[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]you might as well try wikipedia........i strain myself at the concept of where you might have gotten your history from.....aces_are_highSarcasm is not an argument. You might want to do a Wiki search yourself. you argument is inexistent...you have failed to bring of forth ANY form of material to support your false claims(no lands were purchased AFTER the creation of israel,the land was NEVER controlled by palestinians but by the turks and than the british,although the jews did not have a majority-they were almost 50%.....and the partition plan granted a jewish state WHERE JEWISH SETTLEMENTS WERE-and so it did with the arabs.....etc) I have failed to bring proof? And your massive pile of evidence consists of... a link to wikipedia (surely an unimpeachable source), which you are misquoting, as I know since I had read that same article, and am lookiing RIGHT NOW where it says the exact opposite of what you are saying in regards to demographics. Almost 50%, geez, do I really need to do a cut and paste from that same article you're pulling from? so that's your claim?......after ww2-the jews were about 50% of the populace,but that is besides the point.....fortunately-thhey resided in jewish controlled areas...and that is where the jewish state was to exist.....the fact that the arabs had a majority matters not-since they were crowded in very specific locations while the zionist movement struggled to raise settlements.....asians have a majority over planet earth-should all western states cease to exist because they aren't "the majority"?....hand china world domination...... No, after WW2, the Jews made up 32% of the population - check your own quoted article for the stats, or look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine. And those jewish controlled areas were only made jewish controlled by an ongoing British interest in the matter which facilitated the Arab exodus, also in your own article, exacerbated by a change in world support brought on by the aftermath of the holocaust. As for your China analogy, the world is not a country. But if by magic lantern power it was one country, and Asians had the majority, then yes, I guess they would be in charge. Or, if every individual country had an independent Chinese majority, each one, then the same would be true.
I'm a Christian that doesn't support the state of Israel
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.Funereal
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
[QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]you might as well try wikipedia........i strain myself at the concept of where you might have gotten your history from.....dsmccrackenSarcasm is not an argument. You might want to do a Wiki search yourself. you argument is inexistent...you have failed to bring of forth ANY form of material to support your false claims(no lands were purchased AFTER the creation of israel,the land was NEVER controlled by palestinians but by the turks and than the british,although the jews did not have a majority-they were almost 50%.....and the partition plan granted a jewish state WHERE JEWISH SETTLEMENTS WERE-and so it did with the arabs.....etc) I have failed to bring proof? And your massive pile of evidence consists of... a link to wikipedia (surely an unimpeachable source), which you are misquoting, as I know since I had read that same article, and am lookiing RIGHT NOW where it says the exact opposite of what you are saying in regards to demographics. Almost 50%, geez, do I really need to do a cut and paste from that same article you're pulling from? so that's your claim?......after ww2-the jews were about 50% of the populace,but that is besides the point.....fortunately-thhey resided in jewish controlled areas...and that is where the jewish state was to exist.....the fact that the arabs had a majority matters not-since they were crowded in very specific locations while the zionist movement struggled to raise settlements.....asians have a majority over planet earth-should all western states cease to exist because they aren't "the majority"?....hand china world domination...... No, after WW2, the Jews made up 32% of the population - check your own quoted article for the stats, or look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine. And those jewish controlled areas were only made jewish controlled by an ongoing British interest in the matter which facilitated the Arab exodus, also in your own article, exacerbated by a change in world support brought on by the aftermath of the holocaust. As for your China analogy, the world is not a country. But if by magic lantern power it was one country, and Asians had the majority, then yes, I guess they would be in charge. Or, if every individual country had an independent Chinese majority, each one, then the same would be true. palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)
Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.Funereal
and since israel is a secular state-this has no baring what so ever....
[QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.gamingqueen
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.Funereal
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
[QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.gamingqueen
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
I consider people with theistic religions to be inferior. I do not consider anyone with a certain race to be inferior. It's not that hard to understand really. I'm not in any position in which I can discriminate against anyone, I don't feel the need to do that either.palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)aces_are_high
Palestine and Israel became useful as place names after partition, not before, previously the whole area was termed Palestine. The British only backed off (temporarily) due to open rebellion. As to the UN, at least you have that right.
You fail to see, as you say, why British interests "converged" with Jewish ones. Well, lord Balfour (a leader of the British Jewish community) in unison with Lloyd George, who was sympathetic to British Jews, commited to this course through the Balfour declaration. You like Wikipedia, look it up if for no other reason then for the famous quote by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." This was the harbinger of the British Mandate.
At least you're not still saying 50%. Guess you're taking your own advice and actually reading.
