Islam does not hate christianity

Yeah I saw that a lot as well. There is Arab solidarity with Palestinians when it comes to Israel, but from what I saw Palestinians were definitely viewed as foreigners, mostly for the purposes of cheap, menial labor, and ranked barely above Filipinos and other non-Arab migrant workers on the social scale.That is another reason I find it amazing that anyone could claim there is 'no such thing as a Palestinian." Other Arab populations are quite aware of the distinction.This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 20:17 AM

Oh, always? You followed this one up? Or did you just assume that, since Israel cannot err, they must be blameless?As it turns out, you are wrong. A 13-year-old girl was indeed shot repeatedly by an Israeli officer; her family is going ahead with a lawsuit. The press didn't just make it up to besmirch your beloved, can-do-no-wrong Israel. No, it's clear that you trust nothing except the Bible and Israel, which you trust absolutely; any evidence that contradicts either of those can be summarily dismissed. And that's your argument? That, if I looked into things, I would find that Israel is always blameless, and never does anything wrong? Or is that something I have to assume from the outset?The thing is, I used to think like you - I came down on the side of Israel and their right to see to their own security. That was naievete. When I looked into things, carefully, that was when I discovered that neither side was particularly angelic.Let me pose a question - could Israel, in your opinion, ever go to far? Or is there no tactic that Israel could adopt that you would not support in the name of their own security?

It took me a while to dig up what I was talking about, but I did find it. Her name was Iman al-Hams. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2005/0501009.html

quote:

---

TO THIS DAY, the family and friends of 13-year-old Iman al-Hams are at a loss to explain how or why she wandered into the closed military zone in Tal al Sultan in Rafah on her way to school on the morning of Oct. 6, 2004. Early wire service reports speculated that she might have been late for school and was taking a shortcut. The actual geography, however, makes that unlikely.

​

But Iman never made it to school, because she was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers, who riddled her body with bullets. As often happens when the Israeli army kills or injures Palestinians, the IDF delayed the ambulance from al Najjar Hospital trying to reach her. But with five bullets in her headof the at least 15 the Dr. Ali Musa, the hospital’s director, reported findingIman was dead long before she ever reached the hospital. Indeed, so much blood had soaked into her UNRWA school uniform and into the ground where she fell that her body was nearly bloodless when it finally reached the hospital.

---

Oh, and this is really great. Apparently this girl was the greatest terrorist threat the world has ever known:

quote:

---

Muddying the waters further were the next actions of Captain R, the company commander, who approached Imanwounded, according to Palestinian witnesses, but alive and lying on the ground helplessand first fired two shots into her at close range to confirm the kill. Then, according to IDF witnesses, he walked a short distance away, turned back, approached the child again and emptied the magazine of his automatic weapon into her body.

---

I mean, that's the only explanation, right Faith? The beneficent Israelis would never have slaughtered a 13-year-old girl like a beast unless she was a terrorist, right? Because they never act out of anything but their own security, right? Isn't that exactly what he's said? That if it makes Israel look bad, it's always a lie?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-24-2005 21:26 AM

Thanks, was just about to do that myself when I read your previous post and then when I found it (had trouble due to not remembering her name) you had posted again. Was only really asking because it would seem quite a double standard to require citation of only one side. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt - some things are said for emphasis rather than to be taken literally. I try to pick my own word choice carefully to be sure that I don't imply something I don't mean to (especially online, where - as you'll often see here, most notably in the Rrhain/holmes chains - people tend to pick apart everything you say and occasionally even add a meaning that it was quite clear you weren't trying to express). However, I realize that not everyone does this and I slip up myself quite often anyway.Faith, now you have a reference to the killing of this girl. You said in Message 137... ...which certainly seems to imply that there's more to this story than what's presented in crashfrog's article. If you cannot present evidence of this and refuse to concede the point, it will only show that you are doing exactly what you accuse your opponents of - exhibiting blind support for one side in the conflict without regard to facts.And a reminder, this was neither an accident nor an isolated incident. See Message 132 and Message 133 for further examples.{Edit for minor clarification.}{Second edit for spelling, I'm a tad obsessive.}This message has been edited by Morte, 02-24-2005 21:51 AMThis message has been edited by Morte, 02-24-2005 21:53 AM

I've only read up to here in the thread so far, so maybe somebody else has already queried this.If the concept of a "Palestinian people" didn't exist until 1967 then how come Fatah was founded in 1959 ? From Wikipedia (and numerous other places on the net) Fatah means something like "the movement for liberation of the Palestinian homeland" or "The Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine". How could you have any kind of Palestinian Homeland or National Liberation if the concept of a Palestinian people didn't exist until eight years later ? It's preposterous.If you look around the net you can repeatedly find this claim that the Palestinians were "invented" in 1967. Most of the sites are pro-Israeli or out and out Zionist, not surprisingly. A good example is Middle East Facts. On their main page is this quote : However they then do a rather excellent job of shooting themselves in the foot. They have lot of stuff about Fateh, including a section reproducing their 1964 Constitution. I quote from the site : You can then read the Constitution - I think the first two articles are key to this discussion : So there we have it - a pre-1967 document (reproduced on a pro-Israeli site no less) that specifically refers to the Palestinian people. In fact that 1964 Constitution is littered with references to the Palestinian people.As far as I can tell the claim that the Palestinians effectively weren't there before 1967 is pretty much the same sort of thing as the way the white South Africans used to claim the blacks weren't in large parts of the region prior to the Europeans settling. It's a lie and you've been suckered by it.Now what you can say is that 1967 - specifically the aftermath of the 6-day war - marked a sea change in the attitudes of the Palestinians. They had been relying on the other Arab countries to help them, after the war they realised anything they were going to achieve would have to be done by themselves.

---

Confused ? You will be...

As I read more about this, it may be that Faith is referring to the fact that the two soldiers who said they saw Captain R unload his weapon into her body may have lied because they didn't like the guy.Which seems to be a rather minor point. She was, after all, shot 15 times, well after it had been established that she was an unarmed girl. We have the radio tapes to prove it.

CF, check your message here. It appears you've got posts mixed up as to responses.

Maybe if you lived in a tiny country surrounded by hostile armies sympathetic to these bombers, you'd look at things differenly. Israel, in order to survive MUST take these measures to keep the Jehadists of a territory which still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, in tow. It's bad enough as it is, and would be much worse for Israel if these stringent counter offenses weren't maintained. It's like if New Jersy were being threatened by every surrounding state of extinction by terrorism because the other states wanted them all (Jersians) wiped out and citizens from those other states were constantly coming and going into N Jersey.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

quote:

---

Hi Jazzns and others
A source cited by Faith (no pun intended) is "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters. The link below comments on its credibility

​

http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/joan_peters.htm

---

Actually, I had checked up on Joan Peters' book myself earlier this evening since it had been a while since I'd read it, and found that it is subject to very valid criticism. But it's not "rubbish." I think this link has the most balanced view of it:

In other words.There were people there.And in not insignificant numbers.And these people were native.And they were called Palestinians.And thus you need to start retracting your claim.

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

So let me get this straight.As a Christian, you believe that violence against innocents in response to violence of related individuals is justified?You think that destroying the homes of more people is going to make already pissed off people stop being pissed off?Here is a great idea! In order to make people not want to blow us up, lets attack their women and children! In fact, lets make it a policy! Surely they will see the light of peace! Homelessness IS the path to enlightenment after all!Disgusting.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 02-24-2005 23:01 AM

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Here is some illuminating information about the population of Palestine before 1967 from http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm.

quote:

---

Estimated Population of Palestine 1870-1946*
--------Arabs---(%)-----Jews---(%)-------Total
1870----367,224-(98%)---7,000--(2%)------375,000
1893----469,000-(98%)---10,000-(2%)------497,000

​

[more years available on site - too hard to format this]

---

And here are the census results, from the British Mandate, for 1922 and 1931:

quote:

---

Year---Total------Moslems---Jews-----Christians---Others
1922---752,048----589,177---83,790---71,464-------7,617 1.01
1931--1,033,314---759,700---174,606--88,907-------10,101

---

Faith, the British Mandate reported that between 500,000 to 750,000 Palestinian Arabs lived in Palestine before WWII. This is a lot more than a few scattered nomads.This message has been edited by custard to try to format the darn columns so they are legible, 02-25-2005 01:29 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 02-25-2005 01:34 AM

Nobody's called me one, yet. But it's often the inevitable conclusion of any debate vs. Israel's partisans.

What, in your view, gives a country the "right to exist"?

Faith,Look, you are correct when you state that a Palestinian national identity is a fairly recent phenomenon historically speaking, but your dates are way off.1967 is a bogus date because there is evidence that there were stirrings of Palestinian nationalism as early as the nineteenth centuryAgain from http://www.mideastweb.org/palrevolt.htm

quote:

---

From 1831 to about 1841, Syria and Palestine were wrested from Turkey by the Egyptian ruler, a former vassal of the Ottomans, Muhammed 'Ali and his son Ibrahim Pasha, the commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army. They followed a repressive policy of conscription and taxation, leading to a revolt of Palestinian Arabs.

​

On May 19, 1834 a group of important families and sheiks from Nablus, Jerusalem and Hebron, led by Qasim al-Ahmad, chief of Jamma'in subdistrict of Jabal Nablus, informed the Egyptian military governor that they could no longer supply their quotas of conscripts for military service, because the peasants had fled from the villages into the mountainous area which were difficult to reach.

---

I think the date might be more accurately pegged during the time of the British Mandate, but I think these types of incidents might be comparable to early colonial attitudes in the US where the colonies began to see themselves as 'Americans' even before they declared independence from Britain.Here's a more concrete example of Palestinians exerting self-determination:

quote:

---

Prior to the arrival of the British and the beginning of the British Mandate, the Arabs of Palestine consistently demanded to be united with Syria, and usually saw themselves as part of a single united Arab country.

​

Palestinian identity began to crystallize during the British mandate and the Arab revolt of 1936, and more especially upon the UN declaration of partition in 1947. Two attempts were made to form a Palestinian state after partition of Palestine.

---

There's UN resolution 181 again.What other proof do you have so support your position that Palestinians did not see themselves as a distinct group, indiginous to that region until 1967? So far you've only given us the quotes of some Jordanian guy.I've shown UN documents, links to historical sites, and British Mandate docs which all support the argument that a Palestinian national identity began forming as early as the nineteenth century, but definitely became tangible during the British Mandate.This message has been edited by custard, 02-25-2005 02:07 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 02-25-2005 02:10 AM