Land ownership laws are just based on mutual agreement. If you go back far enough in history, the first people on any piece of land just settled it because they wanted to. I believe this is what Brian is trying to tell you. And yes, I do think it is horrible to force someone off a piece of land they've been living on just because someone else wants it, and then to kill him or her if he or she ever tries to go back. Almost every genocide is preceded by forcing a group to publicly identifiable and taking away their right to own guns.

That would only work if the only Jews in Israel were the ones that came over in 1890. When the next generation of Jews is born they are all innocent, immature children. Furthermore, their parents may not have told them that it was reasonable for the Palestinians to not want to leave the land that they (the Palestinians) had been living on. Allow this to continue for another generation or two, and many of the Jews living may have been taught that it is the Palestinians who are being unreasonable for not giving up their land.

Furthermore, people aren't always rational and mature in their decision-making. It would be safe to assume that some are, but it would be foolish to assume that all are.

Even more importantly, I haven't read where either you or furry have posted any sort of proposal for dealing with the problem (please correct me if I'm wrong, I could easily have missed something, this thread is kind of confusing). All I've seen is arguing over whose fault it is. Both me and Brian are interested in ways to solve the problem, not in establishing whose fault the problem is.

I am not very knowledgeable about this problem, but I believe that you and furry are. That is why I want to hear your ideas on how to solve the problem. Seriously, I really do. I like learning and one of the best ways to learn is to talk with people who are very knowledgeable on that particular subject.

Both Noony and Furry can draw on a wealth of information to point to "I was here first". And as long as another Palestinian or Jew dies it simply amounts to the same old bullshit to me.  It still amounts to clinging to the past and ignoring the adult bullshit that they sell to their youth and to the world. It is no different to me that to fat chicks arguing over a toothless fat guy on Jerry Springer.

"I am Palestinian so therefor I invented pain and suffering"

"I am a Jew so I invented pain and suffering"

BULLSHIT

Until humanity even outside this conflict, sees individuals as such, crap like this will not stop.

Neither of them would be willing, if they were in the same room with an unarmed "enemy" would be willing to blow the brains out of an unarmed person.

Noony would not shoot Furry right now if she were face to face and she was unarmed. She would not shoot him if he was face to face and he was  unarmed. If either would admit that right now in response to this post, whom ever would do that to me, IS A PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT

So if neither would do that, and I would hope no human would do that, then what are we left with as humans?

JUST THAT, we ARE humans, and when faced with harming unarmed people, most sane humans would not do that. Which says to me, and proves to me, both of them are needlessly stuck on labels, tradition, and pathetic blind loyalty.

Why Noony is blind is the same reason Furry is blind, they allow labels and tradition and boarders to blind them to the fact that NEITHER would want to be harmed if unarmed.

But just like a Shark hunting a seal, when you sneak up on it, you are doing such to avoid harm to yourself. It avoids looking in the mirror.

A_Nony_Mouse...

It seems to be the only religion you attack.

Lying is a sin in Judaism.  It isn't in Islam, but it most definitely is in Judaism.

Things have dramatically improved since 1948, which is what I was referring to.  Today there are Arabs in the Knesset, for example, and many Israeli-Arab dominated towns have Israeli-Arabs for politicians.  Most Arab countries have long since murdered or expelled their Jewish citizens and I don't know of any Arab nation which has a Jew in a political office.  One town in Iraq made the news a few years back because there were no longer enough Jews to form a "minyan", which requires 10 men over age 13.

If they were allowed back IN they'd pose a threat.  There really were Palestinian Arabs who aided the invading Arab armies during the 1948 war.

Israel made formal statements that they wanted the Arabs who were on the "Israel" side of the new border to stay and prosper with the new State.  And these weren't "terrorists" in 1948 -- they were people who were taking military "orders" ("orders" is the wrong word, but I'd like to make dinner as I skipped lunch ...) from the invading Arab armies.  While there were =some= Japanese during WWII who engaged in espionage or sabotage for the benefit of Japan, most Japanese-Americans were Americans first didn't support Japanese militarism.  There really is that big a difference.

Right, and there are JEWS who are treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli government.  As a minority, Israeli-Arabs are treated about as poorly as the rest of the minorities in Israel, and that includes minorities who are very much Jewish.  It's a not a perfect country, but Israeli-Arabs have far more rights =inside= Israel than they'd have in the neighboring Arab states, and infinitely more rights than Jews would have in those states.

To give you an idea -- 6 or 8 years back I was asked about travel to the Middle East on business.  I had to point out to the person asking about my ability to travel that I was Jewish and might not even be allowed in, and if I =was= allowed in, I wouldn't feel safe.

Keep that set of factoids in mind when attacking Israel, how about?

With very, very few exceptions were non-collaborating Arabs forced off their land if they were resident land-owners.  The majority of the land taken under the Absentee laws was owned by Arabs who supported the invading Arab armies.

People who =fled= did so primarily at the direction of the Arab leaders of the same nations that were waging war on Israel.  As such, in my opinion the land should be considered forfeit.

But what I was referring to were the promises those Arab leaders made to the Palestinian Arabs they were asking to leave -- they promised that the "Zionists" were going to be forced into the sea and Jewish property would be given to them as war booty.  Not that they were going to get land that Israel confiscated from Arabs -- they were promised Jewish property in exchange for aiding the advancing Arab armies.

Everyone else gives it a miss.

And that is how this whole thing got started. And that is how I came to be banned the first time. Has that been forgotten? I certainly have not forgotten it.

After returning it lead to ceaseless rounds of "why do you attack Judaism?" which bordered upon the "how dare you!" tone. The claim Judaism was harmless lead to the observation that people should not be judged by what they do out of power but by what they do when in power. And that lead to Israel.

You may also recall from the beginning I have been trying to get a straight answer as to why there has to be special justification to attack only that religion. As you can read currently I am still not getting a straight answer. All of my suggestions as to why have been ignored completely. Would you or anyone else reading this care to explain why?

[Now lets follow the replies to this post trying to shift the discussion away from anything that remotely sounds like an answer to that question.]

For example? I realize the Jews went there in the first place. What has the other side done but resist?

Quite true. So the Jews should stop whining about being on the receiving end. Right? Do you not get tired of the constant "poor us" and their fictional thousands of years of "suffering" being dropped into every mention of the subjec?

Quite true. Evil is an abstract noun. It does not exist save in religious ravings.

Perhaps you missed it but my objection to Israel is limited to US support and preservation of it. It not only wastes tax money but is contrary to US interests in the world and has serious consequences. Even the 9/11 Commission report identified US support of Israel as a contributing cause.

Then there is no law involved here as mutual agreement is absent. Every other word on the subject is distraction from the fact of theft. Why all the extra words when they are only a distraction from the fact? I expect thieves to be justifying theft but why are you jumping in?

None of which has anything to do with the fact of theft of private property which began in 1949. It continues to this day. They are still siezing land in Jerusalem from owners who it will not permit to return to reclaim it. When abandonment is forced by the beneficiary of the law it is clearly theft.  

If I remember correctly the fraction of born there Jews only passed 50% in the last decade. Those born there can curse their parents. Most European countries allow third generation to return no questions asked so they can leave at any time.

Anyone not old enough to see through that nonsense is also not an adult. What happens to children is solely the responsibility of their parents. If their kids get hurt because of the conflict it is because their parents choose to live there. Any adult choosing to live in ignorance has no one to blame but themself.

Agreed. How does that require the US to keep their collective ass afloat?

I posted the solution many years ago. End all US support in any form. Criminalize supporting war criminals. Bring Israel before the ICC for its crimes. If it has a valid defense it can tell it to the judge. Do that and it won't take long for Jews to abandon the country and those who remain to make peace.

Of course the owners get their land back. The current owners can sue whoever sold it to them. Their legal problems do not impinge the rights of the original owners.

Do you see any problems with what I suggested? If Israel refuses the world simply boycotts the country. Cut off the oil and the lights go out in a week. They will agree soon afterwards. It is really very simple.

I think this is just one more example of you refusing to address the land theft which began in 1949.

It is not a matter of who was there first which is a different and unrelated discussion save to debunk the zionist bullshit on the subject.

Will you ever address the 1949 theft under color of law or will you continue to pretend it did not happen?

Israel is a democracy. The people are the government. On what basis will you make a distinction?

I'll try and answer that.  I will like to start by stating that I consider all religions irrational, Judaism is no exception.  My main focus, is not so much to fight religion, but irrationality.  That being said, as far as Judaism is concerned, I find it to be more liberal (with obvious extremist exceptions) then most other religions.  So while I have no particular love for it, in the grand scheme of things it is relatively lower on the totem pole of energy investment.  On the other side of the coin, there's the whole political aspect, which I personally have no interest in.  

I find the whole "we are the chosen people" no more or less idiotic then scientology claims.  But I find them less harmful then Muslim claims regarding the evil that is all of the western world.  

That being said, your attitude is bordering on religious bigotry, I see little difference when Fury does the "better then thou art", or you do then "jews are running the world" bit.  It's all irrational to me.  To put it in perspective, short of the relatively recent western involvement, post 9/11, the middle-eastern conflict was relatively minor when compared to African conflicts and other active ongoing conflicts.  It just has way more political exposure, ironically partly due to the whole "jews rule the world, and must die" irrational mentality.  

In an uneducated "documentary channel" principle I agree with you that an injustice was done to the Palestinian people.  The fact that they are using the Islamic religion to justify said injustice really works against them in my opinion, and I have a hard time siding with anyone that calls Allah, Jesus, or Chutulu to justify exterminating anyone.  

You come across as a very focused hater, and that is why my BS senses are tingling so much that they tickle, when reading your posts.  If there is any truth to what you write, and I don't doubt that you are in fact at least partly correct, it is overshadowed by your presentation and style.

I hope that answers your question. 

The owner is the one with the title. It is the person whom Israel acknowledged owned it and confiscated it from by means of the absentee owner laws. Suing the seller for defective title is the standard remedy. In the US to avoid a chain of lawsuits going back to the original defect people buy title insurance. I assume most countries require title insurance. Title insurance companies cannot be assumed innocent or ignorant. They must be required to have sufficient reserves to pay claims. The claim remains legitimate regardless of the solvency of the insurance company.

They probably owe the custom to the US attracting so many immigrants. And the idea of nationalism by blood was popular in the 19th c. long before adopted by the Zionists.

Boycotts and blockades are not military actions according to Israel in the matter of Gaza. As to people having different opinions under a government, that is life. It has always been that way in every government. It is not a consideration. But in a democracy there is even less justification for considering it.

Whether it should or should not be the government's business who its citizens trades with is a separate issue. The fact is since the US banned trade in certain materials with Japan before WWII it has been a fact for the US. It has become a fact for the world as it is a common practice in the world today.

If people what to support a foreign country ... Any foreign country? Usual, reasonable and customary apply here too. There were such bans in place during the Cold War and there still is toward Cuba. Further as the squattertowns in the West Bank and the building in Jerusalem and a host of other actions are war crimes banning the support of criminal activity is clearly reasonable and justified. There is no way to separate money to Israel from criminal usage of it so all has to be banned.

I did not ask you to trust me. I am saying nothing new. You can look into it yourself. It all googles nicely. In fact on this subject those against what I say almost never present a legal objection to what I say. They simply start accusing me of unrelated things. I would enjoy a discussion of the subject for a change.

Who and what rights are you talking about? There are human, legal and civil rights. I know of no more than those three categories. To what and whom do you refer?

If you have not noticed the remarks on Islam by many of the participants here you haven't been reading much. It isn't "some" Muslims. It is out and out hatred for which I cannot find parallel in any words really spoken called antisemitic.

Did you read my post on the oldest example of the accusation of antisemitism? www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/hate-jews.phtml If not you can read it there. Most of the accusations are nonsense. The historical claims are usually based upon jewish legend instead of real history. And for some like Furrywiththesyringeonthetop it is refusing to believe her absurd claims and patent lies about Judaism. On top of that, jewish hatred of Christians can be traced by to Roman times including the attempted extermination of the Christians -- read Acts. Saul/Paul was paid to track them down for extermination. Not that I would suggest taking Acts literally or as historically accurate but the attempted to kill them off is likely correct as they were Galilean rebels and heretics refusing to pay their temple taxes. The present day open and vocal hatres of Islam/Muslims/Arabs needs no examples. And it is never SOME Arabs so there is no reason ever to say SOME Jews.

An allegation of antisemite is meaningless. One can address the truth of what is said. If it is true so what? The truth cannot be antisemitic. A fact is a fact.

When Israel declares itself to be a jewish state it is perfectly acceptable to say that it what Jews are like when they are in power. I do not hear Jews saying it is not a jewish state. I do hear people saying, Only the good parts are Jewish, which is childish. How about only the good parts of Iran or Saudi?

When Furry misrepresents jewish scripture should I remain silent? Any more silent when Israel is misrepresented? Hearing not all Jews agree with the actions of Israel has no more weight than hearing all Germans did not agree with the actions of the Nazis. And as the silence is deafening in both cases upon whose word am I supposed to take the claim of exceptions? I read Israeli papers. The worst of condemnations is praising with faint damns. To paraphrase, "Declare the country is threatened and say the peacmakers are endangering the country. It works every time." That is what Israelis do and that is what Goering said about getting support for war.

Excuse me but what is the point of saying the government is not by unanimous consent? It is not the custom of the world to take that into consideration. If it were reasonable to mitigate a response based upon those who disagree how could there ever be a military response against a dictatorship?

In a democracy we can at least reasonably assume 51% support of the government. In a dictatorship we can at most assume only about 10% support the government and even then the 10% regularly kills off internal opposition so even fewer may actually agree with any particular action.

Seems pretty reasonable and straightforward--I like it. You can be quite thorough and concise. I'm wary of the idea of forced insurance, but that's another matter and I don't know too much about title insurance anyway.

Honestly, to any rights of any group. There are probably some exceptions but I can't think of any. I was going to cite a quote George H. W. Bush made about atheists, but, apparently, there aren't that many sources linking the quote to him, and their reliability is disputed. Oh well... Some general examples would be the severe lack of rights for women in some countries in the Middle East, the prohibition on gay marriage in the US, legislation mandating that "life begins at conception", the Catholic Church covering up priest sex abuse scandals, Muslims and Arabs being treated poorly in the US, as well as almost any war.

I'm not sure what you mean. There are people in the US who hate/fear ALL Muslims (or anyone who looks Arab, really), because SOME, though very few, Muslims are terrorists. You are not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist, correct? If you mean people calling you anti-Jewish because you attack Israel then, yes, they are wrong. 

The fact that people are forced to support a war they don't agree with is worth considering. The fact that people who promote peace are forced to pay for mass death and destruction is worth considering. Assuming you are a US taxpayer, you obviously don't like the fact that your tax money is aiding Israel. Furthermore, I assume you think that your issue is worth consideration.

They weren't imprisoned, they were expelled.  G-d willing, they will stay expelled.

There was a large piece of land -- "The British Mandate" -- that was being carved up from the old Ottoman Empire.  The Ottomans, who controlled that region prior to WWI, sided with the German side in that war and lost.  After carving Jordan and other countries (83% of the total land) out of the British Mandate, that left what came to be known as "Palestine" post WWI.  The idea had been to take some of that land and allocate it to Jewish inhabitants and some of that land and allocate it to Arab inhabitants, and keep other parts neutral.  I think something like 6% of the total land in the Mandate was to be allocated to Jews.

The Arab nations in the area resisted giving any land to the Jewish inhabitants -- keeping in mind that the Jews who migrated to that part of the Ottoman Empire had =bought= the land they lived on -- and refused any sort of partition plan, including plans that would have given the Jewish people nothing but desert.  The Arabs wanted 100% of the land, and wanted to drive the Jews into the sea -- their own leaders' words.  When Israel finally declared Independence for the part of the land that had been allocated to us from the defeated Ottoman Empire, the Arabs attacked and many Arabs within that area sided with the attacking nations.  Those are the ones whose land was confiscated, for the most part.

You've just given me even more reason to attack Israel... However, by "Israel" I mean the current Israeli government; not necessarily the individuals living within the nation. I'm assuming then that you want the Israeli government to change and stop treating anyone as second-class citizens--especially Jews. Is that correct?