The issue of Isreal Vs. Palestine. I don't even understand why this is still being debated even to this day. Take this person for example.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/20/ahmadinejad.intv/index.html

"Ahmadinejad did question whether the Holocaust should be used as a "pretext for occupying Palestinian land" when the Palestinians had nothing to do with the genocide in Europe."

Lets take a quick trip down wikipedia lane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

Unless the arabs claim to be direct descendents of the canaanites, they are clearly not the first of the two aforementioned groups to inhabit the land. In any discussion about who is right and who is wrong in the context of Isreal and Palestinians, you have to go back as far as possible in history. In fact the word Palestine was used extensively by Isrealis. The arabs stole it in an attempt to generate some world sympathy for their non existant plight. Anyway, I have been drinking and I am furious at the Iranian PM, so take this thread with a grain of salt. Talk amongst yourselves.

Edit: Let me add to this; the arabs and Isrealis are clearly descendents of the same semetic people. Yes, both of them are probably descendents of the Canaanites. The difference is that Judaism was created way before Islam. The semetic peoples diverged during the time of Mohammed. Islam was created and it drew from the population of "Jews." There is a clear answer as to who was on the "land" first and based on that, who is the rightful heir of the "land" now.

Haliburton.

That part of the world pretty much puts religion in the drivers seat when it comes to decision making, overruling logic or even common sense. And of course, to use the popular quote, there is always enough religion to go to war but never enough religion for tolerance.

Perhaps its best to just let arabs and jews find their own solution to it, since most others have been brokered by other nations or leagues of nations who in turn left a greater set of problems. If their solution ends up being a bloody war, then so be it. Its their business. Let them handle it. Heck, the world would be a better place if they all got their way, allowing their hatred to boil over into a large scale conflict and blew each other off the globe.



Problem......solved.

Yeah, except that Israel has shown it can kick the crap out of 3 Arab nations at the same time, and still chew bubble gum while doing it.
I've often said we should irradiate the Holy Land. No one will want to fight over land that has a half-life of 10,000 years....

'Edit: Let me add to this; the arabs and Isrealis are clearly descendents of the same semetic people. Yes, both of them are probably descendents of the Canaanites. The difference is that Judaism was created way before Islam. The semetic peoples diverged during the time of Mohammed. Islam was created and it drew from the population of "Jews." There is a clear answer as to who was on the "land" first and based on that, who is the rightful heir of the "land" now.'


- Are you...joking? You're trying to figure out the historic logic of land settlement in support of a claim in modern day Israel?
Christ, how fucking stupid do you have to be to turn to that sort of argument?

Not any less stupid than the Palastinian people crying about Israel taking the land that they took from Israel.

Well is that any more or less stupid than Israeli's complaining about using terrorist tactics from the Palestinians that they themselves used fifty years ago?

Lets face it Halo..you hate Israel and its people.

so the Jews are stupid for bringing up history in their arguments for the nation of Israel, but it's ok for you to bring up things that happened before you were born? Hypocrite much Halo?

To be fair, it's far more justifiable to bring up land possession issues (and just about anything else) from the past half century than from > a millennium ago.

I would generally agree with that, but the issues in the Middle East aren't rooted in conflicts within the last century but issues over the last couple millenia.

We need a modern solution to an ancient problem.
Irradation, is the answer....
No one wants land that you can't live on....

I would generally agree with that, but the issues in the Middle East aren't rooted in conflicts within the last century but issues over the last couple millenia.
Sure, but I wouldn't casually toss around "hypocrite" over this distinction either. The conflict is longstanding, but more recent events carry a lot of weight, too. Consider, for example, Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple of the Mount some years ago that triggered a new wave of violence following a period of relative peace. One could discuss that particular event without calling out the entire history of the conflict.

Just sayin'.

Again though, Halo was bringing up things that happened well before he was born. Obviously from any thread about Israel that comes up on this board, it's easy to see that Halo is anti-Israel (I will not call him an anti semite, even though sometimes it appears that way).

Talking about something during the past decade with Ariel Sharon is a big differance than talking about someone before anyone that posts here was alive, whether it was 60 years ago or 1000 years ago. To anyone on this board it's distant history, not recent history.

I personally feel the focus should be on more recent events, but perhaps that's just my culture. Live in the here and now.

The people over there don't differentiate between something that happened 60 years ago or 1000 years ago. As long as the rest of the world attempts to make differances where the people living in the situation don't, we can't even hope to help broker any long term peace. Maybe we can't anyhow, but if we continue to rush past the long term issues, the short term issues are simply water under the bridge.


Christ, how fucking stupid do you have to be to turn to that sort of argument?

Had to add this... Phel is jewish, this isn't a stupid issue to him.

That may be because we're a rather young country compared to Europe and the Middle East.

60 years ago isn't that long ago in the scheme of things either; Halo might not have been alive then, but many persons in the Middle East certainly were.

How long was it from the time Rome took over England was it until the Romans left? Was it expected that the citizens there were supposed to forget about it because of the passage of time? Time doesn't heal all wounds, short or long term.

Now, I'm sure someone is going to say there's a big differance between 350 years and 1000 years, but that's still several lifetimes either way.

You might also include the closer-to-home US/Native American perspective.

Well I included rome/britain to make a point to Halo. I had thought about the native american/european angle too, but I wanted something where more time had passed than the less than 200 years since the native americans were pretty much reduced by Genocide.

Though on the Genocide level, the Native American angle is much more similar to the Jewish angle, and for that, I probably should have focused more on that issue.

Good enough :)

The best info I can garner by sorting through census data is that as of the 2000 census(from the data I gathered, I might be missing more) current Indian Reservations in the USA take up 127,613.1 km^2 of land(Mississippi is the closest in size of any US state to this at 125,434 km^2) and Israel is 22,145 km^2 of land(New Jersey, in comparision is 22,608 km^2), just for reference. There are 12 Reservations larger than the state of Rhode Island, and nine larger than Delaware. There are approx. 300 Native American reservations, and they range in size from several hundred thousand + square acres down in size to 100 square acres.

There are just over 2.7 million Native Americans in the last US census, over 50% of which do NOT live on reserve land. Israel has 7,026,000 approx. residents.

Compared to how many Jews that are alive in the world?
They don't live in Israel, so I wonder what the percentage is that don't live "on the reservation"?
BTW, that's a lot of Native Americans that survived Genocide.....
I know a lot of tribes were wiped out, but what are the percentage of tribes alive today?
No insidious intentions, just curious...

what I read today, there's approx. 480 tribes still around. 1/3 of which dont' have a reservation.

That's a whole lot of Native American tribes....
Is genocide too harsh of a word?

not when you consider it's taken 200 years of population growth to get back up to 2.7 million people.

What were the Native American populations in the 1600-1700's ? From memory, Cherokee had only around 50,000 in the mid 1600s for example.

It's like walking in to a History Lesson for the Tragically Inclined.

'Again though, Halo was bringing up things that happened well before he was born. Obviously from any thread about Israel that comes up on this board, it's easy to see that Halo is anti-Israel (I will not call him an anti semite, even though sometimes it appears that way).'

- Right. So, you're, what, "Team Israel", and I'm "Team Dirty Arab", so you're a turban-hater, and I'm an anti-semite?
Is everyone too scared to tell you that you're a fucking moron? (There was a hidden message there).

'How long was it from the time Rome took over England was it until the Romans left? Was it expected that the citizens there were supposed to forget about it because of the passage of time? Time doesn't heal all wounds, short or long term.'

- What the fuck are you on about Skippy? Just to let you know, no one here is angry about the Romans.

Listen, dick heads, no one alive today can justify using ancient land settlement rights of "We were here first!" in contemporary conflicts and debate. Simply because it's impossible.

Who the fuck does England belong to? 'Cause the Welsh have a better claim than the English, but then the pre-historic natives (of whom some still exist, as DNA evidence from the Cheddar Man will show) have a far better claim than their Celtic, and may I add, continental neighbours. Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Continentals, Danes, Normans, fucking Dutch. What about the Belgae from Celtic Belgium? They were a well established tribe in the South East of Britannia before the Romans arrived. Why can't the fucking Belgians kick the current Anglo-Saxon population out of Sussex, 'cause surely they were there first, right. RIGHT?!

What utter dick-head believes today's populations belong where their ancient birth right tells them they do? Human history is a history of migration. It isn't First Come, First Serve, and fuck you in 10, 000 years. A jeweish, Semetic people cannot claim land that hasn't been theirs for 2, 000yrs in name, and in minority for 1,400 yrs. I'm afraid the Arabs and have been well established, and were well established, until a large Jewish population arrived on the door step en mass, waged war against the NATIVES, and then used terrorism against British mandate troops. They should have defended themselves better against the fucking Romans.

