quote Originally posted by newf: I'll find the source and edit in in this response in a bit. So "my" points show a naiveté? Maybe but I would suggest that apparently the same naiveté has been shared by your leaders and plenty others for the last 40 years or so and I would suggest the stakes are higher if peace is not attempted or achieved.

Of course you would suggest the same of anyone sharing my opinion. The classic "I'm not, you are!" response.
Stakes cannot get much higher than extinction. Make sure your source isn't just a "Pro-Palestine" propaganda page.

History can be an excellent teacher, if you're only willing to pay attention.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: 82, I will take the time to look at your links but I am disappointed that you keep accusing me of ignoring your question when you haven't even once answered where you are getting your information from. Or maybe you are just piecing this all together yourself and no one else has yet. Is that it? Just so we are clear your assertion is: " when in fact in the last 2 years, we've purchased over 1000 corporations." correct? Also are we saying that TARP is a Obama administration program being used to buy companies over the last 2 years? You seem to be hell bent on making a point about Ally and a couple of others, what is it you want me to say about them? I don't know if they were shady deals or wrong ones (maybe I will have a better opinion after I look at your links) and I don't particularly care. I just want to clarify if in fact the U.S. gov't in the last 2 years has been buying up thousands of companies as you said. Again I will look at the links and I honeslty would like to see the truth one way or another but it would be helpful to know if you are sticking by your assertion and it would be great if you showed/mentioned exactly where you got your information.

Ok, you're focusing on the fact that you think this is an attack on Obama... I'm not sure why that would matter?

TARP was created by Bush, you and I both know that, and you and I both know that we both know that.

What it was used for, is different from what it was meant for. It was meant to provide undisclosed loans to all banks so it would prevent a run on specific banks. It was NEVER meant to be used to actually PURCHASE corporations.

Regardless of where, or whom you want me to, or where you think I'm placing blame... my view of TARP is inconsequential to the discussion here. Personally, I think the TARP program was a horrible idea, and everyone in charge during that time, including Bush, Pelosi, and Reid, will go down knowing that it was a disaster of an idea. If it's important to you to some how obsolve Obama from that part of the argument, then do what you may, but that is not the point of this. The point is that the funds are being used to PURCHASE corporations, not to provide working loans to them.

I've never supported the government giving bailouts to companies unless direct national security is involved. Reagan didn't need to bail out Chrysler, and I disagree with it. Does it make you feel better that I said that? You focus too much I think on Republican VS Democrat, which is not something I have focused on in this argument. My argument is the idea of nationalization / socialism vs free market society and the constitution.

There are MANY Democrats who are pro-capitalism, and are more Republican than they are Democrat, but are on the other side of the issue simply because of social issues that they perceive many Republicans to be against.

So now that we've cleared that up, let's please get passed the Obama vs Bush blame game that you're focusing on, and lets discuss the issue of the government buying up companies and banks.

Stupid **** banks are not going to make the news... because they're not important and no one focuses on them. That's why the major banks are the only ones making the news, and they always add in "and others" when discussing the bank bailouts.

I've used Ally and AmeriCredit as one that you can investigate because it's gotten substantially more press (which is still almost none), than most of the other banks / corporations.


EDIT: I've posted numerous links... that's where I get my information. I can't tell you why more people aren't making a big deal about it... I see it now and then on some conservative news sites... but it's old news, and maybe just no one cares anymore? The whole thing with GM, which is the one that got the most press. When GM went into bankruptcy from the Government (they didn't NEED the government's help to go into bankruptcy, they could have done that on their own, but it would have meant the UAW would have collapsed). Anyway, when GM went into bankruptcy... overnight, the government claimed "preferred stock" of General Motors. Obama said "I don't want to run a car company." That was all fine and dandy... but what happened literally, a week later... the preferred stock was converted to "common stock." This made absolutely NO mention in the main media... but popped up in a few places like on the Wall Street Journal, etc. In case you don't know the INS and OUTS of what this means... "preferred stock" are NON VOTING SHARES. It means that the holder of the preferred stock has no say in the goings-on of the company, BUT... in the case of another bankruptcy or default, they would be the first ones to get their money back. Incidentally, the original holders of GM "preferred stock" lost all their money when GM went bankrupt, and the UAW technically should not have gotten anything.

In any case, the Car Czar and Auto Task Force converted from Preferred Stock to Common Stock. Common stock allows you to vote. As you probably know in the stock / share structure, the holders of common stock have a direct voting right to determine whether or not the board of directors are elected, or remain. When GM took majority ownership of the company, they unanimously voted out ALL of the board of directors (the entire bunch). They immediately voted in friends of politicians and union management. The board of directors is responsible for hiring the CEO and organizing the direction of the company.

I use this example because there is substantially more proof about this. Why none of this made the main stream media... I don't know... but I've provided dozens of links in the past. I can't tell you why it's not in the media... I'm not a conspiracy theorist... my only guess is that if it's not about American Idol, or Britney Spears... no one gives a crap.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Of course you would suggest the same of anyone sharing my opinion. The classic "I'm not, you are!" response. Stakes cannot get much higher than extinction. Make sure your source isn't just a "Pro-Palestine" propaganda page. History can be an excellent teacher, if you're only willing to pay attention.

Again you assume too much.

And yes History can be a great teacher and history is being made everyday.

www.factsandlogic.org

Go there, read, and learn.

I've watched the Middle East/Israel for 40 years, this site accurately documents the history.

quote Originally posted by newf: OK a few things I see about this. 1. I would think any "peace" plan would have definate caveats that would keep the Palestinian homeland from building or supporting anything but a small defensive military. It also could include buffer zones. This is the whole point of negotiations isn't it? To ensure it's a workable solution for both sides.[quote] Wow--an international "law" or agreement that the Palestinians have a right to autonomy but not the right to have a standing army big enough for security? For them to be secure, they would require a standing military of about well trained 400,000 men/women and hardware to match. It is I believe, in the UN rules or charter, that nations have the right to be able to protect themselves, and limiting Palestine in the fashion of only a "small defensive miltary" will never fly, either in the Gen Assembly or within the proposed Palestinian state. Considering the amt of land exposed to non Jewish nations and the access to the sea, this sort of restriction would be all but impossible to enforce. [quote]2. A lot of your assumptions of the surrounding countries seem to be based in the past and maybe a distrust of Muslims. The U.S. has brokered deals with almost all of these countries with the specific intent of peace with Israel and for the past decades it's held. To assume that Egypt or other countries have used U.S. military aid to build an army specifically to war with Israel is simply conjecture IMO. Now Iran on the other hand has said in no uncertain terms their intention of wiping Israel of the map and are not part of any peace agreement. Your point of view seems to be that the Arabs will never change so why try? While I am saying I think you have to keep trying.

My point of view, is that neither side will change, and that mob mentality always sets in within what was once known as the Arab League/UAR etc. Yes, I firmly believe, that the notion that Israel does not have a right to exist where it is now (at all--even the original small geographical area of the 1949 edit) is still alive and well among both the Arab street and in the military leaders of almost all Arab nations. The only reason we have not heard more anti Semetic rhetoric from the Arab world recently is because they all have internal problems of their own.

quote 3. You ask: Where are almost all the current problems of Israel emanating from? I would think we could debate that as long as the Arabs Jews and Christians have been fighting with each other. Like I've said both sides are at fault IMO. The Palestinians for using terrorist tactics and electing Hamas, the Israelis for currently occupying the the West Bank and Gaza and illegaly constructing settlements. And those things are just the tip of the iceberg as far as I can tell. Again that's what peace talks and negotiation is for IMO.

