea/Samaria and out of Jerusalem. The Gaza Strip had been occupied by Egypt. -- There is No Palestine, The Moral Liberal, May 23rd 2011
In 1948 transjordan Arab league attempted to capture all of Jerusalem which belonged to Israel, which later developed into what was called the Six Day's war, in 1967, Israel managed to capture a small portion of the city. In other words the war in 1967 was Israel retaking land that had originally belonged to them. Essentially what is going on in Israel right now is the same War that Israel has been fighting since 1948. Arab nations are conquering nations. They attack other nations and take over. What President Obama is wanting to do is avoid the attack and simply hand land over that never rightfully belonged to the Arabs to begin with.
Would returning to the old borders change anything?
The Arab nations have maintained for over a hundred years that Israel needs to be destroyed. A return to the 1967 border won't do anything but strengthen the number of Arabs in Israel and place more Israeli's in danger of annihilation. When the discussion of the 1967 borders come up what we are really discussing is genocide.
The Palestinian nation isn't a nation, a nation is defined by borders and a form of Government. Neither of which the Palestinian Authority possess. The argument that the President makes is for the refugees, the Palestinian refugees. Forced out of Israel. However as the Moral Liberal points out:
There is never any mention of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who, over the course of the wars against Israel, became real refugees, forced to flee to Israel from Arab nations. In 1948, 140,000 fled Algeria, 75,000 fled Egypt, 135,000 fled Iraq, and 265,000 Morocco, along with others from Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, they were all absorbed by Israel.
There is a lot of historical research that proves these facts about the Israeli Arab conflict. However there is also a lot of mis information out there that disputes these facts. In some cases when there is more mis information it becomes difficult for private individuals to sort out the fact from the fiction. It also becomes easier to believe the mis information. Which might be why the President believes that a return to the borders is the right thing to do. The mis information that has been put forth by the Arab League is that Jerusalem belongs to them. Part of this mis information included suggesting that Adam the first Man was in fact a Moslem not a Jewish man.
This information is put out because the Arab League believes that the only true religion is Islam, and the both Judaism and Christianity are wrong. This conflict has been going on essentially since the beginning of the Muslim religion. It will be ongoing until the Muslims/Arab nations are defeated, or they defeat the Israeli's. Which is why more than ever America needs to stand with Israel.
CommentsLoading...
dahoglund: Thank you for your comment.
If Israel should give back conquered lands to the Arabs, and the US should give back conquered land to Mexico, why not require all lands ever conquered anywhere to go back to their original owners?
Why require it from only Israel and the US?
WillStarr: You make a good point. What would happen to Ireland if that was the case? Not to mention the various Asian countries that are "occupied". Quite interesting. Thanks
Rachel
The arabs in Palestine were, until 1918 part of The Ottoman Empire. They were not stateless. It was just that their country broke up.
They had been living in that area for more than a thousand years, and they definitely have a better title to the land than the modern state of Israel.
You cannot dispose of land, in the twenty first century, based on a semi mythical promise from God made 3500 years ago.
If the jewish people deserved a state, it should have been carved out from some of the countries in Central Europe, who oppressed them, and the arabs should have been left in peace.
If the apologists for Israel watched a few videos of jewish settlers in The West Bank stoning arab children, who are just trying to go to school, or saw how Israel is stealing the water from all their arab neighbours, they might think slightly differently about them.
Although, somehow, I doubt that.
Christopheranton: If you believe that Christianity and Judaism is a myth but not Islam you have serious issues. Other than the misinformation put out by the Muslims, what is your proof that this land belongs more to Arabs than Israeli's?
I say right now, Israels biggest adversary is Obama. He is on the verge of creating a very, very bad situation in that land. Israel is going to be forced to take measures in their own hand, to protect themselves. The muslims have a hatred towards them and will NEVER relinquish this attitude until they have their way and "removed them from the map"....Ahmadinejad has made this claim well-known.
The U.S. will be in serious trouble if we lose this relationship with Isreal.
just ONE more reason WHY Obama must go in 2012.
Good summation. I enjoyed the way Bibi told Obama to go piss up a rope in a civil way.
The Frog
I ddnt say that either Christianity or Judaism was a myth.
