QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurus'But the deep significance of the Midrash', according to Rabbi/Professor Yishyahu Leibowitz 'is that no nation has the right to any land, for the owner of all the land is God.'I think this is a profound idea with implications that that I don't have the right to kick someone out of their home.But people were kicked out of their homes by Israel, and more in 1948 than in 1967.QuoteI think that you are crediting me with the following logic: Jews were justified in holding on to their dreams of a return to Zion--->therefore they were justified in returning to Zion -----> therefore displacement/occupation of Palestinians is OK. The first 2 statement represent my views on returning to Israel from Europe and the Middle East, but not the final part. And I believe that there is a difference between land pre and post 67. Pre 67, I'm not willing to budge an inch. I don't think that I can. Post 67 - well, the Occupation should end. It was a strategic error which even Ben Gurion advised against.You seem extraordinarily inconsistent. There was more displacement of Palestinians in 1948 than in 1967, and so by implication you think that displacement of Palestinians is OK; just not as it occurred in 1967. Clearly, you do think that dispacement/occupation of Palestinians is OK in certain circumstances -- what are those circumstances? Why was 1948 -- and all of the Mandatory Period before it -- OK?

QuoteBut people were kicked out of their homes by Israel in 1948I consider 48 to be a situation where I am fighting for my life, and contrary to the way my enemy treated me in the Gush Etzion bloc and other Jewish enclaves captured by Arab armies, (a no survivors policy which no-one seems to talk about), clearing villages in strategically important areas is the prettier of two very ugly options. I also ask you to consider that there were cases where Arabs were begged to stay and did not - like Haifa. And also, for the cases where peaceful arab villages were cleared - this was wrong. But to put down the entirety of the refugee problem to this kind of scenario is I believe incorrect.

Okay -- they were fighting for their lives. Indeed, if I were caught in a dangerous and violent storm, I'd break into a stranger's house. And I'd even force my way in, if I could, were I refused entry.But then I'd apologize for the imposition and return the house.As for Gush Etzion, I have no problem with talking about it. However, this site seems to contradict your statement about a 'no survivors' policy.Also, the kicking-out-of-homes really began in 1917, when the local population was forcefully denied self-determination in order that a state made up of immigrants could be imposed among them. European Jews were not in a great situation at this point, but I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that depriving Palestinians of their rights at that point was their only hope for survival.Do you think it was OK to deny Palestinians self-determination in 1917? If you do, why, other than (as I suspect) out of contempt for them? And if you don't, then how can you accomodate all the things that followed onto this original transgression?

Marsden buy a desert and get lost in it. period

'Buy?' Why shouldn't I just steal one?

QuoteIn 1948, all four settlements were totally destroyed. The Arabs murdered 240 men and women, with another 260 being taken into captivity.It does not comment on the fate of 260 taken into captivity.QuoteBut then I'd apologize for the imposition and return the house.what if the storm wan't over?QuoteIf you do, why, other than (as I suspect) out of contempt for them?I work and have lived with (or as close as possible to) Palestinians. The word contempt does not describe my feelings towards them. And I cannot comment to you about 1917. But unfortunately I believe that they would have considered 1948 partition to be unjust also - which - considering the fact that i bemoan being kicked out of a land two millenium ago unjustly I (in an ironic way) I understand. And I am sorry for it. But I think that there were forces in history that were irreversible.

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: laosuni am really and deeply sorry for the victimes of the balsts.but, to be honest, that was no match to the horror where the irakis are living throw daily, yet we talk much more than.saying again that i am nothing against those who suffer from the blasts, but i do not believe that uk as a nation are completely innocent!!!This is really stupid.Do not want to bother with thee, but i think if u freely elect et reelect a goverment and let it go for such a war, you r responsable for that war as well. Do not tell me that democracy is nothing but rubish of the rubish

sorry my reply was not on it do not kwow y

Oh it appears now, I need change my computer

congratulations laosun....you've overtaken marsden as the biggest prat on this forum...why dont you learn english first and then come back on this forum to make you're point...These sucide bombers..had they gone to Iraq?Had they lived under Saddma hussain?Do they know what life is like under a tyrant? Had they asked the 8 million iraqi's who went to cast their vote in January how they feel.? Do they represent the views of most Iraqi's???Why dont you crawl back under the hole you came from???

QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusQuoteIn 1948, all four settlements were totally destroyed. The Arabs murdered 240 men and women, with another 260 being taken into captivity.It does not comment on the fate of 260 taken into captivity.This piece does, in part:QuoteFor 19 years, until the stunning victory of the 1967 Six Day War, the children of those parents who tragically fell and those who survived could only catch a glimpse from afar of the ancient oak tree located in the heart of Gush Etzion that symbolized for them their yearning to return and reclaim their heritage.QuoteQuoteBut then I'd apologize for the imposition and return the house.what if the storm wan't over?A 'storm' that lasts for ever isn't a storm at all; it's just the background weather. If you are claiming that the background weather has forced you to break into the house, then you are really saying that you have a right to break into the house without reference to the weather. Is this, ultimately, what you claim?Do you think that one group has a right to impose upon another group for its needs, not just temporary needs imposed by a storm but for its ongoing, unending needs? And if this is the case, is it a matter of there being no law but the law of the jungle, and anyone is entitled to whatever they can get by whatever means? But if not that, then how do we decide when one group has a right to impose upon another group for its needs? Why shouldn't the Palestinians, for example, decide that they really need to restore all of Palestine to themselves, and so take it from the Israelis?QuoteQuoteIf you do, why, other than (as I suspect) out of contempt for them?I work and have lived with (or as close as possible to) Palestinians. The word contempt does not describe my feelings towards them. And I cannot comment to you about 1917.But unfortunately I believe that they would have considered 1948 partition to be unjust also - which - considering the fact that i bemoan being kicked out of a land two millenium ago unjustly I (in an ironic way) I understand. And I am sorry for it. But I think that there were forces in history that were irreversible.(Are you two milleniums in age?) Who is to decide what forces in history are irreversible? I might point out that the typical Israeli seems still to be unsuited for life in Israel, consuming water as he does at a faster rate than it is replenished. What claim can anyone make to live on land that they haven't even bothered, in fifty-odd years, to figure out how to live on?Do you have contempt for the Palestinians' notion of what's reversible and what isn't? For what he thinks is right and what is wrong? How can you not?

the last time the word contempt was directed against me was by my headteacher when I was 11. he said "I have nothing but contempt for you". I didn't know what it meant then, and in truth I just looked it up now for a clearer definition, amongst the 4 this was the one I chose to copy:lack of respect or reverence for somethingso to answer your question:QuoteDo you have contempt for the Palestinians' notion of what's reversible and what isn't?I think I do, yes.

Quote(Are you two milleniums in age?)In many ways - yes

QuoteWhat claim can anyone make to live on land that they haven't even bothered, in fifty-odd years, to figure out how to live on?I doubt that the teaching in Israeli schools of the methods used by the Pioneers to clear mosquito swamps would justify the contempt the average Israeli feels for Palestinian notions of irreversibility in your eyes.

I would say that contempt for another person's notion of right and wrong qualifies as thorough contempt for that person. What do you think?