Reynard

Correct. It doesn't and it's shameful. The arabs inside Israel are treated well all the same and seem to enjoy living there. That would be a far better signal to send out to the rest of the world than building in the occupied territories.

This is the crux of the problem with the position of the folk that support the Palestinian cause. I have zero idea of what the ordinary punterdom would be happy with because we dont get to hear much about that. But the guys who control the politics of the arabs certainly have no wish to recognise Israel and they want a pan arab nation in the area without Israel or Jews in it. A number of the folk that support the cause have come out and said they do recognise the right of Israel to exist as a state, the borders issue is an entirely different part of the debate BTW, whch then leads us to the problem that the Palestinian thing is simply a strategical red herring. It is a propaganda tool for jihadist Islamists. You only need to go back to the documents and arguments during the initial carve up of the Ottoman Empire to understand that the arabs wanted an huge Arab Islamic state, and they still do. There will of course be the ferrets in a sack fighting to see who takes ultimate control of that pan Arab nation state, but thats an after the event job. The issue is that no matter what Israel does, or how much land it hands over, it won't be good enough, there will never be peace until Israel is gone. I'd actually like to know how many of the folk that support the Palestinian cause would recognise the state of Israel to exist at all and if so how they can then be so blind as to not recognise what the ultimate end game is here. And here'e a hint, it's certainly NOT a Palestinian homeland. They don't give a flying f**k about Palestine, or the poor sods who have been labelled Palestinians since 1964. The fact is that innocent folk that simply just want to look after their families will continue to die at the hands of religious and political idiots in that area of the world until such time as Israel is routed and the Jews are annihilated. The fact that Israel has been tooled up massively is preventing this from happening of course, and the fact the USA and its allies help it out does stick in the craw of lefties in the main, which is why a lot of them seem to be stuck in a bit of a silly posture over the issue. I agree that I do not want to see innocent folk dying there on either side and I DO want a two state solution. But I KNOW a two state solution won't work unfortunately. The end game here isn't a state called Palestine and anyone that truly belives that is not in full receipt of the facts. The poor sods in Gaza at the moment are the ultimate pawns in a pretty horrible game. They are entirely expendible to the likes of Hamas, which is shocking really. And Israel, as they know, will ALWAYS retaliate using more force than they have available. So the whole situation will rinse and repeat time and again. The state of Israel is here now and it isn't going to be unravelled without massive amounts of bloodshed. I think a few of the arab states have had the bloodied nose down throgh the years off Israel and have reluctantly agreed to haud back for the time being, but any sign of weakness or softening of the Israeli militay position and they will be back over the Israeli border like rats up a drainpipe. That's the way it is out there. And Israel do need to stop building the settlements as it puts them in a bad position, that is a massive mistake on their part and they should stop this.

Yeah? Why didn't they just hang on to Sinai and Gaza then? Why didn't they simply take Cairo while they were routing the Egyptian army? They traded Sinai for a peace deal. They traded Gaza for what they thought was a peace deal. The Egyptian one has held for a number of years, the Gaza one was fucked within weeks by their Jihadist Islamic terrorist outfits. I do agre with your final paragraph. There simply will never be a holding peace in the area, and eventually Israel will be obliterated by its enemies. But until then, this shitfest will continue. Where I disagree is that Israel has any designs on Gaza itself. I really don't think it does at all, and would prefer it to be a peaceful neighbour like it now has with Jordan and Egypt (for the time being anyway). Israel does still supply electricity and water into Gaza so maybe the Gaza arabs should get on with sorting their infrastructure instead of relying on their warmongering enemy for infrastructure support.

This is more drivel I put up the Hamas Charter a few days ago so that people who are ignorant of what they stand for could ACTUALLY see what they say about things. Their aims are one pan arab Islamic state in the area. They recognise that there are no Jordanians Syrians,Palestinians etc etc. Just arabs. And they want to annhilate the Jews and indeed, Christians. Hamas also makes it quite plain what they think of interfering infidels like you and me. They hate our guts. So whilst I can share your frustration that innocent folk on both sides are going to die here. You just simply have to accept that religion plays its part in an area of the world where religion is a big deal. But you should also know that Israel is a secular society and is NOT driven by religious fundamentalism. Gaza is, the west bank is, and you support them against secular Israel. Indeed,Hasidic Jews do not recognise the current state of Israel as a contunuation of the old state of Israel as it was until the Roman Empire conquered it as they see it as being secular and not a religious state as they would want. So pick your side, hate the Israelis all you like, but there will never be peace in the area because, there is no intention of these folk ever accepting a two state solution like you and I would probably think would be a good thing. The Israelis would probably accept this as they did in 1948, but the subsequent immediate invasion by pan Arab forces hell bent on strangling at birth put paid to that. And its worth noting that Jordan pinched a fair chunk of what was to be Palestine and sat on it for long enough without handing it back. So while I can understand that you have bought the drivel about "who started it" I really don't see any great excuse for a so called leftie liberal who couldnt broadly support a secular non religios democracy like Israel and who COULD support fundamental Islam and all the oppression of freedom it would bring for the minorities that the left claim to support so much. It has always been a stance that puzzled me greatly. I do get the issue about who chucked the first bomb across and at what point you want to draw the timeline from. And how Jews are terrible people who control the world, and how the left thoroughly hate the USA because in the big race to show which system worked best after WW2, the USA shat all over the commie bloc and did its best to prevent the vile doctrine of Marx from infesting more countries round the world. But anyway, I'm sure if Israel really wanted to pile in and f**k up Gaza really bad, then it will do so. I dont think it really does want to do this, I think it would happily live in peace with it, like it now does with Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the various other countries it has had scuffles with and now no longer fights with. When the Hamas rockets stop, and promise to stop. This will end. The Israelis already fucked off out of the Gaza strip and left it entirely to the arabs on the promise of peace which has never come. They should definitely stop building settlements in the occupied areas all the same. Thats wankerdom.

At least we can all see that you are firmly, and waist deep,entrenched in the buckled leftie c**t mire. I take it you go to Cuba for your holidays too?

When was the last time that the land had actually been "owned" by the arabs? To say that it was "arab land" is nonsense. It was part of the Ottoman Empire and as you know, the Jews did live in Jerusalem as a majority the bulk of that time. When the zionist movement was happening, they were legitimately buying up land, improving that land and re settling the area in what was actually a barren desert. So, no, it simply WASN'T arab land for hundreds and hundreds of years at all. It was ruled over by several empires after the Romans booted out the Jews. In recent times it was the Ottoman Empire followed by the British Empire. You are HALF right that this is about land. The problem is that as has been stated until I'm sick and tired of repeating myself, this is about Islamists wishing to rid the area of all Jews, and indeed all Christians too for that matter. So regardless of what treaties or ceasefires get implememnted, they will ALWAYS be broken by these Islamists, because they do no want peace with Israel. They want to wipe it, and the Jews, off the face of the planet. If you want to support "a cause" then I think it's important that you fully understand the mindset of the people you are cheerleading for. Yes, the Israelis are utter c***s, and so are the Islamists. The situation will not resolve if Israel goes back to the 1967 borders. The reason for this is that if you care to cast your mind back to then, the Islamists STILL launched attacks on Israel even at that point and at those borders. Indeed, they launched a full scale attack on Israel on DAY ONE of it's formation as a state. So regardless of the borders drawn up, it wouldn't appease Islamists. You simply can't appease these people unless you want a genocide. THAT will appease them. So, like most other people, I do feel sorry for the ordinary arab punters that just want to get on with their lives. Just as I feel sorry for the ordinary Israeli punter who wants to be doing the same. But unless you can wave a magic wand and rid the area of religion then this problem simply isn't going to go away. And Israel could make concession after concession and it wouldn't ACTUALLY matter a f**k, because their enemies don't actually want a Palestinian homeland for reasons already discussed. They want NO JEWS AT ALL, in that part of the world. I,like most people, would like to see the two state solution, but I want it for a different reason to most others. The reason for that is that I know fine that even if this was to happen, it wouldn't matter and the violence still wouldn't stop. I doubt we will ever see a Palestinian homeland anyway. They have been offered this state a few times and have always rejected it. There's no reason to presume they will suddenly accept now.

