Nazi Sharon Borrows Stalin's Idea

[mae2050]

Originally posted by Gholam


Kindly please explain to me, what is the difference between "legal" and "illegal" occupation... or, more to the point, what for example makes USA's occupation of Mexican land in California legal?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for them, the U.S. has no right to use its military to occupy other countries. The USAF should stop attaking and start defendign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the sane unbiased human, "USA's occupation of Mexican land in California" is illegal.
But because the US is the SUPERPOWER it can do wat it wants, WTF can Mexico do, why even bother fighting for the land if they know they will lose. It seems to me that because Israel and Zionism is backed up by the US, then Israel can do wat it wants, thus U dont see wats wrong. This is simple reasoning.

 

[jaeg]

An even bigger myth is that Israel is backed by the US.

 

[The_Fur]

lol, you might look up some of the data on US "foreign aid" on FAS then. I'd say shipping weapons over at below market prices would classify itself as backing.

 

[jaeg]

 

[Gholam]

Originally posted by RogueLeader
Do you realize that you tried to prove my claim that you were victim of propaganda by quoting all of your books that are all pro-Isreali. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Herzog Isreal's ambassador to the UN? Do you not realize all your links link to a web site called "www.us-israel.org", and that in their description they even quote George Bush and Ariel Sharon to prove their point (both of those men are opposed to human rights and civil liberties, and both are war criminals).

I take sources like that one with a grain of salt too - but isolate the hard facts and numbers, and it'll be enough.

If you believe that Israel did not continue to occupy Egyption land it only proves my point. It is a well documented fact that Israel was there for quite a while before the UN peacekeepers came in.

Uh, what period are you referring to?

Have you read some of the early Zionist literature? Have you read Nathan Birnbaum? The explicit purpose of Zionism is not simply a Jewish state but to create a Jewish Majority. Zionism proposes that Jews move into Palestine so that they will become the majority and thus it will be justified that they can rule. That is the reasoning behind putting settlements in land that is not legally part of Israel. Zionism is against anything that does not increase Jewish numbers againt Arabs.

Late 1800s - early 1900s isn't late 1900 - early 2000s... you might as well judge current Russia by early Communist literature.

Non sequitur. If someone robs me that money is mine. If I robbed someone and then they stole it back, it is acceptable. The Suez Canal is analagous to the later. And Russia sold the U.S. Alaska, we didn't steal it. Same goes with Lousiana. Therefore both party's in question were compensated for the exhange-value of the purchase. If the U.S. had marched into Alaska, and there were Russians working there and we made them slaves and made them setup oil drilling sites for us, they would have every right to take those back.

Egypt used to own a share of Canal, and SOLD it - then grabbed it back. Case closed.

Kind of similar to how that same one country was driven out of Lebanon by a small group that did not even have military equipment. I fail to see how insulting Arabs for losing the war makes Israel look less militaristic.

We left Lebanon because we didn't want to go any deeper, and staying in place was proving too costly. By the way, by your comment, I'm guessing that assault rifles, machine guns, ATGMs, RPGs and MLRS'es don't count as military equipment anymore.

Originally posted by The_Fur
lol, you might look up some of the data on US "foreign aid" on FAS then. I'd say shipping weapons over at below market prices would classify itself as backing.

Look up 1978 Camp David accords and see for yourself...

 

[RogueLeader]

I take sources like that one with a grain of salt too - but isolate the hard facts and numbers, and it'll be enough.

That's the problem, you can't. Compare that site to a pro-Palestinian site. Both sides not only have differing opinions, but differing facts as well.

Uh, what period are you referring to?

Israeli occupation of foreign land.

Late 1800s - early 1900s isn't late 1900 - early 2000s... you might as well judge current Russia by early Communist literature.

Or modern Egypt by '50's Egyptian policy.

Egypt used to own a share of Canal, and SOLD it - then grabbed it back. Case closed.