But if you believe in a just and merciful God, you can not condone the land grab that was made in Palestine in 1948.
"There is never any mention of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who, over the course of the wars against Israel, became real refugees, forced to flee to Israel from Arab nations. In 1948, 140,000 fled Algeria, 75,000 fled Egypt, 135,000 fled Iraq, and 265,000 Morocco, along with others from Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, they were all absorbed by Israel".
Big Deal!
That is nothing compared with the seven and a half million decendants of the displaced arabs.
The jews you say had to move out of the arab countries, had probably lived there contentedly for centuries, and would be still living there happily, if the zionists, and their fellow travellers in America, hadnt upset the balance in the region by sponsoring the State of Israel in 1948.
I dont know what misinformation you are talking about. But this is historical fact.
At the time of "The Balfour Declaration" in 1917 the jewish population of Palestine was about 10%. Mass immigration was allowed to swamp the arab population, and their farms and towns were stolen.
If you ever go to Jerusalem, you will see a lovely big square beside the western wall of Herod's Temple. This was made by the forcible eviction of hundreds of people from their homes. These people and their ancestors had lived there for centuries. What was done to them stinks to High Heaven.
You probably claim to be a believer in democracy. How can you say that what happened in Palestine was democratic?
Arabs are people too. And they are also God's children.
Palestine was the name given the territory between the Mediteranian and the Jordan River by the Roman Empire. That area included the nation Israel. There has never been a nation called Palestine. There has been a Jewish presence in this area for over 4000 years. Palestine was a territory of the Roman Empire. The area that was not Israel is an area no one really wanted until the Jews restablished their homeland, then Muslim Arabs wanted everything.
CMerritt: Thank you for the comment.
Frog Prince: Thanks for the comment.
If nobody really wanted it, where did the seven and a half displaced people come from?
Christopheranton: There can't be two conflicting versions of historical fact. When there are one is false, I am not a zionist, but I do believe based on a large amount of research that these so called historical facts you are claiming are in fact misinformation presented by the Islamic community as a plan to dominate the world. Whether you disagree with me or not is irrelevant unless you can provide compelling evidence I am not going to be convinced that the poor Arabs are treated worse than the evil zionist Jews. I have a feeling that you have some facts screwed up based on your own personal beliefs.
As far as Democracy, no I don't like Democracy at all, I see it as one step away from Socialism, which is why this country should have stayed a Republic. The Founders knew how horrible Democracies are and warned against them.
Rachel
Rommergrot: I might be mistaken, the way I understood it Palestine is a form of Philistine. I also understood is as Palestine was the name that was given to the Arabs living in Israel by the United Nations. Again, I could be wrong on these two facts.
Rachel
Christopheranton: "If nobody really wanted it, where did the seven and a half displaced people come from?" I have no idea what you are talking about. I assume that is a typo and that you don't really believe there are seven and one half of a person displaced somewhere. Nobody wanted what? Please elaborate?
Rachel
rachelrobinson.
The figure is not a typo. I was answering rommergrot.
You can check it out here.
http://www.prc.org.uk/newsite/en/Important-Facts/6
http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/DesktopModules/Articles/Art
You will probably prefer to ignore the figures about the arab population, since you say you are not a believer in democracy, and you appear to consider Muslims as less than human anyway.
This extract might be useful as well.
In 1917, during the British mandate, the estimates of population in Palestine were (642,850) person, distributed as (515,000) Muslim, (62,550) Christian, and (65,300) Jews.
Your right about Philistine. When Rome named it Palestine the name was derived from Philistine, but this was long before the UN. You've heard the story of David and Goliath; Goliath was of the Philistines.
Christopheranton: Perhaps you can explain this too me, how come when the left can't support their side they come up with pointless attacks? "You will probably prefer to ignore the figures about the arab population, since you say you are not a believer in democracy, and you appear to consider Muslims as less than human anyway."
Because I think that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to indiscriminately kill whomever they choose, you assume that means I think they are less than human.
Since you would rather make up attacks then stick to facts I don't see the point in debating you. If it makes you feel better to believe the lie I can't possibly convince you of the truth.