Here is a copy of a memorandum presented to the British cabinet by British MP, aristocrat and well known Jew ,Herbert Samuel. Who, according to XBL became a great leader of the nation of Palestine It's fair old read but worth the trouble. This memorandum pre dates the Balfour agreement of 1917. The Future of Palestine The course of events opens a prospect of a change, at the end of the war, in the status of Palestine. Already there is a stirring among the twelve million Jews scattered throughout the countries of the world. A feeling is spreading with great rapidity that now, at last, some advance may be made, in some way, towards the fulfilment of the hope and desire, held with unshakable tenacity for eighteen hundred years, for the restoration of the Jews to the land to which they are attached by ties almost as ancient as history itself. Yet it is felt that the time is not ripe for the establishment there of an independent, autonomous Jewish State. Such increase of population as there has been in Palestine in recent years has been composed, indeed, mostly of Jewish immigrants; the new Jewish agricultural colonies already number about 15,000 souls; in Jerusalem itself two-thirds of the inhabitants are Jews; but in the country, as a whole, they still probably do not number more than about one-sixth of the population. If the attempt were made to place the 400,000 or 500,000 Mahommedans of Arab race under a Government which rested upon the support of 90,000 or 100,000 Jewish inhabitants, there can be no assurance that such a Government, even if established by the authority of the Powers, would be able to command obedience. The dream of a Jewish State, prosperous, progressive, and the home of a brilliant civilisation, might vanish in a series of squalid conflicts with the Arab population. And even if a State so constituted did succeed in avoiding or repressing internal disorder, it is doubtful whether it would be strong enough to protect itself from external aggression from the turbulent elements around it. To attempt to realise the aspiration of a Jewish State one century too soon might throw back its actual realisation from many centuries more. I am assured that the solution of the problem of Palestine which would be much the most welcome to the leaders and supporters of the Zionist movement throughout the world would be the annexation of the country to the British Empire. I believe that the solution would be cordially welcome also to the greater number of Jews who have not hitherto been interested in the Zionist movement. It is hoped that under British rule facilities would be given to Jewish organisations to purchase land, to found colonies, to establish educational and religious institutions, and to spend usefully the funds that would be freely contributed for promoting the economic development of the country. It is hoped also that Jewish immigration, carefully regulated, would be given preference so that in course of time the Jewish people, grown into a majority and settled in the land, may be conceded such degree of self-government as the conditions of that day may justify. It would, no doubt, be necessary to establish an extra-territorial regime for the Christian sacred sites, and to vest their possession and control in an international commission, in which France, on behalf of the Catholic Church, and Russia, on behalf of the Greek Church, would have leading voices. It would be desirable also that the Mahommedan sacred sites should be declared inviolable, and probably that the Governor's council should include one or more Mahommedans, whose presence would be a guarantee that Mahommedan interests would be safe-guarded. From the standpoint of British interests there are several arguments for this policy, if wider considerations should allow it to be pursued:- 1. It would enable England to fulfil in yet another sphere her historic part of civiliser of the backward countries. Under the Turk, Palestine has been blighted. For hundreds of years she has produced neither men nor things useful to the world. Her native population is sunk in squalor. Roads, harbours, irrigation, sanitation, are neglected. Almost the only signs of agricultural or industrial vitality are to be found in the Jewish and, on a smaller scale, in the German colonies. Corruption is universal in the administration and in the judiciary. The Governors, who follow one another in rapid succession, are concerned only with the amount of money they can squeeze out of the country to send to Constantinople. Under British administration all this will be quickly changed. The country will be redeemed. What has been done in Egypt will be repeated here, and the knowledge of this would make many of the present inhabitants not merely acquiesce, but rejoice, in the change. The British Agent in Egypt recently reported (on the 7th January) that the information of the Intelligence Department there indicated that a large proportion of the population would welcome a British occupation. There have been many previous indications of the same feeling. The Turkish officials are foreigners in the country. Of Turkish population there is none. England should assume control, because by that means she can forward the purpose for which, at bottom, her Empire in the tropics and sub-tropics exists. 2. The British Empire, with its present vastness and prosperity, has little addition to its greatness left to win. But Palestine, small as it is in area, bulks so large in the world's imagination, that no Empire is so great but its prestige would be raised by its possession. The inclusion of Palestine within the British Empire would add a lustre even to the British Crown. It would make a most powerful appeal to the people of the United Kingdom and the Dominions, particularly if it were avowedly a means of aiding the Jews to reoccupy the country. Widespread and deep-rooted in the Protestant world is a sympathy with the idea of restoring the Hebrew people to the land which was to be their inheritance, and intense interest in the fulfilment of the prophecies which have foretold it. The redemption also of the Christian Holy Places from the vulgarisation to which they are now subject, and the opening of the Holy Land, more easily than hitherto, to the visits of Christian travellers, would add to the appeal which this policy would make to the British peoples. There is probably no outcome of the war which would give greater satisfaction to powerful sections of British opinion. 3. The importance that would be attached to this annexation by British opinion would help to facilitate a wise settlement of another of the problems which will result from the war. Although Great Britain did not enter the conflict with any purpose of territorial expansion, being in it and having made immense sacrifices, there would be profound disappointment in the country if the outcome were to be the securing of great advantages by our allies, and none by ourselves. But to strip Germany of her colonies for the benefit of England would leave a permanent feeling of such intense bitterness among the German people as to render such a course impolitic. We have to live in the same world with 70,000,000 Germans, and we should take care to give as little justification as we can for the hatching, ten, twenty, or thirty years hence, of a German war of revenge. Certain of the German colonies must no doubt be retained for strategic reasons. But if Great Britain can obtain the compensations, which public opinion will demand, in Mesopotamia and Palestine, and not in German East Africa and West Africa, there is more likelihood of a lasting peace. 