Debunking 6 common Isreali Myths

[crystalhunting]

Well you can always admire the rest of me.

And Indeed I am!






CH

 

[Ishmael]

Not many at all. The first Jewish immigration into Palestine began in the late 1890s after an absence of about 1800 years. The Palestinians had lived there by then under the Otterman Empire for 1200 years.

The Palestinians being farmers had cultivated most of the available land by the time the Jewish immigration became a flood backed by Britain, France and America.

Here endeth the lesson...

The least you could do is stop butchering history.

The area now known as Palestine was nominally under Roman control until 700AD. At that point in time Islam was on the march and the Palestinian area came under the control of the Saracens and remained so for 400 years. Then began the crusades. The area was then under the control of various parties as several hundred years of warfare raged in the region. It was not until the mid 1400's that the Ottoman Empire consolidated it's hold on the area now known as Palestine.

Jews were in continuous residence in the area throughout all of these periods. Albeit, not in large numbers. This is known from the residual documents of the Knights Templar, who were a continuous presence in the area from the first crusade through the rise of the Ottoman Turks. And then later by documented evidence as collected by the Jesuit's

The period that you speak of beigining in 1890 is the beginning of the realization of the Zionist movement that began in the mid 1800's throughout Europe. Large parcels of land were purchased by European Jews for the express purpose of their return to their homeland.

WWI interrupted this process, severely. The Ottoman Empire was in decline at the time. Most of it's resources had been depleted in the Balkans War of 1912-13. Control in the area known as Palestine was in name only. T. E. Lawerence was able to marshall the forces of the indigenous tribes to raid into what is now known as Syria and Jordan. I believe that a large part of what is now refered to as Palestine was known as the Transjordan area back then.

That should bring us to the end of WWI, the establishment of the British Protectorate, and the Balfour documents.

The establishment of the British Protectorate was a direct result of the behavior of the Arab tribesmen when they entered Bahgdad after having pushed the Ottoman's out. The resulting slaughter, disease, and rape of Bahgdad was too much for even the usually stoic British to stomach.

The Palestinian area did not become such in name until Egypt, with the backing of the French, wrested control of the area from the Ottoman's in the 1830's (This map is remarkably similar to the current map of Isreal, and is probably one of the root causes of conflict in the area.) Egypt administered the area as a 'protectorate, and all indigenous peoples were given extraterritorial legal status and the protection of the peoples fell to French and Russian troops under an agreement reached with the Egyptians.

The prime mover of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman's was Sheik Sharif of Mecca. A Saudi, not a palestinian. This is documented in the Hussein-McMahon letters on file in the archives of the British Foriegn Office. The actual military operations were carried out by Sharif's two sons, Fiasal and Abdullah, both Saudi's along with the aforementioned T. E. Lawerence. (Anyone remember the Fiasal line of rule in Saudi Arabia?)

Ishmael

 

[juicygirl]

Thanks for clearing up those things ppman. Sorry about the general drift of my questions about you, but its awfully hard to tell where people's heads are at these days. At least I'm clear where yours is at -- don't say it, I know what you want to say but don't. Once again, very sorry.

So it was the Balfour declaration that irritated King Faisel off -- that is that the Europeans were imposing again on the Arabs. Well that does clear things up a bit. Being co-religionist of sorts, as people in the big three of the west all are to a certain degree, Judaism was probably not the specific problem then. Thanks, that actually clears up a great deal for me. I'm kind of surprised that Balfour at least seemed to have his heart in the right place if not his head.
lol I am going to start pissing people off now.

 

[juicygirl]

I butchered Faisel's name less than you. I don't think anything you said really disagrees with what everyone else has said. I like your precision though -- assuming you are precise here. That Saudis were engaged against the Turks, and all of us knew that already I presume, doesn't mean that Palestinians weren't. Likewise the exact date of the existence of the Palestinian protectorate is largely irrelevant to the current issue. Ancient Israel I think was actually bigger than what is being called Palestine now at various points in its history. All of this is to say I think you're bitching about nuance. Doesn't really change how much damage is being done to everyone now.

