Israel at it again...
Keith Davidson
While NZ Newspapers concentrate on the story "Israel kills master
bombmaker in air strike", acts of atrocity by Israel against the
Palestinians continue, but are apparently unworthy of making the
headlines...
Keith Davidson
__________
Reuters
Israeli troops kill elderly woman
04 December 2002
RAMALLAH: Israeli soldiers have shot dead a 95-year-old Palestinian
woman who was taking a taxi home after a medical check-up in the West
Bank city of Ramallah, Palestinian witnesses and medics say.
They said troops opened fire on the van the woman was riding in when it
tried to bypass rubble that Israeli forces had used to block the road
between Ramallah and her home village of Atara.
On the diplomatic front, US ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer said in
a speech likely to rankle the Israeli government that Jewish settlers
living on occupied land did not represent a "national consensus" in
Israel.
Israeli military sources said soldiers shot at the tyres of a
Palestinian vehicle travelling on a prohibited road north of Ramallah
after the driver ignored orders to halt.
Israel's Channel Two television said a single soldier had fired 17
bullets while he was running, making accurate aim difficult.
Medics said the woman, Fatima Hassan, who was on her way home from a
medical clinic, was hit by a bullet in the back and that two other women
in the taxi were wounded.
Hassan was believed to be the oldest Palestinian killed since the start
in September 2000 of an uprising for independence.
Israel has reoccupied Ramallah and most other major West Bank cities,
sealing off their main entrances, following a wave of Palestinian
suicide bombings in the Jewish state. One of the passengers in the van,
Kifaya Qadadha, 40, said troops fired without provocation.
"I was scared to death because there was so much shooting," she said
from her hospital bed while being treated for a leg wound. Another
passenger was critically hurt.
Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said: "We condemn this war
crime of killing in cold blood a 95-year-old woman and we hold Israel
fully responsible."
Markward
>While NZ Newspapers concentrate on the story "Israel kills master
>bombmaker in air strike", acts of atrocity by Israel against the
>Palestinians continue, but are apparently unworthy of making the
>headlines...
That story was in yesterday's papers, what are you on about. War is
hell. Who cares about the age of a casualty, a casualty is a
casualty.
Mark
RK
"Keith Davidson" <ke...@nospamwise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3DEF297E...@nospamwise.net.nz...
I wonder why the driver failed to stop?
He provoked the attack. They did not open fire just for the sake of it,
according to the story he refused orders to halt and purposely drove around
a barricade.
LeftAintRight
like a clear case of self-defence to me.
Keith Davidson <ke...@nospamwise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<3DEF297E...@nospamwise.net.nz>...
Ydusitmata
> While NZ Newspapers concentrate on the story "Israel kills master
> bombmaker in air strike", acts of atrocity by Israel against the
> Palestinians continue, but are apparently unworthy of making the
> headlines...
The NZ Herald concentrated so hard on the bombmaker being killed that
they gave it a single column, four cm report under a 24 point heading.
Reporting the killing of the woman at roadblock, the Herald gave six
times as many column centimetres (24), in a double column story, under a
36 point heading which said "Israeli soldiers kill woman, 95, in taxi".
ronh
--
I am unique -- like everyone else!
grimly bubble
"Ydusitmata" <freshf...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1fmrhn5.1gspvih1xckcirN%freshf...@xtra.co.nz...
I am amazed that Keith seems so blindly obsessed by the absolute goodness of
Palestinians and the evil nature of Israelis. He seems inteligent enough on
other issues. Mind you he commits the same shooting killing hunting
attrocites on harmless unarmed critters in the hills aroun his home, he does
this for fun so I assume he is a little touched.
Keith Davidson
RK wrote:
>
> I wonder why the driver failed to stop?
> He provoked the attack. They did not open fire just for the sake of it,
> according to the story he refused orders to halt and purposely drove around
> a barricade.
Oh of course, the driver provoked the attack... That justifies the death
of an innocent old woman. Should we authorise NZ Police to be able to
randomly shoot passengers in vehicles that run red lights in Queen
Street, or speed on the Auckland motorway?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
LeftAintRight wrote:
>
> Given the Palestinians' history of using suicide bombers, it sounds
> like a clear case of self-defence to me.
It is as much about self-defence as the actions of the occasional
suicide bomber, surely?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> I am amazed that Keith seems so blindly obsessed by the absolute goodness of
> Palestinians and the evil nature of Israelis. He seems inteligent enough on
> other issues. Mind you he commits the same shooting killing hunting
> attrocites on harmless unarmed critters in the hills aroun his home, he does
> this for fun so I assume he is a little touched.
You wander off on your bizarre little tangents so often... I guess I
have repeated this at least 6 times before, you just don't seem to get
it - so for your benefit - read the following statement 20 times. You
never know, you may yet be able to understand it all, and even remember
it.
"The vast majority of Palestinians are very nice people. There is a
small minority who are not nice people. I personally do not condone the
use of violence by any humans against any other humans."
There are undoubtedly some nice Israeli people to. I have nothing
against jews in general, in fact I count some people of jewish faith
amongst my friends.
Now, with regard to hunting - I kill pests around my home - things like
rabbits, possums etc - because they are pests, they will eat my gardens
bare, strip my trees bare, if I don't kill them. There is no fun, no
joy, no pleasure, no emotion in my killing of such animals. It would be
no different to you swatting a fly or a spider.
I occassionally hunt deer, solely for meat. I don't hunt them for any
other pleasure than the pleasure of devouring wild venison - a
magnificent red meat, low in fat, high in flavour. I gain not one iota
of pleasure, joy or fun from shooting a deer. In fact I feel quite sad
after having shot one. That sadness turns to joy when I smell the
venison as it sizzles on the BBQ.
Concentrate very very hard - you might just get it.
I am surprised that you, as a person who condemns the acts of the
suicide bombers, can so casually dismiss the death of an innocent old
lady - by a military force that should respect the rights of innocent
people. A military force that actually has no legal, moral or ethical
right to be occupying the land that they do. That *is* sad.
Keith Davidson
LeftAintRight
If the suicide bombers were going after military targets you might, in a
warped kind of way, have a point. But as they go after civilians the
answer is no.
LeftAintRight
If Queen St was inside a war zone with a history of suicide bombing then
yes.
Markward
>I am surprised that you, as a person who condemns the acts of the
>suicide bombers, can so casually dismiss the death of an innocent old
What about you Keith. I'm missing something here. Do *you* also
condemn the acts of the suicide bombers? I haven't seen this from
you.
MW
Keith Davidson
LeftAintRight wrote:
>
> > Oh of course, the driver provoked the attack... That justifies the death
> > of an innocent old woman. Should we authorise NZ Police to be able to
> > randomly shoot passengers in vehicles that run red lights in Queen
> > Street, or speed on the Auckland motorway?
>
> If Queen St was inside a war zone with a history of suicide bombing then
> yes.
Palestine is not a war zone - it is an area illegally and unjustly
occupied by Israel. The suicide bombings occur within Israel, not in
Palestine.
Keith Davidson
Markward
>Palestine is not a war zone - it is an area illegally and unjustly
>occupied by Israel. The suicide bombings occur within Israel, not in
>Palestine.
I get it now, you're a nutter.
MW
T.N.O.
> Palestine is not a war zone - it is an area illegally and unjustly
> occupied by Israel.
whose law says that it it is illegal... who owned the land
1000/2000/3000 years ago?
--
email: nn...@dave.net.nz
ICQ: 85495548
PH: +64 21 523260
Keith Davidson
LeftAintRight wrote:
>
> >>Given the Palestinians' history of using suicide bombers, it sounds
> >>like a clear case of self-defence to me.
> >
> > It is as much about self-defence as the actions of the occasional
> > suicide bomber, surely?
> >
> If the suicide bombers were going after military targets you might, in a
> warped kind of way, have a point. But as they go after civilians the
> answer is no.
But the Israeli's go after civilians - 95 year old women innocently
going about their lives, for example. The suicide bombers are a handful
of extremists - since when does that give Israel ( or any other country)
the right to hold an entire population to ransom, to murder and
terrorise them daily, to routinely torture them, to constantly deny them
basic human rights like access to water, medical assistance etc, for the
sake of a handful of terrorists?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
You haven't read my posts too carefully then. Yes, I do condemn the acts
of the suicide bombers - I condemn any unjustified taking of human life.
I can (almost) understand what would drive the suicide bombers - a final
act of defiance after a life of misery caused by the illegal occupiers
of their Country, and deciding to "take a few of them as well", in their
state of utter desperation. But understanding it does not mean I accept
it - it is an abhorrent practice, beaten only by the Israeli's who's
Government and military strive and appear to do everything within their
power to make the Palestinians lives a living hell. Individual acts of
terrorism committed by individuals will always pale into insignificance
when compared to State endorsed and sponsored acts of terrorism.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
I see - I guess the UN are also nutters, since they have repeatedly
passed resolutions condemning Israel for its illegal occupation of
Palestine?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
"T.N.O." wrote:
>
> whose law says that it it is illegal... who owned the land
> 1000/2000/3000 years ago?
The Palestinians - always - since man walked upright - more than 9000
years - owned and possessed their lands. The United Nations have
condemned Israel, on multiple occasions, for its occupation.
The jews came to Palestine (after being thrown out of Egypt and spending
40 years lost in the desert), and beat up on the Palestinians and ruled
them for a while (as had previously the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and
others, and subsequently the Germans, Turks and English). Somehow the
jews convinced the English and eventually the United Nations that they
had some legitimate right to part of Palestine, which lead to the
creation of Israel just over 50 years ago, and subsequent to the
creation of Israel, Israel has been on the offensive in Palestine.
Glad I could help fill the gaps in your history knowledge...
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble
>
>
> I am surprised that you, as a person who condemns the acts of the
> suicide bombers, can so casually dismiss the death of an innocent old
> lady -
I didn't, seems we both lack the skills to read each others posts. Like you
I think the death of innocents is appalloing, so I don't applaud homocide
bombers.
by a military force that should respect the rights of innocent
> people.
I don't think that the rights of innocent people are ever respected by
military forces.
A military force that actually has no legal, moral or ethical
> right to be occupying the land that they do. That *is* sad.
Yes it is sad. Sad that the conflict exists at all. Sad that there is a
perception of right and wrong that differes so much from one person to
another, from one race to another.
>
> Keith Davidson
grimly bubble
>
>
> Markward wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:16:34 +1300, Keith Davidson wrote:
> > >I am surprised that you, as a person who condemns the acts of the
> > >suicide bombers, can so casually dismiss the death of an innocent old
> >
> > What about you Keith. I'm missing something here. Do *you* also
> > condemn the acts of the suicide bombers? I haven't seen this from
> > you.
>
> You haven't read my posts too carefully then. Yes, I do condemn the acts
> of the suicide bombers - I condemn any unjustified taking of human life.
> I can (almost) understand what would drive the suicide bombers - a final
> act of defiance after a life of misery caused by the illegal occupiers
> of their Country, and deciding to "take a few of them as well", in their
> state of utter desperation.
I am not sure that I agree with this scenario, I see a different set of
possibilities, a lot of other reasons that a homocide bomber will be
inspired to perform such an evil and immoral act.
grimly bubble
There is a decided lack of homocide bombers in Auckland so the police there
are not so on edge. But after a series of random homocide bombings, dead
innocents and bits of kids showered around the various market places, I
guess Israeli police are a bit testy.
grimly bubble
I have huge difficulty believing the notion that homicide bombers are acting
in self defense.
grimly bubble
> But the Israeli's go after civilians - 95 year old women innocently
> going about their lives, for example. The suicide bombers are a handful
> of extremists - since when does that give Israel ( or any other country)
> the right to hold an entire population to ransom, to murder and
> terrorise them daily, to routinely torture them, to constantly deny them
> basic human rights like access to water, medical assistance etc, for the
> sake of a handful of terrorists?
>
> Keith Davidson
Probably because the population harbour those terrorists, thus the whole
populations is under suspicion and considered dangerous.
grimly bubble
I think a huge number of people see Palestine as a war zone.
grimly bubble
I see it clearly now, you are saying that Israeli has legitimacy under the
UN.
David Pears
wrote:
>If the suicide bombers were going after military targets you might, in a
>warped kind of way, have a point. But as they go after civilians the
>answer is no.
Military targets tend to be wrapped up in armour or fly. Unless you're
suggesting that people who want to resist Israeli occupation attack
these sorts of targets with home made weapons, which sounds pretty
futile, then attacking civilians is their only option.
Now if the Israelis gave up their aircraft and tanks, and nuclear and
chemical weapons, and occupy Gaza and the West Bank with soldiers
armed with stones and home-made bombs, then you'd have a point.
David
grimly bubble
"David Pears" <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:3p41vusasi9dstk0f...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:22:25 +1300, LeftAintRight <kda...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >If the suicide bombers were going after military targets you might, in a
> >warped kind of way, have a point. But as they go after civilians the
> >answer is no.
>
> Military targets tend to be wrapped up in armour or fly. Unless you're
> suggesting that people who want to resist Israeli occupation attack
> these sorts of targets with home made weapons, which sounds pretty
> futile, then attacking civilians is their only option.
No, murdering civilians is one option, there are dozens of other choices.
Mrudering civilians is not their 'only' option.
LeftAintRight
Hitler, World War 2, Holocaust.
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> > The Palestinians - always - since man walked upright - more than 9000
> > years - owned and possessed their lands. The United Nations have
> > condemned Israel, on multiple occasions, for its occupation.
> >
> > The jews came to Palestine (after being thrown out of Egypt and spending
> > 40 years lost in the desert), and beat up on the Palestinians and ruled
> > them for a while (as had previously the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and
> > others, and subsequently the Germans, Turks and English). Somehow the
> > jews convinced the English and eventually the United Nations that they
> > had some legitimate right to part of Palestine, which lead to the
> > creation of Israel just over 50 years ago, and subsequent to the
> > creation of Israel, Israel has been on the offensive in Palestine.
> >
> > Glad I could help fill the gaps in your history knowledge...
>
> I see it clearly now, you are saying that Israeli has legitimacy under the
> UN.
Israel has legitimacy for Israel, as per the 1948 United Nations
Partition plan. Israel has no legitimacy for occupancy of any other
piece of Palestine.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
You are being somewhat unfair to compare Israel to Hitler, WWII and the
holocaust. Israel is bad, but not that bad.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
Then a huge number of people would be wrong.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> > Oh of course, the driver provoked the attack... That justifies the death
> > of an innocent old woman. Should we authorise NZ Police to be able to
> > randomly shoot passengers in vehicles that run red lights in Queen
> > Street, or speed on the Auckland motorway
>
> There is a decided lack of homocide bombers in Auckland so the police there
> are not so on edge. But after a series of random homocide bombings, dead
> innocents and bits of kids showered around the various market places, I
> guess Israeli police are a bit testy.
There is also a decided lack of suicide bombers in Palestine. There are
millions of Palestinians who are not suicide bombers, being held to
ransom for the couple of hundred lunatic terrorists. It seems this
provides the perfect breeding ground for further terrorists.
Perhaps Israel should entertain the concept of getting the hell off the
land they illegally occupy, and remove the reason for the suicide
bombers to strike? Novel concept, I know. I mean, if someone stole your
home, and left you one corner in the basement to live in - ordered you
round at gunpoint and told you when you could go shopping, go to work,
where you could drive and when etc etc - you'd probably get a little
brassed off with that - and I guess you would keep arguing that the home
was yours etc. Perhaps some of your neighbours in similar circumstances
would resort to tactics like suicide bombings after 50 years of illegal
occupation of their homes?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
Or probably not.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
Over the past 2 years of the current Intafada Israel has been murdering
innocent Palestinians at the rate of around 3 for every one murdered by
a Palestinian suicide bomber. You somehow theorise that the only
terrorists are Palestinians. The truth is that the Israeli military are
far worse in their acts of terror, made worse by the fact that they are
supposed to be trained soldiers, made even worse by the fact that their
actions are endorsed by their Government, made particularly worse that
their actions are endorsed through the supply of billions of dollars of
US military aid, and made abominable as Israels actions are in constant
defiance of United Nations resolutions.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> I have huge difficulty believing the notion that homicide bombers are acting
> in self defense.
Yet you somehow believe that Israel is acting in self defence by
illegally occupying Palestine, and denying Palestinians all basic human
rights. How bizarre and jaundiced your view is.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> > You haven't read my posts too carefully then. Yes, I do condemn the acts
> > of the suicide bombers - I condemn any unjustified taking of human life.
> > I can (almost) understand what would drive the suicide bombers - a final
> > act of defiance after a life of misery caused by the illegal occupiers
> > of their Country, and deciding to "take a few of them as well", in their
> > state of utter desperation.
>
> I am not sure that I agree with this scenario, I see a different set of
> possibilities, a lot of other reasons that a homocide bomber will be
> inspired to perform such an evil and immoral act.
So you believe the life of a Palestinian in Palestine is one of freedom,
joy and happiness - thanks to the kind efforts of the benevolent Israeli
occupiers?
Instead of swallowing the Israeli propoganda and regurgitating it here,
why don't you think about the plight of the Palestinians instead? Why
not do some worthwhile reading, to know and understand the sheer hell
the poor Palestinians are put through on a daily basis by the illegal
occupiers?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
> >
> > I am surprised that you, as a person who condemns the acts of the
> > suicide bombers, can so casually dismiss the death of an innocent old
> > lady -
>
> I didn't, seems we both lack the skills to read each others posts. Like you
> I think the death of innocents is appalloing, so I don't applaud homocide
> bombers.
Do you condemn the actions of Israel, in its continued illegal
occupation of Palestine, its continued refusal to abide by the
multitiude of UN resolutions, and its constant use of torture in direct
contravention of the Geneva convention?
Keith Davidson
Bonnie R
> >
> There is a decided lack of homocide bombers in Auckland....
Interesting, in the US the press refers to these people as "suicide"
bombers. Homicide bombers seems a better description, as suicide
is not their real motivation.
Bonnie
LeftAintRight
Ha ha. Very good.
grimly bubble
Didn't that situation come about because there are those who refuse to
accept the UN partition plan and who bombed, attacked, undermined, stalked
and killed as often as possible where ever possible?
IS it really any wonder that Israel has pushed its security lines into this
territory?
grimly bubble
........
Novel concept, I know. I mean, if someone stole your
> home, and left you one corner in the basement to live in - ordered you
> round at gunpoint and told you when you could go shopping, go to work,
> where you could drive and when etc etc - you'd probably get a little
> brassed off with that -
Well that would depend, if I didn't like my neighbour, hurled abuse, fire
bombs etc at him, harrassed his relatives and generally made a pain in the
arse of myself because I felt that uncle harry should have been given that
house, based on the fact that uncle harry's relatives once lived somewhere
near some centuries ago. I would be rather foolish not to expect a
retaliation and if that meant that someone hunted me down to my basement and
kept me there under threat of death, then basically I would have to accept
whatever reaction I bought on myself.
grimly bubble
> Over the past 2 years of the current Intafada
Isn't an intafada a declaration of war?
Israel has been murdering
> innocent Palestinians at the rate of around 3 for every one murdered by
> a Palestinian suicide bomber.
You somehow theorise that the only
> terrorists are Palestinians. The truth is that the Israeli military are
> far worse in their acts of terror, made worse by the fact that they are
> supposed to be trained soldiers, made even worse by the fact that their
> actions are endorsed by their Government, made particularly worse that
> their actions are endorsed through the supply of billions of dollars of
> US military aid, and made abominable as Israels actions are in constant
> defiance of United Nations resolutions.
>
> Keith Davidson
Perhaps you should be there, you may be able to inspire a change in Israeli
thinking.
grimly bubble
I think you are a blatant bigot, you seem to ignore anything that doesn't
fit your extreme views and I don't think my views are jaundiced at all.
Your selective interpretation of my views may well be but that is your
story, you see only what you want to see. In a way you are the worst kind
of liar.
And if you can't convince me with reasoned argument, then you sure are not
going to convince me by posting abusing and belittling crap.
Go shoot a bunny, go kill something, that seems to make you happy.
grimly bubble
"Bonnie R" <bon...@appsnw.com> wrote in message
news:8c738085.02120...@posting.google.com...
I sort of made it up, I also think it is much more appropriate. People have
sympathy for 'victims' of suicide, these homocide bombers are not victims of
anything, they are simply cowardly murderers.
grimly bubble
Is worthwhile reading simply Palestinian propaganda? So far the picture I
have of what is happening and why doesn't endear me to your story at all.
RK
>
>
> RK wrote:
> >
> > I wonder why the driver failed to stop?
> > He provoked the attack. They did not open fire just for the sake of it,
> > according to the story he refused orders to halt and purposely drove
around
> > a barricade.
>
> of an innocent old woman. Should we authorise NZ Police to be able to
> randomly shoot passengers in vehicles that run red lights in Queen
>
> Keith Davidson
NZ is not in a situation where terrorist attacks happen every couple of
weeks.
N Lawton
>
> "T.N.O." wrote:
> >
> > whose law says that it it is illegal... who owned the land
> > 1000/2000/3000 years ago?
>
> years - owned and possessed their lands. The United Nations have
> condemned Israel, on multiple occasions, for its occupation.
>
> The jews came to Palestine (after being thrown out of Egypt and spending
> 40 years lost in the desert), and beat up on the Palestinians and ruled
> them for a while (as had previously the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and
> others, and subsequently the Germans, Turks and English). Somehow the
> jews convinced the English and eventually the United Nations that they
> had some legitimate right to part of Palestine, which lead to the
> creation of Israel just over 50 years ago, and subsequent to the
> creation of Israel, Israel has been on the offensive in Palestine.
>
> Glad I could help fill the gaps in your history knowledge...
>
Ok I still have some gaps.
So are you saying that Egypt is their native land?
I must admit to having little knowledge of or regard for religion, however
perhaps you could explain why Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as the
king of the Jews?
I kinda thought that at or about the time of Christ the Jews were pretty
much inhabiting the lands of Israel.
John Cawston
A good question to ask about the Palestinians is who were their Kings and
Queens, administrators, lawmakers, movers and shakers?
JC
Ydusitmata
> grimly bubble wrote:
> >
> > I have huge difficulty believing the notion that homicide bombers are acting
> > in self defense.
>
> Yet you somehow believe that Israel is acting in self defence by
> illegally occupying Palestine,
Of course it is self defence you dipstick, and the legalities you often
like to mention mean fuck all to a nation threatened with total
annihilation.
You can browbeat as much as you like but Israel is never going to
willingly retreat to a position to constantly shelled and attacked like
pre 67.
Israel is lucky it has a nuclear deterrant IMHO.
ronh
--
I am unique -- like everyone else!
David Pears
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> >If the suicide bombers were going after military targets you might, in a
>> >warped kind of way, have a point. But as they go after civilians the
>> >answer is no.
>>
>> Military targets tend to be wrapped up in armour or fly. Unless you're
>> suggesting that people who want to resist Israeli occupation attack
>> these sorts of targets with home made weapons, which sounds pretty
>> futile, then attacking civilians is their only option.
>
>No, murdering civilians is one option, there are dozens of other choices.
>Mrudering civilians is not their 'only' option.
Negotiating didn't work. Not fighting didn't work. What sort of option
are you suggesting?
David
grimly bubble
Each person has choices. They can choose to join those engaged in the
promotion of peace, there are lots of people apparently on all sides of the
conflict that want peace and are working toward that end. Homocide bombers
could simply choose not to commit that crime. People could individually
renounced their religion as a failed enterprise and seek a more suitable
philosoiphy that doesn't rely on bigotry and hatred to invoke fear in its
followers.
Keith Davidson
>
> > Israel has legitimacy for Israel, as per the 1948 United Nations
> > Partition plan. Israel has no legitimacy for occupancy of any other
> > piece of Palestine.
>
> accept the UN partition plan and who bombed, attacked, undermined, stalked
> and killed as often as possible where ever possible?
>
> IS it really any wonder that Israel has pushed its security lines into this
> territory?
There were many jews who migrated to Palestine prior to the creation of
Israel, of which some formed terrorist jewish gangs - like the Stern and
Irgun gangs - who bombed, shot and killed endless numbers of
Palestinians and other arabs. As soon as Israel was created, these gangs
became the Israeli military, and immediately went on the offensive -
dispossessing over 500,000 Palestinians and forcing them to flee - not
just Israel, but all of Palestine. Upon seeing the mass exodus of
refugees, fleeing into Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria, and hearing
their stories of the terrorist acts, murders and killings by the jews,
the neighbouring arab states attacked Israel.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
N Lawton wrote:
>
> > The Palestinians - always - since man walked upright - more than 9000
> > years - owned and possessed their lands. The United Nations have
> > condemned Israel, on multiple occasions, for its occupation.
> >
> > The jews came to Palestine (after being thrown out of Egypt and spending
> > 40 years lost in the desert), and beat up on the Palestinians and ruled
> > them for a while (as had previously the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and
> > others, and subsequently the Germans, Turks and English). Somehow the
> > jews convinced the English and eventually the United Nations that they
> > had some legitimate right to part of Palestine, which lead to the
> > creation of Israel just over 50 years ago, and subsequent to the
> > creation of Israel, Israel has been on the offensive in Palestine.
> >
> > Glad I could help fill the gaps in your history knowledge...
> >
> Ok I still have some gaps.
> So are you saying that Egypt is their native land?
No - I am saying the jews were banished from Egypt. You'll need to read
the Bible for the whole story, but I don't think it tells you where the
jews actually originated.
> I must admit to having little knowledge of or regard for religion, however
> perhaps you could explain why Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as the
> king of the Jews?
I'm not sure - it was the jews who decided to kill Jesus Christ. Until
then, the jews were supposed to have been God's chosen people.
> I kinda thought that at or about the time of Christ the Jews were pretty
> much inhabiting the lands of Israel.
The jews were the rulers of the area at around that time. But they were
visitors, as were the Greeks and Romans, the Hyksos, Egyptians, Turks,
Germans and English who have all had turns at ruling the Palestine area.
But nevertheless, the Palestinian arabs are the "tangata whenua".
Jericho is the oldest continuously inhabited city on this planet - with
more than 9000 years of traceable history of the Palestinian people.
The jews came and went, all within around 500 years. Although there
were/are some jews who have continuously lived in the Palestine / Israel
area for the past 2000 years. They numbered about 3% of the population
of the area around 100 years ago.
There are many concepts of who Jesus was. Most Christian religions
believe he was the son of God, some though think he was a Saint. The
Moslems thought he was a Prophet - and the most omnipotent Prophet to
that date. I'm not sure who the jews think he is, but they obviously
didn't rate him at the time.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
The Palestinians, the rightful and legitimate owners of Palestine, were
given no say in the creation of Israel from their land. The Balfour
Declaration of 1917 saw the Brits get convinced that Israel should be
created as a homeland for the jews (on the basis of the jewish slogan -
a land for a people for a people without a land - which wasn;t true,
since there were plenty of Palestinians on the land, and a religion is
not a people), and then the UN who resolved to create Israel. These
steps totally ignored the rights of the indigenous people.
It would be akin to the Australian Govt deciding that your suburb
belongs to the Jehovahs Witnesses, and shipping 90% of your neighbours
out to accomodate these people, who then go on the offensive and take
over your house and your life.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> > Over the past 2 years of the current Intafada
>
> Isn't an intafada a declaration of war?
No.
> Perhaps you should be there, you may be able to inspire a change in Israeli
> thinking.
Perhaps you should be there yourself - you certainly are one-eyed enough
to belong...
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> > Yet you somehow believe that Israel is acting in self defence by
> > illegally occupying Palestine, and denying Palestinians all basic human
> > rights. How bizarre and jaundiced your view is.
> >
> I think you are a blatant bigot, you seem to ignore anything that doesn't
> fit your extreme views and I don't think my views are jaundiced at all.
Believe me, my views are not extreme. Of course you dont think your
views are jaundiced. But have you been to Israel, have you seen the
plight of the Palestinians, do you understand any of the history of the
conflict?
> Your selective interpretation of my views may well be but that is your
> story, you see only what you want to see. In a way you are the worst kind
> of liar.
>
> And if you can't convince me with reasoned argument, then you sure are not
> going to convince me by posting abusing and belittling crap.
>
> Go shoot a bunny, go kill something, that seems to make you happy.
See - again you get it wrong. You need to work on your problems of
comprehension and retention of data.
Keith Davidson
Markward
> Upon seeing the mass exodus of
>refugees, fleeing into Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria, and hearing
>their stories of the terrorist acts, murders and killings by the jews,
>the neighbouring arab states attacked Israel.
What a fairy tale. Arabs good, jews evil. Guess what, Keith. That
doesn't play so well these days anymore. Give it up.
MW
Keith Davidson
Ydusitmata wrote:
>
> Keith Davidson <ke...@nospamwise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > grimly bubble wrote:
> > >
> > > I have huge difficulty believing the notion that homicide bombers are acting
> > > in self defense.
> >
> > Yet you somehow believe that Israel is acting in self defence by
> > illegally occupying Palestine,
>
> Of course it is self defence you dipstick, and the legalities you often
> like to mention mean fuck all to a nation threatened with total
> annihilation.
Israel has the 4th most powerful military force in the world, propped up
by US$3 billion per annum in military aid from their friends in America.
They are quite capable of defending their legitimate boundaries against
boys throwing stones...
> You can browbeat as much as you like but Israel is never going to
> willingly retreat to a position to constantly shelled and attacked like
> pre 67.
>
> Israel is lucky it has a nuclear deterrant IMHO.
It is attitudes like yours that ensure that peace cannot come to the
Palestinians.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> Is worthwhile reading simply Palestinian propaganda? So far the picture I
> have of what is happening and why doesn't endear me to your story at all.
I'm not suggesting you read Palestinian propoganda. Just some facts on
the actual situation. Try the United Nations resolutions against Israel
as a starting point.
Keith Davidson
David Pears
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> >> Military targets tend to be wrapped up in armour or fly. Unless you're
>> >> suggesting that people who want to resist Israeli occupation attack
>> >> these sorts of targets with home made weapons, which sounds pretty
>> >> futile, then attacking civilians is their only option.
>> >
>> >No, murdering civilians is one option, there are dozens of other choices.
>> >Mrudering civilians is not their 'only' option.
>>
>> Negotiating didn't work. Not fighting didn't work. What sort of option
>> are you suggesting?
>
>Each person has choices. They can choose to join those engaged in the
>promotion of peace, there are lots of people apparently on all sides of the
>conflict that want peace and are working toward that end. Homocide bombers
>could simply choose not to commit that crime. People could individually
>renounced their religion as a failed enterprise and seek a more suitable
>philosoiphy that doesn't rely on bigotry and hatred to invoke fear in its
>followers.
Israel has been occupying Palestine since 1967. Bits of it since 1948
if you want to be picky. How long do you have to engage in the
promotion of peace before you realise it isn't working?
David
Markward
>The Palestinians, the rightful and legitimate owners of Palestine
Barf. Who cares. It's not our problem. Piss off.
MW
Markward
>Israel has been...
Hey Ocker stay out of our NZ newsgroup.
MW
David Pears
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:33:29 +0930, David Pears wrote:
>>Israel has been...
>
>Hey Ocker stay out of our NZ newsgroup.
You've not been here long, have you?
David
Keith Davidson
Sorry to upset your fantasies with some reality. If you don't believe
the above, explain why there are more than 4 million Palestinian
refugees. What caused this number? Why did they flee their homeland of
9,000 years - after withstanding the tyranny of the Greeks, Egyptians,
Romans, Turks and others, over more than 3000 years, why have they fled
since the creation of Israel in the past 50 years?
You seriously should take a reality pill.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
Why bother responding if you don't care?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> Each person has choices. They can choose to join those engaged in the
> promotion of peace, there are lots of people apparently on all sides of the
> conflict that want peace and are working toward that end. Homocide bombers
> could simply choose not to commit that crime. People could individually
> renounced their religion as a failed enterprise and seek a more suitable
> philosoiphy that doesn't rely on bigotry and hatred to invoke fear in its
> followers.
Suicide bombers are individuals who commit acts of terrorism. Their acts
are not supported, endorsed or accepted by the vast majority of
Palestinians - but those Palestinians lives are still crap, due to the
unilaterally abhorrent treatment by Israel.
There was considerable peace in Palestine for several years during the
1990's, with Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to
bring peace. But did the Israeli's withdraw, did they remove their
illegal settlements etc? The Israel peace offer was for the return of
"some" land, and the allocation of virtually zero water supply to the
Palestinians. That wasn't a real peace offering at all. Peace can not be
negotiated by holding guns to the heads of one party. The latest
intifada is as a result of Israel's inflexibility to negotiate a
meaningful peace settlement.
Keith Davidson
Markward
>explain why there are more than 4 million Palestinian
>refugees. What caused this number?
Because they fuck like rabbits, asshole. There's 10 times as many of
them now as there were 100 years ago. Their numbers are
unsustainable. Famine, here we come.
This is the unpublicised aspect of the shit over there. The Arabs
have big families of 8, 10, 13 children. No wonder the fathers of
suicide bombers express pride in their murdering sons -- they've got
lots of extra children who are still around. The jews on the other
hand have small families of 2 or 3 children. They are behaving
responsibly toward the planet. The Arabs are overbreeding and sending
their excess children as so much fodder to kill the few children of
the Israelis. Much more of this and the Israelis will exact a
terrible vengeance, and good on them when they do.
>Why did they flee their homeland of
>9,000 years - after withstanding the tyranny of the Greeks, Egyptians,
>Romans, Turks and others, over more than 3000 years, why have they fled
>since the creation of Israel in the past 50 years?
Who gives a rat's ass.
MW
grimly bubble
And have now agreed to peace with Israel.
grimly bubble
>
>
> Markward wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 22:42:17 +1300, Keith Davidson wrote:
> > > Upon seeing the mass exodus of
> > >refugees, fleeing into Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria, and hearing
> > >their stories of the terrorist acts, murders and killings by the jews,
> > >the neighbouring arab states attacked Israel.
> >
> > What a fairy tale. Arabs good, jews evil. Guess what, Keith. That
> > doesn't play so well these days anymore. Give it up.
>
> Sorry to upset your fantasies with some reality. If you don't believe
> the above, explain why there are more than 4 million Palestinian
> refugees. What caused this number?
4 million from 500,000 displaced only a little over half a centuray ago
would indicate that they are prolific and successful breeders or that 3
million or more may have 'suddenly' become Palestinians.
grimly bubble
> But nevertheless, the Palestinian arabs are the "tangata whenua".
I can imagine the concept of Tangatawhenua when applied to an Island natiuon
but not to a part of a continent where many different people and cultures
came and went over the years.
> Jericho is the oldest continuously inhabited city on this planet - with
> more than 9000 years of traceable history of the Palestinian people.
So what exactly is the significance of that. London is pretty old too but
is full of people of all nationalities and the population is ever changing.
This 'we were here first' bleat is inauthentic. Should Anglos boot all
other nationaltities out of London simply becasue of the over crowding?
Where would the other nationalities go? What side of that war would you be
on?
grimly bubble
Wht exactly constitutes a 'rightful and legitimate owner of land?
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> 4 million from 500,000 displaced only a little over half a centuray ago
> would indicate that they are prolific and successful breeders or that 3
> million or more may have 'suddenly' become Palestinians.
What was the population of NZ in 1950, and what is it today? What was
the population of China in 1950 and what is it today?
And why do you make bizarre assumptions? 500,000 was not even close to
the total population in 1950 - it was only the first wave of refugees,
created upon the formation of Israel. There were still a huge number of
Palestinians living in Palestine. Around another 300,000 fled during and
after the 1967 war. There has been a constant number leaving Palestine
outside of the war times, sick to death of the appalling treatment meted
out by the Israeli's.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
Markward wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 01:24:41 +1300, Keith Davidson wrote:
> >explain why there are more than 4 million Palestinian
> >refugees. What caused this number?
>
> Because they fuck like rabbits, asshole. There's 10 times as many of
> them now as there were 100 years ago. Their numbers are
> unsustainable. Famine, here we come.
How many more NZ'ers are there than 100 years ago? How many more
Chinese?
> This is the unpublicised aspect of the shit over there. The Arabs
> have big families of 8, 10, 13 children. No wonder the fathers of
> suicide bombers express pride in their murdering sons -- they've got
> lots of extra children who are still around. The jews on the other
> hand have small families of 2 or 3 children. They are behaving
> responsibly toward the planet. The Arabs are overbreeding and sending
> their excess children as so much fodder to kill the few children of
> the Israelis. Much more of this and the Israelis will exact a
> terrible vengeance, and good on them when they do.
>
> >Why did they flee their homeland of
> >9,000 years - after withstanding the tyranny of the Greeks, Egyptians,
> >Romans, Turks and others, over more than 3000 years, why have they fled
> >since the creation of Israel in the past 50 years?
>
> Who gives a rat's ass.
You make the point that you don't give a rats ass, but then if you
really didn't why would you bother replying? Perhaps the inhumanity of
the situation meted out to the Palestinians affects you in such a way?
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble
Until it works I guess.
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> > There were many jews who migrated to Palestine prior to the creation of
> > Israel, of which some formed terrorist jewish gangs - like the Stern and
> > Irgun gangs - who bombed, shot and killed endless numbers of
> > Palestinians and other arabs. As soon as Israel was created, these gangs
> > became the Israeli military, and immediately went on the offensive -
> > dispossessing over 500,000 Palestinians and forcing them to flee - not
> > just Israel, but all of Palestine. Upon seeing the mass exodus of
> > refugees, fleeing into Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria, and hearing
> > their stories of the terrorist acts, murders and killings by the jews,
> > the neighbouring arab states attacked Israel.
>
> And have now agreed to peace with Israel.
Well, Jordan and Egypt have agreed to peace with Israel. That's good
though, you are slowly coming up to speed.
Who knows, we may yet be able to debate this intelligently...
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble
>
>
> grimly bubble wrote:
> >
> > > Yet you somehow believe that Israel is acting in self defence by
> > > illegally occupying Palestine, and denying Palestinians all basic
human
> > > rights. How bizarre and jaundiced your view is.
> > >
> > I think you are a blatant bigot, you seem to ignore anything that
doesn't
> > fit your extreme views and I don't think my views are jaundiced at all.
>
> Believe me, my views are not extreme. Of course you dont think your
> views are jaundiced. But have you been to Israel, have you seen the
> plight of the Palestinians, do you understand any of the history of the
> conflict?
No I haven't been to Israel I meet something between 80 and 100 people from
the region each year. Most are Jews but I have met a few palestinians as
well. I have good friends who live in Hebron and TelAviv.
The history of the conflict is not as important as the future of the
conflict because not one nano-second of the past can be changed but if there
is no change in the actions of either community there will be a certainty
that the future will be the same as the past.
The challenge is for all participants in the conflicts to be inspired enough
by the promise of a recognisable peaceful future that they will slowly
subscribe to a new 'story'. That may enable a slow assimilation of peaceful
activity that will grow in the future.
>
> > Your selective interpretation of my views may well be but that is your
> > story, you see only what you want to see. In a way you are the worst
kind
> > of liar.
> >
> > And if you can't convince me with reasoned argument, then you sure are
not
> > going to convince me by posting abusing and belittling crap.
> >
> > Go shoot a bunny, go kill something, that seems to make you happy.
>
> See - again you get it wrong. You need to work on your problems of
> comprehension and retention of data.
>
> Keith Davidson
One of the problems is that hard nosed battlers on both sides of the fence
think the other is constantly wrong...eh?
grimly bubble
>
>
> grimly bubble wrote:
> >
> > Each person has choices. They can choose to join those engaged in the
> > promotion of peace, there are lots of people apparently on all sides of
the
> > conflict that want peace and are working toward that end. Homocide
bombers
> > could simply choose not to commit that crime. People could individually
> > renounced their religion as a failed enterprise and seek a more suitable
> > philosoiphy that doesn't rely on bigotry and hatred to invoke fear in
its
> > followers.
>
> Suicide bombers are individuals who commit acts of terrorism. Their acts
> are not supported, endorsed or accepted by the vast majority of
> Palestinians - but those Palestinians lives are still crap, due to the
> unilaterally abhorrent treatment by Israel.
Which may well be reaction to a fear of more homocide bomb attacks. To say
they are the acts of individuals is a bit rich, these homocide bombers
receioeve training and their families receieve rewards from organisation
hidden among Palestinians and to whom the greater Palestinian population
pays homage.
Markward
>Around another 300,000 fled during and after the 1967 war.
Israel would still be in its 1948 boundaries if its Arab neighbours
would simply have chosen not to attack it. Israel would still be in
its 1967 boundaries if its Arab neighbours had simply lived in peace
with it. But the Arabs were warlike and threatening non-stop from
1948 until Carter's Camp David talks at which Sadat was the first to
make peace with Israel, in return for which Israel fully withdrew from
Egyptian territory.
The point is, the Arabs have fought and lost a lot of wars with
Israel. When this happens, you lose territory. It's their own fault.
They, and you, can get stuffed.
MW
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> "Keith Davidson" <ke...@nospamwise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:3DF1C50B...@nospamwise.net.nz...
>
> > But nevertheless, the Palestinian arabs are the "tangata whenua".
>
> I can imagine the concept of Tangatawhenua when applied to an Island natiuon
> but not to a part of a continent where many different people and cultures
> came and went over the years.
I used the words tangata whenua as a readily recognisable NZ expression
for "the people of the land" i.e. the indigenous people, those that were
there first, thereby, by natural justice, being the owners of the land
in their possession.
Sure, many cultures came and went through Palestine over the millenia.
But none of that denies the fact that the original Palestinian
inhabitants 100 years ago (whether they were Moslem, Christian or jew)
all had a full and unfettered right to their land. The rights were
denied by the Brits, then the UN, in the creation of the State of
Israel, and their rights are continued to be denied by the jewish
migrants.
> > Jericho is the oldest continuously inhabited city on this planet - with
> > more than 9000 years of traceable history of the Palestinian people.
>
> So what exactly is the significance of that. London is pretty old too but
> is full of people of all nationalities and the population is ever changing.
> This 'we were here first' bleat is inauthentic. Should Anglos boot all
> other nationaltities out of London simply becasue of the over crowding?
> Where would the other nationalities go? What side of that war would you be
> on?
There are vast and (at least to you) incomprehensible differences
between London and Jericho. Firstly, Jericho goes back 9000 years.
London has not been around for more than 15% of that time. But more
critical is that property in London has changed hands through the
process of fair trade and contract law - where there have been willing
buyers and willing sellers. Remember NZ's settlement, where land was
swapped for blankets, muskets or whatever - in such circumstances,
willing sellers and buyers agreeing on terms of trade - however
one-sided or unfair that might appear to be today. Lets look at some
detail of Palestine, and examine the "fair trade" concept:
- In 1895 the population of the entire (Israel and Palestine area) was
over 500,000, of which around 47,000 were jewish, around 50,000 were
Christian and the remaining 400,000+ were Moslem.
- The Balfour declaration in Britain in 1917 cleared the way for the
first mass of jewish migration to Palestine. The Palestinians had no say
in this - despite the fact that it was *their* country.
- WWII and the treatment of the jews in Europe led to massive migration
of jews to Palestine in the late 1930's and 1940's. The Palestinians had
no say in this - despite the fact that it was *their* country.
- In 1948 Israel is formed by the UN, who allocate 70% of the total land
mass to the jewish state, despite the total population of jews being
less than 30%. The Palestinians had no say in this - despite the fact
that it was *their* country.
- Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who had traceable family trees
going back over more than 2,000 years, on the same piece of land, who
(quite sensibly) anticipated they had an eternal right to continue to
inhabit that land, were rounded up and driven off their land by Israel.
- No compensation or payment of any kind has been made to the
Palestinians for the loss of their homeland, or ancestral homes.
- The *only* olive branch extended the Palestinians throughout the
entire process of the creation of Israel was that they were promised
that they would have their own country and statehood, and the full right
to self rule and self determination in their (tiny remnant of) land,
called Palestine. While Israel has been legitimised for more than 50
years, the Palestinians are still awaiting the rights that were supposed
to be accorded them at the same time, more than 50 years later.
So, had the jewish migrants to Palestine acted as new migrants to
England - getting their rights to citizenry allocated by the "tangata
whenua", and then negotiating through a process of fair trade for the
rights to own property etc.
The two situations are not in any way comparable.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
You are so completely and utterly wrong - the first offensives were the
work of jewish gangs, and on the day before the actual formation of
Israel, a full scale attack by the jewish military on the neighbouring
states. Until that point, the arab neighbours had put their military on
border patrol, to assist the fleeing Palestinians and prevent them by
being murdered by the jews.
You appear to be a new poster in this newsgroup - so I'll give you a
cluestick. Personal insults are an indication that a poster is losing
the debate.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> > Suicide bombers are individuals who commit acts of terrorism. Their acts
> > are not supported, endorsed or accepted by the vast majority of
> > Palestinians - but those Palestinians lives are still crap, due to the
> > unilaterally abhorrent treatment by Israel.
>
> Which may well be reaction to a fear of more homocide bomb attacks. To say
> they are the acts of individuals is a bit rich, these homocide bombers
> receioeve training and their families receieve rewards from organisation
> hidden among Palestinians and to whom the greater Palestinian population
> pays homage.
Sorry - you are wrong. The suicide bombings have only recently
re-emerged, since the election of Ariel Sharon and his party - and that
party's ongoing provocation with increases in the numbers of jewish
"settlements" in Palestine, the enforcement of curfews on Palestinians
etc. While hard line policies seem to win the hearts and minds of the
Israeli's, it has the opposite effect on the Palestinians, who resort to
the few methods of retaliation they can.
The families of suicide bombers receive the reward of having their homes
bulldozed to the ground, and being "deported" from Palestine. Most end
up in the refugeee camps in Jordan or Lebanon, penniless and homeless.
If that is a reward, I'll go he.
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble wrote:
>
> No I haven't been to Israel I meet something between 80 and 100 people from
> the region each year. Most are Jews but I have met a few palestinians as
> well. I have good friends who live in Hebron and TelAviv.
>
> The history of the conflict is not as important as the future of the
> conflict because not one nano-second of the past can be changed but if there
> is no change in the actions of either community there will be a certainty
> that the future will be the same as the past.
>
> The challenge is for all participants in the conflicts to be inspired enough
> by the promise of a recognisable peaceful future that they will slowly
> subscribe to a new 'story'. That may enable a slow assimilation of peaceful
> activity that will grow in the future.
> >
> One of the problems is that hard nosed battlers on both sides of the fence
> think the other is constantly wrong...eh?
The road to peace would obviously be:
- The immediate and complete withdrawal of all Israeli military and
jewish settlements from the entire Palestine area, back to the 1948 UN
Partition boundaries.
- The joint establishment by Israel and Palestine and other arab nations
for the "corpus seperatum" for the administration of Jerusalem.
- The payment of compensation to Palestine, for the atrocities caused
them through the creation of Israel.
All this revolves around the acceptance of the inalienable rights of the
Palestinian people, their right to inhabit their homeland in peace, self
rule and self determination.
Keith Davidson
grimly bubble
>
>
> grimly bubble wrote:
> >
> > 4 million from 500,000 displaced only a little over half a centuray ago
> > would indicate that they are prolific and successful breeders or that 3
> > million or more may have 'suddenly' become Palestinians.
>
> What was the population of NZ in 1950, and what is it today? What was
> the population of China in 1950 and what is it today?
I think the population of New Zealand was around 2.2 million in 1950, even
with the immigration policies and the number of immigrants it is still less
than 4 million. If any country of a similar populations suddenly has huge
increases in population it would be resonable to assume that the population
is not a natural (by birth) increase. So where are these Palestinain
refugees coming from?
grimly bubble
> cluestick. Personal insults are an indication that a poster is losing
> the debate.
>
> Keith Davidson
Suggest that you should not revert ot personal insults either Keith, you
often do.
grimly bubble
>
>
> grimly bubble wrote:
> >
> > "Keith Davidson" <ke...@nospamwise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3DF1C50B...@nospamwise.net.nz...
> >
> > > But nevertheless, the Palestinian arabs are the "tangata whenua".
> >
> > I can imagine the concept of Tangatawhenua when applied to an Island
natiuon
> > but not to a part of a continent where many different people and
cultures
> > came and went over the years.
>
> I used the words tangata whenua as a readily recognisable NZ expression
> for "the people of the land" i.e. the indigenous people, those that were
> there first, thereby, by natural justice, being the owners of the land
> in their possession.
And I have pointed out that it is possible, given huge difficulties of
access, for a community to be isolated in a new Island for generations as
was the case with Tangatawhenua but this doesn't apply to a continent where
populations shifted about or were driven about by need or war, or a
combination of many factors.
This is not so in New Zealand, much land was confiscated, and otherwise
misappropriated, that is what the treaty settlements are all about.
Interesting thing is that homocide bombing shopping malls hasn't become a
weapon of choice with Maori.
Which would indicate that there are factors that you are either unaware of
or are ignoring in your description of history.
>
>
> So, had the jewish migrants to Palestine acted as new migrants to
> England - getting their rights to citizenry allocated by the "tangata
> whenua", and then negotiating through a process of fair trade for the
> rights to own property etc.
>
> The two situations are not in any way comparable.
>
> Keith Davidson
I agree, there seems nothing compatable regarding the Palestinian/ Israeli
war.
grimly bubble
>
>
>
> All this revolves around the acceptance of the inalienable rights of the
> Palestinian people, their right to inhabit their homeland in peace, self
> rule and self determination.
I don't think that is the basis of any future agreement becasue the
'inalienable rights' as you call them are already alienated.
>
> Keith Davidson
grimly bubble
Naaaahhhh...........not unless we put our faith and trust in a third
party!!!
Cheers
John Cawston
> "Keith Davidson" <ke...@nospamwise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:3DF2501E...@nospamwise.net.nz...
> >
> >
> > grimly bubble wrote:
> > >
> > > 4 million from 500,000 displaced only a little over half a centuray ago
> > > would indicate that they are prolific and successful breeders or that 3
> > > million or more may have 'suddenly' become Palestinians.
> >
> > What was the population of NZ in 1950, and what is it today? What was
> > the population of China in 1950 and what is it today?
>
> I think the population of New Zealand was around 2.2 million in 1950, even
> with the immigration policies and the number of immigrants it is still less
> than 4 million. If any country of a similar populations suddenly has huge
> increases in population it would be resonable to assume that the population
> is not a natural (by birth) increase. So where are these Palestinain
> refugees coming from?
From what I've read, there are probably no Palestinians left of the Greco/Turk
sea invaders in about 1350. The people today called Palestinians are Arabs who
poured into the region early last century from the surrounding Arab nations.
Palestine is the name of a region, not a people.
JC
RK
The reason there are so many refugees is that the other arab states don't
want to take them. Rather they want to fuel the anger of the Palestinians
against Israel by keeping them dispossessed.
Markward
>You are so completely and utterly wrong - the first offensives were the
>work of jewish gangs, and on the day before the actual formation of
>Israel, a full scale attack by the jewish military on the neighbouring
>states. Until that point, the arab neighbours had put their military on
>border patrol, to assist the fleeing Palestinians and prevent them by
>being murdered by the jews.
This false garbage shows that you are intent on rewriting history to
pursue your evil agenda. You are an evil man, Keith. Now go away.
MK
Ydusitmata
> Ydusitmata wrote:
> >
> > Keith Davidson <ke...@nospamwise.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > grimly bubble wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have huge difficulty believing the notion that homicide bombers are
> > > > acting in self defense.
> > >
> > > Yet you somehow believe that Israel is acting in self defence by
> > > illegally occupying Palestine,
> >
> > Of course it is self defence you dipstick, and the legalities you often
> > like to mention mean fuck all to a nation threatened with total
> > annihilation.
>
> Israel has the 4th most powerful military force in the world, propped up
> by US$3 billion per annum in military aid from their friends in America.
> They are quite capable of defending their legitimate boundaries against
> boys throwing stones...
Are those the stones made of HE the terrorsts strap to their bodies and
then detonate near buses etc to murder women and kids? Are they anything
like the stones that artillery rained on Israelis from the Golan
Heights, (the reason the heights are now "occupied")?
Get real. Should Israel turn the other cheek, or make sure it has the
might to protect itself. Who would gurarantee that if Israel disarmed
and moved back to pre 67 lines that the Arabs would not carry out their
avowed intention to destroy Israel?
WHO was that you said? Louder Keith. WHO would guarantee peace and
Israel's right to exist?
Israel NEEDS to be able to defend itself you twit.
> > You can browbeat as much as you like but Israel is never going to
> > willingly retreat to a position to constantly shelled and attacked like
> > pre 67.
> >
> > Israel is lucky it has a nuclear deterrant IMHO.
>
> It is attitudes like yours that ensure that peace cannot come to the
> Palestinians.
Wrong. Peace is unachievable until after the terrorism stops. It is not
only 'Palestinians' who cannot enjoy peace but Israelis as well, but
perhaps that doesn't bother you.
ronh
--
I am unique -- like everyone else!
David Pears
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> >Each person has choices. They can choose to join those engaged in the
>> >promotion of peace, there are lots of people apparently on all sides of
>the
>> >conflict that want peace and are working toward that end. Homocide
>bombers
>> >could simply choose not to commit that crime. People could individually
>> >renounced their religion as a failed enterprise and seek a more suitable
>> >philosoiphy that doesn't rely on bigotry and hatred to invoke fear in its
>> >followers.
>>
>> Israel has been occupying Palestine since 1967. Bits of it since 1948
>> if you want to be picky. How long do you have to engage in the
>> promotion of peace before you realise it isn't working?
>
>Until it works I guess.
Does this apply to other invasions and occupations? For instance,
were the UK and France right to go to war over Germany's invasion of
Poland, or should they have engaged in the promotion of peace until it
worked? Were the French resistance wrong to violently resist, when
they could have engaged in the promotion of peace until it worked?
David
David Pears
>The reason there are so many refugees is that the other arab states don't
>want to take them. Rather they want to fuel the anger of the Palestinians
>against Israel by keeping them dispossessed.
Why is it the responsibility for Arab countries to "take" these
refugees, rather than, say, NZ. If they all turned up in NZ, would you
be happy to resettle them?
David
Markward
<dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote:
PISS OFF YOU OCKER WANK
Markward
David Pears
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 10:44:07 +0930, David Pears
><dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote:
>
>PISS OFF YOU OCKER WANK
Very persuasive. You've tried the same "go away" argument with Keith,
but without the misguided racist aspect. Do you use this whenever
arguments go against you? If so, what do your teachers say?
David
Keith Davidson
If your concept of evil is someone who supplies you with facts, then you
are beyond help. If you keep your head in the sand, perhaps one day
things will come right.
If you don't wish to read what I write, there is an easy solution. I'm
not going away - perhaps you should?
Keith Davidson
Keith Davidson
See - as always, you only chew through half the story. Try again,
concentrating harder this time...
Keith Davidson
Dave Joll
> PISS OFF YOU OCKER WANK
Thank you for demonstrating your inability to refute
Pears' arguments in a rational manner.
- Dave
--
Lowering the tone of Usenet since 1997...
Please send replies to New Zealand instead of Zanzibar.
Sorry, but the spam is just getting a little too much...