4. The belt of desert to the east of the Suez Canal is an admirable strategic frontier for Egypt. But it would be an inadequate defence if a great European Power were established on the further side. A military expedition organised from Southern Palestine, and including the laying of a railway from El Arish to the Canal, would be formidable. Palestine in British hands would itself no doubt be open to attack, and would bring with it extended military responsibilities. But the mountainous character of the country would make its occupation by an enemy difficult, and while this outpost was being contested time would be given to allow the garrison of Egypt to be increased and the defences to be stengthened. A common frontier with a European neighbour in the Lebanon is a far smaller risk to the vital interests of the British Empire than a common frontier at El Arish. 5. The course which is advocated would win for England the lasting gratitude of the Jews throughout the world. In the United States, where they number about 2,000,000, and in all the other lands where they are scattered, they would form the body of opinion whose bias, where the interest of the country of which they were citizens was not involved, would be favourable to the British Empire. Just as the wise policy of England towards Greece in the early part of the nineteenth century, and towards Italy in the middle of the nineteenth century, has secured for this country ever since the goodwill of the Greeks and the Italians, wherever they may be, so help given now towards the attainment of the ideal which the Jews have never ceased to cherish through so many centuries of suffering, cannot fail to secure, into a far-distant future, the devoted gratitude of a whole race, whose goodwill, in time to come, may not be without its value. What are the alternatives? (a.) Annexation by France.- French interests, which in Northern Syria are considerable, in Palestine are small. A French company owns the railway of 54 miles from Jaffa to Jerusalem, but that interest could doubtless be bought out for no large sum. Beyond that there is little. There are French monastic establishments, but few French residents elsewhere. The Egyptian Intelligence Department report, which has already been quoted, is to the effect that a French annexation would be unwelcome to the Jews. If, as the outcome of the war, France recovers Alsace and Lorraine, and obtains the greater part of Syria, including Beirout and Damascus, she ought not to grudge to Great Britain Mesopotamia and Palestine. Her ancient protectorate of Catholic interests in the East would be continued by her leadership in the International Commission which would control the Holy Places. (b.) Internationalisation.- To establish a Government composed of representatives of all the Powers would be to lay the country under a dead hand. Continuous disagreements would be inevitable, and would result in nothing being done for the development of the land and the progress of the people. Besides, a status which was in form international would give an opportunity for the gradual permeation of the country by German influence. Already Germany has been very active in Palestine. She has spent considerable sums of money there with a view to increasing her influence. She has founded a bank, agricultural colonies, schools, hospitals. After the war, shut out, to a great extent, from the Far East and other parts of the globe, she may well concentrate a part of her energies on Palestine. In twenty years' time Egypt's neighbour, ostensibly internationalised, may have become so permeated by German influence as to furnish a strong case from German control, whenever the cumbrous form of government shall have patently broken down, and whenever another revision of the map of Western Asia takes place. An international regime has invariably been a transition stage to something else. While it lasts it is a theatre of intrigue in which some or all of the controlling countries seek to prepare Claims against the day when the change which is foreseen shall come. In this case it may prove to be a stepping-stone to a German protectorate. Such an eventuality would be as dangerous to France in Northern Syria as to England in Egypt. (c.) Annexation to Egypt.- Incorporation within the British Empire by this indirect method may be found necessary for the sake of conciliating Mahommedan sentiment in India and Egypt. The constitution of a Greater Egypt would probably be very acceptable to Sultan Hussein and his Mahommedan subjects. But this policy would introduce complications in the administration of the country, without, it would seem, advantages sufficient to counterbalance them. Nor is it certain that the arrangement would be preferred by Arabs. In the eyes of the Jews, it would offer a much less strong appeal than would the possibility of the growth of a Jewish State under the direct suzerainty of Great Britain. (d.) To leave the country to Turkey, but with some guarantees for improved government and greater facilities for Jewish colonisation.- To devise such guarantees and to make them effective would be a matter of extreme difficulty, as the whole of the modern history of the Turkish Empire has shown. It is probable that the adoption of such a policy would leave the situation substantially unimproved. Whether it would in any case be practiable would depend upon the disposition, after the war, of the territories to the north and east. The gradual growth of considerable Jewish community, under British suzerainty, in Palestine will not solve the Jewish question in Europe. A country the size of Wales, much of it barren mountain and part of it waterless, cannot hold 9,000,000 people. But it could probably hold in time 3,000,000 or 4,000,000, and some relief would be given to the pressure in Russia and elsewhere. Far more important would be the effect upon the character of the larger part of the Jewish race who must still remain intermingled with other peoples, to be a strength or to be a weakness to the countries in which they live. Let a Jewish centre be established in Palestine; let it achieve, as I believe it would achieve, a spiritual and intellectual greatness; and insensibly, but inevitably, the character of the individual Jew, wherever he might be, would be ennobled. The sordid associations which have attached to the Jewish name would be sloughed off, and the value of the Jews as an element in the civilisation of the European peoples would be enhanced. The Jewish brain is a physiological product not to be despised. For fifteen centuries the race produced in Palestine a constant succession of great men - statesmen and prophets, judges and soldiers. If a body be again given in which its soul can lodge, it may again enrich the world. Till full scope is granted, as Macaulay said in the House of Commons, "let us not presume to say that there is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism among the descendants of the Maccabees." H.S. January 1915 This man, according to supporter of all things Palestinian, was the leader of a country called Palestine. I doubt he could have been more horribly wrong if he tried. You can see from this memorandum that Mr Samuel really did have the Palestinian people (who never existed) in his uppermost thoughts at all times.