Sharon's just playing dangerous games with peoples lives now. By destabilizing the region to the extent that he has he is making the lives of innocent Israeli's and Palestinians much more dangerous. The guys a war criminal, we know that, and so does the Israeli court who found him guilty of atrocities in Lebanon -- sorry, I don't recall their precise authority in this matter -- it was not a court of law in the sense we usually talk about it here.

I'm not claiming that Arafat is a sweetie pie either. I am claiming that the Israeli's have hardly been passive bystanders in the escalation of violence. Seems to me it was a Jew who killed Rabin. Probably didn't help the cause of peace. Seems to me that bulldozers have been known to knock down Palestinian villages. Seems to me that Israeli soldiers have at times refused to do Sharon's dirty work on the West Bank. But Israeli soldiers have also indiscriminatly killed civilians.

Just because a people cannot raise enought money to buy their soldiers uniforms doesn't mean they cannot legitimately fight -- while their methods are often unjust, I don't think killing innocent people is a good thing, its hard to see why their cause isn't. They have less than nothing and blow themselves up to kill Israelis. Doesn't that indicate that there may be a real problem that isn't just one sided?

During peace talks there is less violence in the region. Doesn't that say anything?

 

[Ishmael]

I butchered Faisel's name less than you. I don't think anything you said really disagrees with what everyone else has said. I like your precision though -- assuming you are precise here. That Saudis were engaged against the Turks, and all of us knew that already I presume, doesn't mean that Palestinians weren't. Likewise the exact date of the existence of the Palestinian protectorate is largely irrelevant to the current issue. Ancient Israel I think was actually bigger than what is being called Palestine now at various points in its history. All of this is to say I think you're bitching about nuance. Doesn't really change how much damage is being done to everyone now.

Sharon's just playing dangerous games with peoples lives now. By destabilizing the region to the extent that he has he is making the lives of innocent Israeli's and Palestinians much more dangerous. The guys a war criminal, we know that, and so does the Israeli court who found him guilty of atrocities in Lebanon -- sorry, I don't recall their precise authority in this matter -- it was not a court of law in the sense we usually talk about it here.

I'm not claiming that Arafat is a sweetie pie either. I am claiming that the Israeli's have hardly been passive bystanders in the escalation of violence. Seems to me it was a Jew who killed Rabin. Probably didn't help the cause of peace. Seems to me that bulldozers have been known to knock down Palestinian villages. Seems to me that Israeli soldiers have at times refused to do Sharon's dirty work on the West Bank. But Israeli soldiers have also indiscriminatly killed civilians.

Just because a people cannot raise enought money to buy their soldiers uniforms doesn't mean they cannot legitimately fight -- while their methods are often unjust, I don't think killing innocent people is a good thing, its hard to see why their cause isn't. They have less than nothing and blow themselves up to kill Israelis. Doesn't that indicate that there may be a real problem that isn't just one sided?

During peace talks there is less violence in the region. Doesn't that say anything?

Two points here. Palestine has never existed as an autonomous political region. Had the British not reneged on their agreement, that area would now be under Saudi control.

Second, Fiasal, and Fiasel are both correct spellings. I'm sure someone familiar with Arabic could point out the difference in detail.

http://www.btinternet.com/~britishempire/empire/maproom/palestine.htm

Ishmael

 

[miles]

Re: Re: Earth to ppman:

And my reply is still the same.

Don't try to be too clever miles.

It doesn't suit you.

ppman

Too clever? I asked for your opinion and you turn it around on me.
How disingenuous is that? All of a sudden you're afraid of stating your opinion? Or is it that you know it's an obvious contradiction?

So very british of you.

 

[kamuikamui]

Re:The Chinese Jews

Thanks Crystalhunting.
I really needed it.


Good morning ppman.

 

[juicygirl]

Funny, I always thought that the transliteration was Faisel. Always good to learn something new. As far as Palestine not existing as an autonomous region, thats fine. My point is really that it is not a matter of who was there first, or who had a state either, or whatever. I don't think that Israel has to justify its right to exist or that the Palestinians have to justify their right to self-determination. The present conflict doesn't require getting the past right, though that's important for understanding the problem, but getting the present right. Seems like a two state deal is the only way to go. Which is to say that the discussion as to who was on first is not really helpful.