I was referring to which geographical area. The answer is exclusively Gaza. That's where the weapons are smuggled into, that's where the infiltration tunnels are, that's where the access to the coast is for shipping. Both the Golan Height and West Bank area offer natural barriers to easy access and smuggling--in contrast to the Gaza Strip. The other hot point none of us has touched on is Lebanon. It has boiled over in recent decades and will again.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: www.factsandlogic.org Go there, read, and learn. I've watched the Middle East/Israel for 40 years, this site accurately documents the history.

Seems like a fair and balanced site.

quote Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME) is a non-profit pro-Israel organization based in San Francisco, California. It began as a chapter of the pro-Israel media watchdog group CAMERA The founder of FLAME is Gerardo Joffe and he says that "All Arab Muslims may not be a bunch of fanatics, but I've never met one who isn't".

quote Originally posted by newf: So you think history isn't biased?? Good luck with that.

quote Originally posted by newf: And yes History can be a great teacher and history is being made everyday.

quote newf's source An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War ...

quote Originally posted by newf: Let's see he Nobama mentioned the 1967 borders as a starting point with land swaps as a starting point, how is this not fair?

Translation :
"I went to the casino, gambled my mortgage payment and my milk money, and I lost. Now I want and deserve my money back. If I don't get my money back, I will cause trouble."

quote Originally posted by newf: You don't think there were plenty of Arabs displaced by the formation of Israel?

No. Do you have a source ? Which Arabs are you even talking about ? There are Arabs all over the world and many more in the Middle East. As mentioned, the land which is now Isreal belonged to England.

quote Originally posted by newf: I support Israel but think there should also be a Palastinian state.

Your support of Israel, is in question, to me.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The borders as they are now are just fine. Can you name one thing wrong with them ? Displaced people you say ? They have a pillow at night. They have homes. Some of them homes do get bulldozed down when members of that family carry out suicide/homicide terrorist attacks, but hey ... every time they attack they lose more. Actually, the borders as they are now, are not good enough. Israel gave some land back, in the interest of peace. Only to be attacked from the land they gave back. Proof that you can not negotiate with terrorists, as Nobama advocates that we do.

The Palestinians have land. Yet they demand that they be allowed in Israel to work. Israeli jobs were built by Israelis. No Palestinian jobs were taken.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-23-2011).]

Cliffw let's start with the basics, the displaced people that you don't seem to recognize for some reason.

Who is a Palestine refugee?

The operational definition of a Palestine refugee is any person whose "normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict."

Palestine refugees are persons who fulfil the above definition and descendants of fathers fulfilling the definition.

http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87
http://www.unrwa.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ief_and_Works_Agency

quote Originally posted by newf: Cliffw let's start with the basics, the operational definition of a Palestine refugee is any person whose "normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict."

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.
The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history ...
, the so called refugees, as you call them, still have a residence in Palestine.
Source

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-24-2011).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history ... , the so called refugees, as you call them, still have a residence in Palestine.

Ummm no they do not, hence the refugee status.

quote Originally posted by newf: Ummm no they do not, hence the refugee status.

Refugee status, global warming, whatever, . Where do they lay their heads down at night ? Palestine.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Refugee status, global warming, whatever, . Where do they lay their heads down at night ? Palestine.

Is that where they lay there heads? Maybe you should research that... and by that definition no one in the world is a refugee as long as they lay their heads somewehere at night.

Yes. That is where they lay their heads. What would you call it ? I did research it. With your links.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Yes. That is where they lay their heads. What would you call it ? I did research it. With your links.

OK apparently we need to go further. Maybe you are unclear as to what a refugee is or being displaced is.

Try this:

One-third of the registered Palestine refugees, more than 1.4 million, live in 58 recognised refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

A camp, according to UNRWA's working definition, is a plot of land placed at the disposal of UNRWA by the host government to accommodate Palestine refugees and to set up facilities to cater to their needs. Areas not designated as such are not considered camps. However, UNRWA also maintains schools, health centres and distribution centres in areas outside camps where Palestine refugees are concentrated, such as Yarmouk near Damascus, in Syria.