Again non sequitur. The war was in the '50's, Egypt sold its share in the '70's.

We left Lebanon because we didn't want to go any deeper, and staying in place was proving too costly. By the way, by your comment, I'm guessing that assault rifles, machine guns, ATGMs, RPGs and MLRS'es don't count as military equipment anymore.

I consider light arms generic weapons, for military or civilian purposes. I intended things like an air force, tanks, etc.

 

[Gholam]

Originally posted by RogueLeader
Israeli occupation of foreign land.

Please post a map of Israeli borders where you consider Israel to not be occupying any foreign land.

Or modern Egypt by '50's Egyptian policy.

If you haven't noticed, our modern relations with modern Egypt are peaceful - a cold peace, but still a peace. Egypt has recognized our right to exist, and Sinai is a demilitarized zone. They continue sponsoring terrorism, but not nearly as rampantly as they used to.

Again non sequitur. The war was in the '50's, Egypt sold its share in the '70's.

This made me laugh... yeah, they sold their share in seventies... EIGHTEEN-seventies.

Ferdinand de Lesseps was sole controller of the Canal, but he sold shares to many French gentry, and the Khedive also held quite a bit. The sum of these shares was the Suez Canal Company. In 1874, Benjamin Disraeli took office as British Prime minister.(See Picture at Right) Disraeli was interested in buying part of the Suez for Britain, but so were several other countries. The biggest opposition would come from the French shareholders, but the French knew something that nobody else did. They knew that the Khedive had spent the country's surplus money and needed cash fast. The Khedive had decided that if someone were to offer, he would sell his 177.2 shares of the Suez Canal Company. Since the French didn't think anybody else knew, they took their time raising the money. They did not know that Disraeli was a friend to the world's largest banker at the time, Baron Lionel de Rothschild. Rothschild knew of the Khedive's financial state and when Disraeli asked about it, he told. Disraeli then also asked if he could get a loan for 4 million British pounds to buy the shares, and Rothschild agreed. He immediately sent a courier to propose the buy to the Khedive. French, Turkish, and Russian spies all discovered this information and sent their own people but it was too late. Disraeli had already bought the Khedive's shares. He then convinced the Queen and Parliament to pay off his debt to Rothschild. Britain controlled the Suez Canal for 84 years until President Nasser of Egypt nationalized it.

I consider light arms generic weapons, for military or civilian purposes. I intended things like an air force, tanks, etc.

I guess Grad MLRS is an excellent fishing tool. Sagger ATGMs are great for sniping those annoying squirrels too. On a more serious note, I'll just refer you to North Vietnam, late 1960s - early 1970s.

 

[RogueLeader]

Edit: I should note that most Arabs find the status of the borders after 1949 to be acceptable, i.e. they want the Gaza strip and West Bank to be independent.

If you haven't noticed, our modern relations with modern Egypt are peaceful - a cold peace, but still a peace. Egypt has recognized our right to exist, and Sinai is a demilitarized zone. They continue sponsoring terrorism, but not nearly as rampantly as they used to.

We are off track now, from our discussion of the British/French instigation of the war, which was itself off topic.

This made me laugh... yeah, they sold their share in seventies... EIGHTEEN-seventies.

I meant the 1870's but I wasn't thinking when I typed this up. To clarify: 1) (The point I was trying to make above) The Egyptian government in the 50's was a totally different one, i.e. before 1953 it was part of Britain 2) Additionally, the sale was made under military pressure. But even though they gave up their share that they rightfully had under the agreement with Britain, Britain backstabbed them and occupied Egypt anyways. 3) The sale was not made with the consent of the people who built it, who had rights to it.

I guess Grad MLRS is an excellent fishing tool. Sagger ATGMs are great for sniping those annoying squirrels too. On a more serious note, I'll just refer you to North Vietnam, late 1960s - early 1970s.

