I hate you. Don't hate me back. Understand me.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Glenn X

Now, you're the one being presumptuous, Kurpintine, for I never mentioned your name in that context, either directly or indirectly. In fact, you're being so much of an obstinate cranium-case on this that, from now on, take it as a given that I'm never referring to you unless I specifically mention you by your handle or by one of your newly bestowed nicknames: bonehead, blockhead, dunderhead.

Glenn, let me begin by saying that if your arguments could stand on their own there would be no need for you to call me names or alter the spelling of my name. So I'll consider that a point scored for me and indicative of your inability to produce effective counter-points.

Two, you in fact did include me by using the word "we". An unqualified "we" means you, myself, and every other American whom you've lumped into your statements.

Do you dispute this? Do you not feel American culture to be a fundamentally open and decent one? Oh, I see. So that's your game. "Person X did wrong, but Person Y did wrong, too -- so it's all even!" In other words: moral equivalency.

No, what I dispute is your characterization of Middle Eastern Muslims as barbaric people. You exemplify Americans as being above the sort of actions that certain Muslims have undertaken. You are dead wrong here.

Answer me this, Kurp. Do you even consider Bin Laden to be evil? I mean, yes, he's responsible for the murder of thousands of people over the years (e.g. the bombings of the American Embassies in east Africa; the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen; the terrorist attacks on the eastern United States on September 11, 2001), but, hey, history is replete with plenty of non-Muslim/non-Arab guys who have killed far more people than Bin Laden has (e.g. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic), so can Bin Laden really be considered as evil as them?

I await your response(s) with bated breath.

And herein lies the evidence of your bigotry. You take one man's attrocities and paint all Middle Eastern Muslims with the same brush stroke. You assume, because I call you on your bigotry, that I somehow minimize the actions of bin Laden. You presume to think that "we" should view the actions of one radical Middle Eastern Muslim as respresentative of ALL Middle Eastern Muslims.

Sorry Glenn, you stepped in it and I smell your shoes. If I were you I'd clean up the stench and apologize for offending my olfactory receptors.

[fansince62]

ASF/Kurp and the other soul mates of Pan-Arabic peace and love.....none of those cultures or political entities that you so identify with have stepped forward and stopped the barbarities......that is the begining and the end when it comes to assessing what level these people can rise to.......Chinese students stood in front of tanks, Hungarians challenged an Empire, the Czechs took on the communists.......what have the "peace loving" Arabs been able to muster as a people? nothing..........sell your Grimm's tale to someone else

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Glenn X

While it's important to point out that most Muslims don't ascribe to Bin Laden's brand of Islam, it's also worth noting that that "miniscule" percentage of the overall Muslim population is still pretty large in terms of raw numbers.

We're not talking about, say, the infinitesimally small portion of people who go to sci-fi conventions dressed up as the infamous Space Hippies from Episode 75 of Star Trek: The Original Series.

According to author Daniel Pipes, 10-15% of Muslims worldwide subscribe to some form of extremist, xenophobic Islam. A small percentage, you say? Sure. But keep in mind that we're talking about 10-15% of 1.2 billion people. In other words, we're talking about 120-180 million people.

So, if we assumed that 120-180 million Muslims are violent then why don't the crimes add up? I mean we should have a least 1 million murders at the hands of extremist Muslims don't you think?

And if you're going to invoke Daniel Pipe as fodder for your arguments, then you should be prepared to heed his advice when he states:

"Here is some guidance, starting with steps to take to protect the rights of the Muslim minority:

Maintain the utmost respect for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions. A time of crisis does not change the assumption that each of us is innocent until proved guilty.

Do not make any prejudicial statements against Muslims, a great majority of whom are innocent of Islamism or illegal behaviour.

Provide extra protection against acts of vandalism or hooliganism against Muslim property and individuals.

The press, politicians and other opinion leaders should speak out on these points."

Of course your original post is in direct conflict with Pipe's recommendations now isn't it?

[Tarhog]

No, what I dispute is your characterization of Middle Eastern Muslims as barbaric people. You exemplify Americans as being above the sort of actions that certain Muslims have undertaken. You are dead wrong here.

[/b]

I'll let Glenn speak for himself. But I will say I believe the general culture of Middle Eastern cultures to be far more 'barbaric' than in the US and Western Europe. You generally don't want to be a woman in the Middle East. You generally don't want to be in the minority either. And you damn sure don't want to be accused of a crime by your government because you're libel to ended up branded, tossed in prison for an undetermined time, see your family punished, have your hands or head cut off, or other bad things occur. And you may not even get the opportunity to defend yourself. In my mind, the circumstances most in the Middle East live under qualifies as 'barbaric'. I don't make the simultaneous argument that our own society is beyond reproach. But I don't believe all socieities, all governments, and all nations are equally good and/or deserving of the same consideration and treatment. It is for that reason that I believe the UN is a fraud, born of a fundamentally flawed belief that all nations should have an equal voice. They shouldn't. Responsible, democratic, free nations should have an equal voice.

No doubt I'm a bigot as well?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by fansince62

ASF/Kurp and the other soul mates of Pan-Arabic peace and love.....none of those cultures or political entities that you so identify with have stepped forward and stopped the barbarities......that is the begining and the end when it comes to assessing what level these people can rise to.......Chinese students stood in front of tanks, Hungarians challenged an Empire, the Czechs took on the communists.......what have the "peace loving" Arabs been able to muster as a people? nothing..........sell your Grimm's tale to someone else

FanSince62,

Can I assume here that you've taken into account Al Rehaief, the Iraqi citizen who was responsible for the rescue of Jessica Lange, and decided to exclude him for the purpose of making some sort of point here?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by fansince62

ASF/Kurp and the other soul mates of Pan-Arabic peace and love.....none of those cultures or political entities that you so identify with have stepped forward and stopped the barbarities

fan,

As I'm sure you know, I don't "identify" with Arabs/Muslims. I'm thoroughly Western in thinking and I can't even imagine living life as a strict Muslim. I'm just able to discern the fact that these people have been abused since 1917 by nearly a hundred years of U.S., British and Israeli policies.

As to "stepping forward", that's what Iranians did in 1953 -- and were rewarded with the CIA-backed coup that set in motion 26 years of abusive rule by the Shah.

That's what Iranians did again in 1979 in overthrowing the Shah, and were rewarded by an Iraqi proxy war that included U.S.-supplied chemical weapons.

That's what the Kurds and Shia Muslims did against Hussein in the 1990s, and were rewarded with gassings (U.S. chemical weapons) and mass executions.

That's what the Palestinians have done with the intifadas against Israeli occupation, which have been routinely crushed by superior Israeli firepower.

Of all these efforts, only the Iranian Islamic revolution has achieved enduring success, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Iran-Iraq war. And now our government proposes to undue their success by once again attempting to overthrow their government.

Powerful empires and powerful totalitarian regimes do not crumble easily. It's disingenuous to suggest that the victims have not made their best attempts to dislodge their oppressors.

[Tarhog]

Jessica Lange, was rescued today with the surprising help of Iraqi Anti-gorilla Forces!

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by fansince62

a very large percentage of the terrorists, Bin Laden for instnce.....:laugh: .....come from the middle calss or the very rich

Revolutions are almost always led by the rich and the educated middle class. Read Orwell. Great conflicts are duels between the educated (rich and middle class) for the attention and loyalty of the proletariat, who are used as pawns and armies in the duel, betrayed by the rhetoric of the elite to rush to their ultimate slaughter.

Osama bin Laden is a classic in the history of revolutionary leaders.

[fansince62]

except that bin laden isn't a revolutionary....he's a terrorist anxious to wind the clock backward....not forward........but such a nice Marxian encapsulation of all wars!!!! so Stahlin was was an educated voice from the upper classes, eh?

and the officers...who happen to die in large numbers in these wars...they all came from the proletariat?

[The Sisko]

Ditto ASF regarding your comments on the Balfour Declaration, Truman, the U.N. and the rest. However, I fear you may have just wasted your breath since most Americans don't have a concept of the historical causes of anything prior to say the '70's. Most of us seem to see everything in a historical vacuum that obscures causes, and paints everything American right and everything not American wrong.

I challenge any of the xenophobic anti Arab/Islam crowd that has posted on this thread (and you know who you are) to look up the historical facts that ASF listed, then come back and honestly say you can't understand why Arabs are so pissed at Israel and by extension us.

[fansince62]

Yusuf....that's a rationalization for murder.......feel as comfortable as you like....I'm confronted with the here and now (actually the last 30-40 years). And I'm confronted by avowed NATION STATE policies of genocide (for which there are no acceptable grounds). I am confronted by Arab states that consistently flaunted International law - speaking of preemptive wars! And I am confronted by sustained murder of Americans - which must be stopped NOW. this isn't anti-Arabism...it's friggin common sense. what the *ell do you think we have been trying to achieve in the Middle East regardless of the party sitting in the White House for the last 50 years? if funding Israel has been necessary to prevent yet another holocaust.....too bad. where are the Arab leaders who advocate Israel's right to exist? who are willing to peacefully negotiate? when such leaders step forward....like Sadat...they are murdered by their own people!! the Arab world is responsible for its own misery....it can't generate, nurture and support transformational leadership. please spare me the 'Americans create these leaders' rhetoric. the Arab world apparently only knows one route to settling disputes.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

Ditto ASF regarding your comments on the Balfour Declaration, Truman, the U.N. and the rest. However, I fear you may have just wasted your breath since most Americans don't have a concept of the historical causes of anything prior to say the '70's. Most of us seem to see everything in a historical vacuum that obscures causes, and paints everything American right and everything not American wrong.

I challenge any of the xenophobic anti Arab/Islam crowd that has posted on this thread (and you know who you are) to look up the historical facts that ASF listed, then come back and honestly say you can't understand why Arabs are so pissed at Israel and by extension us.

Careful, I think I hear Blade's footsteps coming down the hallway ...

[Riggo-toni]

"Kissinger's beef? Hussein nationalized the Iraqi oil industry."

Actually, ASF - Kissinger's beef was that Hussein was financing an terrorist Iranian Opposition Marxist group (MEK). In a tit for tat measure, the Nixon administration agreed to offer support to Barzani. We withdrew this support and let the Kurds get slaughtered after Saddam and the Shah reached an agreement in which we would withdraw support from the Kurds in exchange for Saddam withdrawing support for the MEK. After the Iranian Revolution, Saddam gave refuge to the MEK and allowed them to launch strikes from Iraqi soil. We even allied ourselves with certain members of the group, who have provided us with extensive information about Iran's nuclear program. We bombed them during Iraqi Freedom, but have since come to a truce with them - much to the chagrin of the Iraqi people.

As for Truman recognizing Israel, what difference did it make? All he did was recognize reality. It's not like our refusal to recognize Mainland China for all those years prevented the spread of communism.

Perhaps the Brits biggest faux pas re Palestine was propping up Al Husseini (Arafat's Uncle) as the Grand Mufti. Jewish immigration was bringing considerable prosperity to the Holy Land, and for the most part Arabs and Jews did live in harmony together. The Mufti was, however, a virulent anti-Semite, and urged the Arabs to attack Zionists in the name of Allah. When the UN partition plan came forward, he instructed the Palestinians to leave their homes and head to neighboring Arab nations. These nations' armies would surely wipe out the Zionists in a matter of days, and then the Palestinians could enjoy the land all to themselves.:shootinth Oops!

The original plan behind the balfour Declaration was to give Jordan to the Palestinians and Transjordan to the Jews. Jordan's population is over 60% Palestinian. The PLO must have thought this was a good idea as well, because they spent the 60s and 70s trying to assasinate King Hussein - until after the 9th attempt he got fed up and expelled them into Lebanon (and boy, what a great job the Palestinian leadership did there:doh: :doh: ).

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

"Kissinger's beef? Hussein nationalized the Iraqi oil industry."

Actually, ASF - Kissinger's beef was that Hussein was financing an terrorist Iranian Opposition Marxist group (MEK).

And there was also tension between Iraq and Iran over sharing the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.

I'm not saying oil was the *only* issue. However, it was a cardinal economic issue of significance to the U.S.

Some sources....

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general:

In 1968, the Baathist Party came to power. In 1972, it nationalized the U.S./U.K.-owned Iraqi Petroleum Company under the slogan "Arab oil for the Arabs." After a meeting with President Nixon, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and the shah of Iran, the CIA urged Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq to rebel against the Iraqi government. The U.S. promised to back them all the way. The House Select Committee on Intelligence Pike Report described it as a "cynical enterprise, even in the context of clandestine operations."3 The Shah funnelled U.S.-supplied arms to the Kurds.4 The Pike Report stated that neither the Shah "nor the President and Kissinger desired victory for [the Kurds]. They hoped the insurgents would [maintain] a level of hostilities to sap the resources of [iraq].

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs:

Kissinger and Nixon were especially anxious to accommodate the shah because they were in the process of concluding a $22 billion arms deal with him. As Kissinger wrote later, the Nixon administration regarded Iran as "the eastern anchor of our Mideast policy. " The US was also responding to the fact that in the spring of 1972, Iraq had nationalized a consortium of European and American firms known as the Iraq Petroleum Company, an act which displeased Washington.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

The original plan behind the balfour Declaration was to give Jordan to the Palestinians and Transjordan to the Jews.

Well, you must have powers of close reading that exceed mine and most historians. Kindly show me where in the Balfour Declaration it indicates division into two religion-based countries:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pp0

Foreign Office

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Or perhaps you have unique access to the secret documents that show the real plan?

[Riggo-toni]

establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

At that time the area of Palestine encompassed Jordan, Transjordan (present day Israel), Syria, and Lebanon. Look more closely at the wording here - IN Palestine (as opposed to say, OF palestine AS). In other words, out of that area (or more accurately, out of Jordan and Transjordan, since France won control of Syria and Lebanon), they would allot a section of land (Transjordan) for a Zionist homeland. They originally planned to give Jordan to the Palestinians, but reneged on this pledge because they wanted to keep as much of the Middle East under Hashemite rule as possible as a means of securing the oil supply under the hands of friendly rulers. Try reading "A Peace to End All Peace"

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

At that time the area of Palestine encompassed Jordan, Transjordan (present day Israel), Syria, and Lebanon. Look more closely at the wording here - IN Palestine (as opposed to say, OF palestine AS). In other words, out of that area (or more accurately, out of Jordan and Transjordan, since France won control of Syria and Lebanon), they would allot a section of land (Transjordan) for a Zionist homeland. They originally planned to give Jordan to the Palestinians, but reneged on this pledge because they wanted to keep as much of the Middle East under Hashemite rule as possible as a means of securing the oil supply under the hands of friendly rulers. Try reading "A Peace to End All Peace"

If it's clarification of the Balfour Declaration that you seek, try the famous 1939 British "White Paper" that attempted to resolve the growing conflicts in Palestine by clarifying the Balfour Declaration:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1939.htm

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews....

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that 'Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will....

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

Further, the White Paper sought to drastically restrict continued Jewish immigration to Palestine, which it saw as causing an escalating conflict:

For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits.

In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children anddependents....

After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.

His Majesty's Government are determined to check illegal immigration, and further preventive measures are being adopted. The numbers of any Jewish illegal immigrants who, despite these measures, may succeed in coming into the country and cannot be deported will be deducted from the yearly quotas.

Of course, the immediate result of the White Paper was a revolt by Jews in Palestine against Britain, climaxing in numerous killings and terrorism, and the violent explusion of hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians from their homeland.

[fansince62]

for those who care.....yet another non-descript reference...oh....and the source?

]bahahahaha

The Formation of the State of Israel

The Cause for a State

Religious Jews believe that Israel was promised to them since biblical times, even though the land of Israel didn't always belong to them. There has always been a certain affiliation between Jews and Israel. It was religiously believed that a messiah would come to return the Jewish homeland to the Jews when the time came. The Jews never had any idea how much time would pass, or how much they would suffer, before this happened.

Over thousands of years, Jews left Palestine, in what is called the diaspora, in search of a place where they would be accepted in society. The Jews are undoubtedly one of the most migratory peoples in the history of mankind. The principal Jewish centre has shifted many times from one place to another, but no matter where they seemed to go, they were always the minority, and were always treated unfairly. In Christian Europe, the Jews were feared because they were different, and treated as though they were lower than human beings. This started a trend in which unfortunate happenings were blamed on the Jews.

The Beginning of Zionism

In May 2, 1860, Theodor Herzl was born. He felt little attachment to his Jewish heritage until 1894, when he covered the trial of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish captain in the French military who was unjustly convicted of passing secrets to Germany. The charges against Dreyfus shocked Herzl into realizing the need for a Jewish state. He saw that it was unfair that Dreyfus had been sentenced to life imprisonment when evidence had been uncovered implicating that he was innocent, and that a French infantry officer called Major Marie Charles Esterhazy was actually the culprit. In order that the army look fair, they had to court-martial Esterhazy, but in early 1898, he was acquitted of all charges. In August of 1898, Esterhazy was dismissed from the army and left France, settling in England. Esterhazy was not Jewish. Herzl was shocked, and decided he must take action to prevent such unfairness towards his people. Herzl wrote many pieces of literature in which he attempted to advocate the importance of a Jewish state. Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) was a pamphlet written in 1896. In 1897, the First Zionist Congress was held in Basle, under Herzl's leadership. "Zionism" is a belief that one day, the Jews will have an independent state. It comes from the word "Zion", which is stronghold in Jerusalem. Over time, the term "Zion" came to be applied to Jerusalem in general, and later to the Jewish idea of utopia. At one point, Herzl's zionist followers were so desperate for a place to call their own, they considered a proposal to create a Jewish homeland in Uganda. Herzl once said "In Basle, I founded the Jewish state... Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it." Theodor Herzl died on July 3rd, 1904. He never saw his dream of a Jewish homeland fulfilled, and he never knew just how much he did for the Jewish people. He gave them a voice.

The Word Spreads

In the political sense, the British sympathized with the Jewish cause. On November 2nd, 1917, Arthur James Balfour signed a declaration stating that Britain was committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine. "His Majesty's Government," wrote Balfour, " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The Jewish people were overjoyed. The Balfour Declaration signified the first step in the Jewish quest for a home. In 1918, the allies emerged victorious after the 1st world war, and France and England agreed to divide up the region in such a way that England had authority over Palestine. Moving to Israel is called "aliya," Hebrew for going up. Between 1920 and 1929, some one-hundred-and-sixty-thousand Jewish immigrants came to Palestine, eighty-five percent from Eastern Europe. This great wave brought most of the people who would lead Israel to statehood within the next two decades, including David Ben-Gurion, who would later become Israel's first prime minister. Many of those who came were socialists. They were prejudiced against the Jewish merchant stereotype, and instead believed in the importance of Jewish labour, which started the Kibbutz movement. Kibbutzim are collective settlements, built on the promise that everyone would give what they could, and take what they needed.

The Tension Mounts

The Arabs were very opposed to the Balfour declaration, even though many were making money from the Jews, who paid the Arabs as well as they could for a small piece of land on which to raise a family. The Jews weren't picky once they reached Palestine. They bought land wherever they could, mostly in areas where nobody wanted to live. The Jews turned swamp land into gardens and fields, developed the economy, and started to attract immigrants. True, the British claimed to be partial to the Jews, but at the same time, since they were in charge of Palestine, they were also interested in keeping the Arabs content, so that the two major groups would peacefully coexist in Palestine. They spend the next 30 years trying unsuccessfully to keep Palestine at peace, making promises to both the Jews and the Arabs that Britain had no power to keep. Britain caused tension between Jews and Arabs which is part of the reason that Israel isn't at peace with Palestinians today.

The Arabs decided they'd had enough, and started taking action to bring a stop to the Jewish takeover. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem organized pogroms, in which Jews would be captured and beaten. In 1929, things began to get worse when the Arabs started rioting and massacring students in Chevron. The Jewish community in Chevron were mortified, and evacuated. The Jews of Palestine realized that in order that they keep their land, they may have to fight and die for it. The Arabs felt threatened with the increase of Jewish population in Palestine, and fought it whenever possible. In 1936, the Arabs tried to attract attention by uprising, and continued to do so for the next three years.

Britain jumped in in 1939, and put a limit on the amount of land Jews were allowed to buy. This limit became known as the "white paper," and the Jews fought it, and smuggled in refugees anyway. This worked for a while, as the number of refugees during the war was relatively low, and the Arabs were under the impression that Britain was partial to them again. However, in 1945, when the 2nd world war ended, thousands of Jewish refugees came to Palestine by boat. They were scared, and needed to find safety. The world went into shock as the details of the holocaust became known, and for the first time in modern history, there was a widespread sympathy for the Jewish people. There was a quarter-million Jews who had survived the holocaust and needed housing. The Jewish settlers in Palestine insisted that the white paper be lifted for the refugees to be allowed to come into the country and find homes. The Arabs fervently opposed the increase in the Jewish population and argued that if anything, the Jews ought to be sent to England. The refugees were Britain's problem, not theirs.

Political persona in Britain had changed, and the new foreign secretary decided that the Jewish refugees was not Britain's problem, either. Political zionists used this opportunity to push for the formation of a Jewish state. They decided that the British were not helping them any longer, and must go. The Jews smuggled in refugees, and fought the British mandate. The British did what they could to send the ships of homeless Jews away, but since the paperwork had all been destroyed during the war, they had trouble telling who had Palestinian citizenship and who didn't. The Jews fought the British law by fighting in retaliation, using terrorist groups of angry Jews.

The Issue Trades Hands

The British grew frightened at having found themselves in the middle of such a mess, and made plans to withdraw their troops from Palestine, leaving the newly formed United Nations to address the issue. Britain claimed that they could no longer guarantee the safety of existing settlers, and that there were not enough jobs to go around. They claimed that Jewish statehood was impossible.

In November of 1947, The United Nations voted and the bill was passed to establish the state of Israel. The British and the Arabs wasted no time trying to make it impossible for the Jews to declare an independent state. From November 30, 1947, to May 14, 1948, the Arabs waged unnoficial war against the Yishuv. The only fighting forces that the Yishuv had were the Hagannah (Prevention), and two groups called "Etzel" (Irgun Zioni Lochen), and Lehy (Lochamei Chirut Israel). These groups were forced to work underground because the British had declared it illegal for Jews to own or carry weapons. The Yishuv, however, owned a monopoly on about 1,300 guns.

The Yishuv were pressed to decide whether they would proclaim the independent state of Israel. They were fully aware that if they did, five angry, well-equipped Arab armies would attack with planes, tanks, and artillery. Things again looked bad for the Jews, who had no tanks and no air force. May 13th, 1948, the day scheduled for the end of the British mandate, was quickly approaching. Many Jews opted to proclaim the statehood of Israel simply because they were convinced that another opportunity would never come. After a long debate, it was agreed that the Jews indeed would declare an independent Jewish state on the soonest possible day after the British mandate was terminated. The 13th, however, was a shabbat, a Saturday, the Jewish day of rest. The state of Israel could not be proclaimed on a shabbat.

The Proclamation, and the Consequences

On May 14th, 1948, David Ben-Gurion announced the birth of the Jewish state. He read the new Declaration of the State of Israel. HaTikvah (meaning hope), the national anthem, was played. Eleven minutes later, President Truman officially recognized the state of Israel, and was followed almost immediately by the USSR. For the first time since Bar Kochba, the Jews had their own country.

Less than 24 hours later, the Arabs declared war on Israel. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon invaded areas that had been deemed Israeli by the United Nations, and immediately started what the world believed would become a huge massacre. The Jews, however, were eager to band together and defend their new state. The Arabs outnumbered the Israelis, but the Israelis were better organized. Everybody helped, even people who had not had previous affiliation with the army. My grandfather, who drove his kibbutz's truck, drove provisions to a nearby kibbutz which was surrounded by arabs. Religious Jews believe that God played a part in it, too. In the dry, desert area of Israel, it very, very rarely rains during the summer, however, during the summer of 1948, it not only rained, it thundered. The Arabs only came up with one plausible explanation for the sound: the Jews had the atomic bomb. They turned and fled. After a second round and more tension, the world demanded a cease fire. England finally threatened Israel with an invasion unless they signed a document saying that they would stop shooting. The armistice treaty was signed in early 1949, after Israel had, amazingly, captured large tracts of land beyond boundaries designed by the United Nations.

Epilogue

Israel had become a independent state, and worked together to defend it. And so ended the terrible plight of the Jewish people, as they settled down to see what the future would bring. Herzl's vision had become a reality. The Jews then came together to understand the forces that had acted to bring them together as a state, and honoured these forces. In 1949, the Jews relocated Herzl's remains, as well as those of many others who had contributed to the statehood of Israel, to a mountain west of Jerusalem, that was named Mount Herzl.

Bibliography

Barnavi, Eli. A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People. Kuperard Ltd.: London, 1994.

Cohn-Sherbok, Lavinia. A History of Jewish Civilization. Promotional Reprint Company Ltd.: London, 1997.

Dreamers and Builders, 100 years of Zionism. Israel Film Archive, Jerusalem Cinematheque. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dept. of Public Affairs.

Gilboa, Yael, et. Al. Israel at 50, From Vision to Life. Ahva: Jerusalem, Israel, 1998.

Israel Becomes A State.

[broken link Removed by Moderator]

Israel's 52nd Independence Day. [broken link Removed by Moderator]

The Most Amazing State of Israel. [broken link Removed by Moderator]

The Jewish Student Online Research Centre [broken link Removed by Moderator

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by fansince62

for those who care.....yet another non-descript reference...oh....and the source?

]bahahahaha

The Formation of the State of Israel

Oh so sly, fan, to source the BBC.

That is, the BBC's web site.

Well, at least a forum on the BBC's web site.

I mean, a forum called "h2g2, the Earth Edition of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!"

To be specific, an anonymous post by a guy named "Rocky." Who "just got back from the most amazing summer of my life, in Israel."

[Henry]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Oh so sly, fan, to source the BBC.

That is, the BBC's web site.

Well, at least a forum on the BBC's web site.

I mean, a forum called "h2g2, the Earth Edition of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!"

To be specific, an anonymous post by a guy named "Rocky." Who "just got back from the most amazing summer of my life, in Israel."

With all due respect ASF, similar thoughts occur when looking over some of your sources as well.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by TheKurp

as for heated disagreements in the past. Sorry, I don't remember. I also don't hold grudges against anyone I've debated with here on this board

:laugh:

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Originally posted by TheKurp

For every "barbaric" radical Muslim I can give you a U.S.-born citizen who has perpetrated the same barbaric act.

Kurp, you've just outted yourself as an apologist par excellence for Arab Rage and Islamic Fundamentalism with this comment here.

Please show me the widespread practice across the U.S. of celebrating, say, homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols that one will find across the Middle East vis-à-vis Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad terrorists. In the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria (among other Middle Eastern locales), those who go and act as suicide bombers, killing themselves along with unarmed "infidel" civilians, are regularly hailed as great heroes. Please show me where this same kind of warped hero-worship occurs here in the U.S.

When you can show me that (which you can't), then maybe I'll entertain your (patently erroneous) claim that: we're basically just as f*cked up as they are.

Originally posted by TheKurp

you in fact did include me by using the word "we". An unqualified "we" means you, myself, and every other American whom you've lumped into your statements.

:laugh:

Get over yourself, Kurpy. (BTW, if you didn't want me to make fun of your handle, then perhaps you should've chosen one that didn't sound like something out of Morkspeak: A Glossary. ) I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking about college-educated, intellectually lazy, and morally hazy Americans (e.g. Bill Maher) and Europeans who couldn't bring themselves to expect anything more out of Middle Easterners than the kind of carnage and bloodshed that has made so many Middle Easterners infamous on the nightly news.

But while we're on the topic of "misunderstanding," remember when you made some crack about me and my "bar buddies" in a previous thread a little while back?

At the time, I just dismissed it as so much hot air from you and didn't comment on it.

However, I could have. I could have said: "Hey, motherf*cker, don't make that kind of assumption about me. You don't know me. And if you did, you'd know that I don't have bar buddies because (a) I don't hang out in bars and ( I don't like alcohol." I could've even been deeply wounded (as you're doing your level best to feign being in this thread here) and said: "Hey, motherf*cker, don't make that kind of assumption about me. You don't know me. And if you did, you'd know that my father was an alcoholic and I don't go near alcohol."

But I just brushed off what you said because it was what it was: a silly, off-the-cuff remark made by you in jest.

Look, Kurp, this I'm-so-hurt/don't-mischaracterize-me-even-though-any-reasonable-person-can-see-you-weren't-talking-to-me routine is getting real f*cking old. Grow a sense of perspective and humor right quick, or else I'm gonna have to permanently dismiss you as the charmless, humorless dolt you've behaved as thus far.

Originally posted by TheKurp

You take one man's attrocities and paint all Middle Eastern Muslims with the same brush stroke.

Hey, Kurpy, guess what?

That's right! It's time for...

BASIC READING COMPREHENSION!!!

Okay, let's review. I said: "While it's important to point out that most Muslims don't ascribe to Bin Laden's brand of Islam, it's also worth noting that that 'miniscule' percentage of the overall Muslim population is still pretty large in terms of raw numbers."

What part of most don't you understand, Kurp?

Oh, I get it. Because I'm not a total Islamophile such as yourself, then I must be a rank Islamophobe, eh? I see. Very simplistic of you, Kurp.

Wait.

I thought you preferred looking at things complexly rather than simply.

Originally posted by Tarhog

I'll let Glenn speak for himself. But I will say I believe the general culture of Middle Eastern cultures to be far more 'barbaric' than in the US and Western Europe. You generally don't want to be a woman in the Middle East. You generally don't want to be in the minority either. And you damn sure don't want to be accused of a crime by your government because you're libel to ended up branded, tossed in prison for an undetermined time, see your family punished, have your hands or head cut off, or other bad things occur. And you may not even get the opportunity to defend yourself. In my mind, the circumstances most in the Middle East live under qualifies as 'barbaric'. I don't make the simultaneous argument that our own society is beyond reproach. But I don't believe all socieities, all governments, and all nations are equally good and/or deserving of the same consideration and treatment. It is for that reason that I believe the UN is a fraud, born of a fundamentally flawed belief that all nations should have an equal voice. They shouldn't. Responsible, democratic, free nations should have an equal voice.

No doubt I'm a bigot as well?

Amen, Tarhog!

However, as you point out, the holding of such opinions will doubtless ensure our being regarded as "bigots of the first order" by Mr. Kurp.

:cry:

P.S. Kurp, a word of advice. Quit trying to mimic Art's never-say-die, Rottweilerish argumentativeness. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know Art, and you, sir, are no Art. Heed the message of those myriad After School Specials from the '80s and "just be yourself." :thumbsup:

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Glenn X

Please show me the widespread practice across the U.S. of celebrating, say, homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols that one will find across the Middle East vis-à-vis Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad terrorists. In the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria (among other Middle Eastern locales), those who go and act as suicide bombers, killing themselves along with unarmed "infidel" civilians, are regularly hailed as great heroes. Please show me where this same kind of warped hero-worship occurs here in the U.S.

How does this line of thought match up with your original post? Your initial point was about the violent acts of Middle Eastern Muslims. Shall I assume by your deviation that you're unable to debate your original statement on its own merit?

Now, your "new" statements above I have no quarrel with, up to a certain point. While there was some celebrating after the 9/11 attack, I think for the majority of the Muslim world there was a fair amount of condemnation. It's the reason why we were virtually unopposed when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. And while I will grant you that celebrating acts of terrorism are far more common in Arab countries than here in the U.S., I'm not sure I'll agree that the violence is condoned by the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims.

Get over yourself, Kurpy. (BTW, if you didn't want me to make fun of your handle, then perhaps you should've chosen one that didn't sound like something out of Morkspeak: A Glossary. )

Frankly, I could care less if you make fun of my handle. I merely pointed out that your resorting to that tactic underscores your lack of argument, which compels your sophomoric behavior. By the way, my last name is "Kurpiers". Phonetically spelled it's "Cur-pee-ay", which is why many of my friends prefer to call me "Kurp".

I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking about college-educated, intellectually lazy, and morally hazy Americans (e.g. Bill Maher) and Europeans who couldn't bring themselves to expect anything more out of Middle Easterners than the kind of carnage and bloodshed that has made so many Middle Easterners infamous on the nightly news.

If you were speaking solely about Maher why did you use the word "we"? Why not comment on Maher and make your statements about those who share his views. If this was your intention, you did a poor job of conveying it. Why not chalk it up as a lesson learned?

But while we're on the topic of "misunderstanding," remember when you made some crack about me and my "bar buddies" in a previous thread a little while back?

At the time, I just dismissed it as so much hot air from you and didn't comment on it.

However, I could have. I could have said: "Hey, motherf*cker, don't make that kind of assumption about me. You don't know me. And if you did, you'd know that I don't have bar buddies because (a) I don't hang out in bars and ( I don't like alcohol." I could've even been deeply wounded (as you're doing your level best to feign being in this thread here) and said: "Hey, motherf*cker, don't make that kind of assumption about me. You don't know me. And if you did, you'd know that my father was an alcoholic and I don't go near alcohol."

But I just brushed off what you said because it was what it was: a silly, off-the-cuff remark made by you in jest.

So then are you stating that everything you wrote in your original post was made in jest? By the way, you can hang out in bars and not drink. I believe most drinking establishments will serve you soda or water if you request it. As for your father, I feel you. My mother died at 42 from alcohol-related cirrhosis of the liver. My younger sister may not make it to 42 for the same reason.

Look, Kurp, this I'm-so-hurt/don't-mischaracterize-me-even-though-any-reasonable-person-can-see-you-weren't-talking-to-me routine is getting real f*cking old. Grow a sense of perspective and humor right quick, or else I'm gonna have to permanently dismiss you as the charmless, humorless dolt you've behaved as thus far.

Maybe you missed my debate with ASF over Mexicans? I take bigotry very seriously. It's not something I wish to grow a sense of humor over. Your post came off as bigoted. I called you on it. You can choose to ignore my responses to what I characterize as bigoted thinking or you can deflect my "I'm-so-hurt" routine by not writing bigoted thoughts at all. See? Very easy.

P.S. Kurp, a word of advice. Quit trying to mimic Art's never-say-die, Rottweilerish argumentativeness. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know Art, and you, sir, are no Art. Heed the message of those myriad After School Specials from the '80s and "just be yourself." :thumbsup:

If you check my profile you'll see that I joined ExtremeSkins around Sept. 2001. If you do a Search you'll also discover that I started posting almost immediately. I believe my first debates were with Art over the war in Afghanistan. Check out my writing style and then get back to me on whether I'm attempting to flatter Art by imitating him.

I'm sure though that Art, if he reads this, will appreciate the back-handed compliment you've paid him.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by TheKurp

How does this line of thought match up with your original post?

Which is precisely our (read: you and I) problem here, Kurp. You can't see where I was going with my first post in this thread because, with all due respect, you seem to be the kind of person who interprets any criticism of any racial/ethnic/religious group to which the critic doesn't belong as being "racist," "bigoted," "hateful," etc.

Your hair-trigger approach on this is predictable, though. Back when I was a diehard liberal, I frequently did the same thing. But then I realized, as Tammy Bruce has pointed out, that to reflexively resort to slamming those with whom you disagree on such issues as "racists" and "xenophobes" is really nothing more than The Silver Bullet Tactic: an attempt to immediately and effectively kill the debate and assassinate the character of the person with whom you are debating.

Perhaps you disagree with this assessment. Perhaps you don't see yourself as a Silver Bullet type. However, I think even you would acknowledge that there's little doubt that you are someone who is very sensitive on these kinds of issues. I would go so far as to say that you're hypersensitive on these issues.

And sensitivity, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But, just like anything, it can be taken to an extreme.

Originally posted by TheKurp

While there was some celebrating after the 9/11 attack, I think for the majority of the Muslim world there was a fair amount of condemnation. It's the reason why we were virtually unopposed when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. And while I will grant you that celebrating acts of terrorism are far more common in Arab countries than here in the U.S., I'm not sure I'll agree that the violence is condoned by the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/opinion/other2003/fundies_future_2003.shtml

http://www.meforum.org/article/530

http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,395732,00.html

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-10/16/article13.shtml

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01202

Originally posted by TheKurp

you can hang out in bars and not drink. I believe most drinking establishments will serve you soda or water if you request it.

So when you said "bar buddies," you really meant "buddies with whom you drink Coca-Cola in a bar"? If so, why didn't you just say "soda shoppe buddies," which would've elided the specter of imbibing on alcoholic beverages?

Originally posted by TheKurp

I'm sure though that Art, if he reads this, will appreciate the back-handed compliment you've paid him.

There's nothing backhanded about it at all.

I'm reminded of something that legendary Warner Bros. animation director Chuck Jones once related about the difference between Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. According to Jones, a fan had explained to him the difference thusly: "Bugs talks a lot. And Daffy talks too much."

I'd say that's the difference, in my view, between Art and you.

[TheKurp]

Woman sentenced in mosque attack plot

By Mitch Stacy | The Associated Press

Posted June 14, 2003

TAMPA -- The former wife of the Pinellas County podiatrist who plotted to blow up Muslim gathering places received a three-year prison sentence Friday for possessing the bombs he planned to use.

Kristi Lea Persinger, 29, pleaded guilty in February to possessing five unlicensed bombs her then-husband, Dr. Robert Goldstein, planned to use in an attack on an Islamic mosque and education center in Pinellas Park.

Persinger, who has denied knowledge of the plot, was sentenced to 37 months in prison by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody. It was the maximum sentence for the offense under federal guidelines.

"I don't believe you can live in that apartment and be with him for that many years and not know what he was planning to do," Moody told her.

Goldstein was arrested in August after Pinellas County deputy sheriffs found an arsenal of licensed weapons and unlicensed explosives in their Seminole town house while responding to a domestic-violence call. Authorities also found a "mission template" for the attack on the local Islamic center and a typed list of 50 Muslim gathering places authorities say he planned to target.

Goldstein, who is Jewish, is described in court documents as seeking to retaliate for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Arab-Israeli conflict. His attorney says he is mentally ill and never intended to carry out the plan.

Goldstein pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate civil rights, attempting to damage religious property and possession of the unlicensed bombs. He is expected to get up to 15 years in prison when he is sentenced Thursday.

Ahmad Batrawy, a member of the Islamic Society of Pinellas County, whose buildings Goldstein targeted, urged Moody to impose the maximum sentence for Persinger. He also criticized prosecutors for not charging them as terrorists.

"We feel that she had some knowledge and should have reported that to authorities," Batrawy said.

How much knowledge Persinger had of the plot still seemed to be in question.

Prosecutor Colleen Murphy-Davis told the judge that Persinger and Goldstein regularly built bombs and exploded them as a hobby. However, their marriage was rocky, and Persinger had been planning for some time to leave her husband. Thus, she may not have known about the extent of the plot and his activities.

Persinger pleaded guilty to possessing the five bombs found in a closet in the bedroom she was using. Her husband worked on the bombs in another bedroom in the town house.

Persinger's mother, Karen Persinger, told Moody that her daughter had never been in trouble and would never knowingly hurt anyone.

"She doesn't have a prejudiced bone in her body," her mother said.

Bar manager’s death started with war talk

By Jon Burstein | Florida Correspondent

Posted June 14, 2003

It began as an unremarkable Sunday night at Margarita's. Three customers drank at the small Lake Worth bar while the manager sat watching television updates on the fourth day of the Iraq war.

Former U.S. Marine Ronald Mellor, who had been downing vodka and tonics, sparked the discussion by talking about the possible execution of American prisoners of war.

Within a half-hour, bar manager John Komyakevich's bullet-riddled body lay near Margarita's back door. Witnesses said Mellor, 61, killed him after getting upset with the Russian immigrant's comments on the war.

Court documents released this week detail the events that led up to Komyakevich's March 23 death and Mellor's arrest shortly afterward. Witnesses said Mellor stormed out of the bar after getting angry with Komyakevich, 33, and then burst back in minutes later with a semiautomatic handgun.

"I saw the gun come up, and he just . . . just fired and fired and fired," bartender Walter Peretto said. "John had gotten up and he was walking towards the back of the bar and I heard him . . . I heard him like scream a little bit and then he . . . he just went down."

Mellor fled. He told police later that night: "I found out today how effective a 9 mm bullet is."

Mellor has been charged with second-degree murder and could face a life sentence if convicted. He has been in the Palm Beach County Jail without bail since his arrest.

Peretto told police Mellor had been drinking for a couple of hours when Komyakevich came in, sat down and began watching television. When Mellor mentioned the possible execution of prisoners of war, Komyakevich responded.

"The victim said something like, 'Well, that's just part of war,' " Peretto said. "I mean, he was saying that we invaded . . . and this is what happens in war. You know. . . it's just you got to expect it."

That prompted Mellor to rail at Komyakevich, asking him what he was doing in the United States, Peretto said. Komyakevich refused to back down.

Komyakevich ordered Mellor to leave. Peretto said Komyakevich never had a chance when Mellor walked through the front door about 10 minutes later and started firing. Komyakevich was dead by the time police arrived. Autopsy reports show he was shot seven times, including four times in the back.

Mellor's attorney has filed paperwork that the Lake Worth civil engineer intends to use an insanity defense if the case goes to trial. One mental-health expert already has examined Mellor's mental state, and Palm Beach Circuit Judge Richard Wennet has ordered two others to evaluate him.

After killing Komyakevich, Mellor drove home and called 911, according to court records.

"My name is Ron Mellor," he began the call. "I live at 931 North J Street. I just shot a man."

When a dispatcher asked why he shot the man, he responded: "Because he was very anti . . . very . . . very anti-American, and he was very against the war."

[Glenn X]

Kurp, do you understand the meaning of the phrase "order of magnitude"?