The plots of land on which camps were set up are either state land or, in most cases, land leased by the host government from local landowners. This means that the refugees in camps do not "own" the land on which their shelters were built, but have the right to "use" the land for a residence.

quote Originally posted by newf: Maybe you are unclear as to what a refugee is or being displaced is.

Under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, a refugee is more narrowly defined (in Article 1A) as a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country". The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Convention's 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country.
Palestinians never had a country of their own. How can they have been displaced ? For decades they have been able to assimulate with Israel. Even inside the borders of Israel.
Source

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-24-2011).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, a refugee is more narrowly defined (in Article 1A) as a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country". The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Convention's 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country. Palestinians never had a country of their own. How can they have been displaced ? For decades they have been able to assimulate with Israel. Even inside the borders of Israel.

Ineresting you would use the United Nations definition and then ignore that under the United Nations the Palestinians are considered refugees and is the exact reason the UNRWA was set up.

If you can't see that, there is no point in continuing is there?

You seem to have a point of veiw that there are no Palestinians that were displaced or are refugees. Your point of view is AFAIK contrary to the UN, experts on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and I would venture pretty much every world leader or entity. If you can't recognize that as fact then I suggest that you continue to research the subject.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2011).]

do we submit to the UN or no? I normally hear about how the UN should NOT be acknowledged, but it seems when conveinant - it is reffered to as authourity...so - is it? or aint it? (the UN a authourity to be acknowldged as the world power?)
should the US submit to UN authourity?
pretty sure thats an overwhelming NO - but - let us see.....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: do we submit to the UN or no? I normally hear about how the UN should NOT be acknowledged, but it seems when conveinant - it is reffered to as authourity...so - is it? or aint it? (the UN a authourity to be acknowldged as the world power?) should the US submit to UN authourity? pretty sure thats an overwhelming NO - but - let us see.....

This could be another thread topic.

My thoughts are the UN is a very important entity that people conveniently ignore when they want to but hold in high regard when they don't. It's far from perfect but is very usefull at times in terms of humanitarian endevours, a knowledge base and enacting resolutions and guidelines however it is only as powerful as allowed by it's membership. Easy to criticize but those that do often cry out for them in time of need.

Maybe this has been asked before, but I didn't see it. Why is it so hard for us to just say: "Y'know, we really like all of you guys, but it's just not our fight." "Let us know how it all works out."

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Maybe this has been asked before, but I didn't see it. Why is it so hard for us to just say: "Y'know, we really like all of you guys, but it's just not our fight." "Let us know how it all works out."

That would be a paradigm shift in foreign policy.

For instance. Did you know?

quote Since the 1970s, Israel has been one of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid.[42] While it is mostly military aid, in the past a portion was dedicated to economic assistance, but all economic aid to Israel ended in 2007. In 2004, the second-largest recipient of economic foreign aid from the United States was Israel, second to post-war Iraq. In terms of per capita value Israel ranks first, though other middle eastern countries get US aid as well — Egypt gets around $2.2 billion per year, Jordan gets around $400 million per year, and the Palestinian Authority gets around $500 million per year.[43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ted_States_relations

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Maybe this has been asked before, but I didn't see it. Why is it so hard for us to just say: "Y'know, we really like all of you guys, but it's just not our fight." "Let us know how it all works out."

I would guess this is part of the joke here: we DONT actually like "them guys". BUT - they are the ONLY middle east nation which we have a "decent" relationship with - of course - because we forced that nation upon the world (or more specificly - on the middle east). I suppose it would be a whole different topic if Isreal was created as a US territory - as many seem to actually want, or to use it as. The whole thing stinks, and should never had happened. Was a crazy liberal reaction to WW2/Nazis/holocaust. Which makes this even more a couriousity. But, we all get the military aspect, which is the real crux, isnt it? no one really cares about anything other than having them as a hinge point/lightening rod. Does anyone REALLY think that Jews need Isreal?? of course not. the US needs a stable point within the middle east. and this is the excuse. if it was anywhere else in the world - like S.Africa - bah - forget about it.