 

[juicygirl]

ppman also rocks! (love that brogue!).

 

[kamuikamui]

Re:juicygirl

The only side you have to pick here is the side of peace.

I agree, but:
'We want more bloody conflicts. We don't care if it's in the Middle East, Africa, SE Asia, or S. America. Who cares about them anyway. We want to produce more guns and bullets and sell them to worthless third world,' said a CIA agent.

'I agree with you, old chap. Just the other day Tony approved of selling arms to Indonasia. More guns. More blood, I say,' said an MI6 cunt.

 

[juicygirl]

Well sure . . . I never meant to imply that we were going to get it. Lawyers Guns and Money still rule. Just ask the Bush administration.

 

[kamuikamui]

Re:Re:juicygirl

I didn't mean to imply that you're impling.

I'm a pacifist. I just can't understand why they fight.

 

[Jigs]

Let me tell you what is not a myth.

(1) If the Arab world in toto, Palestinians, Saudis, Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians, had not rejected the original 1948 UN partition of Palestine, there would be no Arab refugees, and the Palestinians would have 120% of everything they now say they want. Instead, the Arab world went to war with the avowed and explicit purpose of driving the Jews into the sea. True to their tradition, they bungled the job.

(2) Fought to a standstill in the late 1940's, the Arab world was forced to sue for armistice, but refused peace. Instead Syria, Jordan and Egypt made two major efforts thereafter to destroy Israel. On each occasion the fighting ended with Israeli tanks across the Nile, and well on their way to both Cairo and Damascus. For the fourth time (including the French/British attack to reclaim the Suez) in less then 20 years, the Arabs came whining, pleading, begging, to the United States to save their worthless asses. Again, it was armistice, not peace, not recognition of Israel's existence, that they wanted. To our shame, and penalty, we let them off the hook each time.

Of course, at the end of each war, the Palestinians were worse off than ever before. Such is the way of the world, and whose fault was that? By some logic that defies explanation, the Palestinians blame the Jews and not their Arab buddies who were solely and entirely responsible for the wars, and for losing so pitifully. Worse, to this day, it has not occurred to the Palestinians that losing a war has its price. Somewhere in the 7600 verses of the Koran must be one to the effect that when the faithful have wagered on a losing horse they are nonetheless entitled to a full refund of their bet.

(3) It has been less than a year since Arafat refused an Israeli offer that gave him 98% of the land he asked for, a piece of Jerusalem to call his capital, and most important of all, a Palestinian state all his own with full sovereignty over Gaza and the West Bank. Did the offer provide for the "return of the refugees" (now 1,600,000+/-) into Israel proper? Of course it didn't. That would be demographics suicide for the Jewish state, and nobody, including Arafat, believes that Israel will ever agree to it. The best that was, is, or ever will be, possible in that respect is a few bucks of "indemnification". I will give you odds that if that issue ever gets down to money, it will be up to the U.S. to pay it.

In the best middle eastern tradition of bargaining, Arafat turned down the best offer he could have ever hoped for. There is only one rational explanation for his refusal. From the beginning he never intended to settle on any terms other than complete Israeli surrender and extinction. Arafat was at Camp David only to test Israel's level of desperation for peace. Once he knew what that was, or thought he did, he was sure he could turn up the heat with a new infanta, and do even better next time. He was wrong. What he did was elect Sharon who understands perfectly what a piece of lying dirt he is. If left to Sharon, there won't be a next time. As Abba Eban once said, "Arafat has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

(4) The West Bank and Gaza are not Palestinian, never have been, and certainly haven't been since Jordan lost them in the 1967 war. Since 1967 they have been Israeli land by conquest. For those of you who might think differently, I assume that you
are also in favor of returning New Mexico and California to Mexico, and the Black Hills to the Sioux.

At Oslo, Israel (foolishly) turned over administration of most of the west bank and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in the forlorn hope that the Arabs were actually willing to negotiate in good faith for peace. The express condition of the Oslo agreement was the Palestinians would cease and desist attacking Israel and Israeli citizens, and disarm themselves of all weapons except those necessary to internal police authority and civil order. If after refusing to make peace, whether or not Arafat was a co-conspirator in the new infanta and the suicide bombers, clearly the PLO forfeited any rights to sovereignty or authority in the disputed lands when it was caught red handed with a shipload of heavy weapons imported from Iran.

The Oslo Accord is as dead as the Treaty of Versailles. It was Arafat's choice to make peace on its terms or not. He chose not to, and if peace was not possible, then war was inevitable. With the death of the Oslo agreement, the West Bank and Gaza became Israeli ground again. As such Israel not only has the right, but probably even the responsibility to police it and maintain order therein, with tanks or whatever else is required. He who shoots from a window can expect heavy fire in return, and there should be no haven whether refugee camp, or Church of the Nativity.

(5) The United States has no friends in the Arab world. Some may be greater enemies than others, but we, and the rest of the Western world, are the infidel great Satan everywhere in the Middle East outside of Israel. There was dancing in streets of every country of the Arab world at the destruction of the World Trade Center. The fundamentalist Islamic movement, like its fundamentalist Christian counterpart, wants to turn back the clock. The only difference between them is that our own Christian Mullahs only want to go back to the 19th century, whereas those of Islam would like to return to the 14th to 15th. Both the Europeans and ourselves might as well get over it. There is no appeasement we can offer in this lifetime that will change a fundamentalist Islamic view that hates everything the modern world has to offer.

(6) The Israeli intelligence service, certainly the best in the world when it comes to the Middle East, has conclusive proof that Arafat is a lying terrorist who not only has not done anything to stop the attacks on innocent civilians, he has been co-conspirator in those attacks.

Contrary to what our wimpy, cowardly, educated elite, safe in the academic ivory towers of the United States, would have us believe, the world is full of people who scorn negotiation and compromise, and anyone dealing with them do so at their peril. Neville Chamberlain thought he could negotiate with Hitler, and believed the lie that the Sudatenland was Germany's last territorial demand in Europe. To have awarded Arafat, the Butcher of Munich, the Nobel peace Prize was a disgrace at the time, and becomes more so every day. The only thing more absurd would be a postumulous award of that prize to Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

 

[p_p_man]

Well Jigs...

I was finding your post very interesting until I came to the paragraph relating to Arafat refusing the Camp David offer. As you are so wrong about that I wonder just how wrong you are about the other points you've raised.

You see once a flaw is found in one part of an argument then the entire argument falls.

The Camp David Agreement

I won't bother to repeat myself in full but the Agreement was something that no Leader could accept. Before he went Arafat informed Clinton that he wasn't going to attend because he thought no concrete concession could be won for the Palestinians. Under pressure from the American Administration Arafat did indeed turn up.

The Agreement which Arafat refused to sign instead of granting independence to Palestine split the country up into three or four cantons each surrounded by Israeli settlers and the Israeli military, each with it's utilities, (gas, electricity, water) under Israeli control with Israel also controlling the communications of each area (canton).

Let me quote a regular source of mine but by no means my only one:

"What Arafat was offered

"In American coverage of the Camp David meetings, the American press obediently followed the Israeli and US government spin that while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made courageous concessions for peace, Palestinian unwillingness to compromise caused the meeting to fail.

"Never mind that Barak's 'courageous concessions' consisted of allowing the Palestinians to have joint administrative responsibility over a couple of remote Arab neighborhoods of Arab East Jerusalem - pathetic crumbs tossed on the floor which Arafat was expected to gratefully pick up." American Jewish reporter, Eduardo Cohen, from "What Americans Need to Know - But Probably Won't Be Told - To understand Palestinian Rage"

"Barak appears to be asking for only 10% of the occupied territories. In reality, it's closer to 30%, taking into account the territories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and place under his "security control" in the Jordan Valley. But even worse, in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentage points cut the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state will consist of groups of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

"World opinion is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath and they are David. In the eyes of the world [outside the US], the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a foreign occupation. We are in their territory, not they on ours. We are the occupiers, they are the victims. This is the objective situation, and no minister of propaganda can change that." Israeli peace activist. Uri Avnery, "12 Conventional Lies About the Palestine-Israeli Conflict"

These quotes are only two of dozens I have on file together with documentation giving the Palestinian side of the conflict. The sources I hold are both Israeli and Palestinian in origin as well as others from different countries. But one thing they do have in common is that they all agree on what Camp David really meant to the Palestinians.

I can but I won't, because you can gather the same information, with quoted sources, show you why Oslo also failed.

Suffice to say that when I read your piece about Camp David I didn't bother to go any further. I might have been reading more of the same erronous "facts".

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

The least you could do is stop butchering history.

Ishmael

Yes OK I was off centre there. That's come from relying on memory and not checking the source material...


How long has Palestine been a specifically Arab country?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

ppman

 

[Jigs]

I won't bother to repeat myself in full but the Agreement [Camp David] was something that no Leader could accept.

p_p_man

Was Arafat offered what he wanted at Camp David? Of course not. The Israelis went to the table with all the chips. Did Arafat actually think that the Israelis were going to surrender to him? No, as you say, Arafat knew better than that from the first, and has I said, he was there only to test the Israeli desperation. It was a calculated ploy, and as much as I would like to blame the Camp David failure on Old Sleazy, this time it wasn't Bill Clinton's fault (except possibly that Arkansas Bill, something of an expert himself at handing out a hard shaft, should have seen it coming.)

Arafat could have had a contiguous Palestinian state on the West Bank, along with Gaza and almost all of Jerusalem in 1967 (assuming of course that his supposed pals the Jordanians would have agreed), but that is not what he wanted, or what he was willing to acept in 1967. He wanted to drive those damn Jews into the sea. He made his bet, and he lost. Too bad, but he doesn't get his money back.

What do you mean that no responsible leader would have accepted the Camp David offer. History is full of responsible leaders without a choice who have accepted offers a lot worse. I am certain my great-grandfather didn't think much of the offer General Grant made to General Lee at Appomattox, but the Confederacy was whipped and Lee had no choice. You think Palestinians are any better shape than the Army of Northern Virginia was in 1865?

On that subject, the Palestinians are on their way to losing still another time. Suicide bombers may be big things for the media, but they won't win a war. Wars are won by crushing the enemies ability to fight, and ambushing a bar mitzvah or blowing up a shopping mall just won't cut the mustard. If you think otherwise, let me remind you as a native of London that all Germany accomplished with the indiscriminate terror of the 1940 blitz was to bring down terrible retribution upon themselves.

Of course that's the thing about the Palestinians, they have made losing an art form. I don't suppose, therefore, that one more defeat +/- will have much effect. Give them a couple years, and they will be unhappy because the Jews won't let them have their own "cantons".

Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, because I'm the biggest, the meanest, the toughest, and the best armed, Son of a Bitch in the valley.

 

[p_p_man]

p_p_man
Of course that's the thing about the Palestinians, they have made losing an art form. I don't suppose, therefore, that one more defeat +/- will have much effect. Give them a couple years, and they will be unhappy because the Jews won't let them have their own "cantons".

It's a strange thought process that concludes that a race of people who have been systematically massacred, expelled, lost their land, are occupied and who live in refugee camps have made losing into an art form.

It only becomes an art form when it keeps on happening. The Palestinians from 1947-8 have been caught in a situation way beyond the control of a nation of farmers. Since then all they've done is try and get their own land back.

It seems quite simple to me, if someone supports Sharon they support the destruction of an entire race of people. If someone supports Arafat they support terrorism.

Out of the two terrorism seems to be a more deserving cause. At least it's terrorism in an attempt to regain what's rightfully theirs.
I haven't yet come across an argument that can pursuade me that I'm wrong. And believe me I'm open to pursuasion.

All I've had thrown at me are quotes from the Jewish propaganda machine. Of which your reference to the Camp David situation is one of the more popular ones.

ppman

 

[juicygirl]

Jigs, equating the Civil War with what's going on in Israel is a little silly. A very different situation. How about the IRA against the Brits? Better, and I seem to think that they drove the Brits to the bargaining table through violence. So they didn't get Northern Ireland. You think the Palestinians have been offered anything like that? Come on.