If by fish you mean government officials (*cough* Evan Bayh *cough*) who sneak in fascism in the guise of a national service bill that will force everyone to serve the imperial military machine of the U.S., then yes, they are quite useful. But on a serious note, see the previous sentence.

 

[Gholam]

In 1948, we founded a state within the UN-defined borders - the yellow area on your map - and immediately we got invaded. Only thing that saved us was that Arab armies weren't much better equipped than infant IDF was. After 1949 cease-fire, Gaza strip was a part of Egypt, and West Bank was a part of Jordan - and neither even raised the question of creating an independent "Palestinian" state on those territories. In 1964, they created PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization - while still controlling West Bank and Gaza... are there any questions to what they consider "Palestine"? And do you seriously consider that yellow area to be defensible, from a military point of view?

I meant the 1870's but I wasn't thinking when I typed this up. To clarify: 1) (The point I was trying to make above) The Egyptian government in the 50's was a totally different one, i.e. before 1953 it was part of Britain 2) Additionally, the sale was made under military pressure. But even though they gave up their share that they rightfully had under the agreement with Britain, Britain backstabbed them and occupied Egypt anyways. 3) The sale was not made with the consent of the people who built it, who had rights to it.

Russian people weren't asked about sale of Alaska either, or the French people about Louisiana. Deal was done and British paid. Case closed.

 

[OICW]

Originally posted by RogueLeader

Edit: I should note that most Arabs find the status of the borders after 1949 to be acceptable, i.e. they want the Gaza strip and West Bank to be independent.


If by fish you mean government officials (*cough* Evan Bayh *cough*) who sneak in fascism in the guise of a national service bill that will force everyone to serve the imperial military machine of the U.S., then yes, they are quite useful. But on a serious note, see the previous sentence.

Nice attempt at trying to be arbitary by using a Palestian map Rogue...you said in your earlier post that

That's the problem, you can't. Compare that site to a pro-Palestinian site. Both sides not only have differing opinions, but differing facts as well.

Right...you attack Gholam for his use of Israeli facts then you use a Palestian source after saying that both sides have different facts? Come on

Give us a non-biased source from a completely independent party and then maybe, it'll be fairer for everyone.

 

[RogueLeader]

If you like I could use the map I found from an Israeli site:

I don't think I've ever seen someone try to alter the map. Everyone with an IQ of 3 or higher knows where Gaza and West Bank are.

In 1948, we founded a state within the UN-defined borders - the yellow area on your map - and immediately we got invaded. Only thing that saved us was that Arab armies weren't much better equipped than infant IDF was. After 1949 cease-fire, Gaza strip was a part of Egypt, and West Bank was a part of Jordan - and neither even raised the question of creating an independent "Palestinian" state on those territories. In 1964, they created PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization - while still controlling West Bank and Gaza... are there any questions to what they consider "Palestine"? And do you seriously consider that yellow area to be defensible, from a military point of view?

I don't really care about the whole red area. The Arabs don't and you can't force someone to accept what they don't want, nor should you. However, basic natural human rights dictate the right to self determination. Because the people of Gaza and West Bank do not want Israeli rule, they have a right to not be ruled by Israel.

Russian people weren't asked about sale of Alaska either, or the French people about Louisiana. Deal was done and British paid. Case closed.

People object to that which they dislike. Much like the people of Egypt clearly did not want outside rule of their territory. If the Russians should demand Alaska back, and can convince the population to accept their rule, then good for them. Same with what were parts of Mexico. America shouldn't have taken Mexican land and moved settlers on to it, but since it has already happened and produced a majority its too late to change it. However the Israelis do not have a majority in the West Bank or Gaza. The governments wants to have it that way, but since it is still in progress, I can say that it should be stopped.

 

[Gholam]

Thing is, they do care about the red area - and the yellow one too.

This is the Peel Commission partition plan, dated 1937. Arabs rejected it.

This is the final UN partition map, which the Arabs again rejected, this time by invasion.

