Iran assails two-state solution for Palestinians

[Dan and Judy 614]

I think we should resume the Fenian Raids. Maybe we can recapture Campobello Island and turn it into New Ireland.

Had to google that one, but now that you mention it Canada has way more land than they need and it's a great place for growing taters.

You could probably drop a maple leaf in the middle of the Irish flag and the Canadians would never even know they been invaded.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Dan and Judy

[scandal 951]

Had to google that one

Yay! I win! :dance:

You could probably drop a maple leaf in the middle of the Irish flag and the Canadians would never even know they been invaded.

Don't mess with us, hoser.

Like, today's topic is Fenians, eh? Oh, and Fenian beer, snort.

Kurukuku-kukukuku. Take off, hoser.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I'm just quaking in my boots.

Do you worst, darlin', do your worst.

We all know you love the last word, so it's all yours.

From the jabbermouth with 11,300+ posts in barely 3 years, and who’s already posted 4 more times after my last comment in order to continue with more snide little insults, that’s pretty rich

Now, if I may have your permission to respond to your rant directly addressing me:

Quite right, it's not a game and it's not something you just get to make up out of whole cloth. Not that you don't try to do just that, right?

In the classic style of the historical revisionist, the above is an artful blend of true statements mixed in with misleading ones and outright falsehoods, all with intent to deceive and obfuscate and still claim some standard of "truth".

An example of truth:

This is undisputed and uncontroversial. So what? When the Canaanites (or Jebusites, or Hittites) show up I believe they should be invited to the peace conference along with the Israelis and Palestinians and invited to submit their claim for representation and land. Until such time, those ancient peoples join all the rest who once don't have current standing in the discussion. EVERYONE alive today EVERYWHERE has dispossessed some other people who came before. Ancient Israelites did, just as ancient Persians, Babylonians, and others. For that matter, as do modern Americans in their displacement of the indigenous peoples of the New World.

You have no problem accepting that the ancient Hebrews are gone, while asserting that the Jews of today are their heirs. Yet you seem to believe that since the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and Hittites are gone, then they must have no heirs today.

In fact, the modern Palestinian people are descended from the ancient peoples of Palestine, beginning with the Canaanites but also including the Hebrews and every other people who settled in the area and blended into the local population. They never left (at least not until many of them were driven out by Zionists and later the State of Israel beginning in 1947.) They don’t need to “submit their claim” - they still have their property deeds.

Also, you ignore the fact that the Palestinian people didn’t invade, conquer or displace anybody. They are simply trying to continue living in their ancestral homeland.

If this is meant to imply a claim for illegitimacy of a Jewish Israel, the logical implications are clear: Move yourself out of San Antonio, you usurper and occupier of someone else's historic land.

You sure don’t know much about San Antonio history.

The site of what is now known as San Antonio was founded by Spanish missionaries who arrived in this area in 1691 and built a mission near the site of a Native American (Coahuiltecan) community, alongside a river they called “Yanaguana.”

So what happened to the indigenous people of San Antonio ? This was 1691, long before stuff like the Geneva Convention and the Universal Code of Human Rights came along - so what happened to them ?

* Were they driven from their homes by the Spanish, ethnically cleansed from San Antonio (or even “just” 80% of them) ?

* Were they loaded up onto wagons and dumped across the border ?

* Was their village leveled in order to make room for Spanish immigrants ?

* Are millions of their descendants living across the border in refugee camps, refused the right to return to their homeland ?

* As for their descendants who still live in South Texas - are they faced with pledging allegiance to a flag that specifically denotes an ethnicity that doesn’t include them ?

* Are their descendants required to be approved by a committee who judges whether or not they suit the “fabric of the community” before they’re allowed to buy a home in a San Antonio neighborhood ?

* etc. etc.

I doubt you really care to learn anything about the indigenous people of San Antonio and what happened to them, as your only use for them was as pawns in your (failed) line of argument. But on the slim chance that you might want to educate yourself about them, this is a good place to start:

The Coahuiltecans are gone now. But they did leave living descendants who still live in South Texas, but not as Indians. Once the Spanish came and started missions, many of the Coahuiltecan bands moved into the missions. The steady source of food and water and the protection from stronger tribes was very appealing to them. Once in the missions many of them married Spanish solders and settlers. Later more Spanish and Mexican immigrants settled in the region and started ranches that attracted local Indians for the same reasons the missions did. Again, some of them married Spaniards or Mexicans. Later, around the middle 1700s, the Apaches were forced south by the Comanches and into Coahuiltecan territory. Caught between the Spanish/Mexicans and the Apaches most of the last bands of the Coahuiltecans disappeared. By the time American settlers reached the area only a few scattered bands survived. As a Native people they were all gone by the end of the 1800s.

Their only survivors today are the many Native Texan Hispanic families in South Texas. Many families who are members of the Catholic Churches at the old missions in San Antonio can trace their families back to Coahuiltecan ancestors. The few surviving Coahuiltecans in other parts of South Texas were absorbed into the larger Hispanic/Mexican culture of South Texas. Almost any Hispanic family in South Texas who can trace their ancestors back to the early 1800s probably has Coahuiltecan blood in the family.

The Texas Coahuiltecan Indians

BTW today, San Antonio is about 65% Hispanic, including many people who are (*shock*) descendants of the Coahuiltecans. We have an Hispanic mayor and out of the 10 representatives on City Council, 7 are Hispanic, one is African-American, one is of Asian heritage, and one is Caucasian. An egregious case of ethnic cleansing and a usurped people, indeed.

Moving on...

The idea that since atrocities occurred in the past, then atrocities may be justified today is ridiculous. Since the 20th century, and especially since World War II, the world agreed that this sort of behavior was illegal and developed things like the Geneva Convention to protect people from stuff like that.

What self-professed “democracy” today claims that since slavery was allowed in the 1800s, that it should be allowed today ? Or that since women couldn’t vote in the 1800s, then they shouldn’t be able to vote today ? Or that since ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1800s, then it should be allowed now ?

An example of outright falsehood:

False. In the Bible "Israel" was the name given to Jacob and his descendants (Bnai Israel, the Children of Israel). However it also clearly refers to a place: the Kingdom of Israel united under King David and his heirs as described in the Book of Samuel, of Judges, and latern texts. More importantly, let's leave alone Biblical references and consider the documented history of the Kingdom of Israel as a contiguous territory occupied by a people united by faith, language and custom is amply recorded. See my earlier post in this thread for the timescales of this history. The Mesha Stele clearly refers to Israel as a place, a kingdom and a people.

An insidious example of a deliberately misleading statement:

Literally - that's true. Some modern Jews did not descend from ancient Hebrews - they were Gentiles who converted into the Jewish faith. I personally know some such converts, they are fine people. "Many modern Jews' ancestors never set foot in the homeland of the Jewish people - also true, for the same reasons of conversion and intermarriage with surrounding peoples. The Jewish people in 2000 years of Diaspora has no doubt mixed and mingled here and there, lost some to assimilation, gained some through new converts and adherents.

The implication of your statement is far more odious. You use the words 'some' and 'many' to convey a sense of 'most' and 'all' in your later text. That we are not the same people, not connected, not a continuous unbroken chain of tradition throughout the centuries. That we, modern Jews, are illegitimate and not entitled to claim our own ancestry. And I say to you: how dare you? Who are you to rewrite my history, and deny it? The continuity of Jewish history in Israel and in the Diaspora is well recorded, as was the ancient history. From the Sanhedrin, the Rabbis of the Talmudic era who essentially recreated our religious practice based on prayer rather than sacrifice following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, to the dispersed communities in Spain, North Africa, Yemen, France, and beyond during the medieval era. To the great sages: Rashi, the Rambam, the Ramban, the Baal Shem Tov and more. To the writings: the Mishna, the Gemarah, the Shulchan Aruch, the Pesach Hagaddah and the machzorim for the holidays with the unifying prayers: Kol Nidre, Netane Tokef and more. These are shared traditions, writings, history, leaders of all Jews throughout Ashkenaz and Sefarad that bind us and unite us as a people. Let me ask this: If Ashkenazi Jews are not "real" Jews, truly descendant from our Judean forbears, just who exactly are we? Do you believe in a theory of spontaneous emergence of a community dispersed throughout Europe that shares common language, history, practices? That survives and endures despite the persecutions or oppressions of the majority populations in which it is embedded? Just what kind of masochistic people CHOOSE to create themselves as such a community under such conditions?

It's simply preposterous and without any historical foundation. It's a lie. And it's uttered in order to justify your mythology that Jews have no historic right to the land. Enough. We do. As do Palestinians. Why the need to tear us down, lie about us, insult us, to justify your claim? The Palestinians have legitimate claims and I recognize them. It's not necessary for you to deny my people's history in order to proclaim your own.

Dude ####### I never said anything about “real” Jews or “unreal“ Jews. I was directly responding to Why Me, who seems to have the idea that the ancient Hebrews were all magically transported to Europe, then suspended in a bubble for 2000 years until the 20th century when they “returned” to their ancestral homeland.

Personally, as far as I’m concerned (and admittedly, I have a much less strict idea about this than Israel‘s Chief Rabbinate - but since you dragged the issue into the conversation ascribing all sorts of outrageous opinions to me that I don‘t have) I would consider anyone who self-identifies as Jewish as a “real” Jew.

But simply being Jewish doesn’t entitle a person to some kind of real estate trump card that supercedes private property rights or the most basic of human rights, and justifies them kicking some Palestinian family off their land and taking it.

Once again, you don’t debate my actual post, which you grudgingly admit is “literally true“ (as opposed to some other kind of “true,” I guess) - so you proceed to rewrite it into an ever-increasingly hysterical fabrication - claiming that your re-write is what I actually “meant” to say - and then go to town on that (while slipping in a heavy dose of name-calling at the same time.)

The point is: the Palestinian people of today are descendants of the historic core population of Palestine, a core population that never left Palestine (well at least until many were driven out by the Zionists and Israeli army, first in 1947-1949, and again in 1967.) Palestinians count among their ancestors every group who ever lived in the area - this includes the original Canaanites, the ancient Hebrews, also Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Crusaders, and Arabs (just to name a few.)

Many Jews remained in Palestine after Titus sacked Jerusalem. Most of them eventually converted to Christianity, and then later with the rise of Islam, most of the population became Muslim. There were tiny communities in Palestine that remained Jewish, but they were by far the minority.

So what about the birthright of Palestinians ? The average Palestinian is as much descended from the ancient Hebrews as any Jewish person today (and likely more so )

The idea that every foreign Jew in the world has some kind of divine “right” to “return” to Palestine, displace the indigenous people from their property and establish a Jewish-controlled state in their place (and at their grievous expense) - simply because there was once a Jewish kingdom in the region 2000 years ago, and because the foreigners are Jewish today while the majority of Palestinians today are no longer Jewish - this is not only ridiculous and illogical, it’s the very root of the conflict.

Palestinians didn’t “choose” to be ethnically cleansed or turned into refugees, either. But several posters on this board have presented the opinion that they should “get over it.” Tell me Scandal, if Jews didn’t “get over it” for 2000 years, why should Palestinians be expected to “get over it” in less than the length one lifetime ?

This is the great hypocrisy of Zionism: the idea that Jewish people today who keep the tradition of the Jewish people who were oppressed and expelled and exiled have the “right” to return to the ancient homeland of the Jewish people and are entitled , but Palestinians who are oppressed and expelled and exiled today do not have the same right to return to their ancient homeland.

This is the great hypocrisy of Zionism: the idea that the Jews have the right to a national homeland in Palestine and are entitled to take it by force - even if it means depriving another people of their home and their land. Even more stark: Jewish people who suffered from oppression, expulsion and exile have the right to “return” and “self-determine” themselves in Palestine, while non-Jews born in Palestine who suffered from oppression, expulsion and exile have no right to do the same.

An example of outright falsehood:

There's more nonsense there, but let's part on this gem about Hamas, easy enough to refute:

:rofl: :rofl: Like hell they have. Here's Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh on the subject from a few months ago:

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=218462

You should know as well as anyone that the JPost has turned into Israel’s version of Fox News (even regularly approaching World Net Daily with Islamophobes like Caroline Glick.) They lost what little redeeming value they had when they fired Larry Derfner.

But anyway, is this what has you so upset:

Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza City that there was no justification for recognizing Israel’s right to exist, in wake of its “denial of the rights and unity of the Palestinian people.”

Israel’s presence “on our land is illegitimate and we can’t recognize it,” he said.

So… Hams won’t recognize that Israel had the right to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order to create a Jewish State, or the right to continue to oppress and occupy Palestinians and colonize their land.

News flash: No one else in the world recognizes that either.

Do you really want me to post all the quotes where Israeli officials say they won’t accept a Palestinian state? Let me guess… it’s different when Israel does it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

lol, but he proved right WOM, you did have to get the last word in.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

False. In the Bible "Israel" was the name given to Jacob and his descendants (Bnai Israel, the Children of Israel). However it also clearly refers to a place: the Kingdom of Israel united under King David and his heirs as described in the Book of Samuel, of Judges, and latern texts. More importantly, let's leave alone Biblical references and consider the documented history of the Kingdom of Israel as a contiguous territory occupied by a people united by faith, language and custom is amply recorded. See my earlier post in this thread for the timescales of this history. The Mesha Stele clearly refers to Israel as a place, a kingdom and a people.

Oops - my response to this part got lost on the cutting room floor. But I meant to include it:

The Biblical account says that “Israel” was the name that God gave to Jacob, which then became used to denote his descendants (the “Children of Israel“ or “Israelites,”) and then later became used to denote the Jewish people as a whole. The “Land of Israel” meant “the Land of Jacob (and his descendants).” Same for the Kingdom of Israel - it means “the Kingdom of the Children of Jacob.”

Israel did not denote a place until the State of Israel was created in 1948. Take a look at what the early Zionists wrote - none of them referred to a return to “Israel.” They usually referred to it as “Palestine;” less frequently as “the Land of Israel” (Eretz Israel) or “Zion.” These last two names, along with “Judea,” were considered for the official name of new state, before the provisional government finally settled on “The State of Israel” (Medinat Yisrael.)

lol, but he proved right WOM, you did have to get the last word in.

Don't worry he'll be baaaaaaaack.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Quote

The Coahuiltecans are gone now. But they did leave living descendants who still live in South Texas, but not as Indians. Once the Spanish came and started missions, many of the Coahuiltecan bands moved into the missions. The steady source of food and water and the protection from stronger tribes was very appealing to them. Once in the missions many of them married Spanish solders and settlers. Later more Spanish and Mexican immigrants settled in the region and started ranches that attracted local Indians for the same reasons the missions did. Again, some of them married Spaniards or Mexicans. Later, around the middle 1700s, the Apaches were forced south by the Comanches and into Coahuiltecan territory. Caught between the Spanish/Mexicans and the Apaches most of the last bands of the Coahuiltecans disappeared. By the time American settlers reached the area only a few scattered bands survived. As a Native people they were all gone by the end of the 1800s.

Their only survivors today are the many Native Texan Hispanic families in South Texas. Many families who are members of the Catholic Churches at the old missions in San Antonio can trace their families back to Coahuiltecan ancestors. The few surviving Coahuiltecans in other parts of South Texas were absorbed into the larger Hispanic/Mexican culture of South Texas. Almost any Hispanic family in South Texas who can trace their ancestors back to the early 1800s probably has Coahuiltecan blood in the family.

The Texas Coahuiltecan Indians

This sounds suspiciously like a white wash to me, maybe the Israelies can change a few names and places and use it 100 years from now.

I especially like the benign "Caught between the Spanish/Mexicans and Apaches most of the last bands of Coahuiltecans disappeared"

I have to wonder what was happening to the Coahuiltecan males. Were they marrying those mild mannered Spanish soldiers and Settlers?

"By the time American settlers reached the area only a few scattered bands survived."

That's a load off my conscience.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Dan and Judy

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Quote

The Coahuiltecans are gone now. But they did leave living descendants who still live in South Texas, but not as Indians. Once the Spanish came and started missions, many of the Coahuiltecan bands moved into the missions. The steady source of food and water and the protection from stronger tribes was very appealing to them. Once in the missions many of them married Spanish solders and settlers. Later more Spanish and Mexican immigrants settled in the region and started ranches that attracted local Indians for the same reasons the missions did. Again, some of them married Spaniards or Mexicans. Later, around the middle 1700s, the Apaches were forced south by the Comanches and into Coahuiltecan territory. Caught between the Spanish/Mexicans and the Apaches most of the last bands of the Coahuiltecans disappeared. By the time American settlers reached the area only a few scattered bands survived. As a Native people they were all gone by the end of the 1800s.

Their only survivors today are the many Native Texan Hispanic families in South Texas. Many families who are members of the Catholic Churches at the old missions in San Antonio can trace their families back to Coahuiltecan ancestors. The few surviving Coahuiltecans in other parts of South Texas were absorbed into the larger Hispanic/Mexican culture of South Texas. Almost any Hispanic family in South Texas who can trace their ancestors back to the early 1800s probably has Coahuiltecan blood in the family.

The Texas Coahuiltecan Indians

This sounds suspiciously like a white wash to me, maybe the Israelies can change a few names and places and use it 100 years from now.

I especially like the benign "Caught between the Spanish/Mexicans and Apaches most of the last bands of Coahuiltecans disappeared"

I have to wonder what was happening to the Coahuiltecan males. Were they marrying those mild mannered Spanish soldiers and Settlers?

"By the time American settlers reached the area only a few scattered bands survived."

That's a load off my conscience.

You should read the whole thing.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Coahuiltecans are gone now. But they did leave living descendants who still live in South Texas, but not as Indians. Once the Spanish came and started missions, many of the Coahuiltecan bands moved into the missions. The steady source of food and water and the protection from stronger tribes was very appealing to them. Once in the missions many of them married Spanish solders and settlers. Later more Spanish and Mexican immigrants settled in the region and started ranches that attracted local Indians for the same reasons the missions did. Again, some of them married Spaniards or Mexicans. Later, around the middle 1700s, the Apaches were forced south by the Comanches and into Coahuiltecan territory. Caught between the Spanish/Mexicans and the Apaches most of the last bands of the Coahuiltecans disappeared. By the time American settlers reached the area only a few scattered bands survived. As a Native people they were all gone by the end of the 1800s.

Their only survivors today are the many Native Texan Hispanic families in South Texas. Many families who are members of the Catholic Churches at the old missions in San Antonio can trace their families back to Coahuiltecan ancestors. The few surviving Coahuiltecans in other parts of South Texas were absorbed into the larger Hispanic/Mexican culture of South Texas. Almost any Hispanic family in South Texas who can trace their ancestors back to the early 1800s probably has Coahuiltecan blood in the family.

The Texas Coahuiltecan Indians

This sounds suspiciously like a white wash to me, maybe the Israelies can change a few names and places and use it 100 years from now.

I especially like the benign "Caught between the Spanish/Mexicans and Apaches most of the last bands of Coahuiltecans disappeared"

I have to wonder what was happening to the Coahuiltecan males. Were they marrying those mild mannered Spanish soldiers and Settlers?

"By the time American settlers reached the area only a few scattered bands survived."

That's a load off my conscience.

Spanish missionaries would cloister all the indigenous women once they approached puberty, until an appropriate mate was selected for them. The indigenous men were encouraged to a live of hard labor, or inducted into a celibate life's work of converting their relatives to Jesus. In other words, they bred the local population out of existence.

Of course, the English settlers just practiced outright genocide.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Spanish missionaries would cloister all the indigenous women once they approached puberty, until an appropriate mate was selected for them. The indigenous men were encouraged to a live of hard labor, or inducted into a celibate life's work of converting their relatives to Jesus. In other words, they bred the local population out of existence.

Of course, the English settlers just practiced outright genocide.

The Franciscan friars were celibate (well at least that what they said.... )

Yes, many of the Spanish soldiers and others who arrived with the Franciscan friars (and later other Europeans and Americans) did marry indigenous women in Texas. Of course, there weren’t very many “white women” in Texas in those early days, and of the few that came, it’s true that very very few took Native American spouses. This was due to the prejudice of the day (and the difficulty most women had in defying “social norms.”)

But there are cases of it - probably the most famous was Cynthia Ann Parker. It wasn't her intention from the start - she was captured by Comanche in East Texas as a child and adopted into their tribe, and later married the son of one of their chiefs. But she became Comanche, and when she was "rescued" as an adult and forced back into "white" society, it traumatized her so badly that she never recovered and she died shortly afterward. Her story is fascinating and also heartbreaking...but that’s another topic... (kind of like this whole tangent ! But I’m not the one who started down this road...)

The children of mixed race Spanish men and indigenous women married from all three groups - Spanish, indigenous, and mixed race.

Anyway, the Spanish who came to South Texas did not have an overall strategy of “taking the native women and expelling or killing all the men.” Certainly, there were horrifying cases of these atrocities. Among the various groups moving into South Texas were some very scary individuals - I mean real psychopathic homicidal thugs. But this “kill the men, take the women” thing did not occur on any kind of large scale among the Spanish in South Texas - contemporary accounts that mention some of these incidents note them as unusual or out of the ordinary, and they were mostly perpetrated by groups of non-Spanish free-booters who came out of Kentucky, the Carolinas, or directly from Europe.

However, the custom was practiced by the Native Americans of the time - warrior tribes like the Comanches and Apaches were well-known for attacking other tribes, killing all the men and carrying off the women. That’s one of the reasons that non-warrior tribes like the Coahiltecan were so motivated to seek shelter in the Spanish missions - they were only fortified structures that existed in the area.

These Native Americans who moved into the old Spanish missions of San Antonio (we have 5 of them here) became Christianized (well, duh) and they took Spanish names (including surnames, which had not existed in their culture.) Their descendants gradually assimilated, intermarried, and blended into the general Spanish/Mexican/Hispanic population.

I’m certainly not saying that life in the missions was some kind of paradise. I’m certainly not saying that the Spanish had the right to do what they did. The Native Americans had to work very, very hard in these missions, and they were at very high risk of European diseases to which they had no immunities (the article I linked mentions that.) Thousands died of these diseases, as happened all over North, Central and South America, wherever there was contact between Europeans and Native Americans. Life was no picnic for anyone on the "frontier," much less for Native Americans trying to survive amidst cataclysmic changes (the article I linked goes into these in more detail.)

But the Spanish didn’t come here with the intention of ethnically cleansing them and replacing them with Europeans. The descendants of the indigenous population of San Antonio continue to live in their ancestral homeland - South Texas. They have blended into the local population - they're not only still here - they're still the majority of the population.

Now compare that to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine - 750,000 people driven out in the space of a year and a half, and another mass expulsion over 6 days in 1967. All of it happening after the international community collectively agreed that such things were unacceptable, intolerable, and should be formally codified into international law as illegal.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Franciscan friars were celibate (well at least that what they said.... )

The Filipinos are not that far removed from their Spanish history, and from the literature of the time, many a friar (or priest, or even a bishop or two) "indulged", being far from Madrid, and the influence of the Mother Church.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The Filipinos are not that far removed from their Spanish history, and from the literature of the time, many a friar (or priest, or even a bishop or two) "indulged", being far from Madrid, and the influence of the Mother Church.

Yes, indeed they did (and still do - although some of their unions are... let's just say not biologically equipped to produce offspring )

But their numbers, even with their European diseases and everything else, were never enough to buck the ethnic tide in South Texas.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Why should Egypt give up its territory so that Israel might more easily help itself to the rest of the Palestinians' land ?

Peace in our time? Syria is coming unglued why not settle east?

Edited October 5, 2011 by ready4ONE

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Peace in our time? Syria is coming unglued why not settle east?

This sort of scheme has been proposed by Zionists since the early 20th century: Zionists get to take whatever they want, while someone else has to pay for it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

This sort of scheme has been proposed by Zionists since the early 20th century: Zionists get to take whatever they want, while someone else has to pay for it.

Palestine could try and get their allies to invade again, like they did in 67 and 48.

Edited October 5, 2011 by The_Dude

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Peace in our time? Syria is coming unglued why not settle east?

How does it figure that you get peace while stealing people's land?