[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.Funereal
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
I consider people with theistic religions to be inferior. I do not consider anyone with a certain race to be inferior. It's not that hard to understand really. I'm not in any position in which I can discriminate againstanyone, I don't feel the need to do that either.Can you read that again ? :?
[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.Funereal
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
I consider people with theistic religions to be inferior. I do not consider anyone with a certain race to be inferior. It's not that hard to understand really. I'm not in any position in which I can discriminate against anyone, I don't feel the need to do that either.inferior!?....don't be ridiculous........regarding a philosophy different than that of yours makes no one 'inferior'.....what makes you so confident the theists are wrong while you are absolutely,undoubetdly right?...
as an atheist-i happen to agree with your philosophical views -but referring to those who fail to see with you eye to eye reeks of intolerance and ignorance....
[QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.aces_are_high
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
I consider people with theistic religions to be inferior. I do not consider anyone with a certain race to be inferior. It's not that hard to understand really. I'm not in any position in which I can discriminate against anyone, I don't feel the need to do that either.inferior!?....don't be ridiculous........regarding a philosophy different than that of yours makes no one 'inferior'.....what makes you so confident the theists are wrong while you are absolutely,undoubetdly right?...
as an atheist-i happen to agree with your philosophical views -but referring to those who fail to see with you eye to eye reeks of intolerance and ignorance....
Atheist ? all that an you're an atheist ? what if you weren't you'd become an rabbi ? XD
[QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)dsmccracken
Palestine and Israel became useful as place names after partition, not before, previously the whole area was termed Palestine. The British only backed off (temporarily) due to open rebellion. As to the UN, at least you have that right.
You fail to see, as you say, why British interests "converged" with Jewish ones. Well, lord Balfour (a leader of the British Jewish community) in unison with Lloyd George, who was sympathetic to British Jews, commited to this course through the Balfour declaration. You like Wikipedia, look it up if for no other reason then for the famous quote by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." This was the harbinger of the British Mandate.
promising a "national home" does not equal a state-the british mandate tried all it could to be as un-biased as it could-which ,of course, resulted with dissatisfaction from all parties.....-this 'fairplay' lasted until the last white book of testimony(again i must inform you of something not within your knowledge) of policy-which ABOLISHED the idea of a sovereign jewish state and declared,instead, of the raising of an arab state with a jewish minority(which led to open jewish rebellion)...as for balfour-his declaration was disregarded by the 30's by the british authorities...the fact that jewish individuals influenced the british stance-did not change the bias and preference in the 30's and 40's( oil grubbing,WW2)
[QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.gamingqueen
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
I consider people with theistic religions to be inferior. I do not consider anyone with a certain race to be inferior. It's not that hard to understand really. I'm not in any position in which I can discriminate against anyone, I don't feel the need to do that either.inferior!?....don't be ridiculous........regarding a philosophy different than that of yours makes no one 'inferior'.....what makes you so confident the theists are wrong while you are absolutely,undoubetdly right?...
as an atheist-i happen to agree with your philosophical views -but referring to those who fail to see with you eye to eye reeks of intolerance and ignorance....
Atheist ? all that an you're an atheist ? what if you weren't you'd become an rabbi ? XD
i may be an atheist-but i like keeping an open mind......i may be an atheist-but i like keeping an open mind......aces_are_high
liar......
[QUOTE="aces_are_high"] i may be an atheist-but i like keeping an open mind......double-o-pichu
liar......
am not....[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)aces_are_high
Palestine and Israel became useful as place names after partition, not before, previously the whole area was termed Palestine. The British only backed off (temporarily) due to open rebellion. As to the UN, at least you have that right.
You fail to see, as you say, why British interests "converged" with Jewish ones. Well, lord Balfour (a leader of the British Jewish community) in unison with Lloyd George, who was sympathetic to British Jews, commited to this course through the Balfour declaration. You like Wikipedia, look it up if for no other reason then for the famous quote by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." This was the harbinger of the British Mandate.
promising a "national home" does not equal a state-the british mandate tried all it could to be as un-biased as it could-which ,of course, resulted with dissatisfaction from all parties.....-this 'fairplay' lasted until the last white book of testimony(again i must inform you of something not within your knowledge) of policy-which ABOLISHED the idea of a sovereign jewish state and declared,instead, of the raising of an arab state with a jewish minority(which led to open jewish rebellion)...as for balfour-his declaration was disregarded by the 30's by the british authorities...the fact that jewish individuals influenced the british stance-did not change the bias and preference in the 30's and 40's( oil grubbing,WW2)
Well, at least you're reading. I can tell because you're beginning to backtrack and make new arguments, while conveniently ignoring old ones. Unfortunatly, you are misreading and misquoting Wikipedia. Nothing was ABOLISHED (nice use of caps, very dramatic), rather the UK was spent and had to turn it over to the UN (rather like the French with Vietnam). As for the raising of an arab state, I'm not sure what you mean (there were contradictory promises made to each side, politician are magnificent creatures), as the state of Israel was declared before the mandate was even finished.[QUOTE="double-o-pichu"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"] i may be an atheist-but i like keeping an open mind......aces_are_high
liar......
am not....are to...
[QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.gamingqueen
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
I consider people with theistic religions to be inferior. I do not consider anyone with a certain race to be inferior. It's not that hard to understand really. I'm not in any position in which I can discriminate againstanyone, I don't feel the need to do that either.Can you read that again ? :?
[QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="Funereal"]Why should any christian support jews? Do people in the west still feel bad about the WW2 thing? Because the jews sure aren't late to bring it up all the time as an excuse for all the stupid things they do today. "A lot of us got killed of in WW2 so now we can do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it you are antisemitic!" I don't like jews just as I don't like christians or muslims but that doesn't make me antisemitic because that implies that I care about race. I couldn't care less what race you are. I have no problem with individuals of the "jewish race" if they are atheists.gamingqueen
You don't like and then you don't care about what race.... To some what creed are you is more important than what race are you. I think that implies on you..
Well religion and race are two different things, I do not dislike anyone based on their race that is just stupid, your race is nothing you can choose and it doesn't govern how you are as a person.You do discriminate on religion even though you don't the people themselves ?
I consider people with theistic religions to be inferior. I do not consider anyone with a certain race to be inferior. It's not that hard to understand really. I'm not in any position in which I can discriminate againstanyone, I don't feel the need to do that either.Can you read that again ? :?
Considering certain people to be inferior is a passive opinion, discrimination is an active thing.[QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)dsmccracken
Palestine and Israel became useful as place names after partition, not before, previously the whole area was termed Palestine. The British only backed off (temporarily) due to open rebellion. As to the UN, at least you have that right.
You fail to see, as you say, why British interests "converged" with Jewish ones. Well, lord Balfour (a leader of the British Jewish community) in unison with Lloyd George, who was sympathetic to British Jews, commited to this course through the Balfour declaration. You like Wikipedia, look it up if for no other reason then for the famous quote by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." This was the harbinger of the British Mandate.
promising a "national home" does not equal a state-the british mandate tried all it could to be as un-biased as it could-which ,of course, resulted with dissatisfaction from all parties.....-this 'fairplay' lasted until the last white book of testimony(again i must inform you of something not within your knowledge) of policy-which ABOLISHED the idea of a sovereign jewish state and declared,instead, of the raising of an arab state with a jewish minority(which led to open jewish rebellion)...as for balfour-his declaration was disregarded by the 30's by the british authorities...the fact that jewish individuals influenced the british stance-did not change the bias and preference in the 30's and 40's( oil grubbing,WW2)
Well, at least you're reading. I can tell because you're beginning to backtrack and make new arguments, while conviently ignoring old ones. Unfortunatly, you are misreading and misquoting Wikipedia. Nothing was ABOLISHED (nice use of caps, very dramatic), rather the UK was spent and had to turn it over to the UN (rather like the French with Vietnam). As for the raising of an arab state, I'm not sure what you mean (there were contradictory promises made to each side, politician are magnificent creatures), as the state of Israel was declared before the mandate was even finished.this is not from wikipedia...that is from BOOKS(dramatized especially for you..)...you know-letters and pages made of wood.....wiki is very brief about certain issues...i never once used or relied upon wikipedia for information-i supplied the link because it was the fastest way of conveying the information to you.....
the un made it's decision before the mandate ended.....
now read...for i have found another link for you depicting the white book of 1939-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939
.....
can't link for an odd,strange reason.......-copy and paste ftw...
also-palestine is a british reference-prior to that syria AND palestine were considered as one bale and were referred to as 'great syria'....should israel today be considered a part of syria?......canada and the US were once both in british control-i guess the us should annex canada...aces_are_highMaybe Canada should annex the US... anyway, many things were once called many other things, but don't confuse the word Syria as used in ancient times with the current country of Syria. The area was once called Palaestina, Syria, Judea, Syria Palestine, Canaan, but the name used most (in anything close to modern times) outside the Ottoman period (who named areas after capitals) was Palestine.
[QUOTE="aces_are_high"]also-palestine is a british reference-prior to that syria AND palestine were considered as one bale and were referred to as 'great syria'....should israel today be considered a part of syria?......canada and the US were once both in british control-i guess the us should annex canada...dsmccrackenMaybe Canada should annex the US... anyway, many things were once called many other things, but don't confuse the word Syria as used in ancient times with the current country of Syria. The area was once called Palaestina, Syria, Judea, Syria Palestine, Canaan, but the name used most (in anything close to modern times) outside the Ottoman period (who named areas after capitals) was Palestine. 'great syria' is a modern term.........which was eliminated after the seperation of syria and palestine-to british and french control it isn't ancient....
Israel > USAMystery_Writer
me no agree
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)aces_are_high
Palestine and Israel became useful as place names after partition, not before, previously the whole area was termed Palestine. The British only backed off (temporarily) due to open rebellion. As to the UN, at least you have that right.
You fail to see, as you say, why British interests "converged" with Jewish ones. Well, lord Balfour (a leader of the British Jewish community) in unison with Lloyd George, who was sympathetic to British Jews, commited to this course through the Balfour declaration. You like Wikipedia, look it up if for no other reason then for the famous quote by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." This was the harbinger of the British Mandate.
promising a "national home" does not equal a state-the british mandate tried all it could to be as un-biased as it could-which ,of course, resulted with dissatisfaction from all parties.....-this 'fairplay' lasted until the last white book of testimony(again i must inform you of something not within your knowledge) of policy-which ABOLISHED the idea of a sovereign jewish state and declared,instead, of the raising of an arab state with a jewish minority(which led to open jewish rebellion)...as for balfour-his declaration was disregarded by the 30's by the british authorities...the fact that jewish individuals influenced the british stance-did not change the bias and preference in the 30's and 40's( oil grubbing,WW2)
Well, at least you're reading. I can tell because you're beginning to backtrack and make new arguments, while conviently ignoring old ones. Unfortunatly, you are misreading and misquoting Wikipedia. Nothing was ABOLISHED (nice use of caps, very dramatic), rather the UK was spent and had to turn it over to the UN (rather like the French with Vietnam). As for the raising of an arab state, I'm not sure what you mean (there were contradictory promises made to each side, politician are magnificent creatures), as the state of Israel was declared before the mandate was even finished.this is not from wikipedia...that is from BOOKS(dramatized especially for you..)...you know-letters and pages made of wood.....wiki is very brief about certain issues...i never once used or relied upon wikipedia for information-i supplied the link because it was the fastest way of conveying the information to you.....
the un made it's decision before the mandate ended.....
now read...for i have found another link for you depicting the white book of 1939-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939
.....
can't link for an odd,strange reason.......-copy and paste ftw...
I hope this wasn't your "big gun," as this lasted one whole year, and was rejected by nearly everyone it involved.[QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)dsmccracken
Palestine and Israel became useful as place names after partition, not before, previously the whole area was termed Palestine. The British only backed off (temporarily) due to open rebellion. As to the UN, at least you have that right.
You fail to see, as you say, why British interests "converged" with Jewish ones. Well, lord Balfour (a leader of the British Jewish community) in unison with Lloyd George, who was sympathetic to British Jews, commited to this course through the Balfour declaration. You like Wikipedia, look it up if for no other reason then for the famous quote by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." This was the harbinger of the British Mandate.
promising a "national home" does not equal a state-the british mandate tried all it could to be as un-biased as it could-which ,of course, resulted with dissatisfaction from all parties.....-this 'fairplay' lasted until the last white book of testimony(again i must inform you of something not within your knowledge) of policy-which ABOLISHED the idea of a sovereign jewish state and declared,instead, of the raising of an arab state with a jewish minority(which led to open jewish rebellion)...as for balfour-his declaration was disregarded by the 30's by the british authorities...the fact that jewish individuals influenced the british stance-did not change the bias and preference in the 30's and 40's( oil grubbing,WW2)
Well, at least you're reading. I can tell because you're beginning to backtrack and make new arguments, while conviently ignoring old ones. Unfortunatly, you are misreading and misquoting Wikipedia. Nothing was ABOLISHED (nice use of caps, very dramatic), rather the UK was spent and had to turn it over to the UN (rather like the French with Vietnam). As for the raising of an arab state, I'm not sure what you mean (there were contradictory promises made to each side, politician are magnificent creatures), as the state of Israel was declared before the mandate was even finished.this is not from wikipedia...that is from BOOKS(dramatized especially for you..)...you know-letters and pages made of wood.....wiki is very brief about certain issues...i never once used or relied upon wikipedia for information-i supplied the link because it was the fastest way of conveying the information to you.....
the un made it's decision before the mandate ended.....
now read...for i have found another link for you depicting the white book of 1939-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939
.....
can't link for an odd,strange reason.......-copy and paste ftw...