Just accept you've just had your arse handed to you on a plate and move on. Nobody but yourself will be giving a f**k anyway.

By "insults", do you mean being thoroughly put right on a subject you know nothing about?

Perhaps someone else can help XBL out here? It's sad to watch someone making such a rip roaring c**t of themselves, but he seems determined to do this. Someone please help the poor sod out here.

What about the leadership of The PLO, I notice you skated round THOSE comments too? I'll stick it back on here for your benefit. "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel". - Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council - Your "leader of Palestine" was a British bloke who was administering a British territory. He wasn't the leader of a country. You don't seem to be aware of the difference. Which pretty much leaves your views on the subject, fucked. Did you ever get around to naming the leaders of Palestine prior to Herbie? Who were they again?

I know that the Hamas charter was too much to read for certain posters. But here is one extract from it that will maybe make some people understand why there is ZERO chance of peace in the area even if peace treaties get signed. Article 7 "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)." Article 13 [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam.

Is it possible that because over 80% of the territory formerly known as The British Mandate for Palestine is actually Jordan, that most "Palestinians" are actually "Jordanians?".

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it". - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 - "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not". - Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 - Concerning the Holy Land, the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated: "The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 c.e. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years". "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel". - Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council - "You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people". - Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat - "And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.". - Qur'an 17:104 - Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

GREAT PALESTINIAN LEADERS THROUGHOUT HISTORY Sir Herbert Samuel a British Jewish aristocrat Yasser Arafat. Egyptian millionaire

This guy was really badly hurt too. In fact I think he died from his terrible injuries.

Thanks for the laugh last night XBL. Palestinians, and their great leader a British Jewish aristocrat called Herbert Samuel. :lol: :lol: :lol: Just out of interest, I'm sure you will be able to give me a long list of the Palestinian leaders prior to Herbie? Seeing as you are being so open and intellectually honest about everything. Or are you going to run away and hide? What a horrible little fat troll you are.

I think I'd rather just go to my bed laughing at you frankly. What a c**t! :lol:

Do you know what a territory is? You are laughably wrong here. Who was running Palestine prior to the well known British aristocratic Jew Herbert Samuel? :lol:

It was a territory being administrated by a British politician after the break up of the Ottoman Empire you fucknugget.

Herbie was actually a Jew. But don't tell fuzzy heid about it.

I'm sure all the Palestinians everywhere have posters up of their glorious leader Herbert Samuel

I seriously can't believe he embarrassed himself by posting that!

Read their charter that I posted up yesterday. They have zero interest in a Palestinian homeland. That isn't their game at all.