Nick Berg
-
John Carson wrote: If you went back to 1920 you would find an Arab land with a Jewish population of around 10%. It was out of that Arab land that Israel was created. Actually, this isn't true. Israel was created out of Ottoman Empire land. Ottomans are not Arabs, but Turks. Good summary: http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/ottoman/9.htm[^] And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict[^] What this article doesn't note is that very little land inside the broadest modern Israel borders was actually owned by Palestinians. Most was owned by Turks, some of whom were Jews--Jews could own land in Israel if they were were Ottomans. After the British took control, Jews increasingly bought land. Britain intended to ensure Arabs and Jews purchased equal amounts of land, but in practice, the Arabs purchased very little land and the Jews a whole lot less land than the Jews. [EDIT: John Carson below points out that according to one accepted analysis, Jews owned 6.6% of the land in Palestine as of 1947 and 20% of the farm land. The following source lists 12.5% of the land "[o]n which 80% of Israel's population now lives." There were additional purchases after 1947, which may account for the difference. I also hasten to point out, that this in no way justifies the taking of titled land in the 1947 border from Arabs, Palestinians or whomever, by Israeli forces. The acquisition of land as the result of a fundamentally defensive war--even if launched preemptively--is more problematic. I tend to go with the "to the victor go the spoils" philosophy here. That isn't to say that this philosophy is politically wise. The new settlements especially haven't helped Israel any and turning at least some of them over to individual Palestinians unilaterally would, I think, be a net positive for Israel. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_land.php[^]] (From a his
Joe Woodbury wrote: Actually, this isn't true. Israel was created out of Ottoman Empire land. Ottomans are not Arabs, but Turks. Actually, it is true that Israel was created out of Arab land. Of course Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. That is why the British gained control of it, because the Turks were on the losing side in WWI. That doesn't make Palestine Turkish any more than it makes India British during the period of British colonial rule. According to Mark Tessler (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, p.145) in 1922 there were 668,000 Arabic speaking Palestinians (589,000 Muslims, 71,000 Christians and 7,500 Druze) and 85,000 Jews. He doesn't give figures for the Turkish population, which was apparently not numerically significant. Joe Woodbury wrote: What this article doesn't note is that very little land inside the broadest modern Israel borders was actually owned by Palestinians. Most was owned by Turks, some of whom were Jews--Jews could own land in Israel if they were were Ottomans. After the British took control, Jews increasingly bought land. Britain intended to ensure Arabs and Jews purchased equal amounts of land, but in practice, the Arabs purchased very little land and the Jews a whole lot. It is true that Jews were keen to purchase land, but not true that they acquired a lot of it. According to Tessler (p. 174), they only owned 6.6% of the land by 1947. I don't have overall figures for the division between Arabs and Turks but view your claims with scepticism. Joe Woodbury wrote: From a historical perspective, it's also important to point out that the concept of "return" gained its real momentum as a result of WWII. Before then, Jews as a group had no real desire for a "homeland" and even Zionists proposed alternatives to Israel, such as Uganda, of all places.) WWII certainly added to it, but there was a great deal of momentum prior to that. Jewish migration had increased the proportion of Jews in the population to about 1/3 and the immigration quotas were a constant source of conflict between the Jewish representatives and the Arabs and British. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Ru
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and, don't forget, we've likely killed somewhere around 10,000 Iraqi civilians. if An Eye For An Eye is the name of the game, we're in deep sh*t. to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. thousands will die in the next decades coz of the forbidden weapons uses by USA in the region.
hspc wrote: to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. I hear this come up time and time again. Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? Call me curious.
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
both are refused? Pardon? what does this mean? Look, you wake a sleeping giant you gotta expect he's going to strike back. No one is saying that no one else has died for any cause and I'm not saying life is fair (cos it isn't) but it was a response to a specific point. Gambling? I presume you're attempting a humorous retort. What rights? There are no rights in war. There are only winners and losers. You just gotta hope you're on the winning side. That is reality. Oh and I never said Israel won every war and South Lebabnon was not handled well. However, Sinai was handed back to Egypt as the price of peace. Funny how the Egyptians were happy with a bit of desert and didn't ask for anything for the Palestinians. Are you a Paleastinian or an Iraqi? Are you saying that you were better off under Saddam Hussein? That it is better to be killed raped or mutilated by your own? Or are you one of Arafats oppressed? One of the poor bastards that he locks in to the "refugee camps"? It is really tedious to keep having to login. Stoopid kompooters.