I hope this wasn't your "big gun," as this lasted one whole year, and was rejected by nearly everyone it involved.every white book was rejected by the arab side-this WAS the final testimony of policy over plasetine.....end of story(one year?)-and it held until the british transferred the decision to the UN-which took no regard for it and commenced with an independent committee of inquiry over the matter-which came up with the idea for the partition plan........-which was approved by the un assembly in 1947......
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]also-palestine is a british reference-prior to that syria AND palestine were considered as one bale and were referred to as 'great syria'....should israel today be considered a part of syria?......canada and the US were once both in british control-i guess the us should annex canada...aces_are_highMaybe Canada should annex the US... anyway, many things were once called many other things, but don't confuse the word Syria as used in ancient times with the current country of Syria. The area was once called Palaestina, Syria, Judea, Syria Palestine, Canaan, but the name used most (in anything close to modern times) outside the Ottoman period (who named areas after capitals) was Palestine. 'great syria' is a modern term.........which was eliminated after the seperation of syria and palestine-to british and french control it isn't ancient.... Nothing eliminated the term Great Syria (actually Greater Syria, sorry)... as the word was a regional place name like the Balkans, with no political meaning then or now except in terms of identity/ethnicity/cultural descriptions.
[QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]also-palestine is a british reference-prior to that syria AND palestine were considered as one bale and were referred to as 'great syria'....should israel today be considered a part of syria?......canada and the US were once both in british control-i guess the us should annex canada...dsmccrackenMaybe Canada should annex the US... anyway, many things were once called many other things, but don't confuse the word Syria as used in ancient times with the current country of Syria. The area was once called Palaestina, Syria, Judea, Syria Palestine, Canaan, but the name used most (in anything close to modern times) outside the Ottoman period (who named areas after capitals) was Palestine. 'great syria' is a modern term.........which was eliminated after the seperation of syria and palestine-to british and french control it isn't ancient.... Nothing eliminated the term Great Syria (actually Greater Syria, sorry)... as the word was a regional place name like the Balkans, with no political meaning then or now except in terms of identity/ethnicity/cultural descriptions. it did in fact have a political meaning for the area was governed as one.....(by the turks as well as others..) but ,really,does it matter?-was there a flaw in the partition plan?-jewish sovereignity where jews lived and arab sovereignity where arabs were?...........was the brutal assault by all arab nations justified?.no....the un decided the jews have as much right for nationality as every other ethnicity.......-holocaust or no holocaust...this was bound to happen-for the jewish presence was growing...any arguments made against it are ill-informed.....
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
palestine and israel are not one country as well.......there was a partition for a reason.....
also-the arab exodus is due to the inept leadership of the palestinian religious and political leaders-with scare tales of jewish cruelty and massacre,as well as extended use of nazi propaganda......-they were urged to leave and promised a victorious return after quote-"all the jews were in the sea"(they had a very catchy tune to go along with it..) ....the jewish leadership actually released a cry for the arab population not to flee-and promised no harm will come to them(some of which was proudly inserted to the declaration of independence..)...there were some forced exile from certain jewish groups(Such as members of the lehi and rogue members of the ezel and hagana)....those who did stay-WERE granted a full israeli citizenship........
also-i fail to see how british interests converged with jewish ones......-the boundaries placed over jewish immigration and the restrictions over the jewish settlement speak for itself..the british interest was with the arab populace-the oil was(as it is today) very precious to them...-and that is why the british eventually CANCELLED the looming existence of a jewish state...(which the UN reinstated)aces_are_high
Palestine and Israel became useful as place names after partition, not before, previously the whole area was termed Palestine. The British only backed off (temporarily) due to open rebellion. As to the UN, at least you have that right.
You fail to see, as you say, why British interests "converged" with Jewish ones. Well, lord Balfour (a leader of the British Jewish community) in unison with Lloyd George, who was sympathetic to British Jews, commited to this course through the Balfour declaration. You like Wikipedia, look it up if for no other reason then for the famous quote by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." This was the harbinger of the British Mandate.
promising a "national home" does not equal a state-the british mandate tried all it could to be as un-biased as it could-which ,of course, resulted with dissatisfaction from all parties.....-this 'fairplay' lasted until the last white book of testimony(again i must inform you of something not within your knowledge) of policy-which ABOLISHED the idea of a sovereign jewish state and declared,instead, of the raising of an arab state with a jewish minority(which led to open jewish rebellion)...as for balfour-his declaration was disregarded by the 30's by the british authorities...the fact that jewish individuals influenced the british stance-did not change the bias and preference in the 30's and 40's( oil grubbing,WW2)
Well, at least you're reading. I can tell because you're beginning to backtrack and make new arguments, while conviently ignoring old ones. Unfortunatly, you are misreading and misquoting Wikipedia. Nothing was ABOLISHED (nice use of caps, very dramatic), rather the UK was spent and had to turn it over to the UN (rather like the French with Vietnam). As for the raising of an arab state, I'm not sure what you mean (there were contradictory promises made to each side, politician are magnificent creatures), as the state of Israel was declared before the mandate was even finished.this is not from wikipedia...that is from BOOKS(dramatized especially for you..)...you know-letters and pages made of wood.....wiki is very brief about certain issues...i never once used or relied upon wikipedia for information-i supplied the link because it was the fastest way of conveying the information to you.....