And here's a kick in the knackers, the Palestinian area of the Levant has been, to history, one of the most cosmopolitan, multi-cultural, wide-ranging, diverse, multi-religious areas of the time-line.
No one people can claim it for themselves, in total confidence that history backs them up. No more than some Germanic prick with visions of racial domination can claim his "people" are the real people, and entitled to their land.

What about the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Pheonicians, the Egyptians, the fucking Persians? What about the Hellenes, the Romans, the fucking Moslems? What about the Crusaders, the Ottomans, and the goddamn British?

Palestine has been gang-banged more time than Mary Magdalen, we've all had a stake, a claim, a piece. Sorry if you were one of a million to own it, maybe you should have clung on to it better. But in my book, if you had to migrate back 1,400 yrs later, and wage terrorism on everyone around you, including the natives, then you don't have a better claim than the rest of us.
You're like the mother fucker who still thinks the Greeks of today were the Greeks of Pericles time, and not some nomadic bastards who burst through the Carpathians after roaming the wilds of the steppes.

Here endeth the lesson.

Talking about something during the past decade with Ariel Sharon is a big differance than talking about someone before anyone that posts here was alive, whether it was 60 years ago or 1000 years ago. To anyone on this board it's distant history, not recent history.

I personally feel the focus should be on more recent events, but perhaps that's just my culture. Live in the here and now.

Oh come on now.

Do you really think that all this recent anti-illegal immigrant/border fences hollering has no foundation in the fact that Santa Anna and his army killed Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett, before any of us were around?

What were the Native American populations in the 1600-1700's ? From memory, Cherokee had only around 50,000 in the mid 1600s for example.

Modern conservative estimates put the Native American population of North America 10-16 million in the 1400s (some believe as high as 30 million), less than 2 million in the 1600s (some believe up to 4 million), and below 500,000 by the late 1800s.

Halo, please read and become informed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

In case you dont have the attention span to read the entire thing I will quote some things for you.
"Under Assyrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria), Babylonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia), Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire), Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Greece), Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire), Byzantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire), and (briefly) Sassanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_Empire) rule, Jewish presence in the region dwindled because of mass expulsions. In particular, the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba) against the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) in 132 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/132) resulted in a large-scale expulsion of Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29). It was during this time that the Romans gave the name Syria Palaestina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina) to the geographic area, in an attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land"

"The Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) conquered the land from the Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) in 638 CE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era). The area was ruled by various Muslim states (interrupted by the rule of the Crusaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_states)) before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) in 1517."


"Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs."

"The Jews in the region increased from 11% of the population in 1922 to 30% by 1940[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]. 28% of the land was already bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews"

"In 1939, the British introduced a White Paper of 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939), which limited Jewish immigration over the course of the war to 75,000 and restricted purchase of land by Jews"

"The Irgun adhered to a much more active approach, which included attacks and initiation of armed actions against the British, such as attacking British military headquarters, the King David Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel), which killed 91 people. Haganah, on the other hand, often preferred restraint. A further split occurred when Avraham Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Stern) left the Irgun to form Lehi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29), (also known as the Stern Gang) which was much more extreme in its methods. Unlike the Irgun, they refused any co-operation with the British during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) and even attempted to work with the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) to secure European Jewry's emigration to Israel"

Ok, now Halo, go ahead and try again to make your failed case.

Edit: sorry for the links. Cutting and pasting from Wikipedia is a pain.

Well, you just made it stronger. You sort of agreed with everything I said. At one time or another, we've all owned Palestine, or had a claim to it. The original Jews are just one in a million. Ever since they "lost it" they've been in the minority.

That is, until...

"In 1939, the British introduced a White Paper of 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939), which limited Jewish immigration over the course of the war to 75,000 and restricted purchase of land by Jews"

- They breached the White Paper of 1939 and the original intentions of the Balfour Declaration and continued to migrate in such huge numbers, swamping the majority Arab natives.

Some key words here: Jewish migrate TO Palestine, Arab natives MAJORITY, for some hundreds of years.
You still don't get it. No one in the world can justify their claim to a land as cosmopolitan, historically diverse and non-existent, as the Palestine, Levant area of the Middle East.
Especially not when it's about 4,000yrs old. Just, get a grip you twat.

Is genocide too harsh of a word?
Genocide is defined as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Political scientist R. J. Rummel created the term "Democide" which is defined as, "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder".

As this relates to the situation with the Native Americans, Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. "Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide."

Prior to the the actual attempt at democide, the U.S. dealt with the Native Americans as one nation to another. Creating treaties and enforcing perceived violations of those treaties with military action.

There's also a camp that believes much of the Native American decline in the period prior to the attempted democide was due to unattended disease spread by the European colonists. An estimated 2 to 15 million Native Americans died as a result.

After years of war and disease, the Native American population was decimated and subsequently completely conquered. They were then marched to desolate areas where they were left to die of malnutrition and exposure. They managed to survive, fortunately and now flourish under the NIGA regulatory act and I have a job, yay!

Don't fool yourselves if you think the Native Americans are a done deal. They are proliferating and will be a dominating force in American politics as some already are. As long as we continue to allow them the right to maintain their casinos and Americans flood to their doorsteps to squander their hard earned money, Native Americans will take back much of their land. If not by right, by purchase. They want their land back, trust me.

If you'd like an interesting read, google Native American Trust Fund. Read about how fuckin' much money is owed to the Indians in trust for use of their lands.

For the sources I used regarding the terms "genocide" and "democide", go to Wikipedia and search for "Native American Genocide".

Yeah, except that Israel has shown it can kick the crap out of 3 Arab nations at the same time, and still chew bubble gum while doing it.
I've often said we should irradiate the Holy Land. No one will want to fight over land that has a half-life of 10,000 years....

Gee, you think this might have anything to do with the United States unquestionably backing them?

Gee, you think this might have anything to do with the United States unquestionably backing them?You're aware that during those wars, the Soviet Union was unquestionably backing the arabs, correct? They went into the 7 days war with top-of-the-line soviet equipment.

During the war right after Israel was founded, Israel had very little military equipment at all.

I think a big wall like the one we are gunna build in Texas may do the trick.

Also, which time period was Conan alive in?

For there not being many indians left there are a shit load of casino's sporting all kinds of tribes I never heard of here in Louisiana.

And yes Isreal did kick the shit out of three Arab countries at one time in a decisive manner despite being out numbered and surrounded.... you have got to give them credit for that..... And they used conventional weapons....

You conveniently glossed over the fact that Jews bought land from the arabs. They didn't squat. Why do you hate capitalism? You also glossed over the fact that Brittian impeded the efforts of the Jews to leave a fatal situation. Why does Brittian hate Jews?

You conveniently glossed over the fact that Jews bought land from the arabs. They didn't squat. Why do you hate capitalism? You also glossed over the fact that Brittian impeded the efforts of the Jews to leave a fatal situation. Why does Brittian hate Jews?

because its not like Israel ever occupied anything, amirite? amirite?

'You conveniently glossed over the fact that Jews bought land from the arabs. They didn't squat. Why do you hate capitalism? You also glossed over the fact that Brittian impeded the efforts of the Jews to leave a fatal situation. Why does Brittian hate Jews?'
- Well, you glossed over like, my entire reply. But whatever, pinochio.
Question - if SOME Jews bought land from the Arabs, why did they wage terrorist war? I love capitalism, it's what's for dinner. Capitalism. THE OTHER, OTHER WHITE MEAT!!!
Britain impeded the Jews? They created a fookin home-land for them, when everyone else was busy exterminating them. They allowed controlled migration, as not to flood and irritate the Arabs - whose fucking land it was at the time we took it from the Ottomans.
Britain doesn't hate Jews. Baby Jesus does.

By the way, Britain has one "T". ONE "T" YOU BASTARD!!! AND GET THE "I" IN THE RIGHT BLOODY PLACE!!

I want my baby back, baby back, baby back ribs...Chillllllly, baby back ribs! Chilllly baby back ribs!!

Its Chili's Baby Back Ribs.

It's CHILLY!! CHILLY BABY BACK RIBS YOU UNCULTURED BASTARDS!!!!!11onetwoone!!!11

If only that damn Vespasian didnt need his stupid stadium built, none of this would have ever happened.

Why does everyone hate Jews? WTF! Jesus... I'm tellin'!

I Think Halo has become completely unhinged....It's Chili's Baby Back Ribs, you pickled limey.
Thanks for the clarification on the Native American Genocide question. I only thought that Genocide applied to the extermination, not the mental anguish, et al.
One thing I can honestly say about my country's past that I am not proud of is the treatment of the Native American tribes in the past.
If they want to buy the land back, I say more power to them.
As for Israel, I say let them kick the crap out of thier neighbors. Sooner or later they will get tired of getting thier asses handed to them, and negotiate.
Either that, or Hamas will be shown for the problem to the Arab people that it truly is. I can't believe that they are so stupid as to not recognize that Hamas is a detriment to the "cause".