Jerusalem is the hebe,jew boy home land mention hundreds of times in the Bible & new testiment.
not one mention in the KORAN,the Palistinians are mostly from Egypt & Jordan,immigrants
Israel was a waste land untill transformed by the Jews
When the Jews had few Guns,,Moslems use to shoot Jews for no reason,execute them,one of the many reasons for WAR
OUR white house ,our president is a butt kissing lackey who bows & scrapes to Tyrant kings.OBAMA IS STUPID ,,I CONCIDER HIM A WEAK TRAITOR WHO CAN NOT LOOK THE LEADER OF ISRAEL IN THE EYE
LOOK AROUND YOU ,,READ WHAT CONCLUSION DO YOU DRAW FROM THE EVENTS OF THE DAY.
The same men who turn thier backs on ISRAEL ,will betray America,,they beleave in little to nothing,, they will squeel before strong men who come to take America,,THE SAFETY THEY FEEL MAY DISAPEAR..
We are at War with Islam,not just the fanatics

[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 05-23-2011).]

Yeah, it was pretty much a joke. Not as much because we don't like them, but because it would require a complete shift in thinking for our government to take a non-intervention approach. We would have to give up the idea of being the world police, and of thinking that we *need* 700 military bases spread out around the planet. Imagine how much we could slice from the budget if we did nothing but close down those 700 bases and bring all those military guys home. But then, that would require being able to keep our dickskinners out of other countries' problems.

God bless Israel, is all I have to say.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 05-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Ineresting you would use the United Nations definition and then ignore that under the United Nations the Palestinians are considered refugees ...

The United Nations never formally defined the term Palestinian refugee. The definition used in practice evolved independently of the UNHCR ( UN High Commissioner for Refugees), established by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Source

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-24-2011).]

Democrats are now saying Netanyahu was very rude in his conversation with Obama yesterday. He talked down to him like hes a little schoolboy, lmao. Well ya, Obama never knows what hes talking about.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The United Nations never formally defined the term Palestinian refugee. The definition used in practice evolved independently of the UNHCR ( UN High Commissioner for Refugees), established by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Quite the circular arguement. Let's see if we can nail this down... do you or do you not believe that people who lived in the region of what Israel now is were displaced (making them refugees) by the formation of Israel.

Maybe it would help you if you used an example: If a group of Muslims were given land where your house currently is and they removed you from your house, bulldozed it and put up their own buildings. Would you be displaced or would you not?

Also could you please provide links to your quotes and information.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2011).]

I always felt thats how Obama spoke to us, the American people. I don't know about you, but I getting sick of the president speaking into the camera like he's lecturing us in class or speaking from a pulpit. Guess they don't like the teacher getting taught for a change.

http://www.google.com/hoste...4d3389352a68e79f3192

Another good article on the issue.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Fair enough,. maybe I'm and idealist but I see places like Ireland and it shows me things change (not exactly the same I know but many thought there wasn't much chance of peace there either). I'm certainly not saying you are wrong for your point of view as long as you don't expect me to have the same one.

Everyone likes to believe they are an idealist, steeped in reality tho. Ireland is quite a bit different, as it was mostly a single country (and just the Northern portion of it) against a another single country's (GB) government. In the mideast, in regards to Palestine/Israel, which most attribute much of the unrest to, there is a single nation--Israel, against a sub-continenetal group of a LOT of neighbor nations. Ireland's problems never really had the potential to spread beyond GB at the most, and most of that action took place in Northern Ireland, with only sporadic bombing carried out in England itself, and no one ever as far as I remember in my lifetime vowed to exterminate either the Protestant or Carholic factions in Norther Ireland and drive them into the sea. But I get your point of reference. "Anyone can change".
And, they will, when the last descendant of the 1949 ancestral group is dead and buried or pwerhaps it will have to wait until the last remanants of the '87 war are gone on both sides, tho there IS still that "INFIDE!" thing that keeps popping up all over the MidEast.

Let me be clear on Gaza tho. It's not presently the land itself that's a problem--or who lives there, and who their neighbors are. It's who has control of governing the land. Hamas. Israel exoded Gaza, dismantled it's settlements, and evicted it's citizens from Gaza following th Oslo Accord in 2005. The administration of the strip was turned over to Egypt, which in turn transferred management and control of all the land area of the Gaza to the PLO, (Fatah) which lost control to Hamas and the PA in 2007. There are, according to the latest figures I could find:

1. The population is about 1.6 million people,[1] most of them descendants of refugees. One million of the population, as of March 2005, were considered refugees, although the vast majority of them were actually born in the Gaza Strip;[2] the older generation fled to Gaza in 1948 as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, from some parts of Mandate Palestine that became Israel.

Interesting--you can be born in the same house your father was, grow up and live there and still be a refugee according to the Un, which defined "refugee", by most accounts, to specifically include 2nd generation Palestinians.

(The Mexicans are missing the boat on this--someone alrt Guadelahara. Being not allowed to return to the land of their ancestors, they don't have to run the gauntlet of the Rio Grande-- heck--just apply to the UN for refugee status under the economic hardship clause and their in fat city)

Israel controls only the air space above Gaza, the sea approaches to Gaza, and the entrance points from Gaza into Israel. Egypt, keeps a tight lid on the southern and Southwestern end. (They evidently, along with Jordan, Iran, Saudi, Syria, and Lebanon, don't want the Gazans either/ Hmm-wonder why????)

If it were a no man's land, Israel would still want it as a buffer, but it would no longer be a source of bombs bullets and carnage until the next time there's an invasion from the Sinai.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Seems like a fair and balanced site. [QUOTE]Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME) is a non-profit pro-Israel organization based in San Francisco, California. It began as a chapter of the pro-Israel media watchdog group CAMERA The founder of FLAME is Gerardo Joffe and he says that "All Arab Muslims may not be a bunch of fanatics, but I've never met one who isn't".

[/QUOTE]
I did not say it was fair and balanced - I said it was an accurate history of the region.

Fair and balanced is an illusion - you are not going to find it anywhere.

Read from many varied sources and make up your own mind.

quote Originally posted by newf: Also could you please provide links to your quotes and information.

Sources edited into previous posts.

quote Originally posted by newf: You seem to have a point of veiw that there are no Palestinians that were displaced or who are refugees.

quote Originally posted by newf: ... do you or do you not believe that people who lived in the region of what Israel now is were displaced (making them refugees) by the formation of Israel.

I do not.
The Arabs, Palestinians as you call them, were migrants and drifters who themselves occupied (not by force) land owned by the British government. When Great Britton allowed the Jews to settle there, your Palestinians elected to roll the dice and start a war to expel the Jews. They lost. The lands from which they left did not want them back. The Arabs elected to again drive the Jews from the land in 1967 with a multinational coalition of forces. Again, they lost. They fled, they were not displaced. Since then, they have continued to use violence to achieve their aims, by individual acts so not to lose any more land.
Do I have any sympathy for them ? No. Would they start acting in good faith, I would have empathy for them. They have land. Let them make it prosper instead of crying over milk they purposely spilled. As I said, a gambler at a casino is not entitled to his losses back. What makes the Palestinians any different ?

quote Originally posted by newf: If a group of Muslims were given land where your house currently is and they removed you from your house, bulldozed it and put up their own buildings. Would you be displaced or would you not?

You have not shown this to be the case. I own my home. They did not own the land. Any that did, could have availed themselves to the British courts for redress. They chose not to. They were offended that the land was given to the Jews, being that they believe in Allah.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-24-2011).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: You have not shown this to be the case. I own my home. They did not own the land. Any that did, could have availed themselves to the British courts for redress. They chose not to. They were offended that the land was given to the Jews, being that they believe in Allah.

Thanks for the edit.

They are not my people (either side to be frank).

I will try and get some links for you as most everything I've read has shown that many Palestinians were either forcibly removed from their homes or left from fear of war. I would think the homes they lived in were similar to others...

"Another study, involving field research and comparisons with British and other documents, concludes that 472 Palestinian habitations (including towns and villages) were destroyed in 1948. It notes that the devastation was virtually complete in some sub-districts. For example, it points out that 96.0% of the villages in the Jaffa area were totally destroyed, as were 90.0% of those in Tiberiade, 90.3% of those in Safad, and 95.9% of those in Beisan. It also extrapolates from 1931 British census data to estimate that over 70 280 Palestinian houses were destroyed in this period"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...8_Palestinian_exodus

quote Originally posted by newf: Another study, involving field research and comparisons with British and other documents, concludes that 472 Palestinian habitations (including towns and villages) were destroyed in 1948. It notes that the devastation was virtually complete in some sub-districts. For example, it points out that 96.0% of the villages in the Jaffa area were totally destroyed, as were 90.0% of those in Tiberiade, 90.3% of those in Safad, and 95.9% of those in Beisan. It also extrapolates from 1931 British census data to estimate that over 70 280 Palestinian houses were destroyed in this period" http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...8_Palestinian_exodus

And the problem is what ? They rolled the dice in 1948 and again in 1967, . They still want to play dice.
They are sore losers.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: And the problem is what ? They rolled the dice in 1948 and again in 1967, . They still want to play dice. They are sore losers.

Dice? So if the roles were reversed that would be OK? interesting.


Either way I still maintain that peace will only be made through negotiation and the White House position as far as I can read is that the onus is on the Palestinians to recognize Israels right to exist, forget the right to return (I think that is a widely held view by most sane people) and negotiate in good faith in order to secure a State of their own. In doing so I think it would be fair to return to the '67 borders with mutually accepted land swaps.

And that's about all I can say about it as I think I've exhausted my feelings on the issue until something new happens.
Thanks everyone for being so accepting to a different point of view.

quote Originally posted by newf: Dice? So if the roles were reversed that would be OK?

Ok ? Ask a Palestinian.

quote Originally posted by newf: Dice? So if the roles were reversed that would be OK? interesting. Either way I still maintain that peace will only be made through negotiation and the White House position as far as I can read is that the onus is on the Palestinians to recognize Israels right to exist, forget the right to return (I think that is a widely held view by most sane people) and negotiate in good faith in order to secure a State of their own. In doing so I think it would be fair to return to the '67 borders with mutually accepted land swaps. And that's about all I can say about it as I think I've exhausted my feelings on the issue until something new happens. Thanks everyone for being so accepting to a different point of view.

I know this seems overly trivial, but you're assuming that Palestinians are thinking logically. They are poor, and the vast majority of them have absolutely no education whatsoever. People who are uneducated are easily swayed by corrupt leaders and ideology. These people want the land not because they think it's their home, but because they believe the Jews should be killed. It doesn't matter what the borders are, as long as there is a single Jew living near them, they want them dead. That's the point that you're not understanding here... they want they Jews killed... the borders are an Israeli issue... not a Palestinian issue... the Palestines just want the Jews killed, they could care less what the borders are. The Palestines who live amongst the Jews within the Israeli borders, they're intelligent, and they more or less care less about the fight. I talk with Israelis almost every single day, there are tens of thousands of them living here in South Florida... as a matter of fact, the guy who ran into the rear of my car and who is being charged with fleeing the scene of an accident (with whom I have to go to court since I am the witness to him hitting me) is also Israeli.

The educated and reformed Palestinians don't care... and they live in harmony with the Jewish in Israel. It's the poor, and the misled Palestinians who are driven by the desire to kill all Jews because they believe Islam tells them so.

Did anyone watch the Israeli Prime Minister address Congress or the Hannity interview?