the un made it's decision before the mandate ended.....
now read...for i have found another link for you depicting the white book of 1939-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939
.....
can't link for an odd,strange reason.......-copy and paste ftw...
I hope this wasn't your "big gun," as this lasted one whole year, and was rejected by nearly everyone it involved.every white book was rejected by the arab side-this WAS the final testimony of policy over plasetine.....end of story(one year?)-and it held until the british transferred the decision to the UN-which took no regard for it and commenced with an independent committee of inquiry over the matter-which came up with the idea for the partition plan........-which was approved by the un assembly in 1947......
Yes one year -- read your own material! I didn't even have to go looking for this, you actually gave it to me. In actual implementation, one year. As an ignored remnant on the books, approx. 9 years. And I quote "Although adopted, implementation was slow; when the Government fell the following year, the plans were dropped. On May 15, 1948 the government of the new state of Israel issued an injunction officially abolishing the White Paper."
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Yes one year -- read your own material! I didn't even have to go looking for this, you actually gave it to me. In actual implementation, one year. As an ignored remnant on the books, approx. 9 years. And I quote "Although adopted, implementation was slow; when the Government fell the following year, the plans were dropped. On May 15, 1948 the government of the new state of Israel issued an injunction officially abolishing the White Paper."aces_are_highare you kidding me?....do you know any form of policy which isn't slow to implement?........or implemented at all?...this was the OFFICIAL policy of the mandate until it's removal-the fact that due to inner politics this was not implemented means nothing(i can see how the word 'dropped' would confuse you....i would suggest reading more serious material if you're really interested-wiki can be misleading..).... I like how you post the wiki link, then insult me for actually reading it and using it to show your misquoting of it. Hilarious. I'm sorry for believing we were talking about things in history that actually happened, and not things that almost happened. Talk to me on matters of actual consequence.... no, actually it's funnier if you keep talking about abandoned policies with no real world impact. There is a whole website full of laws still on the books that are no longer followed, yet are "OFFICIAL." Like no paying to dance on Saturdays (maybe Sundays?) in England. Care to discuss the import of those momentus decisions?
Of course policies are slow to implement, government moves at a snails pace and all that. But to bring up a policy that was slow to implement, was effectively (though no, not officially) dead within a year, like it's the big proof, it's ridiculous. And then, when that is pointed out to you, to try to say that the fact that it didn't actually amount to anything doesn't gut your argument.... please, have some respect for yourself. Have some respect for the forum. Have some respect for history, if nothing else.
I like how you post the wiki link, then insult me for actually reading it and using it to show your misquoting of it. Hilarious. I'm sorry for believing we were talking about things in history that actually happened, and not things that almost happened. Talk to me on matters of actual consequence.... no, actually it's funnier if you keep talking about abandoned policies with no real world impact. There is a whole website full of laws still on the books that are no longer followed, yet are "OFFICIAL." Like no paying to dance on Saturdays (maybe Sundays?) in England. Care to discuss the import of those momentus decisions?dsmccrackenit was not an insult....i'm sorry you feel as hostile to the exterior world...i was merely suggesting that you read up(since i cannot provide you with online material-i don't get info off the web)-while commenting on the anti-zionist policy taken by the mandate with ww2.......-it didn't 'almost' happen-it did......the fact that ww2 and international pressure sent this policy to hell(where it belongs)-means absolutely nothing for it indicates the bias of the british regime.... you take this too seriously-i merely find it insulting you state a jewish state has no right for existence-especially when even the PLo and fatah movements recognize it(though in a skewed fashion..)- i'm glad you have no input regarding world affairs.....
Aces...Calm down dude. Forget about these people because they will alwyas be ignorant to the facts and the opposition will always think that you're ignorant. I know you're trying to enlighten them, but they're obviously unwilling. Same goes for the opposition. No one is going to change their minds no matter what is said because we all come from different backgrounds with different views. What I may have learned as a child impacts my decisions and what other have learned impact theirs. It's a fact of life, and I think the world would be a better place if we just accept each other. Live_Master_S
Interesting theory.....but education on any given subject should change those you have erroneously formed an opinion.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] I like how you post the wiki link, then insult me for actually reading it and using it to show your misquoting of it. Hilarious. I'm sorry for believing we were talking about things in history that actually happened, and not things that almost happened. Talk to me on matters of actual consequence.... no, actually it's funnier if you keep talking about abandoned policies with no real world impact. There is a whole website full of laws still on the books that are no longer followed, yet are "OFFICIAL." Like no paying to dance on Saturdays (maybe Sundays?) in England. Care to discuss the import of those momentus decisions?aces_are_highit was not an insult....i'm sorry you feel as hostile to the exterior world...i was merely suggesting that you read up(since i cannot provide you with online material-i don't get info off the web)-while commenting on the anti-zionist policy taken by the mandate with ww2.......-it didn't 'almost' happen-it did......the fact that ww2 and international pressure sent this policy to hell(where it belongs)-means absolutely nothing for it indicates the bias of the british regime.... you take this too seriously-i merely find it insulting you state a jewish state has no right for existence-especially when even the PLo and fatah movements recognize it(though in a skewed fashion..)- i'm glad you have no input regarding world affairs..... To be more accurate, you have provided info off the web, info that has contradicted what your points were, yet you've used it to support your points, very confusing. You allude to a large depository of books (using some sort of substance you call "wood") presumably sitting in your library of a living room, surrounded by your many degrees in Middle Eastern Relations, all of which would support your argument if only this wasn't a web discussion. You have me saying that I don't support a Jewish state, though where I said that I can't seem to recall. If it was during this thread, someone must have stolen my password and edited it out of existence. I think everyone should have a home, just not where someone else, innocent to the whole affair, is already shacking up. You misquote me, you misquote your own sources.... in other words, a triumph of modern debate. Is your last name Bush?
[QUOTE="aces_are_high"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] I like how you post the wiki link, then insult me for actually reading it and using it to show your misquoting of it. Hilarious. I'm sorry for believing we were talking about things in history that actually happened, and not things that almost happened. Talk to me on matters of actual consequence.... no, actually it's funnier if you keep talking about abandoned policies with no real world impact. There is a whole website full of laws still on the books that are no longer followed, yet are "OFFICIAL." Like no paying to dance on Saturdays (maybe Sundays?) in England. Care to discuss the import of those momentus decisions?dsmccrackenit was not an insult....i'm sorry you feel as hostile to the exterior world...i was merely suggesting that you read up(since i cannot provide you with online material-i don't get info off the web)-while commenting on the anti-zionist policy taken by the mandate with ww2.......-it didn't 'almost' happen-it did......the fact that ww2 and international pressure sent this policy to hell(where it belongs)-means absolutely nothing for it indicates the bias of the british regime.... you take this too seriously-i merely find it insulting you state a jewish state has no right for existence-especially when even the PLo and fatah movements recognize it(though in a skewed fashion..)- i'm glad you have no input regarding world affairs..... To be more accurate, you have provided info off the web, info that has contradicted what your points, yet you've used it to support your points, very confusing. You allude to a large depository of books (using some sort of substance you call "wood") presumably sitting in your library of a living room, surrounded by your many degrees in Middle Eastern Relations, all of which support your argument if only this wasn't a web discussion. You have me saying that I don't support a Jewish state, though where I said that I can't seem to recall. If it was during this thread, someone must have stolen my password and edited it out of existence. I think everyone should have a home, just not where someone else, innocent to the whole affair, is already shacking up. You misquote me, you misquote your own sources.... in other words, a triumph of modern debate. Is your last name Bush?
nothing within my info has contradicted anything said by me(and you will probably bring up the 50% issue-it did turn to ABOUT 50% prior 1948..)-i have not misquoted or misread anything in this debate... some of your points ,however,(the jewish purchasing of land was made after the founding of the state sort of rubbish) HAVE been disproven....
i do not present myself to be the highest authority over the subject i do ,however, am noticeably more educated than you are on this topic-made for proof by your historical errors(see above)-i have taken middle-eastern history classes-true.....which rather present me with an edge......while you dwell with unconcequental issue of precentage and if the policy was or wasn't implemented(when it is not the issue under discussion-the british bias with ww2..)
you agreed with the tc-and claimed israel has no existence rights....due to several mis-informed claims-i say BS....
good day.....