For the accusation that I think of Muslims as less than human, I don't. I think that any religion that calls for the death of another entire religion to be extremely dangerous, and for anyone to believe in that religion to have serious psychological problems. That doesn't mean they are less than human. Thanks for the baseless attack. Again if you have any facts bring them to the table, if you want to post rude messages claiming the author is a bad horrible person find someone else to comment on.
Rachel
Rommergrot: Perhaps you would know this, I was told years ago that Muslims were a direct descendant of Abraham.
I knew the story of Goliath and that he was a Philistine, my knowledge of Christianity isn't overwhelming though, there is still a lot to learn.
Rachel
rachellrobinson.
I dont believe you are a bad horrible person. You just give backing to a bad horrible country.
I quoted you the population figures for the disputed territory for 1917.
How more factual do you need me to get?
If you want to condemn people for indiscriminate killing, why dont you condemn the israelis for the hundreds they killed in Gaza just a few years ago, not to speak of the killings when they invaded The Lebanon just before that?
By the way, I am not "left wing". On the contrary, my politics are very "right wing".
I just prefer the truth.
Christopheranton: If you prefer the truth why do you back the Arabs? Quoting the 1917 population would be like quoting it for any area in 1917. The population of 1917 doesn't matter now, we are talking about regressing Israel to 1967 if we do that millions of Israeli's will die. How can it possibly be okay for Millions of Israeli's to die? I don't believe that Israel is a bad horrible country. They do what they have to in order to protect their citizens. Some people believe that America is horrible for Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we needed to do more and have a harsher response. Does that mean that I am okay with Civilians dying? Yes I am as long as that means our civilians don't die. You can quote all the innocent Arab civilians that died at the hands of the Israeli's, why you say that it doesn't matter that Israeli's die or are displaced, when you say Big Deal! in response to my post about Israeli's, I can see that you believe it's okay for them to die or be displaced as long as the Arabs aren't harmed. Israel is fighting for their survival, so is the rest of the world. Arab nations want to take over to kill non Arab's and non Muslims, I will gladly support and stand with any nation that is willing to do anything to support themselves. Even at this risk of being accused of allying myself with "bad horrible country"
I don't think you prefer the truth, I think you would rather bury your head in the sand and believe the lie than admit that Arab's, Muslims, the Islamic religion as a whole is not a good thing.
As far as Israel invading Lebanon, according to Beyond the Beltway:
Hizbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers and killed up to seven Israelis in violence on either side of the Lebanese border on Wednesday, further inflaming Middle East tensions.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert described the Hizbollah attacks as an “act of war” by Lebanon and promised a “very painful and far-reaching” response. Two Lebanese civilians were killed and five people wounded in retaliatory Israeli air strikes after Hizbollah announced it had captured the Israelis. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to search for the captured soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said. Hizbollah and the Lebanese authorities said there was no large-scale incursion.
Israeli troops have not struck deep into Lebanon since they withdrew from a southern border strip in 2000 after waging an 18-year war of attrition with Hizbollah’s Shi’ite fighters.
So Israel isn't allowed to defend itself? Hizbollah can kill Israeli Soldiers but if Israel retaliates they are the bad guys. Good to know when the time comes you won't defend yourself or retaliate you will just lay down and let the terrorist win.
Rachel
"I don't think you prefer the truth, I think you would rather bury your head in the sand and believe the lie than admit that Arab's, Muslims, the Islamic religion as a whole is not a good thing."
It is estimated that 'only' 7% of Muslims are radical, so out of 1.5 billion, we only have to worry about 100,000,000 Islamic extremists willing to strap on bombs, or fly airplanes into our buildings.
We can all sleep better now.
WillStarr: I know I am among the minority that doesn't buy into the radical Muslim ideal. I think that all Muslims are violent not just 100,000,000 but the entire 1.5 billion. That of course is just my opinion and bound to anger a few people.
To answer your question as best I can:
Abraham had 2 sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was actually illegitmate and was the son of a servant. Her name was Hagar. Isaac was the legitamate son of Abraham and Sarah. It is beleived that the decendants of Ishmael are the Arabs, so yes, the Arabs are direct descendants of Abraham, but Muslims are followers of Mohammed. All Muslims are not Arabs and some Arabs are Christians. The descendants of Isaac are Israelites.