Mark [London] wrote: It is really tedious to keep having to login. Stoopid kompooters. Next time you log in, go to My Settings and check the "Use cookies so you don't have to log on again?" box. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mark [London] wrote: It is really tedious to keep having to login. Stoopid kompooters. Next time you log in, go to My Settings and check the "Use cookies so you don't have to log on again?" box. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
Knew that, ta. Sadly I am bang in the middle of developing an app that eats cookies (kinda) and it keeps eating mine. Buggers won't give me another machine and I can't be asked to write a little batch file to store them, run the app and then restore them. Hey, wait, while I've f'd about writing this mail I coulda written the script. Doh! Hey, good debate if a little intense. Still I guess a war'd do that.
-
hspc wrote: to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. I hear this come up time and time again. Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? Call me curious.
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project LurkerPaul Lyons wrote: Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? not under my hands now.. I also don't have an evidence that Bin laden commited the 11/9 crime.
-
hspc wrote: anyway buying some land in englan does not give me the right to consider it an hspcian land and make a new nation on it!!! They didn't buy the land in England. They purchased land from Ottoman Turks, Arabs and yes, even Jews. It's also important to note that the Palestinians never had a nation; the territory had been part of the Ottoman empire for 400 years. This isn't to say Britain's governance of the territory was somewhere between bad and awful; it was. However, given the history of the region, the actions of the League of Nations in other parts of the Arab world and Britain's history has a colonizing power, what happened becomes somewhat understandable, though not justifiable. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: They purchased land from Ottoman Turks when ? palestine was under the british conquest!! Joe Woodbury wrote: understandable, though not justifiable. and what matters here is justice
-
What rules? There are no rules. There are deals. And war. That's it. Live with it. It's pleasing to hear that the Egyptians have made something of the Sinai - I hadn't known that. However, at the time it was given back it wasn't theirs. And we have our own oil (UK), thank you very much - don't need your overpriced goods. Maybe you should spend some of those hefty oil revenues on your own people in the form of food and medicine instead of stockpiling housed all over the world and sendiong weapons to terrorist organisations. That'll promote peace, won't it? Bottom line: put down your weapons, accept that you can't get back everything you think you lost, accept that Israel is not going to go away and maybe, just maybe we can all get what we really want - peace. I'm not holding my breath. Can I stop apologising for not logging in now?
Mark [London] wrote: you should spend some of those hefty oil revenues on your own people in the form of food and medicine instead of stockpiling housed all over the world and sendiong weapons to terrorist organisations. mmmmmm talking to blair ?;P ok..Yes he should stop his terrorists and also care about his next elections
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: They purchased land from Ottoman Turks when ? palestine was under the british conquest!! Joe Woodbury wrote: understandable, though not justifiable. and what matters here is justice
You need to read up on your history. After WWI, the Ottoman empire was broken up and partitioned in secret by Britain, France and Italy, which accounts for the mostly arbitrary borders of many countries in the region. While Britain controlled the Palestine territory, title to the lands was still retained mostly by Ottoman Turks (most were absentee landlords.) The history of Palestine/Israel is long and complicated. hspc wrote: and what matters here is justice If you're talking justice, begin with prosecuting the Palestinian terrorists who deliberately target and kill women and children. Also prosecute the parents who kill their daughters for disgracing them by being raped or having consensual sex out of wedlock. If you're talking justice, why hasn't Arafat been arrested for embezzling and misappropriating over a billion dollars of money meant for the Palestinian people? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Paul Lyons wrote: Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? not under my hands now.. I also don't have an evidence that Bin laden commited the 11/9 crime.
hspc wrote: not under my hands now.. Thanks. If you do happen to come upon it, please let me know. hspc wrote: I also don't have an evidence that Bin laden commited the 11/9 crime. Hmmm, don't recall asking that. :confused: Since you are an enlightened seeker of knowledge, perhaps this[^] might help you.
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
The networks know that what you can't see, you'll soon forget. You'll remember what happened to Nick because you've seen it. The torture of prisoners is more hazy, they won't let you see that. And as the invader, the USA has the obligation to be more than 'less evil', if they want the support of the populace. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder