The British didnt give the land to the Israelis, it was an action done by the Big Eight(the victors of World War II). Britain did own the land, but after the war a lot of territory had to be labeled "international" and then sorted back to its proper owners. Most of this was the Allied powers feeling guilty that they didnt step in earlier.

I think Israel exists in our world today as a safe guard against possible genocide. The world saw what happened to an innocent race and they decided to give them something to easy their suffering. I mean even Russia let many of its jewish citizens immigrate to Israel after WWII(immigration was very rare back then). Other countries contributed as well. But, one little hindsight was to be noted, the differance of culture between the two religious groups. I mean some Palistinies were driven from their homes, their lands confiscated. I can see why they are being angry, but we can not call them evil. Being violent does not necessarily underly bad morals.

We can toss around blame from one side to the other, you could say this all started with the Crusades, or the collapse of the Roman Empire. The farther we trace the thread of time the more confusing it will become to who or what actually caused the cultural conflict we have on our hands today.

1919-1923
Third Aliyah, roughly 40,000 more Jews arrive in Palestine, mostly from Eastern Europe.


[edit] January 18 1919
Faisal-Weizmann Agreement between Arabs and Jews at Paris Peace Conference, 1919. "We Arabs," said Faisal, "especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement... We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home."


[edit] March 1, 1920
Jewish settlements in the Upper Galilee were attacked by Arab forces. Joseph Trumpeldor was among 8 who died defending Tel Hai.


[edit] April-June, 1920
Jerusalem pogrom of 1920 April 4-7. The violent 3-day riot against the Jews in Jerusalem's Old City prompts the establishment of Haganah on June 15, 1920.



there is no mention of palis so in 1919 the arabs said welcome home

in 1920 they are attacked be the arab forces so much for the welcome home and the first attack goes to the arabs too


to get the rest of the story this is where i got my info from

Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict




oh and emperior it was the league of nations that give the land to the jews under british mandate

by the way don't tell me to look something up becouse i will

Now you don't see Indians blowing themselves up and carrying on like lunatics and swearing to iliminate pakistan do you

Yes, there is a great deal of sectarian strife within India (bombs, assassinations, the whole song and dance) and some folks are worried that the BJP (current ruling party) are covertly committed to elminating Pakistan.

that is ok pakistan is overtly committed to eliminating india

Being violent does not necessarily underly bad morals.

It does if your faith has rules like the Shakers, some Buddhists, or the Society of Friends (Quakers) have. IIRC, the Shakers were among the first conscientious objectors in US history. They formally asked Lincoln to exempt them from the draft on grounds of killing people being a violation of their faith.

and for the question about whether or not light has wieght if light didn't have wieght then gravity wouldn't affect it i draw your attention to black holes

Well, black holes (theoretically) swallow not just all things with mass but all INFORMATION, which means basically everything.

newest theory is it also records all of that information includeing mass

I hate the fact that somehow people have the absurd thought of:

Well they are killing them off, so the only way they can solve it is by killing the other one first.

What?!?!

Sure its the easy way out, and sure its probably the way that will work best and ofcourse it will be fast and everyone left alive will be happy. But, what you dont relise is that so many would have to die to make it so. Just because someone started it doesnt mean others should do it. Its like starting a small fire and then letting it actually burn and burn, and then when you relise that it threatens you, you put it out, leaving yourself in the dark.

I mean how can anyone say that it is okay for Israel to attack Lebenon if Lebenon does it first. Sure a war was unavoidable, but some of the tactics used were unncesseary. And what did it gain Israel, nothing. What did Lebenon reap from the conflict, continued support for Hezbelah(sp?). All the conflict did is add more fuel to the fire.

And if you do continue to say that it is okay for killing to occur only in the favor of good, than i suggest you look a bit more closely at the world and relise that it isnt just good or evil. Those are points of view, simplifiers, for a much larger conflict. In my opinion there is no more good, everything is just a varying degree of evil.

I bring to your attention a famous quote:(not sure if it is completly correct):
"When i give the poor food, they call me Saint. When i ask why the poor are made so, they call me Communist".

ok emperior your right isreal should just roll over and die
and so should the usa for that matter


if you don't stand up to a bully he just gets worse and worse and worse

Thats what i am saying!!

I am not saying dont go to war when a country is being pushed around. I am saying that your reason should be better than, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Thats just barbaric.

it is also the jewish religion

not saying it is right but i can't really judge that becouse i try to be a christian

All these labels we call people. Just because your christian and they are jewish doesnt mean that you can say that they are wrong or right, or whatever. You dont have to be so narrow minded, every religion can be understood. And every religion should be submitted to public opinion. Meaning that every religion can have a view about it.

Get yours today

And every religion should be submitted to public opinion.

What if one of the religious person's core precepts is about keeping her faith private?

emperor you need to reread my last post becouse i say in it i can't judge them

and i remember one more very important thing jesus was jewish

Your first sentance made a good contribution to the thread.

Your second sentance made no relevance to the current discussion.

Your first sentance made a good contribution to the thread. Your second sentance made no relevance to the current discussion.

hehehe, you should know by now that Danilost likes to throw in 'lost' comments. That's just his way i guess.

It would be easier to follow the discussion if people used more quotes

i was just reminding you that christians worship a man that was of another religion

/rolleyes....oh no...is this going to become another evolution vs. creationist thread like the one a couple of months ago?
Cause that's always good fun   

I am saying that your reason should be better than, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Thats just barbaric.

It is meant to convey the principles of just retribution, so no one goes overboard.

And eye for an eye simply means equal recompense, no more and no less.

Jesus refined it by saying that it is better to turn the other cheek and not seek retribution or revenge, but to show grace and forgiveness - which is even more civilized.

But the concept of an eye for an eye is in no way barbaric.

The fact is, what one person judges to be equal isnt always the 'right' equality.

I mean if i was to insult someone well enough, they would most likely punch me. Is that staying with the 'an eye for an eye' theory. In my opinion it doesnt, although it was probably deserved it was not equal since one form of harm doesnt equate to another.

The fact is, what one person judges to be equal isnt always the 'right' equality. I mean if i was to insult someone well enough, they would most likely punch me. Is that staying with the 'an eye for an eye' theory. In my opinion it doesnt, although it was probably deserved it was not equal since one form of harm doesnt equate to another.

true but you will probable stop teasing them

Or i could retaliate and come back with a punch of my own, the situation just gets worse

you could come back with a punch of your own but either way you stop teasing

But the concept of an eye for an eye is in no way barbaric.

I look at it as simply action and consequence. You hit me, the consequence is that i hit you. But i do not look at it as revenge, my motivation is purely educational!

As for escalating the fight, well that never bodes well. If i win the fight then i feel bad because i beat somone up, if i loose the fight then i feel bad from my injured pride. Either way physical injuries and police tend to be an added inconvenience.

Gone are the days when you could have a fist fight with somone and shake hands at the end,,,, no police!