Israel agrees to negotiate pre 67 lines

ah geez, this again? wasn't this playbook shelved about 50yrs ago?
still not believing Israel has any claim to the territory, not historically, morally, spiritually or communally.
having been handed a contrived country, one might think the resentment of those displaced would last generations ... it confounds me to think any negotiations would be welcome or prove productive.

Originally posted by Honor93
ah geez, this again? wasn't this playbook shelved about 50yrs ago?
still not believing Israel has any claim to the territory, not historically, morally, spiritually or communally.
having been handed a contrived country, one might think the resentment of those displaced would last generations ... it confounds me to think any negotiations would be welcome or prove productive.

There didnt seem to be any issues when the Ottoman Empire was conquered and divided up after WWI. In that case the land went to the Arabs, who seemed ok with it.

Or dd they have issues?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Honor93
ah geez, this again? wasn't this playbook shelved about 50yrs ago?
still not believing Israel has any claim to the territory, not historically, morally, spiritually or communally.
having been handed a contrived country, one might think the resentment of those displaced would last generations ... it confounds me to think any negotiations would be welcome or prove productive.

There didnt seem to be any issues when the Ottoman Empire was conquered and divided up after WWI. In that case the land went to the Arabs, who seemed ok with it.

Or dd they have issues?

hmmm, WWI was a few more than 50 yrs ago ... care to address the same time frame or all of the applicable history? inclusive of the Rosenthal interview which sheds a whole different perspective on the subject.

ps: i am not a jew or an arab and i find the whole miserable situation nothing more than a distraction.

reply to post by Xcathdra

About 2 posts down is where he decides to go down the road of the UN vote.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He is attempting to take my argument and shift it into the UN vote when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. He also argued that the arab countries did accept UNR 242, when clearly trhey did not.

Well the "UN" vote on resolution 242 was a unanimous vote..

The Arabs did "NOT" accept it..Well not until years later and even then not the entire context..

So if you were called a liar based on Arab acceptance then you are certainly NOT a LIAR.

reply to post by Honor93


If we were to use all aplicable history, then this argument goes back 1500 years ago. Trying to view MIddle East issues going back to just the creation of Israel removes an entire chunk that places the present into perspective.

When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.

reply to post by backinblack


His basis fro calling me a liar is based on the UN vote being unanimous. He missed the part where I referenced the affected countries and their reaction to the resolution.

If we were to use all aplicable history, then this argument goes back 1500 years ago. Trying to view MIddle East issues going back to just the creation of Israel removes an entire chunk that places the present into perspective.

When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.

I agree with that but it does muddy a lot of your other arguments..

Why?
Because then you are really accepting that the Jews believe ALL the land is theirs and that , as I have stated previously, their actions are to keep hostilities going until the have accomplished that goal/prophecy..

You certainly can't argue that they currently control far more of that land than they were originally given or that they continue to take more daily..

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Honor93

 

If we were to use all aplicable history, then this argument goes back 1500 years ago. Trying to view MIddle East issues going back to just the creation of Israel removes an entire chunk that places the present into perspective.

When we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.

and, you find it necessary to preach to the choir why exactly?
i never quantified the timeline of the atrocities, you did. and for the record, the history goes back MUCH farther than 1500 yrs dear ... but we nor they are discussing that history, this subject is PRE-67 borders or are you ignoring that by choice?

your statement of repeating history, does that infer that the borders will be accepted or denied or perhaps it's just one more dog and pony show to keep the peeps distracted?

reply to post by Honor93




What exactly in my posts have caused you to make my argument back to me?

Ignore the border issue that occured before 1967?? Wtf?

I ahve already discussed the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. Then WWI and the Middle East.

Where are you getting that im ignroing anything?

reply to post by backinblack


Define all land?

The West Bank? Gaza? The larger Middle East?

If your referring to the last part it stems from a book called the Elders of Zion, and its authenticity has yet to be confirmed. Some think it was created by Muslims in an effort to shape their policies against Israel.

Was it not "From river to river" or something like that and they're now much closer to fulfillment than in 1948..