In 1967, we did a preemptive strike on Egypt, which was in final stage of preparations for an invasion. We captured Sinai, but handed it back in 1980, in exchange for satisfactory guarantees of our security and Egypt's recognition of Israel's right to exist. This concluded the history of our wars with Egypt. However, in 1967, we did *not* preemptively attack Jordan and Syria - they moved against us by themselves. Nobody can blame them - their ally's army was getting pounded into dust - but they did initiate the hostilities, they lost, and they paid the price. Sorry...

Also, there's this quote about Operation Peace to Galilee (1982), forgot from whom...

This is the first war in history where the victors are suing for peace, and the vanquished are calling for unconditional surrender

Pretty much sums up the history of Arab diplomacy in 2nd half of 20th century.

People object to that which they dislike. Much like the people of Egypt clearly did not want outside rule of their territory.

Still doesn't cancel out the fact that Egyptian government sold their shares of Suez Canal Company, and got the money. By the way, I'm not all that familiar with Egyptian history, but I'm pretty sure Egypt became independent well before 1953 - would be sorta hard to invade Israel in 1948 while under British rule.

 

[RogueLeader]

As you said before, you cannot compare modern policy to ancient policy. I am not denying that when Israel was first created the Arabs did not want it to exist at all. But in today's movement for independence the official position is liberation of West Bank and Gaza. They do not want to destroy Israel, with the exception of a few fanatics.

 

[Gholam]

So explain to me this, a quote from Count Folke Bernadotte's diary:

The Palestinian Arabs had at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.

 

[RogueLeader]

I'm not familiar with Count Folke Bernadotte, though I just checked www.us-israel.org ( ) and found a bio on him that says he died in 1948. To when does "at present" refer? I don't think it would be easy to say that since the creation of Israel, the Arabs there have created a more unified national identity then when they were semi-autonomous under Britain, or part of other Arab neighbors that share their culture.

 

[Gholam]

Count Folke Bernadotte was sent by UN as a mediator between Israel and invading Arab states, and the best thing he could come up with was a near copy of 1937 Peel partition plan (see above). Imagine what would have happened if, during late stages of American War of Independence, someone started preaching that 80% of the territories - that have already been hard won from the English - are to be handed back in exchange for... well... nothing. I'm guessing that in a typical American town of that time, he'd be lynched. Count Folke Bernadotte, in 1948, was shot by a Lehi (Lohamei Herut Yisrael - Fighters for Freedom of Israel) extremist group member.

So, if they just wanted independence within West Bank and Gaza Strip, why did they reject Barak's proposal that offered them just that?

 

[RogueLeader]

Because 1) in reality that proposal was only planned, not offered, and 2) Arafat did not even want that proposal because it forced the Palestinians to give up control over holy sites that they believe fall under the jurisdiction of the West Bank. It gave Arafat most of the West Bank's land, but the land Barak refused to give up was the land that was religiously most important to the Palestinians.

 

[Gholam]

Someone has been telling you tales - the offer was made, and rejected. And we aren't going to divide our nation's capitol, sorry. Arafat demands the Temple Mount - you think we should hand it over too?

 

[Gholam]

Also, this merits interest, concerning the refugee problem:

“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”

You know who said that? Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Mahmud Abbas. So much for Israel being responsible for refugees.

 

[RogueLeader]

Jerusalem was never given to Israel. And even big-Israel-supporter America doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital. And I'm afraid you have been told tales, the offer was never official (because Arafat refused it before it could be made into a formal offer; the effect is the same, its all semantics). The refugee problem does not refer to the Arab areas, and it is naive to claim that it is all the Arabs fault that the refugees were forced out when it is common knowledge that the Israeli military forced out many as well. In 1946, Palestinians owned 93% of the land in Israel/Palestine (that number is from a pro-Palestinian source, could be biased)? Do you mean to say that it was entirely the Arab armies that you chastised for being so weak and disorganized that are wholly responsible for purging Palestinians from the land?