Ahmadinejad says...

Well, if you look at it this way - the arabs made every possible mistake in the creeation of Israel - originally, in 1947, The Jewish part of Israel was meant to be less than a third of what it is today, and the arabs would have had the rest. Amazingly, the Jews had actually agreed to this plan. The arabs, however, made the mistake of wanting more and more, so they dumped that thought, and so the war of independance broke out - what happened since is just history... But look at it like this - had the arabs been less ignorant, they would have had a huge part of Israel, and by now probably would have managed to drive all Jews out of here, but again, as I said - they made every possible mistake......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

Well, if you look at it this way - the arabs made every possible mistake in the creeation of Israel - originally, in 1947, The Jewish part of Israel was meant to be less than a third of what it is today, and the arabs would have had the rest. Amazingly, the Jews had actually agreed to this plan. The arabs, however, made the mistake of wanting more and more, so they dumped that thought, and so the war of independance broke out - what happened since is just history... But look at it like this - had the arabs been less ignorant, they would have had a huge part of Israel, and by now probably would have managed to drive all Jews out of here, but again, as I said - they made every possible mistake......

---

Well, vid's idea, distilled to it's essence, seems to be that Israel has no legitimate claim to Jerusalem or, indeed, any land in the mideast.

Additionally, he feels that the Jews would bring about peace and brotherhood amongst the remaining peoples of the mideast by geographically absenting themselves, and this is sufficient to make their removal worthwhile.

Of course, we're still chewing the fat, here...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Well, vid's idea, distilled to it's essence, seems to be that Israel has no legitimate claim to Jerusalem or, indeed, any land in the mideast.

---

No.

I am saying they have no claim to the land as theirs and only theirs. They have no claim to an independent land take and certainly I don't accept the idea that they had the right to settle there based on religion.

Just as you said with my idea, you would welcome the israel settlers into the USA if they abided by our immigration rules, you would not accept them having their own self ruled independent state within the US..... see my point yet? Your own beliefs are assimulate not seperate (from what you have posted on US immigration)

If you would prefer let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Additionally, he feels that the Jews would bring about peace and brotherhood amongst the remaining peoples of the mideast by geographically absenting themselves, and this is sufficient to make their removal worthwhile.

Of course, we're still chewing the fat, here...;)

---

The whole point is about the problem creating Israel caused. Obviously the idea is many decades too late but what would the situation be if israel had been created in a less volatile part of the world to begin with? Remember I reject any notion of claim to land based on religion.

@ tralalalalaa.

I fail to see what Size has to do with it. There was no agreement to begin with so the objection would be there if it's one square mile or one million.
That's like argueing that someone is silly for objecting to a squatter living in your garden shed when later several more take over the entire home.

Well, as you tried to argue - if we were to go by your claims, there is no land within Israel that can be given to anyone.. as any of the peoples that live here are here on religiouse basis.

What about Iraq/Saudi Arabia?? Isn't that where Abraham started from1? Syria?? There is no end to the examples I can give for these types of lands...... In theory - the whole mideast should be taken and made international land, for so many religions passed through there...!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tralalala

Well, as you tried to argue - if we were to go by your claims, there is no land within Israel that can be given to anyone.. as any of the peoples that live here are here on religiouse basis.

What about Iraq/Saudi Arabia?? Isn't that where Abraham started from1? Syria?? There is no end to the examples I can give for these types of lands...... In theory - the whole mideast should be taken and made international land, for so many religions passed through there...!!

---

You are missing the point.
I am not saying people cannot live there, I am saying that they shouldn't have taken land and created their own country on someone elses land based on religion( religion is the reason they wanted that particular land). If they wanted to settle in that part of the world, fine.

The land shouldn't have been "given" to anyone, it belonged to the people that lived there. Creating Israel to separate arabs from jews and give jews their own "country" just caused more problems than the problem they tried to solve.

There is a difference between countries that develope religions and countries that are created because of religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

No.

I am saying they have no claim to the land as theirs and only theirs. They have no claim to an independent land take and certainly I don't accept the idea that they had the right to settle there based on religion.

Just as you said with my idea, you would welcome the israel settlers into the USA if they abided by our immigration rules, you would not accept them having their own self ruled independent state within the US..... see my point yet? Your own beliefs are assimulate not seperate (from what you have posted on US immigration)

If you would prefer let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???

You are quite wrong as to my preference.

If, say, because of a nuclear conflict, seismic event, or other castastrophe which had the effect of rendering the land immediately east of the Red Sea uninhabitable, I would be in favor of making U.S. land available for settlement by Israel AND/OR the Palestinians, to the extent they required it for their survival.

This arrangement would remain tenable based upon continued civilized behavior, the expectation of which would be understood at the outset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Additionally, he feels that the Jews would bring about peace and brotherhood amongst the remaining peoples of the mideast by geographically absenting themselves, and this is sufficient to make their removal worthwhile.

Of course, we're still chewing the fat, here...;)

---

The whole point is about the problem creating Israel caused. Obviously the idea is many decades too late but what would the situation be if israel had been created in a less volatile part of the world to begin with? Remember I reject any notion of claim to land based on religion.

---

Sorry, but your notion holds no water in the scenario, as you are dealing with people who do hold religious beliefs, and whose beliefs inform the desirability of land for settlement.

Israel set up shop where it did for self-evident reasons; it is not for you to declare those reasons invalid.

The entire issue revolves around this religious aspect.

Well then they can't complain if those that don't share their religion are upset when their land is taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2

ou are quite wrong as to my preference.

If, say, because of a nuclear conflict, seismic event, or other castastrophe which had the effect of rendering the land immediately east of the Red Sea uninhabitable, I would be in favor of making U.S. land available for settlement by Israel AND/OR the Palestinians, to the extent they required it for their survival.

This arrangement would remain tenable based upon continued civilized behavior, the expectation of which would be understood at the outset.

---

But Israel wasn't created under this premise.

My scenario is based on comprable terms to what the arabs had placed upon them., You never did answer my question about the acceptability of a self ruling muslim country within US land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Well then they can't complain if those that don't share their religion are upset when their land is taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2

ou are quite wrong as to my preference.

If, say, because of a nuclear conflict, seismic event, or other castastrophe which had the effect of rendering the land immediately east of the Red Sea uninhabitable, I would be in favor of making U.S. land available for settlement by Israel AND/OR the Palestinians, to the extent they required it for their survival.

This arrangement would remain tenable based upon continued civilized behavior, the expectation of which would be understood at the outset.

---

But Israel wasn't created under this premise.

My scenario is based on comprable terms to what the arabs had placed upon them., You never did answer my question about the acceptability of a self ruling muslim country within US land.

---

Oh, I think I did, a few posts back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Oh, I think I did, a few posts back...

---

No you didn't, you wrote about disasters on foriegn land. my question was

Quote:

---

let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???

---

for example, the "nation of islam" (americans) decides it has had enough of all these christians etc. and wants it's own country within the US..... you can date it back to the days of Malcom X but it's happening today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

No you didn't, you wrote about disasters on foriegn land. my question was

Quote:

---

let's forget the jews and say that muslims within the USA wanted their own land here... free from US rule..... acceptable???

---

for example, the "nation of islam" (americans) decides it has had enough of all these christians etc. and wants it's own country within the US..... you can date it back to the days of Malcom X but it's happening today.

---

So, then your fantasy is one merely based on the preference of the party in question?

Then my answer would be "no", in either case.

Do you think any of the Holyland would have been made available to transient/homeless Arabs, after WWII?

Would there have been such a strong objection to any but the Jews?