Originally posted by backinblack
Was it not "From river to river" or something like that and they're now much closer to fulfillment than in 1948..

Yes and No... The river to river portion is correct and is from:

- Genesis 15:18-21
"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt [brook of Egypt Ð Wadi el-Arish] as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girga#e and the Jebusite."

The map used by many shows Israel laying claim to a masive chunk of the Middle East and Egypt. This is the actual map being referenced though in genesis.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc4d0eff0831.jpg[/atsimg]

Now a question...

Can anyone show me where the Israeli Government has made claims to all of that land? I have seen this comment used by others in their arguments about the promised land, and they attack Israel because of it. However I have never seen the Israeli government make any of those claims for that much land.

this is tedious,

until i see,

piles of bodies ala rwanda, sudan type suffering, tienamen sq scale crackdowns, israeli work camps ala nkorea, civil suppression like syria, a scale of the congo, blood diamonds, hitler annexing austria and invading poland,

russia in afghanistan again, mumbai, nan king, okinawa, 9/11 and countless other war flags from israel.

i will be behind them.

when so called palistine is leveled to the ground and there are no more shopping malls or seaside condos and we get pics of starving kids, i will change my mind.

but hopefully their muslim/arab brothers will take them in before that. fat chance.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Be interesting to put the 1948 borders and current borders over that map..

As I said, they have certainly gained a lot since 1948 but what they have also done is occupied the important parts..
They have control over most resources and transport routes.
They are also basically in control of most of their holy sites..

Much of the rest is mere desert which they don't currently require.

BTW, thanks and star for the information.

reply to post by backinblack


You're welcome.. Obviously discrepancies will be present because of what was considered what back then and now.

Progressive map of Israel through history.

Well those maps do not show land taken since 1967 nor Palestinian land currently occupied or controlled by Israel, including Jerusalem and settlements or the many roads that bisect Palestinian land and cut off residents..

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Honor93

What exactly in my posts have caused you to make my argument back to me?

your silly assumption, by distraction, that your history has some greater impact on the present than any other. this isn't WWI or the Ottoman Empire but it IS a repeat of 40yrs ago ... which you seem to infer doesn't matter.

Ignore the border issue that occured before 1967?? Wtf?

ummm, what border issue BEFORE 1967? there were no established Israeli borders before 1967 ... or did i miss a chunk of history only you can access?

Census figures of the Ottoman Empire were unreliable. Foreign residents were not counted, and illegal residents did their best to evade the census, as did people wishing to evade military services and taxes. The population figures of the British mandate were more reliable, but there was no published census taken after 1931.

source: www.mideastweb.org...

I ahve already discussed the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. Then WWI and the Middle East.

Where are you getting that im ignroing anything?

i'd like to know why you think the Ottoman empire, the British, WWI or any other prior event has a direct or indirect effect on current and repeated negotiations ?

Originally posted by backinblack
Well those maps do not show land taken since 1967 nor Palestinian land currently occupied or controlled by Israel, including Jerusalem and settlements or the many roads that bisect Palestinian land and cut off residents..

not only are those maps seriously lacking vital information ... there was NEVER a land of Israel by definition or by borders until 1967, and then, only by occupation and a forced acceptance which has yet to be accepted in the rest of the world today.
btw, the only 'god' who promised anything to the jews was lucifer and i don't think he's quoted in any bible referenced today.

reply to post by backinblack


You have alot to say for an Australian whose Aboriginals are still fighting for their rights to traditional lands that continue to be stolen by white man's mining industry. A bit hypocritical don't ya think?

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by backinblack

 

You have alot to say for an Australian whose Aboriginals are still fighting for their rights to traditional lands that continue to be stolen by white man's mining industry. A bit hypocritical don't ya think?

Not really.
First, the land was taken for England before international law stopped that type of stealing.

Next, the Aborigines were also nomads so never really had a set area.

Also, for their population size the Australian Aborigines now have vast tracks of land and are given plenty of money.

Problem is, as usual, the greedy leaders who live in mansions and have leased much of their "supposed" sacred land out at a profit..

And yes, the leaders are Aborigine..

But then do you believe one wrong justifies another??