Rommergrot: Thank you, that is what I thought but I wasn't sure.
Rachel
rachellrobinson.
You are an impossible person to debate this issue with in a sensible way.
Your opinions are just too weird.
How can you say that all muslims are violent? I didnt see the little muslim girls retaliating when the israeli settlers were throwing stones at them as they tried to go to school.
As a human being you should be ashamed of yourself for defending such people.
Christopheranton: It is simple to debate with me in a sensible way, stick with facts. I stick with facts, you try to use emotions, opinions and name calling, and then get frustrated when it doesn't work. You want to debate stick with the facts, you will find out though in order to do that you actually have to agree with 99% of what I say.
As I mentioned it is only my opinion that all Muslims are violent. I am not trying to convince you that is a fact. I also stated that people will probably disagree with me, but that I felt that I am in a minority, that being, I am not the only person who believes all Muslims are violent. Anyway, if you want to have a sensible debate try using more facts and less "As a human being you should be ashamed of yourself for defending such people." Notice not once have I called your personal humanity into question or told you that you should be ashamed of your personal beliefs.
Rachel
Ashkenazi Jews are TURKS, and their homeland starts 800 miles NORTH of the northernmost border of Israel. The ONLY claim that Ashkenazi Jews can make on the land of Palestine is if they actually practice Judaism. Only the Sephardi Jews, who are Hebrews - have an equal, albeit far removed, claim to Palestine that the Arabs there have.
The 1948 LAND GRAB/THEFT by EuroJews, or Ashkenazi Jews was merely a "feel good" measure following the Holocaust. But "feel good" for who? NOT the Palestinians who were displaced and murdered by EUROPEANS that had NO HISTORICAL claim to that land.
Wesman Todd Shaw: I like you man I do, but the same rules apply what is your proof for this? You can make claims type in "yelling" upper case, but without proof you are just hollering that your opinion differs from my facts. I've brought my sources to light, please do the same.
Rachel
Well, I don't mean to add to the enmity, but no one can "claim" populated land - at least not, if they are set to live in peace with their new neighbours (which is obviously not the case here). Discussing religion is rather useless in this context; whether or not people are violent is a matter of possibility rather than religious belief.
As for "sources", I wouldn't necessarily rely on "The Moral Liberal's" definition of things, if I wanted to be taken seriously. A Nation is a group of people who share origin, heritage, culture, tradition, and (not necessarily) language. Calling a "country" a "nation" is a rather new, somewhat misleading definition - very much like calling every Muslim an Arab, or every Jew a Hebrew. Since around 60% of Jews live outside Israel, it's probably more justifiable to speak of a Jewish Nation than an Israeli Nation. "Palestine" is not a Nation, but "the Palestines" certainly are. Be they Muslims or Christians or Jews, be they Arabs or not: their social heritage is very similar, their religious belief is quite similar, and a lot of them speak both Hebrew and Arabic. So, without all the do-gooders who keep involving themselves in the matter, this conflict could have been settled for some 60 years.
Gerry MacOstair: Thank you for your comment. I understand what you mean by the technical definition of a Nation. However when most people think of a Nation, I think they think of it in terms of land and borders. the United States is a Nation that borders Canada and Mexico. I don't think they see a Nation so much as a race of people. Especially since so many "Nations" are made up of so many different types of people.
That being said, I think that the general idea is that Palestine isn't a physical nation and that is why the Palestinians don't have just cause to uproot the Israeli's and throw them out of the Physical nation of Israel.
I do agree that this conflict could have been settled 60 years ago, although I am not sure that how I see it as being settled and how you see it as being settled is the same thing. Perhaps that is why you say without all the do-gooders getting involved. There are probably do-gooders on both sides of the issue that are actually making it worse instead of allowing Israel and Palestine to settle this themselves, even if that means unfortunately they fight until the utter destruction of one or both nations.
Rachel
rachellrobinson.
You ask for facts.
The population figures that I gave you for Palestine in 1917 were facts.
The number of displaced Palestinians are facts.
It is a fact that there are 131 United Nations resolutions condemning Israel since 1967.
How many more facts do you need?
This is fact as well.
I hope you watch it. It might make you think a little.
Christopheranton: What does the population figure of 1917 have to do with the Middle East of today? Why does it matter more to you that Arabs were displaced then Israeli's were displaced?
Rachel
"It is a fact that there are 131 United Nations resolutions condemning Israel since 1967."
That's like saying the Red Sox don't like the Yankees!
The UN is a left wing, anti-Israel/anti-US piece of crap that the US should boot out of the US and rent the building. That's the only way we'll salvage anything out of that mistake!
WillStarr: Thanks for the comment. You stated what I didn't have the energy to find out. (I need to find a job that doesn't start at three o'clock in the AM).
Rachel
I guess you did actually read me right, and you do know what I meant by both "settle the conflict" and "do-gooders". Let's not waste time and energy, beating around the bush: exploiting the Bible or any other religious scripture to make a political point is utterly counterproductive. I would certainly agree with you that "returning to the old borders" wouldn't solve the matter - if anything it would rather add to the conflict. What both Nations - by the way, "Palestine" has both "borders and a form of government", and therefore is - by your own definition - to be considered a "Nation" - actually need is a sound protocol of communication. They both need to develop a sense of respect for each other, and perhaps a bit of self-respect, too. Which is, for once in this lifetime, why America should steer clear of matters they obviously fail to fully comprehend.
By the way, the notion that "this conflict has been going on essentially since the beginning of the Muslim religion" is historically inconclusive. Even Jewish scholars agree that "Israel" (the region) was lost in 567 BCE (and not "regained" until 1948), yet Muhammad was born around 570 CE. I guess we can agree that Islam didn't exist 1140 years before its founder. Suggesting "Adam", the character of the Tanach, had been a Muslim, is not misinformation, as you put it, it's "non-information", if not simply a poor joke.
Gerry MacOstair: I'll start at the end, the Adam comment I actually got from a Muslim website. Whether that was just one Muslims' view or not I couldn't tell you because I don't know what the Muslim teaching on Adam is. I've been reading the Koran, however it confuses me a lot more than the bible.
There are some (myself among them) that would argue simply because Palestine occupies Israeli territory that doesn't mean it is a nation. One argument I heard is that it would be the same as giving the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey their own 'Nation'.
I don't know if America should steer clear. There is a major fear out there if Israel falls so will the rest of the free world, Europe, America, all would fall to the Religious Right of the Muslims. That is where a lot of people disagree, those who don't see that Arabs or Muslims or Arab Muslims are in general bad, yet can reconcile that the so called good Arabs have well known established relationships with terrorist organizations.
I know there is no easy answers. I also know that I need to support Israel. I don't think that the two "nations" if you want to call them that. Will ever find a way to live with respect for one another. Unfortunately though, I also see that the rest of world is going to have to come to terms with this for our own survival.
Rachel
Would you provide the link. The "myth" might have started out as a joke, and developed a strange momentum. A Muslim friend once tried to pull my leg, telling me that Muhammad and Mary had been an item. I replied that, while it was possible that Muhammad had been fond of older women (his first wife had been 15 years his senior, after all), I wouldn't believe that he liked them that old.
You are certainly right, easy answers are hard to find, especially in this conflict. Yet a promising approach could be to apply the spirit of Theodore Herzl or Teddy Kollek or Moshe Dayan (after 1967). The only "major fear out there" is fueled by the possible loss of Jewish-American votes and money in Presidential campaigns, should America fail to back Israel. The Kurds/Iraqi/Turkish conflict is a minority issue, how can you possibly compare it to Israel/Palestine?
Gerry: I firmly don't believe that the Jewish American vote is why we ally ourselves with Israel. If that were the case then Obama wouldn't have spoken the way he did on the matter.
Here is one link about Adam and the Muslim faith: http://www.omeriqbal.com/a/54
Here is another link:
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.h
The one that I read however I didn't bookmark, if I find it again I will post it. These two though do mention how Adam plays into the Islamic religion.
Gerry; I apologize for not answering your other question about how the similarity between Kurd and Palestine can be drawn. I realized this morning after I left the house that I neglected to answer that question and I have just now gotten back to my computer.
Essentially where I got that conclusion from is a 2007 article about who deserves to be an Arab state more. The Author stated: But let us return to the present day and to why the world clamors for a Palestinian state but strangely turns its back upon Kurdish national independence and statehood. The universally accepted principle of self-determination seems not to apply to the Kurds.
In an article in the New York Sun on 6 July 2004 titled, The Kurdish Statehood Exception, Hillel Halkin exposed the discrimination and double standards employed against Kurdish aspirations of statehood. He wrote, “... the historic injustices done to them and their suffering over the years can be adequately redressed within the framework of a federal Iraq, in which they will have to make do - subject to the consent of a central, Arab-dominated government in Baghdad - with mere autonomy. Full Kurdish statehood is unthinkable. This, too, is considered to be self-evident.”
The brutal fact in realpolitik therefore is that the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have many friends in the oil rich Arab world - oil the world desperately needs for its economies. The Kurds, like the Jews, have few friends and the Kurds have no influence in the international corridors of power.
You can read more at:
Hi Rachel.
You make a point about The Kurds, but there is one essential difference.
The Kurds of Iraq and Turkey may well be prevented from having political freedom, but they have not had to endure invasion by an alien race, like the unfortunate palestinian arabs.
They have not had to see their homes demolished, and their farms confiscated to accomodate jewish pirates, who then throw stones at their children as they try to go to school.
This is not cheap emotionalism. This is fact.
There can not be peace in the middle east until there is a settlement of the grievances of the palestinian arabs.
This can only be done when the american backed Israelis give back the land that they have stolen.
Rachel, thank you for providing these links. I was a bit astonished to find neither of the two (about "Adam" and Islam) backing the notion that "Adam the first Man was in fact a Moslem not a Jewish man". To be honest with you, I still can't see how "Adam" could possibly be a follower of any of the discussed faiths. To be a Jew, he would have to be a descendant of Abraham, right? Unless we are going to fundamentally revise the Bible, there is not much of chance any one before Moses can be seriously considered a "religious" person. Abraham, as described in the Bible, may have been a "spiritual" person, but he was not "religious". He mainly acted according to intuition and his own sense of ethics (Genesis 21:9-14). Interestingly, Moses is a prophet mutually accepted by all Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
As for your finding the Koran more confusing than the Bible (without knowing which translation of either scripture you actually read), if your time allows, try to read it like a revision of older scriptures. Yet, please consider that neither book had been written for a modern readership. The Bible, though considerably older than the Koran, has been revised several times, and translated even more often. Consequently, its content is more easily readable to us modern people. The Koran, on the other hand, is supposed to be read in Arabic. There is a good reason why the Koran is not to be translated: translations are a natural source of mistakes. For us modern people, keeping in mind that any old scripture had been written for contemporary readers, is paramount to comprehension. However, taking any of them verbatim, and - even worse - trying to apply their indisputable wisdom to every aspect of modern life, I deem extremely dangerous.
As for the third link you provided (Kurds): I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but Mr Sharpe is definitely fond of inflammatory speeches, some of which leaning dangerously towards demagogy. On a humane level, it goes without saying that every Nation should have their own country, if any possible - but even the implication that some people deserve more of it than others is highly unethical, to say the least. I really don't believe that following his lead is going to do your cause any justice.
Why is President Obama so conveniently misquoted, as Rachell Robinson is doing yet another time? Obama's assumption is NOT "that Israel needs to return to a 1967 borderline with Palestine." This, I am afraid, distorts the dialogue. Obama, along with three presidents before him PLUS Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmer, have all said the same thing: negotiations are to be "BASED ON" the 1967 borders with "AGREED-UPON" land swaps. Readers can't have the facts if those facts are distorted. The '67 borders are a starting point, because one has to start somewhere. "Agreed-upon" land swaps mean that both the Israelis and the PA have to approve them. No one on either side of this argument is expecting a return to the '67 borders; Israeli settlements and the 300,000+ Jewish settlers have ensured that. This is a difficult enough subject to address with accurate facts, let alone with misinterpretations of those presumed facts.
Here's a link if you need more: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10796
christopheranton: I don't understand how you can continuously write like the Arabs are the poor victims of an oppressive Jewish culture. When you take your blinders off perhaps we can have a conversation. There is no way a sane thinking individual can believe that the Arabs, the Palestinians are poor helpless victims that don't deserve to have their lands stolen.
As I have pointed out time and again Israel didn't steal any land from Palestine. Simply telling me I am wrong and calling the Israeli's and Alien Race, doesn't make your argument true.
Rachel
Gerry: Thanks for the comment.
I have continued to Google whether or not Islam see's Adam as a Muslim. Honestly I keep finding links that suggest the religion does. I haven't come across that particular link that started this all and I've been kicking myself for not saving it. You never know when a source will be necessary and all links should be saved, I do apologize for that.
Rachel
Ron: I always love it when an unregistered user posts a comment that suggests I am making something up. I suppose that the Cutting Edge News http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?articl Also made up what Obama said, how about The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-j
I guess Benjamin Netanyahu misunderstood what our great fearless boob of a leader meant also. It's a good thing we have Charlie Rose to set us right. Get real.
Rachel
I was under the impression that we were debating a belief rather than what some people try to make others believe. If you want to know "whether or not Islam sees Adam as a Muslim", your best bet will be to actually read the Koran. There are several online versions available; http://al-quran.info/ is one of them, it even provides plain English translation. You will find that "Adam" is mentioned 25 times (Jesus is mentioned 28 times, btw). Please keep in mind that this book was written as a general guide to life for a tribal people of the seventh century, and that Muhammad had the advantage of being able to draw from richer tradition than any of the earlier prophets.
In general, the Koran is no more violent (in speech or concept) than any of the older scriptures. More often than not, if you substitute "God" for "Allah", you can't tell which scripture you are actually reading. The Koran is more concise though, and less narrative. Personally, I don't give much for "links that suggest" anything. No need to apologise (to me) for anything though. I do (usually) neither bite nor kick anyone - as long as a debate remains civilised.
As for the main circus of "our struggle", I would agree on several accounts with christopheranton. The situation of the Kurds can not possibly be likened to the Palestines', as there is no logical basis for that. By "stolen land", I guess you mean "illegal settlements", which had evidently taken place in order to provoke Palestine reaction, Christopher?
"There is no way a sane thinking individual can believe that the Arabs, the Palestinians are poor helpless victims that don't deserve to have their lands stolen".
At least you acknowlege their "lands were stolen".
Your words, I believe.
Ron Ovadia is correct in what he says, unless I have been mishearing the news. The 1967 borders are the starting point for negotiation.
Although why a regime,(Israel) that has nuclear weapons, should fear it's neighbours is beyond me.
Gerry: I actually do have a copy of the Koran that I have been reading. I thought I mentioned that.
Christopher: Grasp at straws much? What I said and you even quoted me There is no way a sane thinking individual can believe that the Arabs, the Palestinians are poor helpless victims that don't deserve to have their lands stolen. In other words I am saying you can't be sane and believe that they 1 are poor innocent victims, and 2 had their lands stolen. Next thing I know you are going to say the U.S. Stole land from the Mexicans, 'Native Americans' or England. I guess I should have been more clear on that.
So when major news networks (and not so major ones) present Obama's speech the way I did they are all misinforming the public? What about Netanyahu? Oh wait I remember as far as your closed minded thoughts are concerned Israel is just an evil regime that makes stuff up at the expense of the poor Palestinians.
I get tired of going in circles. You aren't going to convince me that the Palestinians are the victims here any more than you will convince me that this whole thing was made up by the media to make Israel look good.
Especially since you refuse to provide anything other than your word to back up your argument.
Rachel
I suggest you wake up from your dream world and start looking at things more objectively. Palestinians always made up the great majority in Palestine, they lived there with Jews and Christains. In 1948, the got up and found themselves refugees driven out of their land by the new occupiers. How would any rational, sane, human being explain that.
Marwan: Thanks for the comment, however, I do not believe in changing history, or changing facts. People can claim that Palestine was a majority until 1948, but that is historically and factually inaccurate and I will not "wake up from your dream world and start looking at things more objectively". My article was objective, and realistic. I stand behind both my research and my writing.
Rachel
dahoglund Level 7 Commenter 12 months ago
I vote this up and useful I knew some of this but it is good to have it summed up.