Arafat a lying no good terrorist? Its been established that Sharon is a war criminal. I don't think you want to fight a war of moral equivalences here. The butcher of Lebanon has killed a lot of folks by too. The implication of your view is that might makes right -- is that a principled moral postion?

Oh, and by the way, I think we should give the Black Hills back to the Sioux. Those sculptures are an abomination in so many ways. The Colorado-Mexican thing has a different history so I don't think its a really good analogy.

Would someone also like to tell Jigs how much we send to the Israelis in foreign aid? Would someone like to tell him about the Israeli policy of torture and assasination which occasionally targets innocent Morrocan waiters in Norway. For the life of me I don't see why you are picking sides in the way you are. Not every Palestinian or Israeli is a bad guy. One murder is never justified by another.

 

[Guest]

 

[kamuikamui]

p_p_man

Out of the two terrorism seems to be a more deserving cause. At least it's terrorism in an attempt to regain what's rightfully theirs.

Do you truly believe in what you're saying, or, are you saying it just for an argument sake?

 

[CeceliaSkye]

Re: Re: Debunking 6 common Isreali Myths

I agree bro.
i hate dem jewish daawgs!!!
lying schemers!

CH is NOT an anti semite.. ie... Jew hater YO YO TWAT...
Only an imbecile such as yourself would assume such a thing...

 

[Jigs]

I'm sure you all mean well, but you missed my point. Perhaps that's because I don't think any of you have ever heard a shot fired in anger.

Personally, I don't give a damn who is the terrorist, or who isn't, or even who is right and who is wrong. I'm not Jewish and I don't even give a damn about Israel's survival.

There is a reality here, however, and that is whoever starts the fight had better damned sure be able to finish it, or bad things are going to happen to him. It's a fundamental principle of life that every redneck in every back country saloon understands even if you educated folks don't. The srcond reality is that 90% of these people have made it very plain that they are my enemy. That being true, then yeah, I know exactly whose side I had better be on.

I don't begrudge the Palestinians their suicide bombers. I think it's militarily stupid, but if they have a death wish so be it . The Palestinians ought to do whatever they think is right.

On the other hand, he who throws rocks at tanks is likely to get himself killed, he is probably not going to accomplish much, and he is certainly not deserving of my sympathy. Do I feel sorry for the Palestinians because they and their Arab buddies and have been stupid for half a century? No I don't.

The bottom line is the Palestinians were on the losing side, and and like all losers, they wound up with the short end of the stick. If the short end is not what they will accept, then I think it is quite likely that they will eventually wind up with no stick at all. That's pretty seems pretty much inevitable, whatever your concerns about their human rights.

If the Palestinians want to fight, then I think they should fight, and fight with any weapon they find useful, but the rule for warriors is as old as Shakespeare. "Lay on McDuff, and damned be he who first cries, Hold. Enough!"

But then as you might guessed, I'm no pacifist.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes OK I was off centre there. That's come from relying on memory and not checking the source material...


How long has Palestine been a specifically Arab country?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

ppman

Hey you pitiful butcherer of histroy.

What I had to say in no way contradicted your pitiful little response and I provided far greater detail.

Regardless, my statment still stands. Palestine, at no time, has existed as an autonomous political entity.

The Turks, the Egyptians, the Italians, the French, the British, can claim longer ownership and administrative province over the area.

So, how can something be returned that never existed?

Ishmael

 

[Thumper]

?

First of all, since finals have fried my brain and I have discussed this topic ad nauseum on the board, I would like to simply say:

I Thumper, on occasion.

Secondly, welcome to the board juicygirl. I've been noticing your psots but haven't had time to read them. Hope you stick around.

Only on occasion????

Well hell! Guess that's better than nothing, eh?

Never thought I would be getting history lessons at a porn site...but hey, that's what is so cool about LIT.

Maybe I will cruise a Contemporary Issues site for some nekkidness.

Speaking of which, is that you in your av juicygirl????

I just had to ask. I'm nosy that way.

 

[p_p_man]

I'm sure you all mean well, but you missed my point. Perhaps that's because I don't think any of you have ever heard a shot fired in anger.

Here we go again...

Another one of those "I'm the only one who's seen action" posters. Once again Jigs you destroy the validity of an entire post by making idiotic statements like that...

ppman