You are unbelievable. Still with this 50% stuff, read your own material, by 1948 = 32% is not "about" 50, how can you say you have got nothing wrong?! I wouldn't have had to point out unimplemented policies if you hadn't brought them up as some sort of big point in the first place, geez, you made an entire post just for that one hyperlink! What you mean with the british bias I'm not sure... do you mean it was the original argument (it wasn't) or that it was my argument (it wasn't that either)?nothing within my info has contradicted anything said by me(and you will probably bring up the 50% issue-it did turn to ABOUT 50% prior 1948..)-i have not misquoted or misread anything in this debate... some of your points ,however,(the jewish purchasing of land was made after the founding of the state sort of rubbish) HAVE been disproven....
i do not present myself to be the highest authority over the subject i do ,however, am noticeably more educated than you are on this topic-made for proof by your historical errors(see above)-i have taken middle-eastern history classes-true.....which rather present me with an edge......while you dwell with unconcequental issue of precentage and if the policy was or wasn't implemented(when it is not the issue under discussion-the british bias with ww2..)
you agreed with the tc-and claimed israel has no existence rights....due to several mis-informed claims-i say BS....
good day.....
aces_are_high
You are unbelievable. Still with this 50% stuff, read your own material, by 1948 = 32% is not "about" 50, how can you say you have got nothing wrong?! I wouldn't have had to point out unimplemented policies if you hadn't brought them up as some sort of big point in the first place, geez, you made an entire post just for that one hyperlink! What you mean with the british bias I'm not sure... do you mean it was the original argument (it wasn't) or that it was my argument (it wasn't that either)? right.....>_> what argument?-you never had any ...you somehow claim israel shouldn't have existed-which reeks of ignorance...you have shown no factual information to base your claims(that the pallies had more claim for the land than the jews....)-and no background knowledge over the events...and what you constantly do is shove this to a personal spot. you,even, somehow managed to press bush into this debate -this discussion is over.....[QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
nothing within my info has contradicted anything said by me(and you will probably bring up the 50% issue-it did turn to ABOUT 50% prior 1948..)-i have not misquoted or misread anything in this debate... some of your points ,however,(the jewish purchasing of land was made after the founding of the state sort of rubbish) HAVE been disproven....
i do not present myself to be the highest authority over the subject i do ,however, am noticeably more educated than you are on this topic-made for proof by your historical errors(see above)-i have taken middle-eastern history classes-true.....which rather present me with an edge......while you dwell with unconcequental issue of precentage and if the policy was or wasn't implemented(when it is not the issue under discussion-the british bias with ww2..)
you agreed with the tc-and claimed israel has no existence rights....due to several mis-informed claims-i say BS....
good day.....
dsmccracken
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]You are unbelievable. Still with this 50% stuff, read your own material, by 1948 = 32% is not "about" 50, how can you say you have got nothing wrong?! I wouldn't have had to point out unimplemented policies if you hadn't brought them up as some sort of big point in the first place, geez, you made an entire post just for that one hyperlink! What you mean with the british bias I'm not sure... do you mean it was the original argument (it wasn't) or that it was my argument (it wasn't that either)? right.....>_> what argument?-you never had any ...you somehow claim israel shouldn't have existed-which reeks of ignorance...you have shown no factual information to base your claims(that the pallies had more claim for the land than the jews....)-and no background knowledge over the events...and what you constantly do is shove this to a personal spot. you,even, somehow managed to press bush into this debate -this discussion is over..... Look back at the string and read. You are the one that shot insults and condescension. I only got heated after your rude behavior. The string proves this. You accuse me of having no proof, even though you provided no proof yourself, and what you did try to provide actually supported me when fully investigated. This discussion isn't over, it never began, as you are a pompous fool, the worst kind of fool, who fancies himself educated. You know just enough to bluff your way through a conversation with someone who is uninformed, and that experience has made you complacent, makes you think you actually think you know your stuff, and makes you make a fool of yourself when you encounter someone who calls you on it. Why call for evidence when you yourself have none? I haven't provided annotations as to the Palestinian majorities' claim to the land any more than I would hope I would need to with an Englishman's right to England. Exactly what proof did you require for that sort of Res Ipsa Loquitor, you overbearing windbag?[QUOTE="aces_are_high"]
nothing within my info has contradicted anything said by me(and you will probably bring up the 50% issue-it did turn to ABOUT 50% prior 1948..)-i have not misquoted or misread anything in this debate... some of your points ,however,(the jewish purchasing of land was made after the founding of the state sort of rubbish) HAVE been disproven....
i do not present myself to be the highest authority over the subject i do ,however, am noticeably more educated than you are on this topic-made for proof by your historical errors(see above)-i have taken middle-eastern history classes-true.....which rather present me with an edge......while you dwell with unconcequental issue of precentage and if the policy was or wasn't implemented(when it is not the issue under discussion-the british bias with ww2..)
you agreed with the tc-and claimed israel has no existence rights....due to several mis-informed claims-i say BS....
good day.....
aces_are_high
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment