Why Separation?

[KettleWhistle]

Is America Anti-Islam?
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/lbutler_20050104.html

Lee P Butler

Foregoing the mendacity behind that caprice, shouldn't the more prudent question be, is Islam Anti-American?

Of course most liberal journalists in this country can't see past their own self-aggrandizing elitism to ever consider the notion that America, while being led by a Republican president, takes action with the intention to advance humanity in every endeavor without the specter of prejudice.

Time and again, these journalists write that Muslims think America hates Islam and it's people, which, they intone, is the reason the terrorists are attacking our troops and why Iraqis haven't spoken out in favor of America. Other Muslim nations are sending terrorists from their countries into Iraq as an attempt to defeat America and yet that is our fault, as these liberals assert, 'because of the American occupation of Iraq'.

They constantly complain about the supposed negative impression of America in foreign countries and rationalize it's because of the person who resides in the White House and the policies of his administration and never once contemplate the possibility... probably because they already know that their insinuation is felicitous to begin with... that their own bias against the administration as reported by their own rhetoric when they write about the 'imperialistic actions of America' is more at fault?

It matters not to these people that radical Muslims... Islamic terrorists... attacked America on 9-11, not because America hated Islam, but because fanatical Muslims hate America. Or that we went into Iraq to overthrow a dictatorial madman who had senselessly slaughtered thousands of Muslims to save them from that tyranny, not to 'occupy' their country because we are anti-Islam.

And we did that despite the fact that the Islamic world is harboring, encouraging, and propagating these Muslim extremists under the auspices of the Islamic religion. Even hiding behind the facade of the American Islamic poster child Mohammed Ali cannot camouflage that actuality.

William Raspberry wrote recently, "We can argue all day that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant whose defeat and humiliation should evoke no sympathy from us. But he did have a functioning country. There was a government in place. People went to work and to the market and to school in relative safety. Can anyone really believe that the U.S.-spawned anarchy has left the Iraqi people better off?"

That is what I call a classic liberal 'twist-and-switch' maneuver. They use this whenever they need to make a point, but deep down inside they probably know that the premise is ludicrous, so they twist the argument and switch the topic.

Saddam was a tyrant who needed defeating and there is no rationalization of his despotism that can justify anything other than that. Using Raspberry's own logic, would he also claim since hundreds of thousands of African-Americans died during the 'anarchy' that was bred in the wake of the Civil War, that the abolition of slavery in this country just wasn't worth it? After all, before that there was a functioning society, a rule of law was in place and slaves went to work, were given clothing, housing, food, and had access to medical care and education, primitive though it may have been.

The topic went from, 'we know Saddam was a bad guy' to 'but the Iraqis are now worse off'. The idea is that no matter how bad the dude is, we shouldn't have done anything about him, because well, those heathens can't survive without him.

That's right, liberals think America has hurt its image abroad because we are involved in an 'occupation' of Iraq that we undertook because we are 'anti-Islam' and if left up to them, Saddam would still be terrorizing Iraqis because those dupes just can't take care of themselves.

But right-wing Republicans are hate mongers?

Then the tsunami hit and over one hundred thousand people, many of whom were Muslim, were killed in one tragic event. It didn't take long for these same liberal elitists to turn Mother Nature into an American right-wing hater of Islam. Not only had America's imperialistic self-enrichment policies created the natural disaster, but also cold-hearted Muslim hating President Bush wouldn't leave his ranch in Texas... which by the way, is his home not a vacation destination... and only offered a 'stingy' initial monetary donation.

While these elitist journalist were assailing President Bush and expounding the mantra that America should be giving more money to the devastated region in a token gesture that would 'show Islam that America didn't hate Muslims', UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was on his vacation skiing.

Funny thing, where I come from, you don't give money to people so they will like you or so that they won't hate you, but because those people need help. But, of course, in the liberal world view, those people wouldn't feel negatively towards us if we had just left them alone and not followed our Capitalistic philosophy which ultimately lead to the natural disaster to begin with.

Raspberry's column even recompensed this dilemma by fusing the devastation of the tsunami and the situation in Iraq. He referred to the ideas of two of his readers that we should send, 'all or a substantial portion of our Iraq-based troops and resources to the tsunami-devastated region around the Indian Ocean. It would get us out of Iraq and, given the fact that the stricken area is largely Muslim, might go a long way toward defeating the notion that we are anti-Islam'.

Maybe there's an even better way. Based on the analogies of liberal elitist journalists, maybe we should just send Saddam, since he did such a fine job in Iraq!

Do you think Islam would stop being anti-American then?

[wellofvow]

I think that THE urgent question that should be asked now has nothing to do with why non-Americans hate America.

The IMPORTANT question is why Americans hate America.

My parents' generation lived through the Depression, yet didn't hate America. They lived through World War II, and fought for America. When I left America in the late 1960s, there was an uncomfortable uneasiness, and I moved to Israel being both attracted to my homeland, and repelled by what I saw happening in Jewish communities.

America now is a country I do not recognize. I have to be careful when speaking with friends I have known for nearly 50 years. I never speak of politics - American politics - even with my American family.

Somehow, when I was preoccupied with my husband, children, and life here during the last 30+ years, American culture has become a self-hating one.

I am not, of course, speaking of the many people in this forum. Maybe all my family and friends are dysfunctional. Somehow, I don't think so. I really fear that the awake people in this forum are the last holdouts of what America used to be. It's really scary.

[KettleWhistle]

I think very few Americans hate America, but those that do are just very vocal. It's a good question nevertheless.

[SteveMetch]

I think that THE urgent question that should be asked now has nothing to do with why non-Americans hate America.

The IMPORTANT question is why Americans hate America.

My parents' generation lived through the Depression, yet didn't hate America. They lived through World War II, and fought for America. When I left America in the late 1960s, there was an uncomfortable uneasiness, and I moved to Israel being both attracted to my homeland, and repelled by what I saw happening in Jewish communities.

America now is a country I do not recognize. I have to be careful when speaking with friends I have known for nearly 50 years. I never speak of politics - American politics - even with my American family.

Somehow, when I was preoccupied with my husband, children, and life here during the last 30+ years, American culture has become a self-hating one.

I am not, of course, speaking of the many people in this forum. Maybe all my family and friends are dysfunctional. Somehow, I don't think so. I really fear that the awake people in this forum are the last holdouts of what America used to be. It's really scary.

American (Secular Liberal Democracy + Capitalism) is not compatible with Islam. By definition that makes America Anti-Islam or Islam Anti-American your pick. Fundamentalist Islam or real Islam is a political system that attempts to use the Meccan Moon God “Allah” as it legitimizing authority. It is totalitarianism masquerading as a religion.

George Bush
Speech to Joint Session of Congress, September 21, 2001

“These terrorists kill not merely to end lives but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way. We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”
Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”
Qur’an 59:2 “It was Allah who drove the [Jewish] People of the Book from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe and imagined that their strongholds would protect them against Allah. But Allah came at them from where they did not suspect, and filled their hearts with terror. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson, O men who have eyes. This is My warning…they shall taste the torment of Fire.”
Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”


I find the quintessential question to ask every “American” in order to determine if in fact they are “American” is this.

Do you think on balance that “America” has been and continues to be a force for good in the world?

Almost 100% of Republican voters agree.

About 50% of Democratic voters agree.

About 10% of the Old Media agrees.

Almost nobody in Europe agrees despite all the American blood on their soil.

Given that America is roughly split between these two parties it follows that 75% of us are actually Americans as defined by our founding principles. Not as good as 100% but still a strong working majority. These kooks on the Left continue to remind us Fundamentalist Americans what is at stake both here in abroad if our enemies should prevail.

This issue defines the primary fault line in the current Democratic Party, i.e. the Howard Deans/Michael Moore’s vs. Joe Lieberman’s. There was no difference between either party on this question until the Carter Administration. The simple fact is that the current Democratic Party cannot rally their base without turning off those in their party that love America despite its imperfections.

What do you think the political make up of the Israel is?

[Mediocrates]

Said the man who pulled PATRIOT II out of his butt. I'm not sure people like you still recognize what 'our way of life' is supposed to be anymore.

[SteveMetch]

Said the man who pulled PATRIOT II out of his butt. I'm not sure people like you still recognize what 'our way of life' is supposed to be anymore.

What say you. America a force for good or evil?

Remember the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

[KettleWhistle]

What say you. America a force for good or evil?
I know it was directed at Medio, but... how about neither?

We've done some good things, and some bad things, but we are not any sort of a world's pusher of goodness (or evil), nor should we be.

[philingraham]

I know it was directed at Medio, but... how about neither?

We've done some good things, and some bad things, but we are not any sort of a world's pusher of goodness (or evil), nor should we be.

"For those of you that are neither hot nor cold I will spew thee out of my mouth..."

[philingraham]

What say you. America a force for good or evil?

Remember the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

America is a force for good!

[philingraham]

I think that THE urgent question that should be asked now has nothing to do with why non-Americans hate America.

The IMPORTANT question is why Americans hate America.

My parents' generation lived through the Depression, yet didn't hate America. They lived through World War II, and fought for America. When I left America in the late 1960s, there was an uncomfortable uneasiness, and I moved to Israel being both attracted to my homeland, and repelled by what I saw happening in Jewish communities.

America now is a country I do not recognize. I have to be careful when speaking with friends I have known for nearly 50 years. I never speak of politics - American politics - even with my American family.

Somehow, when I was preoccupied with my husband, children, and life here during the last 30+ years, American culture has become a self-hating one.

I am not, of course, speaking of the many people in this forum. Maybe all my family and friends are dysfunctional. Somehow, I don't think so. I really fear that the awake people in this forum are the last holdouts of what America used to be. It's really scary.

Having been a member of the Forum for almost a year now I have followed your posts with interest. You are an Israeli of American origin of roughly the same age as me (I'm 57). Your description of life in Israel, your children, your hopes and fears resonate with me and I thought I might respond directly to your fears about the current state of America.
I'm sorry to hear that you avoid like the plague, talking politics with your American Family. Someone of your experience and sensibility should be talking politics. The young people have little context in which to place current events. You in particular should speak up.
Since the 60's, America's population has more than doubled. As such, we are no longer the quaint bunch of folks you and I remember growing up. The openness and freedom are not what they once were and alot of it has to do with the huge increase in population. Regulation, Security, Infrastructure, the Welfare State, endless foreign wars, pollution, OBESITY etc have all taken its toll.
But this is not to suggest that the promise of a free and open society based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is any less real today than when you and I were growing up in America. The immigration stats confirm this. My own children confirm this...
As often bizzare and confusing current events may seem to many who don't live in America, the rest of us that live here ain't goin anywhere. We will play out the hand we've been dealt and hope for the best, screaming and protesting all the way. I'm sure that the situation in Israel ain't much different...
My best to you and yours...philingraham

[Mediocrates]

What say you. America a force for good or evil?

Remember the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.


That sounds like a tagline from Freeper. I'm pretty sure, now correct me if I'm wrong, that the very same people who are screaming about the 2nd Ammendment because they're afraid the government never relinquishes power it has, are, for some perverse reason the same people happily sacrificing power to that very same government in the furtherance of the cause of fear from terrorism. If you're selling it, I'm not buying, sorry. My ancestors didn't run screaming from Kulaks in order so that I could I blithely watch the elevation of a new Czar. There has always been a national emergency or national initiative of one kind or another that people have quickly determined was a sufficient peril to us for us to give up substantial civil rights. It's the terrorists or the communists or the fascists or the negroes or the anarchists or the unionists or the bolshevists or the immigrants or god knows what else all the way back to the founding of this country. There has always been an 'alert' that this time it's the literal end to our way of life. And everytime it has been, for us here, living here, a paperthin excuse at best.

I won't hide that I come from a long line of people who were always being turned away or getting their heads whacked by Pinkertons or being blacklisted or sent back to Mother Russia because of pinkeye or being told to work in sweatshops. And let me tell you that if you are anything like me you are not white enough for America either. I'm not saying that antisemitism is rampant. I'm saying that diabolical acts like PATRIOT always fall on people like you and I. All in the name of some nebulous fear. How many people did Ashcroft round up? A thousand? 1500? How many trials? 3? How many convictions? Any? One would think that an administration that lines parrot cages with the 4th ammendment could at least make something stick. Anything. Don't tell me they can't any better than the stooges who tried OJ. And don't tell me that if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide because to a man to a woman every single person who says that has something to hide. My way of life is based on a contract between the individual and the state, a state that for all practical purposes will bring unlimited power against me. And in that contract it says that bad vibes are not a sufficient legal reason to piss all over the Constitution. Sorry, but I am your opposition, an opposition guaranteed by the Constitution and built in, on purpose to insure that no one slowly becomes comfortable with tyranny.

[SteveMetch]

I know it was directed at Medio, but... how about neither?

Can you seriously look at the world today, within the totality of human history, and think that American hasn’t had a net positive effect on humanity?


We've done some good things, and some bad things, but we are not any sort of a world's pusher of goodness (or evil), nor should we be.

Yes and we certainly wouldn’t want to thrust our vision of morality on the Nazi Jewish extermination camps, the Communist Gulags, and the Decapitating Muslims now would we. I mean who are we to judge if people want to commit mass murder. Its none of our business.

[KettleWhistle]

Can you seriously look at the world today, within the totality of human history, and think that American hasn’t had a net positive effect on humanity?

Yes, we definetely had a net positive effect, but that doesn't absolve us of the mistakes we made. Unfortunately, too many chose to ignore these mistakes, which is why we continue to make others that we could've avoided.


Yes and we certainly wouldn’t want to thrust our vision of morality on the Nazi Jewish extermination camps, the Communist Gulags, and the Decapitating Muslims now would we. I mean who are we to judge if people want to commit mass murder. Its none of our business.

The U.S. didn't stop the Nazi Death Camps--that was the communist USSR. The U.S. helped, but only slightly. I'm no fan of Russians, but I give credit where it is due, and the allied victory in the WWII was primarily their accomplishment. As for GULAGs, what does the U.S. have to do with these? Plus, they still operate, just like they were before the fall of the USSR.

But all of the above is really besides the point here. I don't believe that we should be the world's policeman. Add to that, the fact (yes, FACT) that most of us are pretty ill-informed about the situations in most places in the world, and our media is very one-sided in presenting various conflicts where our government wishes to engage. If you need an example, just look at the whole Kosovo story. How much does an average American know about the Serbian side of the story, or about the political affairs that led to the NATO actions there? So do you really think that we ought to police the world or try to shove our way of life down the throats of people who don't want it? I would say no to that.

[SteveMetch]

That sounds like a tagline from Freeper. I'm pretty sure, now correct me if I'm wrong, that the very same people who are screaming about the 2nd Ammendment because they're afraid the government never relinquishes power it has, are, for some perverse reason the same people happily sacrificing power to that very same government in the furtherance of the cause of fear from terrorism. If you're selling it, I'm not buying, sorry. My ancestors didn't run screaming from Kulaks in order so that I could I blithely watch the elevation of a new Czar.

Actual the 2nd helps to insure the 4th

United States of America’s Declaration of Independence
July 4, 1776

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Our military and police force are no match for 50 million armed and pissed off Americans. Historically more citizens have been murdered at the hands of their governments than criminals. Many of our ancestors came here to escape such treatment. The only common thread in genocide is the side that gets killed is poorly armed. It seems a better armed populace always has a better chance. Bottom-line, if you outlaw guns only the government and criminals will have them. In some countries its hard to tell the difference.


There has always been a national emergency or national initiative of one kind or another that people have quickly determined was a sufficient peril to us for us to give up substantial civil rights. It's the terrorists or the communists or the fascists or the negroes or the anarchists or the unionists or the bolshevists or the immigrants or god knows what else all the way back to the founding of this country. There has always been an 'alert' that this time it's the literal end to our way of life. And everytime it has been, for us here, living here, a paperthin excuse at best.

Actually the Patriot Act only grants the same authority used to bust up illegal drug traf. I think terrorist WMD deserves at least this level of attention.


My way of life is based on a contract between the individual and the state, a state that for all practical purposes will bring unlimited power against me. And in that contract it says that bad vibes are not a sufficient legal reason to piss all over the Constitution. Sorry, but I am your opposition, an opposition guaranteed by the Constitution and built in, on purpose to insure that no one slowly becomes comfortable with tyranny.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. The USSR constitution had similar protections under Stalin. Little good those words were for the millions murdered under his reign. In the end law is interrupted and enforced by people. The speech below is one of the best I have read on the letter vs application of law debate.

"
“WE SEEK LIBERTY”
If it dies in men’s hearts no court can save it.
Judge Learned Hand of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
May 21 1944, Central Park N.Y.C.

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land.

What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought. This we now believe that we are by way of winning.

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. No constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not of the ruthless, the unbridled will. It is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom, soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias. The spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded. The spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.

And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay which never will be, expect as the conscience and the courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise with me to pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands - one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."



And that’s what Liberty is all about Charlie Brown

[Mediocrates]

If you think your rifle is going to protect you from the man you are delusional. You have the benefit of a Constitionally protected hobby. If you want to protect yourself get a good firewall and strong encryption.

You should actually read the PATRIOT act, get a lawyer to help you if need be. There is no longer any meaningful 4th or 5th ammendment and most of the 8th is gutted unless you think that drug dealers should be held in the 'legal equivalent of outerspace' (direct quote from Alberto Gonzales).

[SteveMetch]

Yes, we definetely had a net positive effect, but that doesn't absolve us of the mistakes we made. Unfortunately, too many chose to ignore these mistakes, which is why we continue to make others that we could've avoided.

Agreed


The U.S. didn't stop the Nazi Death Camps--that was the communist USSR. The U.S. helped, but only slightly. I'm no fan of Russians, but I give credit where it is due, and the allied victory in the WWII was primarily their accomplishment. As for GULAGs, what does the U.S. have to do with these? Plus, they still operate, just like they were before the fall of the USSR.

WW2 was not a war we needed to fight at that time, particularly in Europe. With the Japanese we could have split the pacific down the middle and been done there as well. WW3 (Coldwar) and WW4 (Islamic/WMD) were and are both wars that directly threatened and threaten our homeland. As you pointed out the Russians and Chinese did most of bleeding in WW2. It is indeed very fortunate, some would say divine providence, that the four evil countries all attacked each other making it possible for the US and England to push the whole stinking lot into the dust bin of history. Hence fighting WW2 was a good move by the US and all free men.

The US and England did liberate Nazi Death camps that were in their areas though. Any people liberate by the USSR, that remained in the East, were later trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Not much better than the Gulag. Only the Jews and others liberate by US and England enjoyed any freedom. The Evil Empire of the USSR is no more. While Russia may continue to imprison people all of Eastern Europe is liberated. The fact is that USSR didn’t fall it was pushed. The central person pushing and willing to call evil by its name was Ronald Reagan. The emasculated Europeans would have never done this in a million years. All real men in Europe have either immigrated or been killed in battle.


But all of the above is really besides the point here. I don't believe that we should be the world's policeman. Add to that, the fact (yes, FACT) that most of us are pretty ill-informed about the situations in most places in the world, and our media is very one-sided in presenting various conflicts where our government wishes to engage. If you need an example, just look at the whole Kosovo story. How much does an average American know about the Serbian side of the story, or about the political affairs that led to the NATO actions there? So do you really think that we ought to police the world or try to shove our way of life down the throats of people who don't want it? I would say no to that.

Attacking Serbia was criminal. They as we are fighting the same Fundamentalist Muslims that would WMD us at their first opportunity. There is no question that the Liberals in America and Europe backed the wrong side. Our support for Muslims in Kosovo only earned us 3,000 murdered Americans. Gee, I wonder what we will get for all the money we are spending on Muslims after the tidal wave.

[wellofvow]

I think very few Americans hate America, but those that do are just very vocal. It's a good question nevertheless.

OK, I was in a rant. Rephrasing is in order.

I agree, very few Americans really hate America. It's probably more correct to say that most Americans are much too quick to knee-jerk criticize America.

The government couldn't possibly be right, all judges are on the take, each president is a moron or perv or paranoid or warmonger or ...

Americans have the right to bear arms, Americans don't have the right. You can't call an African-American a pejorative name, but it's fine to call Jews Nazis - THIS is free speech.

[wellofvow]

What do you think the political make up of the Israel is?

Why should anyone CARE what the "political make up" of Israel is? Really? There are probably a lot of people like me - I change aisles. Sometimes I actually believe the posturers, and get sucked in by pre-election promises. I don't do this as much as I used to, though. Last elections, I voted for Sharansky's party, and was pleasantly surprised that many American friends of mine also voted for his party. I felt betrayed when he abandoned his own party.

Don't put a lot of effort into trying to understand Israeli politics. I don't know of any Israeli - including myself - who does.

[wellofvow]

Hi philingraham.

I'm sorry to hear that you avoid like the plague, talking politics with your American Family. Someone of your experience and sensibility should be talking politics. The young people have little context in which to place current events. You in particular should speak up.


Many years ago, when we went back to the States for a visit, we visited a couple I had known through a youth movement. The guy suddenly got into Israeli politics and came down on me, criticizing me personally for putting whoever it was at the time (Begin maybe) in the Prime Minister's chair. I hadn't voted for this person. And the guy has a doctorate in history, now a full professor. OK, so this individual is a jerk. But it made me leery that American Jews made me personally responsible for everything Israel did.

What strikes me is that this is being done now, and on a national scale. Under the guise of "free speech", lecturers at events held in universities are advocating the murder of every Israeli man, woman, and child, since they hold every Israeli is responsible for the "genocide" of "Palestinians".

And just a few years ago, the 38 year old son of my first cousin (who is an ardent Zionist) sent me an email that he was "published". He was thrilled, and I sent back my congratulations. Then I looked up the book, a collection of essays, that published him. The other essays were by notorious members of crazy-fringe groups, Palestinian apologists, Israeli-bashers, Holocaust-deniers, antisemites. I was shocked that he would publish in such a book. The family there was so proud of him, and the family here was completely puzzled that the acorn fell so very far from the tree.

The outcome of this is that I cannot speak with this whole branch of the family about Israeli politics, antisemitism in America, Israel-bashing, and many other issues.

There are other personal anecdotes, but not here.

Since the 60's, America's population has more than doubled. As such, we are no longer the quaint bunch of folks you and I remember growing up. The openness and freedom are not what they once were and alot of it has to do with the huge increase in population. Regulation, Security, Infrastructure, the Welfare State, endless foreign wars, pollution, OBESITY etc have all taken its toll.


Sorry, I have trouble following you. Are you saying that there is LESS "freedom" because of population growth or MORE "freedom"? One of the huge problems I have with the States is the over-liberalization of "freedoms", so that university instructors teach that the Israeli army is comparable to the Nazis, mainstream newspapers jump at any chance to attack the president, talking heads on American TV sound remarkably like those in European and Arab countries. I remember this one interview on CNN, Christine Amanpour (a rabid Israel-basher) with Ehud Barak, then the Prime Minister of Israel. Her TONE was unforgiveable. She would not have DARED to speak to the head of any other sovereign state in the world as she did to Barak. Unfortunately, Barak was (and still is) such a narcissist that he didn't even realize that he was being dissed in front of millions of people.

Israel's population has roughly quintupled since the 1960s. Look at HOW America doubled in size! I rather doubt that it was through natural increase. I have not investigated it, but just wonder - immigration (of Arabs, Hispanics)?

I was pretty shocked years ago when I read that public grammar school classes in certain places were being conducted in Spanish, since the Hispanic kids, although born in America, had Spanish as their mother-tongue. The ultra-liberals argued that these kids were being discriminated against in being forced to learn English, the common tongue of the country. I could not figure out the LOGIC of this. The only way these kids will get into college is if the college entrance requirements are set extremely low. In the long run, how is this good for the country as a whole?

After 9/11, there was an intense push to get Americans to "understand" Moslems and Islam. I saw NO effort from anywhere to assist American Moslems in understanding the country in which they were living.

The recent Democrat presidential nominee seemed to advocate that Americans should bear in mind what Europeans thought of America, and that, if elected president, HE would consider what Europeans thought about every foreign policy decision of America.

Sitting outside of the States, it seems to me that Americans are obsessed with apologizing for themselves. Americans are always wrong (since the rest of the world says so). It is always America who has to adjust and adapt - IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY!!!

I am not going into America's status at the UN - I have to watch my blood pressure.

[Zlatorog]

Only the Jews and others liberate by US and England enjoyed any freedom.
That's a gross generalization.


The fact is that USSR didn’t fall it was pushed. The central person pushing and willing to call evil by its name was Ronald Reagan. The emasculated Europeans would have never done this in a million years. All real men in Europe have either immigrated or been killed in battle.

The same could be said about the Spanish Civil war. Noone remembers Reagan, everyone remembers Perestroika, Solidarnost and the fall of The Wall.


Attacking Serbia was criminal. They as we are fighting the same Fundamentalist Muslims that would WMD us at their first opportunity.

Attacking Serbia was criminal indeed. Why Serbia? What was there anyway? It only remins me of Hitler bombing Belgrade (I'm not comparing though, for further detais see 'Operation Punishment').

Those who are preaching to you that the Balkan Muslims are fundamentalists only detest you? I remember the "post war Saudi era", if they'd "WMD you" - actually no. Take a closer look at military photos... I read what the 'fiercest radicals' have to say, they'd welcome anybody who's pushing toward the economic prosperity of the region.


Our support for Muslims in Kosovo only earned us 3,000 murdered Americans.

Is something wrong with your Air Force?

(p.s. I'm fully aware that I forgot to mention Greece twice in my previous posts, Thrace).

[SteveMetch]

That's a gross generalization.

I’m sure if you asked the Jews trapped behind the iron curtain they wouldn’t agree with you. That is if you can find any that weren’t murdered by Stalin.


The same could be said about the Spanish Civil war. Noone remembers Reagan, everyone remembers Perestroika, Solidarnost and the fall of The Wall.

You remember him. Perestroika was a failed attempt to stem the collapse of the Evil Empire. It was too little too late. Solidarnost was very courageous and those who participated have a very positive view of the US. Very few in Old Europe remember the US in WW2 either. Their shame is apparent to all freemen of good will. To whom much is given much is expected. It is amazing when I encounter those who think the USSR just fell. It was pushed and pushed hard. Their Communist system couldn’t continue to divert over 50% of their GDP to match the US's 5% on military expenses.


Those who are preaching to you that the Balkan Muslims are fundamentalists only detest you? I remember the "post war Saudi era", if they'd "WMD you" - actually no. Take a closer look at military photos... I read what the 'fiercest radicals' have to say, they'd welcome anybody who's pushing toward the economic prosperity of the region.

There are only two types of Muslims. Those that practice Islam and those that do not. We only need to be concerned with the ones that actual practice all of Islam. I’m sure all the Islamic terrorist killing Iraqis just have a different definition of economic prosperity.


Is something wrong with your Air Force?

No nothing is wrong with Air Force or for that matter the Coast Guard (containerships with WMD). What is wrong is a population of sub-humans that should all be sent Alllah as soon as possible. I also think Mecca should be placed under new management until such time that Muslim realize they worship a false God at best and a demon at worst. Nazism, Communism and Islamism are all cut from the same demonic cloth. The ultimate defeat of Islamism will bring nothing but happiness and prosperity to future generations.

[KettleWhistle]

The US and England did liberate Nazi Death camps that were in their areas though. Any people liberate by the USSR, that remained in the East, were later trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Not much better than the Gulag. Only the Jews and others liberate by US and England enjoyed any freedom. The Evil Empire of the USSR is no more. While Russia may continue to imprison people all of Eastern Europe is liberated. The fact is that USSR didn’t fall it was pushed. The central person pushing and willing to call evil by its name was Ronald Reagan. The emasculated Europeans would have never done this in a million years. All real men in Europe have either immigrated or been killed in battle.

Not quite all got trapped behind the Iron Curtain. And as bad as being trapped behind the curtain had been, you can't really compare it to the GULAG--a system of labor camps in Siberia (basically in the middle of nowhere.)

But to say that Reagan caused the fall of the USSR isn't true either. It fell because it couldn't hold up. If you want to place a personal responsibility, then it would be on Brezhnev for the 20-year stagnation, during which USSR made no progress either socially or technologically, except in millitary arms development. Reagan's policies hurt USSR, but they didn't crush it. What really killed the beast, was the coup in 1991, and Reagan wasn't responsible for it either.

[wellofvow]

I don't believe that we should be the world's policeman.

Do you really think that we ought to police the world or try to shove our way of life down the throats of people who don't want it? I would say no to that.

Well, I don't believe that any country should be the world's policeman, as you put it.

Again, what bothers me terribly is that the Vandals are not only at the door, they are in America's house, and America isn't aware that it is in danger.

Americans are not only NOT the world's policemen, they are not protecting their own homes.

[KettleWhistle]

Well, I don't believe that any country should be the world's policeman, as you put it.

Again, what bothers me terribly is that the Vandals are not only at the door, they are in America's house, and America isn't aware that it is in danger.

Americans are not only NOT the world's policemen, they are not protecting their own homes.

In many ways, that's true. Interestingly enough, this blame-America-for-all-that's-wrong attitude is a native development. Most immigrants, myself including, are actually more pro-American and patriotic than the American-born politically liberal leftists who live an a racist world of stereotypes, and are just against anyone and anything Republican, no matter what it is. Most of these people has never experienced any true hardship, discrimination, harassment by police and the government, yet they champion the causes of the people 99% of whose ideology is incompatible with theirs. Some may call it an oxymoron, but I just call those people ignorant morons. Unfortunately, too many of them are Jews, and I blame the Jewish communities' inacction and lack of proper education, especially in regards to the Jewish national identity, for that.

[Mira]

This guy is a General in the US marines. I can see Al Jazerra circulating this one around the Arab world:

Marine General's Blunt Comments Draw Fire
Some Audience Members Clap

SAN DIEGO -- At a panel discussion in San Diego Tuesday, a top Marine general tells an audience that, among other things, it is "fun to shoot some people."


The comment, made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, came in reference to fighting insurgents in Iraq. He went on to say, "Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling."

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

About 200 people gathered for the discussion, held at the San Diego Convention Center. While many military members laughed at the comments, a military expert interviewed by NBC 7/39 called the comments "flippant."

"I was a little surprised," said Retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin. "I don't think any of us who have ever fought in wars liked to kill anybody."

Mattis also discussed operational tactics of the war, calling on military members not to underestimate the capacity of terrorists.

Mattis leads Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Division in Iraq. He is in charge of the Marine Corps combat development and is based in Quantico, Va.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html

[Mediocrates]

One HELL of a smart 3 Star Kickass Marine. He is in charge of developmental training and he is the guy who's been yelling for years that we have to understand our enemies and never ever underestimate them. He routinely demands his underlings read books by Arabs and Afghans about Iraq and Afghanistan. All policy issues aside he is the go-to guy if you want to know how to put people in the field who absolutely will come over the hill and kill the people who shoot at them.



Bravo.

[Mediocrates]

"I said you two lines of operation; against this enemy: first is to destroy the enemy. They are confronting us every day. Our very dominance of certain forms of warfare have driven the enemy into historic forms of warfare that we have not mastered. Don’t patronize the enemy. They mean business. They mean every word they say…They’re killing us every day. Their will is not broken….You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slapped women around for 5 years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ‘em."

[KettleWhistle]

This guy is a General in the US marines. I can see Al Jazerra circulating this one around the Arab world:

Seems like an off-hand joke. But the real issue to me is that it is actually printed and/or reported. So what if Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabyah, Al-Guardian, and the L.A. and N.Y. Timeses circulate it? Why are we being apologetic about it?

[Zlatorog]

Very few in Old Europe remember the US in WW2 either. Their shame is apparent to all freemen of good will. To whom much is given much is expected.
I'm not sure that's true, I've never seen any websites that would have objections to what the U.S. did in Italy, France etc.

KW has a broader picture, but of course we remember Reagan and Rice, I saw a documentry once how she charmed the Russians.


There are only two types of Muslims. Those that practice Islam and those that do not. We only need to be concerned with the ones that actual practice all of Islam. I’m sure all the Islamic terrorist killing Iraqis just have a different definition of economic prosperity.

We've had stupid terror threats here in the past, the Serbs for example informed the Italian press that they should close the border, the Italian army said that they did just that, when in fact they didn't.


What is wrong is a population of sub-humans that should all be sent Alllah as soon as possible. I also think Mecca should be placed under new management until such time that Muslim realize they worship a false God at best and a demon at worst.

Well the Bosnians kicked the Saudis out of their country before 9/11 and are being trained by the U.S. Here I can fear them forever or wait that you exterminate them.

[Mira]

One HELL of a smart 3 Star Kickass Marine. He is in charge of developmental training and he is the guy who's been yelling for years that we have to understand our enemies and never ever underestimate them. He routinely demands his underlings read books by Arabs and Afghans about Iraq and Afghanistan. All policy issues aside he is the go-to guy if you want to know how to put people in the field who absolutely will come over the hill and kill the people who shoot at them.



Bravo.

Explain to me again how it helps us to say that it is "fun" to shoot these guys. War is not "fun," it is sometimes necessary, and I was and still am for the war in Afghanistan, but to say that it is "fun" to shoot your enemy sounds idiotic and immoral. It's idiotic because this is a guy who is so high up in the ranks that he has the authority to speak for the Marines and there is nothing good that come out of a statement like that to the press and a whole lot of bad once the quote gets circulated around. Its immoral to celebrate the death of your enemy and you know it.

[goliath]

A general can be high in the rank , and low of brain.

[Mediocrates]

Explain to me again how it helps us to say that it is "fun" to shoot these guys. War is not "fun," it is sometimes necessary, and I was and still am for the war in Afghanistan, but to say that it is "fun" to shoot your enemy sounds idiotic and immoral. It's idiotic because this is a guy who is so high up in the ranks that he has the authority to speak for the Marines and there is nothing good that come out of a statement like that to the press and a whole lot of bad once the quote gets circulated around. Its immoral to celebrate the death of your enemy and you know it.


I don't think it was planned out. I think it was a natural enough response to people who dare you to come down to their level. It's humiliating, that's why he said it.

[Illuminatus]

So his statement is cold, crass, and insensitive - we're not relying on him to be a diplomat. His job is assert our country's will when diplomacy fails, efficiently destroy the enemy and win the fight.

This Marine general is also a brillaint tactician, able to motivate and inspire his marines, he's brave, honorable, honest to the core. He's got full my support.

I might add that obviously, the word "fun" might have been better chosen.
"Exciting", "thrilling", "satisfying" would have been better.

"Diplomatically speaking" - maybe a general shouldn't publically state that it's fun to kill someone, even if a Islamo-terorist scumball really deserves it.

But all that said, this is a molehill. It was clearly just a poor choice of words.

Remember what Zell Miller said about the soldier being the man who puts his life on the line, so weenie-liberals can have the freedom to tell him to be polite to the enemy.

[Mediocrates]

Zell Miller also said he wanted to duel Chris Matthews to the death.

I just think its good to take someone's fight to them. Someone shoots at you you come over to their house and kill them. End of 'uprising.' Someone screams about holy honor and and a thousand year dream of the caliphate, you laugh at him, call him a coward who hits women, then kill him, then kill all his friends and burn their houses to the ground.

We're not that good at nonconventional forms of warfare, having beat the living sh** out of nearly everone else in more conventional fights. This is what PM Barnett calls transitional states between war and peace. and I swear to god the only thing these people respect or understand is the kind of determination it takes to decapitate a grown man with your bare heands. And they are not doing that to horrify us. They are doing that to demonstrate they have the will do it. That is what it will take to squash them.

[minusthejihad]

Its immoral to celebrate the death of your enemy and you know it.

By whose standards?

There is some great footage out there of jihadees getting their 72 virgins and I personally love to watch it. It is very gratifying to see the people who would kill me in an instant simply for being who I am, get wacked. In fact, if there was footage of Yassin getting his head handed to him, it would be a bestseller. These are not humans, they are murderous wretches and they only deserve one thing - death. And if it can be telivised, that's even better.

Speaking of, have you seen the one about the Jihadee knealing in the street with an RPG get hit by some US tank fire? A most excellent video.

I have nothing but gratefulness to that general and that there are people out there like him, staright talking and honest, who put their a** on the line to protect me and you.

[KettleWhistle]

I might add that obviously, the word "fun" might have been better chosen.
"Exciting", "thrilling", "satisfying" would have been better.

"Satisfying" would definetely have been better, especially when put in this context:
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."


And I'd think all the feminists out there should be hailing this guy for saying that... oh, wait, I forgot they're liberals, so couldn't do something like that!

[SteveMetch]

But to say that Reagan caused the fall of the USSR isn't true either. It fell because it couldn't hold up. If you want to place a personal responsibility, then it would be on Brezhnev for the 20-year stagnation, during which USSR made no progress either socially or technologically, except in millitary arms development. Reagan's policies hurt USSR, but they didn't crush it. What really killed the beast, was the coup in 1991, and Reagan wasn't responsible for it either.

President Reagan inspired real American’s to the have the courage necessary to accelerate the collapse of the Evil Empire. President Carter along Europe and regular assortment of “Useful Idiots” and fellow travelers were all ready to just to throw in the towel. It is very possible that the USSR might have collapsed under its own weight eventually but the death toll associated with all they proxy wars of the cold war would have only grown. There are millions alive today thanks to the more rapid demise brought about by a more accelerated collapse of the USSR.

[wellofvow]

This guy is a General in the US marines. I can see Al Jazerra circulating this one around the Arab world:

Marine General's Blunt Comments Draw Fire
Some Audience Members Clap

SAN DIEGO -- At a panel discussion in San Diego Tuesday, a top Marine general tells an audience that, among other things, it is "fun to shoot some people."

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html

I did NOT look at the url, but have the following comment, if I may:

Interloper, you ask "What is this guy thinking?"

IMO, he is thinking "Intimidation", and I see absolutely nothing wrong with intimidating the enemy. Yes, "My daddy can beat up your Daddy" is childish, but it may be effective when dealing with a bully.
What is WRONG with people when they criticize a tough general for putting spirit in his own troops and intimidating the enemy? I want to shake people who gasp in horror and a general's "political incorrectness".

Pleasepleaseplease, STOP crippling yourselves!

And yes, this holds JUST as true for Israel!

[wellofvow]

Further to this general's political incorrectness:

Remind me please - where was the collective worldwide gasp of horror when the head of some "Palestinian" terror group stated clearly that every Israeli Jewish infant, from the moment of birth, was a legitimate target for Arab "freedomfighters", "struggling" to rid "their" country of "occupation"?

A 10 month old was shot in the head in her stroller. A child was dragged from under her bed and killed. A woman terrorist deliberately stood next to a 4-month old and blew herself up.

The Marine general advocated and praised NOTHING like this. He was like a coach before a game.

[Mira]

wellofvow,

I understand your point, but this general was speaking in front of the media and we have to understand that there is a balancing act that needs to be taken between "intimidating the enemy" with tough talk on one hand and alienating over a billion Muslims on the other. Speaking as a man of his rank, he needs to be as much a diplomatic strategist as a military one, otherwise don't put him in front of reporters. We are trying to promote our values in that part of the world. I think the chances of this kind of speech being used by the enemy as anti-American propaganda is greater than its utility for intimidating anyone.

[Mediocrates]

Why? The 'world' such as it is, or at least that portion of it rich enough to make it's voice heard to western radicals who bother to listen, equate the notion of "human rights" solely with their perception of the US's abrogation of them. Every single vogueish hotspot in the world is framed entirely as the US's fault, or the fault of nefarious 'imperialists', 'corporatists', 'globalists' or 'zionists'. I was just at the website for RESPECT the unity coalition http://www.respectcoalition.org/ and I came away with the sense unless and until there is some White Protestant American, or better yet, a white Jew to blame, there really aren't any world problems that exist let alone deserve attention.

I was reading this fish-wrapper in Salon from Gary Kamiya, who if you've read at all in his other books and columns is far less liberal and far more rightwing, patriot movement racist sympathizer than he openly lets on to: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/02/09/middle_east/index.html and I came away with the sense that the radicals in the name of the arabs for the most part really want an apocalypse. They frame their own arguments not in terms of practicalities or virtue or governance or even right or wrong, but in terms of good and evil, freedom versus slavery. And once you ascribe your own methods to absolute good then you are free to behead, kidnap, carbomb, shoot, blow up, rape, mutilate and dismember completely guilt-free.

The point is this: they really will not get it until you sink to their level. If a dog dies in Brazil; some Islamist ate it. If a school catches on fire - they probably did that too. You have to call them out as worthless cringing unmanly cowardly posers and freaks and when you're done beating them into the dirt you have to humiliate them so more, hopefully to the point of suicide (the real kind, where only one person dies). You have to crush their will to live, you have to utterly obliterate their crusade.

[wellofvow]

wellofvow,

I understand your point, but this general was speaking in front of the media and we have to understand that there is a balancing act that needs to be taken between "intimidating the enemy" with tough talk on one hand and alienating over a billion Muslims on the other. Speaking as a man of his rank, he needs to be as much a diplomatic strategist as a military one, otherwise don't put him in front of reporters. We are trying to promote our values in that part of the world. I think the chances of this kind of speech being used by the enemy as anti-American propaganda is greater than its utility for intimidating anyone.

Hi Interloper.

My problem is that I do not buy into either political correctness or newspeak that you write above. I left America for Israel as a Jewish liberal-idealist back in 1969. So, what you say above is as understandable in my lexicon as is Japanese.

Nowadays, American "liberals" may see some sense in your saying that "we have to understand that there is a balancing act that needs to be taken between "intimidating the enemy" with tough talk on one hand and alienating over a billion Muslims on the other."

I see NO sense in this. I do NOT "have to understand". I do NOT have your "needs". The Allies of WWII felt no need to understand the SS of the crematoria or the Japanese who slaughtered the Chinese. They were the enemy, this was all they "had to" understand.

As to the billions of Muslims that you are afraid of alienating: Well, they already hate your guts, they have a conscious program of having many, many children whom they brainwash from birth to hate you, the infidel, their ideal is intolerance, not tolerance. It is ludicrous IMO to have some kind of pipe dream that "we" have any chance at all of "promoting our values" among them. It just will not happen. If you are unwilling to at the very least allow a gutsy Marine "champion" to throw down a verbal gauntlet on your behalf, I hope that your affairs are in order.

[Mira]

Look, I don't know what will work and I don't believe that anybody really does. Sometimes there is no solution other than annihilating your enemy and your mention of the Japanese and SS are good examples of that. I would say the same strategy should be applied to Al Qaeda because there is no compromising with them. They therefore must be defeated at all costs in the most efficient manner we can stomach. Even though most people would agree that it was necessary to annihilate our enemies in WWII, I don't recall any American every saying that it was "fun to kill them." Also, I don't assume that the same strategy should be applied when it comes to dealing with every Muslim in the entire world. That is an insurmountable proposition and I don't agree with it. Don't try to degrade my point of view as some have attempted to do in this thread by labeling me a "liberal" or grouping me in with them by some loose association because I'm not a liberal or a humanist and I have a low tolerance for blanket generalizations and the type of jingoism that is used by intellectually lazy people in order to try and stifle reasonable deabte.

[minusthejihad]

Even though most people would agree that it was necessary to annihilate our enemies in WWII, I don't recall any American every saying that it was "fun to kill them."

Actually, anytime I watch veterans speak on the History Channel, especially pilots, this is the exact thing I hear them say, and I welcome it. Just why do you think they brag about how many "kills" or "shot-downs" they got? If you have to fight in a dirty war (which, thank god I don't have to), at least let the guys out there doing the dirty work find some enjoyment in it. A jihadee asks for death, and they shall receive it.

And the general, said "fun to kill some people" not "fun to kill people", and he was speaking about the scum of the earth, woman beaters, etc. Personally I think he is right and more people need to speak frankly like him.

[minusthejihad]

By the way, if you want to hear a politically correct balancing act meant not to offend anyone that gets people and countries nowhere, just watch an hour or proceedings at the UN. There's already an organization specifically designed to do produce what you would like to hear.

[Mediocrates]

There is a big debate in some Middle Eastern Islamic circles on a particular dilemna they have: whether it is better Qoranically, to kill Jews or convert them. Some openly call for the righteous extermination of all Jews while others call for a more moderate stance and prefer instead to convert us or, if we refuse that, kill us all.

So for 'fun' replace it with 'divinely ordered', God is an emphemeral punchline to a cosmic joke to some people anyhow....;)

[Mira]

There is a big debate in some Middle Eastern Islamic circles on a particular dilemna they have: whether it is better Qoranically, to kill Jews or convert them. Some openly call for the righteous extermination of all Jews while others call for a more moderate stance and prefer instead to convert us or, if we refuse that, kill us all.

So for 'fun' replace it with 'divinely ordered', God is an emphemeral punchline to a cosmic joke to some people anyhow....;)

I'm aware of the magnitude of the problem.

[AbedS]

The level of sheer and utter racism in this thread is horrific. I truly feel for you poor people. You claim to be proponents of Israel, and yet you advocate the same maltreatment of Muslims that your own breathren underwent in the first half of the 20th century,
I cannot express the depth of pity I feel for you. I can only hope that you find your G-D or Yahweh or whatever and realise that you are misguided and perverting your religion and beliefs.
Sheesh, what kind of ty Americans are there on this board? Israelis, I can understand, but Americans?

[Womble]

The level of sheer and utter racism in this thread is horrific. I truly feel for you poor people. You claim to be proponents of Israel, and yet you advocate the same maltreatment of Muslims that your own breathren underwent in the first half of the 20th century,
I cannot express the depth of pity I feel for you. I can only hope that you find your G-D or Yahweh or whatever and realise that you are misguided and perverting your religion and beliefs.
Sheesh, what kind of ty Americans are there on this board? Israelis, I can understand, but Americans?
Does it matter?

Yep, there's a lot of seriously misguided people here. I suppose anti-Islamic feelings are pretty high in the US these days- not without reasons, mind you, but also not without prejudice. Few people can be bothered to actually research the subject in depth and find out that Islam, or religion in general, is not in and of itself the cause of problems.

Oh and it's a bad idea to sppeal to people's religious feelings here. From my observations, most of the regulars on this board tend to be atheists.

[KettleWhistle]

Muslims are not a race.

And this is just plain hillarious:

Israelis, I can understand, but Americans?

[Illuminatus]

Who Me?

Honest, I have nothing against Islamo-terrorists who conduct Martyr Operations

why in fact....some of my best friends are Islamo-terrorists

- no really.....

Other than killing them all, I see no problems at all with them.

- no problems at all.....

[..Israelis, I can understand, but Americans? ..]

Come now, we Americans are easy to understand - don't tell me al-Qa'eda can't understand this?

" you Osama - me Daisy cutter " (http://www.g2mil.com/subatomicbombs.htm)

easy enough?

[Hayk]

Dear ALL

Sorry for offtopic ...
I'm writing here just 'coz I can't post new messages ... I'm a new registered user...

It's already 90 years of Armenian Genocide...
Turkey government still reject this fact ...

We've created a "Light a candle" guestbook where you, as nation who lost more than 7 million in Genocide, can light your candle and past your message to break the silence ...

Light your candle at candle.direct.am
and send this link to ALL your firends!

thanks and regards,

Hayk R. Asatryan

[AbedS]

Muslims are not a race.

And this is just plain hillarious:

You argue with semantics. How adorable. It's obvious that all you do is hate.

[AbedS]

Who Me?

Honest, I have nothing against Islamo-terrorists who conduct Martyr Operations

why in fact....some of my best friends are Islamo-terrorists

- no really.....

Other than killing them all, I see no problems at all with them.

- no problems at all.....

[..Israelis, I can understand, but Americans? ..]

Come now, we Americans are easy to understand - don't tell me al-Qa'eda can't understand this?

" you Osama - me Daisy cutter " (http://www.g2mil.com/subatomicbombs.htm)

easy enough?
Is it your point, then, that all of Islam subscribes to "Islamo-terrorism"?
Just like all Jews are Big nosed and Money Grubbing?
Or big Black men were bred that way and are dumber than most?
You just put a big smile on my face.
It's obvious that the Israeli occupation of 6 million Palestinians is a racist (note Illuminatus) occupation, akin to perhaps the Afrikaaners in South Africa, the Janjaweed, the Chinese in tibet, Americans with the native Americans, English with the Irish, etc...
You've definately made me see the light, thanks for enlightening me.

[Womble]

It's obvious that the Israeli occupation of 6 million Palestinians is a racist (note Illuminatus) occupation, akin to perhaps the Afrikaaners in South Africa, the Janjaweed, the Chinese in tibet, Americans with the native Americans, English with the Irish, etc...
You've definately made me see the light, thanks for enlightening me.
You're making no sense at all here.

Playing the race card in the context of the Arab-Israeli confict is a sure way to lose. What KettleWhistle said was not semantics: it is indeed not a race issue. The Muslims are not a race, they are a religion. Jews and Arabs are also not races, but ethnicities, and they even belong to the same (Semitic) race. The nature of the conflict is not racial, it is territorial, because there is a million Arabs who live in Israel, hold Israeli citizenship and suffer no persecution, and Israel's only problem is with those Arabs who are fighting to destroy Israel. The Israeli presence in the territories and the resulting Palestinian suffering is, in my view, most unfortunate, but it is a forced measure. The main reason why Israel does not pull out of the territories is because we do not feel that it is safe to do so.

[Mediocrates]

The level of sheer and utter racism in this thread is horrific. I truly feel for you poor people. You claim to be proponents of Israel, and yet you advocate the same maltreatment of Muslims that your own breathren underwent in the first half of the 20th century,
I cannot express the depth of pity I feel for you. I can only hope that you find your G-D or Yahweh or whatever and realise that you are misguided and perverting your religion and beliefs.
Sheesh, what kind of ty Americans are there on this board? Israelis, I can understand, but Americans?



Save your 'my friend' posing for someone else. thanks. The old canards that zionists are all closet nazis is so 15 minutes ago.

[AbedS]

Racism to me is an all encompassing term, the meaning of which encompasses every instance of one group of people thinking the other is inferior and sub human.
With regards to Israel subjugating and occupying th PA territories, is it your opinion that the ends justify the means? As with the case of torture, can the meathods truly vindicate the result? What you accomplish under duress is not genuine, it is simply a forced result that, once the application of pressure is removed, will only leave scars and long memories.
You want Israel to be safe and secure and actually at peace with it's neighbors? Then you dismantle the settlements on the land which the world agrees is Palestinian. You treat them as equals, and truly wand honestly work towards peace. With the help of the US, you try to offer the some kind of compensation for land that was taken or destroyed.
There will be no peace until both sides really and truly want it. I'm sorry, but I don't see the Israelis wanting it, nor do I see the Palestinians that eager for it either. And our mucking around in the Middle East and propping up despots and dictators doesn't help matters either.

[Womble]

Racism to me is an all encompassing term, the meaning of which encompasses every instance of one group of people thinking the other is inferior and sub human.
In this case, you have a terminology problem. Like I said in another thread, corrupt language tends to corrupt thought, so try to be more accurate with words.



With regards to Israel subjugating and occupying th PA territories, is it your opinion that the ends justify the means?
That depends on what ends and what means we are talking about. I do not deny morality entirely, but at the same time I do not subscribe to an absolutist moral view. When the choice is between being dead and being morally wrong, I'd rather be wrong.
That aside, I am not at all convinced that Israeli presence on the territories is in and of itself immoral.



As with the case of torture, can the meathods truly vindicate the result? What you accomplish under duress is not genuine, it is simply a forced result that, once the application of pressure is removed, will only leave scars and long memories.
I fail to see how this is a relevant comparison. Besides, I do not find torture wrong in some situations as well. If I was facing a choice of torturing a prisoner to get information vital to saving many people's lives, or letting these people die to keep my hands clean and my conscience clear- take a guess what I'd choose.



You want Israel to be safe and secure and actually at peace with it's neighbors? Then you dismantle the settlements on the land which the world agrees is Palestinian. You treat them as equals, and truly wand honestly work towards peace. With the help of the US, you try to offer the some kind of compensation for land that was taken or destroyed.
Suppose. But first you have to prove to me that if I do all that, I will be safe and secure. So far every Israeli peace offer was reacted upon by the increase of terrorist attacks- not exactly encouraging.



There will be no peace until both sides really and truly want it. I'm sorry, but I don't see the Israelis wanting it.
You might want to wash your eyes or something. For crying out loud, the largest extra-parliamentary movement here is Peace Now.

[defari]

With the help of the US, you try to offer the some kind of compensation for land that was taken or destroyed.


Where is the compensation for the 1 million Jews that were driven away from Arab countries? Where is the money for their land and houses??????????

The world agrees that those lands are Palestinians? Just to make sure, this world? This anti-Semitic world? Oh yeah, that world. Sure. This world is like so right. ;)

And if you also mean the UN, it does nothing but issuing tons of resolutions against Israel, while ignoring far bigger atrocities, systematic, killing, torture in SO MANY other places. The organization is anti-Semitic.

Annan should be hanged. This stupid african doesn't do anything for his African people. He watched Muslims slaughter Sudanese blacks, and at the same time excusing the Muslim terrorism around the world. Idiot.

[Womble]

Annan should be hanged. This stupid african doesn't do anything for his African people. He watched Muslims slaughter Sudanese blacks, and at the same time excusing the Muslim terrorism around the world. Idiot.
Cool it. You're not making yourself sound any more convincing by slinging insults around and suggesting that someone be hanged.

[Mediocrates]

I agree with him. Live by the law die by the law I say. Annan, Chris Patten and Terje Larsen are by any rational definition of the term, war criminals. And as such should be subject to the harshest punishment possible. Execution of warcriminals is actually permissible in many countries that purport to ban capital punishment for all other crimes. The fact that they work for a transnational or supranational body is merely a legal wrinkle.

[Mediocrates]

Does our new poster address the name of this thread?

[Womble]

I agree with him. Live by the law die by the law I say. Annan, Chris Patten and Terje Larsen are by any rational definition of the term, war criminals. And as such should be subject to the harshest punishment possible.
Even if they are what you say they are, they must stand trial rather than be hung.

[Mediocrates]

Oh sure sure we'll have a trial then we'll shoot them. Though I imagine there are laws against a last cigarette what with the second hand smoke and dangers to health and all.

[defari]

Cool it. You're not making yourself sound any more convincing by slinging insults around and suggesting that someone be hanged.


He's the leader of a big organization that affects the world. I do have the right to be upset when that organizations focuses on condemning one single country while his "peace-keeping" soldeirs rape women and open brothels around the world when they should protect the people. It's time he steps down. it doesn't matter how, he should be removed. I don't need to prove my "rigths" to get upset. I live in Sweden, but come from a country where the UN did nothing but watch people slaughter each other. The UN is making things work everywhere they are. It's corrupt and it's not working. It needs to be abolishes. There are so many bad things about the UN, and rest of the world, Annan should start looking for problems within. YES, I do have the right to be upset. The guy is stupid, blind, incompetent. And he's the secretary-general. Hmm, where do I sign up to become a president of some country. They are handing out top positions to just about anybody as it seems. Why not me then?

[KettleWhistle]

You argue with semantics. How adorable. It's obvious that all you do is hate.

Pardon me for taking an insult in your inferences, but I don't hate either Arabs or Muslims. And these are not semantics. If you accuse people here of racism, then do go to the distance of showing any specific racist postings.

Futhermore, if you look at the forum policy, located at http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=26#post26 you will find that one of the items there states the following:
Ethnic slurs and insults are not allowed.

Any racist content will clearly fall under that category, and you are welcome to report posts that contain anything of the sort.

[AbedS]

Defari, the compensation is the Billions of my country's dollars and military aid that are given to Israel on a regualr basis.
Please don't complain about that. the US has made trillions off the Arab nations through many shady and legitimate deals, so technically speaking, the Arab countries did compensate the displaced Israelis.
Now, where is the compensation for 3 million Palestinian natives who were effectively kicked out of Israel? thank you.
And Kettlewhistle, you're not the only one on this board. I ask you to spend some time just reading some posts and pretend that you're a Muslim (as displeasurable as that might be for you) and tell me what you think.
And now I'm going to bed, I have to be up in 6 hours, goodnight.

[Mediocrates]

Defari, the compensation is the Billions of my country's dollars and military aid that are given to Israel on a regualr basis.

About 2 billion in outright aid and 1 billion in loans. Compared, for example with 2.3 billion in outright aid to Egypt last year. Moreover US presence in other countries replaces expenses they would ordinarilly have to incur. For example the US military in South Korea represents about 8 billion dollars which is approx 50% of the total defense budget of the RoK. Similarly the 80000 personel in Germany represents several billions that Germany can avoid spending.



Please don't complain about that. the US has made trillions off the Arab nations through many shady and legitimate deals,

Such as what?


so technically speaking, the Arab countries did compensate the displaced Israelis.

Only if you're a paranoid loon that believes the Jews secretly run America.


Now, where is the compensation for 3 million Palestinian natives who were effectively kicked out of Israel? thank you.

Nonsense. Maybe 350-400,000 and that represents a bizarre figure that cannot be documented, by design. Moreover they left on their own at least in the majority of cases. That is a fact not an opinion. Next about 2/3rds of all Palestinians in the world live in Jordan, you can talk to them about why they can't have citizenship. Next, Pals are unique in world history in that they get to declare themselves 'refugees' for eternity whereever they live in the whole wide world. This is a fact - Palestinians are allowed to self designate 'refugee' unto the hundredth generation forever and ever. People who's grandparents were never in "Palestine" get to call themselves 'refugees'. It's complete nonsense and a lie cooked up by racists and murderers. Your 3 million figure isn't worth spit. It's garbage.

[KettleWhistle]

(as displeasurable as that might be for you)
Excuse me? Why would that be displeasurable for me? Because I am of Jewish descent?

[scattergood]

What if this thread was titled Is Islam anti-Jewish or Is <insert Muslim country name> anti-Jewish. Or more importantly Is Islam anti-American?

[Reffo]

Defari, the compensation is the Billions of my country's dollars and military aid that are given to Israel on a regualr basis.
Please don't complain about that. the US has made trillions off the Arab nations through many shady and legitimate deals, so technically speaking, the Arab countries did compensate the displaced Israelis.OK...but if you are going to use this kind of convoluted logic then let's take it a step further.....The Arabs forced Israel to spend billions of dollars to defend itself in unproductive wars and to fight Palestinian terrorism. So now it's back to square one !


Now, where is the compensation for 3 million Palestinian natives who were effectively kicked out of Israel? thank you.First of all, you inflated the figures, it was way less than 3 million people. Secondly, since I proved to you above that the Arab nations still owe compensation to Israel for the Jewish refugees that it absorbed from various Arab countries as well as the unnecessary wars that it was forced to fight and from terrorism, I suggest that as a quid pro quo, the Arabs take care of the Palestinian refugees who already live amongst them and who are their "brothers" (same ethnic group, same religion, same language). There were many such successful population exchanges elsewhere in the world (even in Europe).

[KettleWhistle]

First of all, you inflated the figures, it was way less than 3 million people.
The number of forcefully displaced was around 50,000. The total number that left on their own is about 750,000 to 770,000 people.

Secondly, since I proved to you above that the Arab nations still owe compensation to Israel for the Jewish refugees that it absorbed from various
Arab countries owe us nothing, and we owe them nothing. There is absolutely no historical or legal precedent for such compensation, and if we start to dig history about who displaced whom and put a monetary value on it, I think every nation would have a claim against somebody.

[gandolf2005]

Arab countries owe us nothing, and we owe them nothing. There is absolutely no historical or legal precedent for such compensation, and if we start to dig history about who displaced whom and put a monetary value on it, I think every nation would have a claim against somebody.

I wonder how the Arab countries would respond ? :rolleyes:

[gandolf2005]

, I suggest that as a quid pro quo, the Arabs take care of the Palestinian refugees who already live amongst them and who are their "brothers" (same ethnic group, same religion, same language).

While I agree with you, I really dont think that will happen,
at the first chance the arab world will dump all the palestinians
into the terrortories.

One thing is for sure most arabs have no real love for the palestianians except for when they attack israel.

[KettleWhistle]

I wonder how the Arab countries would respond ? :rolleyes:

Their responses are pretty well known. But they are simply one of the cards in their political games intended to hurt Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Compensation is an idiot idea whipped up by idiots. 9% of the population of Israel was killed or injured in its war of independence. The bill for that to the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq should be 500 billion dollars. Please staple that check to any other halfassed request you may have.

[Reffo]

While I agree with you, I really dont think that will happen, at the first chance the arab world will dump all the palestinians
into the terrortories.Just because we don't think it will happen, it does not mean we should not be yelping about it at every opportunity. After all, that's what they and their supporters are doing at every opportunity. They never stop yelping about what Israel has done wrong....what Israel is doing wrong.....and what Israel will be doing wrong....

[AbedS]

With regards to spoils from Arab lands.
SAMA in Saudi Arabia made America upwards of $400 billion, while BP and Texaco made a pile time and time again during Saddam's tyrannical rule. Didn't you know he was a CIA asset and we backed his coups? I know the mention of the CIA automatically makes everyone sound like a kook.
Unical made another few billion in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a veritable money pit.
Our Israeli contributions: Someone posted that grants and loans total 3$ billion. There are many documented government sources that belie the figure. The total figure in GOVERNMENT aid is about $134.133 billion, Much of which has never been repayed, regardless what may be said, and with billions more that are a bit more tenous to track because they come from private citizens. Indeed, it is the only instance where giving donations to a foreign government is tax-deductable. Furthermore, the Israeli Army and security apparat recieve priceless training, whether it is joint military excercises in the Negev or the sale of some of the most advanced weaponry such as F-15 air superiority fighters or Aegis radar. The most precious thing they recieve, however, free of charge, is the unwavering commitment by the US to back Israel no matter what the circumstances.

My point is that no matter how much you want to look like the underdog in this particualar arena, the facts prove otherwise. More money is spent through US foreign aid per capita on Israelis than is spent Americans. Where do you think that money comes from?

[AbedS]

Did anyone watch frontline last night, 4/5/05? I suggest you do.
While not indicative of every Israeli by far, I think it can show you something. Being jewish doesn't make you perfect. Once you see the fallibility of strict ideology and blind support, I think we can finally get somewhere.
I'm actually a fan of Israel, somewhat. it's trying to do the right thing, but it can be wrong occaisionally, and when it is, the consequences are dire, because it holds the lives of millions in their hands. If it wants moral superiority, then it should begin to adjust it's actions somewhat. It should reign in the settlers and the ultraorthodoxy, and it shouldn't use collective punishement against the Pals. If you want some sympathisers, you're going about it the wrong way.

[scattergood]

With regards to spoils from Arab lands.
SAMA in Saudi Arabia made America upwards of $400 billion, while BP and Texaco made a pile time and time again during Saddam's tyrannical rule. Didn't you know he was a CIA asset and we backed his coups? I know the mention of the CIA automatically makes everyone sound like a kook.
Unical made another few billion in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a veritable money pit.
Our Israeli contributions: Someone posted that grants and loans total 3$ billion. There are many documented government sources that belie the figure. The total figure in GOVERNMENT aid is about $134.133 billion, Much of which has never been repayed, regardless what may be said, and with billions more that are a bit more tenous to track because they come from private citizens. Indeed, it is the only instance where giving donations to a foreign government is tax-deductable. Furthermore, the Israeli Army and security apparat recieve priceless training, whether it is joint military excercises in the Negev or the sale of some of the most advanced weaponry such as F-15 air superiority fighters or Aegis radar. The most precious thing they recieve, however, free of charge, is the unwavering commitment by the US to back Israel no matter what the circumstances.

My point is that no matter how much you want to look like the underdog in this particualar arena, the facts prove otherwise. More money is spent through US foreign aid per capita on Israelis than is spent Americans. Where do you think that money comes from?

Ok, before I agree and call you a kook, please address the following:

1) You mention GOVERMENT aid and then go on to mention PRIVATE aid. Which is it? What number are you quoting and what number are you having prolems with?

2) What is your source for the following claim: "The total figure in GOVERNMENT aid is about $134.133 billion, Much of which has never been repayed, regardless what may be said..." (After which you mention private aid which makes no sense)

[Mediocrates]

The US grants about $2B/year in direct aid which is then spent in the US in American companies employing American workers. Saudi oil companies on the other hand are nationalized and virtually 100% of those profits go to the Saudi Royal family. There is another roughly 1B/year in civilian loans and loan guarantees or loan underwriting. Compare that with 2.3B/yr is direct military equipment and monies given to Egypt. Compare that with the 8B/year it takes to maintain the American presence in the RoK (South Korea) which, if the US wanted to, it could withdraw and that would be backfilled by the RoK for the same expense. Compare that with the cost of maintaining a carrier fleet between Taiwan and the PRC. A carrier fleet which has an asset value on its own of over 60B and is essentially used for no other purpose. Compare that with the expense of maintaining 80,000 troops in Germany, several billions per year, or the airbases in the UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey which serve to backfil their defense organizations.

[Mediocrates]

And if you are concerned that private citizens giving on their own, a concept that will clearly make your head explode, is unscrupulous foreign aid then I demand that you march down to Congress and demand that all Saudi funded mosques and schools be immediately stripped of their tax exempt status and slapped with a 30% tax on all income and assets.



When you rip and read from radical press websites be very very clear you are out of your depth.

[AbedS]

Ok, before I agree and call you a kook, please address the following:

1) You mention GOVERMENT aid and then go on to mention PRIVATE aid. Which is it? What number are you quoting and what number are you having prolems with?

2) What is your source for the following claim: "The total figure in GOVERNMENT aid is about $134.133 billion, Much of which has never been repayed, regardless what may be said..." (After which you mention private aid which makes no sense)

I am glad to answer those questions, thank you for asking them so politely, it shows that perhaps we may begin to have some kind of meaningful dialogue.

1) I am quoting government figures since 1949. These come in the form of grants and loans, HOWEVER, many loans have been forgiven, so when Israel says it has never defaulted on a loan to the US, it is technically not lying, because the loans become null. I have no problems with the numbers, I am merely illustrating the fact that Israel has recived more than enough Cash to reimburse it's citizens for their hardships endured while occupying lands inhabited by the Palestinians, a rebuttal to someone who complained about compensation for displaced and wronged Pals and where was the compensation to Israel?

2) I mention the 2 figures because they are pertinent, and reinforce the answer to topic 1. As I said before, Israel has recieved huge sums of aid from the US, through both public and private monies. The interesting thing about private funds, though, is that through some loopholes in laws createed specifically for Israel's benefit, donations to Israel can be tax- deductable, an anomoly which cannot be associated with any other country on Earth. My sources are easily available from any government agency, please feel free to look up my figures, and if you think I'm wrong and can prove it, by all means do so. I know my government lies sometimes, but beauracracy usually doesn'ty.

[Mediocrates]

Feel free to look up mine.

[scattergood]

I am glad to answer those questions, thank you for asking them so politely, it shows that perhaps we may begin to have some kind of meaningful dialogue.

1) I am quoting government figures since 1949. These come in the form of grants and loans, HOWEVER, many loans have been forgiven, so when Israel says it has never defaulted on a loan to the US, it is technically not lying, because the loans become null. I have no problems with the numbers, I am merely illustrating the fact that Israel has recived more than enough Cash to reimburse it's citizens for their hardships endured while occupying lands inhabited by the Palestinians, a rebuttal to someone who complained about compensation for displaced and wronged Pals and where was the compensation to Israel?

Well, I like keeping these discussions about the ideas not about the person. However you answers don't address my questions. I asked for sources and references, which you have not provided. You have said you quote 'government sources'. What sources are these? What publications? Who claimed these amounts? Are there web sources to confirm you claims?

And let me ask you, over what time frame is this $134B in aid?



2) I mention the 2 figures because they are pertinent, and reinforce the answer to topic 1. As I said before, Israel has recieved huge sums of aid from the US, through both public and private monies. The interesting thing about private funds, though, is that through some loopholes in laws createed specifically for Israel's benefit, donations to Israel can be tax- deductable, an anomoly which cannot be associated with any other country on Earth. My sources are easily available from any government agency, please feel free to look up my figures, and if you think I'm wrong and can prove it, by all means do so. I know my government lies sometimes, but beauracracy usually doesn'ty.

No, that's not how the game is played in most civilized places. You make an claim, I ask you for proof, and you say, you can find it so prove me wrong. If that is how things should work then I'll just say that Muslim countries have received Trillions in overpriced oil revenue through back deals to buy them off, you can see it in the revenue and GDP of each country, prove me wrong. It shouldn't work like that for me, so it shouldn't work like that for you.

If you make a claim, back it up with sources. It isn't my job or the job of a reader here to prove whatever you say as wrong. It is your job to prove it as you make any claim.

[MGB8]

AbedS did not provide either a source or a link for his figure. Conclusion: Pal Arab propaganda site, at best.

He also said "unwavering support" as the main benefit. Unwavering support for what, pray tell? FOR ISRAEL'S CONTINUED EXISTENCE.

Hence, the real problem AbedS has is that the US won't allow the Arabs to commit genocide on the Jews. That is what AbedS is, thinly disguised.

Bad US, bad! You should let the Arabs murder all the Jews (the lucky ones just get expelled, and that will be the minority).

All the rest of what he says is just more pretext. Its about destroying Israel for him, just like it is for Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the rest of them.

[MGB8]

One more thing about the bogus arguments above: an American can have a tax-deductible contribution for terrrorism, unwittingly (or knowlingly, as many of the Arabs in this great nation form a pro-terrorist, anti-American 5th column). Its charity laws, and for someone not to know this, they'd have to be pretty uninformed - that or they know and are just being dishonest.

[gandolf2005]

Just because we don't think it will happen, it does not mean we should not be yelping about it at every opportunity. After all, that's what they and their supporters are doing at every opportunity. They never stop yelping about what Israel has done wrong....what Israel is doing wrong.....and what Israel will be doing wrong....

yes but they Yelp much better then us and the world has no love loss for jews never mind just israelis.

Thats why I belive in overwhelming force to give them something to really cry about, all the way BACK to jorden and Eygpt...

Americans learned that in Fallujah
-------------------------------------------------------
" hey what happened to my signature? :confused:

[gandolf2005]

I'm actually a fan of Israel, somewhat. it's trying to do the right thing, but it can be wrong occaisionally, and when it is, the consequences are dire, because it holds the lives of millions in their hands. If it wants moral superiority, then it should begin to adjust it's actions somewhat. It should reign in the settlers and the ultraorthodoxy, and If you want some sympathisers, you're going about it the wrong wayit shouldn't use collective punishement against the Pals..



I'm actually a fan of Israel, somewhat.
Congratulations Im impressed, somewhat :D
Trying to do the right thing :D

If suicide bombers where crossing into USA
from Mexico to take back Texas the Israeli/Arab conflict would look like a small skirmish...thats a fact, and the world press with their hate for America would blame the passangers on the buses as the agressers and also demand for the US to pull out of Texas...


It should reign in the settlers and the ultraorthodoxy,
What are they responcible for? I thought there was a war to sort that out
you have to remind me who won again?
Dont forget, everyone was a settler sometime ...even you!

Who would have drove who into the sea?
Do you think there would be any jews in the middle east if Israel even lost 1 of the 5 wars??


If you want some sympathisers, you're going about it the wrong way .

dead jews get sympathey ...

live jews, hell we are just hated and scorned
because we are not as weak as those who wish to wipe us out this time around. Enough of the progroms and Holocausts.


it shouldn't use collective punishement against the Pals.

Why not? 70% + of the Palestinians supported suicide bombings at one time.
Make no mistake the palestinians are Israels enemy and I dont see that changing...

------------------------------------------------------

[Reffo]

yes but they Yelp much better then us and the world has no love loss for jews never mind just israelis.It's not so much that they are better, they just have more friends and we have more enemies. But I still don't think we should keep quite when we have something to say. At the least it makes some of us feel a bit better, it may cause our enemies some minor discomfort and "heaven forbid" it may even cause some neutral observers to see our point of view as well. Everything to gain, nothing to lose ;)

[Reffo]

While not indicative of every Israeli by far, I think it can show you something. Being jewish doesn't make you perfect.You are right. Ditto for Arabs.


Once you see the fallibility of strict ideology and blind support, I think we can finally get somewhere.Ditto for Arabs


I'm actually a fan of Israel, somewhat. it's trying to do the right thing, but it can be wrong occaisionally, and when it is, the consequences are dire, because it holds the lives of millions in their hands.You mean you cannot bear to see Israel wrong even occasionally ? Give me a break, surely they can be at least wrong occasionally, everyone is allowed at least some mistakes ! Even Israel's enemies are wrong at times aren't they ? Their mistakes have been also causing a lot of suffering to Israelis and I am pretty sure that those enemies are not even trying to do the right thing (at least not for Jews and Israelis).


If it wants moral superiority,Israel only wants security and peace so that they can get on with their lives and AbedS, I think that if you would be honest, you would admit that irrespective of whether Israel behaves morally or not, it's enemies (the Arabs and others) have and do accuse Israel of being immoral and villify Israel whatever it does or does not do.


...then it should begin to adjust it's actions somewhat. It should reign in the settlers and the ultraorthodoxy, and it shouldn't use collective punishement against the Pals. If you want some sympathisers, you're going about it the wrong way.Yes and it is doing at least some of what you suggest. But AbedS, you seem to be good at telling Israel what it should do..... Would you agree that the Arabs/Palestinians also have obligations ? I think you did mention some of these in your earlier posts but surely you must also admit that Israel's "do list" is conditional on the Arab/Palestinian's progress on their obligations ? In other words, progress on Israel's "do list" is difficult until the Arabs/Palestinians really give up on the idea that their violence and terrorism will solve anything. Another important Arab/Palestinian dream and ultraorthodoxy that must be given up is the mythology that ONLY THEY have had the right to have independent countries in the Middle East and the Jews are only usurpers. Yes, that idea must also be given up demonstrably, by a change of curriculum in Palestinian schools and mosques. Don't you think ?

[AbedS]

Wow, reffo, great post. Thanks for the reply.
Unfortunately, I cannot respond point by point, by I will talk to the general idea of your responses.
Of course, there are obligations that have to be met by the Arabs. No one doubts that one bit. And you would be surprised by how many Arabs actually don't want to destroy Israel. I assure you it's a higher number than you think.
With regards to Israel's infallibility, I think it goes without saying that no one is perfect. I don't expect them to be beyond mistakes and severe error in judgement. Just look at what we did here in the States 3 years ago attacking Iraq.
The problem is that there are consequences to action taken by Israelis. Their policies of collective punishment have achieved what? Jenin was demolished within 72 hours, and regardless of what the media in the US says, I know secondhand that it was a massacre. People and homes were bulldozed alike. But the real question is what did it accomplish?
I'm not harping on the issue, but I'm attempting to illustrate that when one follows a cause blindly, he becomes just that, blind.
Absolutely true that the Palestinians have obligations to reign in their militants, and hateful propaganda. They MUST completely stop and punish their extremists and introduce acceptance into the mainstream culture. But if you look anywhere in the world, you find that the downtrodden and destitute are the most extreme. Don't you think that a shift in Israel's policies would make a difference?
If you have any other more constructive Ideas besides wiping out every single Palestinian, by all means, let me know. If this discussion was posted elsewhere, I just don't know it because I'm a relatively new member.

[AbedS]

yes but they Yelp much better then us and the world has no love loss for jews never mind just israelis.

Thats why I belive in overwhelming force to give them something to really cry about, all the way BACK to jorden and Eygpt...

Americans learned that in Fallujah
-------------------------------------------------------
" hey what happened to my signature? :confused:

You dishonor your namesake.

[AbedS]

My Internet was down yesterday, I spent half an hour on my reply and I couldn't post because of flooded servers.
Here is the abridged version, in reply to more posts since then on the same topic.
Here are my sources for total US gov. aid to israel since WWII.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2001/0101015.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

After a convoluted search on the Us State Dep's website, I found the sources there as well, confirming the data in the other sources cited.
I took the figure cited in the first 2 sources because I found stronger evidence of backing them in my research.
And the whole point is totally moot. Any fool who would argue that Israel has not recieved Billions of US dollars in assistance should not bother posting, since obviously you have no clue. This whole tangent was started on the idea of compensation for the Jews for their hardships, because Palestinians want reimbursement for being displaced and losing property, posessions, and residence.
It must be great to be some of you. You get your news from safe sources which reinforce your political and Ideological views. You don't have to think critically about yourselves. I do. I am aware of the utter destitution of intellect and decency in many Arab and Muslim minds. Frankly I am disgusted with my ethnicity sometimes. The Muslim world was once on the cutting edge of science and technology. It was once very tolerant and embracing of others. It has sunk to a depth that invokes despair at the thought of rebuilding, but I think things have finally started a bit. The key is to remove the super-tension that exists because of Israel's problems with the Palestinians. You rip the rug out from under the extremists, and their arguments fall flat, their words ring hollow. However, right now they have all the fodder they can ask for.

[AbedS]

The US grants about $2B/year in direct aid which is then spent in the US in American companies employing American workers. Saudi oil companies on the other hand are nationalized and virtually 100% of those profits go to the Saudi Royal family. There is another roughly 1B/year in civilian loans and loan guarantees or loan underwriting. Compare that with 2.3B/yr is direct military equipment and monies given to Egypt. Compare that with the 8B/year it takes to maintain the American presence in the RoK (South Korea) which, if the US wanted to, it could withdraw and that would be backfilled by the RoK for the same expense. Compare that with the cost of maintaining a carrier fleet between Taiwan and the PRC. A carrier fleet which has an asset value on its own of over 60B and is essentially used for no other purpose. Compare that with the expense of maintaining 80,000 troops in Germany, several billions per year, or the airbases in the UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey which serve to backfil their defense organizations.

Ok, so we have bases everywhere. And the point is?
Egypt recieved that money because it made peace with israel, at least officially. What do the Saudi's have to do with anything? They don't have millions of Jewish refugees under their control. They're a screwed up bunch, but it's their oil. That proves nothing.
Military deployements are the bread and butter for many powerfully rich and influential people. They exists partially because they make a few extremely rich. The carrier fleet in the Taiwan strait could easily not be there, the PRC knows well what we could do if we chose to, but instead of an instantaneous response, it would be delayed by a few days. Besides, what can a carrier fleet do against such a huge army if they chose to invade? On top of that, the PRC's amphibious assault force is severely lacking.
Ultimately, foreign military bases serve a few purposes, all of them self serving. They project US dominance, which in turn helps us economically, and that is really the whole point of it, isn't it? Global Empire, but instead of being in direct control, the leaders in those countries rule by proxy. Washington cracks the whip.
While military deployements make ALOT of money for different companies, what does giving money to Israel do for anyone? It's not like Israel keeps the Arab countries at bay. All it has done for the most part is defend itself. So what do those dollars achieve?

[Mediocrates]

wow, what a random assortment of not staying on the point. too bad. to the bit bucket with ya. I'll leave you with a big fat pile of

eviljeweviljeweviljewsecretzionistconspiracytocont roltheworld

to keep you warm at night. ta ta

[AbedS]

Yes and it is doing at least some of what you suggest. But AbedS, you seem to be good at telling Israel what it should do..... Would you agree that the Arabs/Palestinians also have obligations ? I think you did mention some of these in your earlier posts but surely you must also admit that Israel's "do list" is conditional on the Arab/Palestinian's progress on their obligations ? In other words, progress on Israel's "do list" is difficult until the Arabs/Palestinians really give up on the idea that their violence and terrorism will solve anything. Another important Arab/Palestinian dream and ultraorthodoxy that must be given up is the mythology that ONLY THEY have had the right to have independent countries in the Middle East and the Jews are only usurpers. Yes, that idea must also be given up demonstrably, by a change of curriculum in Palestinian schools and mosques. Don't you think ?
Reffo, I must disagree with you on a couple of points. It goes without saying that both sides have many obligations, and that both must be mutual in fulfilling them. I am the first to agree with you on that. But to make Israel's actions conditional on the actions of the Palestinians is a dead end, because when you think about it, how can you expect someone to give anything when they have nothing. 70% unemployment doesn't promote understanding, it promotes desperation. Demolition of homes and restricted travel only serves to further an ideology based on hatred, revenge, and vengeance. I wonder how the situation would be different if unemployment was at 5% in the Palestinian territories and the streets didn't look like a wretched hell?
Maybe instead of moving to mirror what the Palestinians do, Israel and the US should really step up and show the Pals that they are really serious and concerned about the average man on the street in the West Bank and Gaza. We spent Hundreds of Billions in Iraq, even a few Billion spent to upgrade the Pals lives would go a very long way towards diffusing the hatred and desperation experienced in those areas.
Good luck to you, I will not be back until next week, I'm going to vegas, baby! I look forward to your response.

[gandolf2005]

You dishonor your namesake.


How ?:confused:


I'm going to vegas,

Why not stay home, keep us company and send your money to the poor Palestinians :confused:

[MGB8]

With link support, we see the number is about 91 Billion over 55 years, of which 13 billion was in loans.

Then we have an article by Thomas Stauffer which says 1.6 TRILLION. How? by calculating all sorts of intangibles and also putting everything into 2001 dollars.

But who is Thomas Stauffer? A Arab-Muslim apologist and long time oil industry "consultant." Granted, he has significant government, NGO and university experience. His recent 2003 article, in Al-Jazeera from the Daily Star, argues that Iran couldn't make the bomb.

Here's an article on the Stauffer Article on the US's support of Israel:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5103

In the end, it remains the same. Anyone who suggests that the US should "end support" for Israel wants the outcome of that lack of support. And what, pray tell, do they think that outcome will be for "the little satan?"

[MGB8]

Funny thing about unemployment and the cleanliness of the street (not to mention law and order.) Before the first Intifadah, the Pal Arabs were among the best off Arabs in the middle east. Before the 2nd Intifadah things had actually in some ways gotten better, economically, but there was a significant decline in law and order (PA) and much more corruption. Hmmm...

Maybe it isn't a neo-marxist issue, and has something to do with Pan-Arabism and Islamic-Jihadism????

[Mediocrates]

It's very Rad-Chic. Burn your own house down and then throw rocks at the government for the current poor state of housing.

[Reffo]

If you have any other more constructive Ideas besides wiping out every single Palestinian, by all means, let me know. If this discussion was posted elsewhere, I just don't know it because I'm a relatively new member.You may want to read this post from another thread (perhaps also some of the posts before and after). Click Here

[Mediocrates]

The Palestinians have a very simple message - it's all your fault, occupation occupation occupation occupation.....etc. Yoy really don't need to pursue any 'argument' such as it is, beyond that point. Fine tuning your own message is also a waste of time. Rational people could, other things being equal roughly agree on the outlines of a solution - that's not the problem. This is politics, this is marketing that appeals to the emotions, viscerally. A simple simple message that bangs home your point 3 million times.

[Mira]

It's very Rad-Chic. Burn your own house down and then throw rocks at the government for the current poor state of housing.

Actually, the Arabs did something very close. Remember when the UAE donated some 40 million to rebuild housing in Jenin and the construction crew was fired upon? First they said that the apartments, which were designed in the international bauhaus style, were too small and then people actually argued that they were too nice! They were worried that having nice homes would jeopardize their refugee status.

[allah akbaar]

Actually, the Arabs did something very close. Remember when the UAE donated some 40 million to rebuild housing in Jenin and the construction crew was fired upon? First they said that the apartments, which were designed in the international bauhaus style, were too small and then people actually argued that they were too nice! They were worried that having nice homes would jeopardize their refugee status.

And do u think that Israel will allow that the pal can live in nice apartments .. i dont think so ..they will destroy it and every thing ..why ..to make the pal live in refugees in thier country.

[Mediocrates]

Crackpot - it's a matter of public record. This is what the Pals did. The UN built a city block of new large apartments for them; partially or fully furnished and the Pals threw out the builders and insisted that the units be torn down because they weren't to their liking. Nor were the units anywere near any terrorist or miltary activityl. Please get a clue.

[MGB8]

Israel is also leaving the houses in Gaza and the settelements in Samaria intact.

But, Allah Akhbar announced that Jews just showed up in 1948 and took Arabs' land (no purchases, no state land, no issues of sovereignty, no matter that there wasn't an Arab state there or even quasi-state, nor had one ever existed....) and all Jews should just go back to Europe (doesn't matter than about half of Israeli Jews come from ARAB/MUSLIM nations), so...

someone has been brainwashed with the Arab narrative, and needs to do a lot of research as to what actually happened and the competing claims and complexities. Or not.

[Static]

And do u think that Israel will allow that the pal can live in nice apartments .. i dont think so ..they will destroy it and every thing ..why ..to make the pal live in refugees in thier country.

I know a family of Arabs within Israel that lives in a very nice apartment in a community of Jews. They have been welcomed with open arms by the commity, by Arabs and Jews alike.

[Static]

Israel is also leaving the houses in Gaza and the settelements in Samaria intact.

But, Allah Akhbar announced that Jews just showed up in 1948 and took Arabs' land (no purchases, no state land, no issues of sovereignty, no matter that there wasn't an Arab state there or even quasi-state, nor had one ever existed....) and all Jews should just go back to Europe (doesn't matter than about half of Israeli Jews come from ARAB/MUSLIM nations), so...

someone has been brainwashed with the Arab narrative, and needs to do a lot of research as to what actually happened and the competing claims and complexities. Or not.

Why did Palestine need to be an officially recognized country for the Palestinians, the indigenous Arabs, to have rights?

Double standards really piss me off.

[MGB8]

If you have read any of my posts, you will see that I'm not a big believer in "rights," in general, as they are used. Or "no right" for that matter.

Nevertheless, without a state, the Arabs can't claim that the Jews have "no right" to a state on land that they either purchased or were granted.

No double standard. Just a plain issue of fact. The Jews had no entitlements, except those they could get from the sovereign (or the closest thing to a sovereign, since there wasn't one, and that was Great Britain, the LON, and then the UN.)

Rights are man-made abstracts, Static. They are to a large extent meaningless in of themselves, they only matter in terms of their enforcement - "Rights" are actually LIMITATIONS on the exercise of free will of others. So what is a "right" in terms of a person to a government? It is an agreement by the goverment to NOT DO certain things, even though it has the power to do so. The "right" to free speech is the Government agreeing NOT TO PUNISH some speech! In terms of nations, a national "right" is based on the sovereign, or the closest thing to it - the power in control of the area.

How can the Pal Arabs claim a "right" to sovereignty? Based on what? They can argue that its moral or good or logical for them to have sovereignty, but that is different to a "right."

An indigenous person also doesn't necessarily have any rights (and there is a question as to that, how long do you have to be there to be "indigenous" - are Americans now "indigenous" to the US? The Arabs, after all, are themselves INVADERS...the "canaanites" were the original indigenous, followed by the JEWS... when do you draw the imaginary line?)

I live in the US. All my rights are tied to the US government. If another government came along, it could kick me out. I wouldn't like it, it would be unfair, I would say it would be immoral, especially if they took my purchased property without compensation... but I wouldn't have any "rights."

People talk about rights as if they are G-d given truths, not man made abstracts. That is a big mistake.

[Static]

I agree with you, "rights," especially "legal rights" are nothing more than mad-made abstracts. Your points are all dead-on, and honestly, I do agree for the most part.

My point is that the Palestinians have as much "rights" as the Jews to occupy the land, especially seeing as they are the indigenous populace. The two should simply coexist, and that's that. To tell you the truth, I don't think any particular people shold have "rights" to a land. We are all people, and the earth is dominated by our species. One should be entitled to live anywhere they wish, and the very concept of "rights" to live on a certain piece of land irks me, to tell you the truth.

You seemed to be insinuating that because the indigenous Arabs technically didn't have a state, they shouldn't have "rights," which is why I brought this point up. If I misinterpreted you, then I apologize.

[Mediocrates]

Why did Palestine need to be an officially recognized country for the Palestinians, the indigenous Arabs, to have rights?




Why? Simple. It's a political convenience when a patch of ground that your country gives up in war is filled with people your country doesn't want back. You need to call yourselves something.

[Static]

Why? Simple. It's a political convenience when a patch of ground that your country gives up in war is filled with people your country doesn't want back. You need to call yourselves something.

Well, as I mentioned above, that's a ridiculous sentiment.

[MGB8]

The Argument about "rights" as such is besides the point.

Your notions about "sharing the land" are very nice and idealistic, but, frankly, naive. It doesn't work that way. People want a place of their own. Jews especially, given history, want one.

So what happened. Jews purchased some land. The closest thing to a sovereign on the land gave them some more, and gave them SOVEREIGNTY over land both Jewish and non-Jewish - which is fine, why should Muslims object to being under another religions sovereignty when they are represented (democracy) and for all intents and purposes legally equal? Then a group started a war against them and Israel acquired more land.

The Arabs also took sovereignty over large chunks of land, 99.9% of the middle east, to be exact. They DIDN'T give their minorities equal rights, and in fact dispossesed them.

So, does Israel have the right to exist? Sure, as much as any other nation. If Palestine had been created in 1948, would it have a right to exist? Just as much as Israel.

Outside of that, we do need property rights, and, frankly, pretending that there are no ethnic/racial/religious/national divisions, "we are all human..." its, silly, sort of kiddy utopian star trek sort of thing. If men were angels we wouldn't need governments or any of the above. But men aren't angels.

[MGB8]

Palestinians right now don't have as much right as Jews to occupy Israel. Lets be clear. Right is derived from the sovereign. Israel is the sovereign. Only Israeli citizens have such rights.

As for the WB, it HAS NO sovereign, that's the key. Israel is the closest thing, but has rejected sovereignty. No one has any "right" to it, so, if no one has a "right", then everyone is equal, Arab or Jew or anyone else. That's not quite accurate, either, as there are rules to get in which govern the "rights" of people to move to the WB, which are dictated by the closest thing to a sovereign, Israel.

Its just not a "rights" issue. Its a consequences issue. What is the consequences to everyone, Jew and Arab, of a Pal Arab state? What about Transfer? What about something in between? What about a "1-state solution?"

The Pal Arabs ARE NOT going to get a state because they have the "right" to one. They are going to get one, or not, based on the forseeable consequences of them getting one, or not.

You misunderstood my point completely. The Pal Arabs DID NOT have any rights. They WERE NOT entitled to self rule or a state. NEITHER WERE THE JEWS. The only basis for either getting anything was the SOVEREIGN - ie. THe Brits, the LON, the UN. That's it.

If the Pal Arabs HAD A STATE, they would have had more of a claim of "rights" because they would have been the sovereign. It also weakens the Arab CLAIMS that they DESERVED exclusive sovereignty over the area. Why?

And, again, you didn't deal with the issue of what makes one an "indigenous" population? How many hundreds of years have to pass, with you living there? What about other immigrants? The "indigenous" argument is assuming something is true which you haven't defined.

[MGB8]

For example, Static, do the Basque have a "right" to a state? Or do the French and Spanish have the "right" to deny them a state? Why?

[Static]

No, I realize my views are highly idealistic, and were I arguing that they are a sort of system that could be universally adopted, you would be absolutely correct in labeling them "naive."

But I'm not. I realize that, sadly, this is a very utopian concept, something that mankind can perhaps strive toward, but never achieve as you'll never get even a majority on board for such an endeavor. And ma-made abstracts such as property rights and law are something all societies have evolved into requiring for them to function, and be competitive with one another.

I just think the whole thing is silly, honestly. The whole freaking Israeli/Palestinian conflict is absurd. We are all human. I realize that most of the conflict is based on politics, and arguably, irrational hatred. Label me "naive" if you wish, but I would find it hard for anyone to argue that being fully cognizant of this would not aid humanity.

[Static]

Its just not a "rights" issue. Its a consequences issue. What is the consequences to everyone, Jew and Arab, of a Pal Arab state? What about Transfer? What about something in between? What about a "1-state solution?"

A one-state solution is all that should be needed. All of this segregation is absolutely silly, honestly. I completely disagree with the Palestinians that having Jewish settlements in the WB or Gaza are obstructions in an eventual Palestinian state. Why can Jews not live there as Arabs live in Israel as citizens with full rights?

Honestly, that very question has caused much cognitive dissonance within me as there is no rational reason other than sheer racism.


The Pal Arabs ARE NOT going to get a state because they have the "right" to one. They are going to get one, or not, based on the forseeable consequences of them getting one, or not.

Agreed.


You misunderstood my point completely. The Pal Arabs DID NOT have any rights. They WERE NOT entitled to self rule or a state. NEITHER WERE THE JEWS. The only basis for either getting anything was the SOVEREIGN - ie. THe Brits, the LON, the UN. That's it.

No, I fully realize that.


And, again, you didn't deal with the issue of what makes one an "indigenous" population? How many hundreds of years have to pass, with you living there? What about other immigrants? The "indigenous" argument is assuming something is true which you haven't defined.

An interesting question, one that cannot be conclusively answered. The term "indeginous" denotes the original peoples of said land, but we cannot go back to the beginning of time and find all peoples whom originally occupied a certain territory. And even if we could, who's to argue that having been indeginous to a certain area gives you sole "rights" to live there?

I guess with the introduction of the concept of owning land or property came with this man-made abstract dictating that certain peoples have "the right" to live on certain pieces of land. Personally, I think the whole concept is rather ludicrous, and again, you may call me naive if you wish, but it's the truth. Palestinians and Jews are both of the same species. When you walk down the streets in Israel, you cannot distinguish one from the other (other than possibly by dress), and even if you could, I would argue the same thing.

[Reffo]

A one-state solution is all that should be needed. All of this segregation is absolutely silly, honestly. I completely disagree with the Palestinians that having Jewish settlements in the WB or Gaza are obstructions in an eventual Palestinian state. Why can Jews not live there as Arabs live in Israel as citizens with full rights?

Honestly, that very question has caused much cognitive dissonance within me as there is no rational reason other than sheer racism.The idea of a one state solution sounds great in theory but it's not a practical proposition. Just look at what happened at other parts of the world where different ethnic groups, with mutual historical enmity, attempted to form a single state confederation. Examples are Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan and even Cheslovakia (although at least the Slovak and Chech separation was fortunately peaceful and civilised).

Modern Israel was created because Jews came to the realisation that unless they have one place on this earth where they form the majority, they will always be subject to suspicion, envy, hate, persecution and murder. I think that most reasonable people would admit that based on their history, such a realisation was/is not unjustified. Sure, it would be great if people could ignore differences, respect each other and live together peacefully ever after. Unfortunately, reality is not like that at least not in our time. Eventually, humanity may become mature enough to evolve into this direction and maybe there will be just one world government for the benefit of everyone. However, I for one am not going to "hold my breath" to see it happen soon, nor do I want the Jews to be the pioneers (Guinea Pigs) to introduce this laudible but IMO overly idialistic concept.

[AbedS]

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. On the whole, I think the idea of nations and international antagonism is stupid.
Our system of interaction is based on one group of people taking advantage of another.
If every religion reverted to their core beliefs, I think the world would be much better off, but everything is a perverted offshoot of the original idealistic doctrines.
If you look at ethnicity and religion from a pragmatic viewpoint, it becomes immediately clear that certain social beliefs came about as a way of helping a group of people cope with a hardship, or the strong ideas of a few influential and charismatic men.
The whole situation is sickening. I see nothing but a spiraling miasma of death and hatred that will drag the whole world down unless it's stopped. People really need to lighten up.
I'm a muslim, of Arab heritage, and throughout my life I have befriended many Jews. In fact, I have thought of some as brothers. Extremists hijack everything, though. So my question is this.
If the nuts and hard-liners get their way, then why can't idealistic people like you and I get ours? The squeeky wheel gets tghe oil, I guess we just don't make enough noise, or else their isn't enough money to be made in idealism. Whether it be Kahane or Khomeini, the ones that advocate death and an "us vs. them" mentality are the ones that rule the day.
That was a rant. sorry.

[Static]

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. On the whole, I think the idea of nations and international antagonism is stupid.
Our system of interaction is based on one group of people taking advantage of another.
If every religion reverted to their core beliefs, I think the world would be much better off, but everything is a perverted offshoot of the original idealistic doctrines.
If you look at ethnicity and religion from a pragmatic viewpoint, it becomes immediately clear that certain social beliefs came about as a way of helping a group of people cope with a hardship, or the strong ideas of a few influential and charismatic men.
The whole situation is sickening. I see nothing but a spiraling miasma of death and hatred that will drag the whole world down unless it's stopped. People really need to lighten up.
I'm a muslim, of Arab heritage, and throughout my life I have befriended many Jews. In fact, I have thought of some as brothers. Extremists hijack everything, though. So my question is this.
If the nuts and hard-liners get their way, then why can't idealistic people like you and I get ours? The squeeky wheel gets tghe oil, I guess we just don't make enough noise, or else their isn't enough money to be made in idealism. Whether it be Kahane or Khomeini, the ones that advocate death and an "us vs. them" mentality are the ones that rule the day.
That was a rant. sorry.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Everyone should be entitled to believe what they want to believe as long as they don't harm others. My point was that it's not Muslims, or even Islam, that's the problem. There are millions of Muslims in the world, how sad that scum like Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi are the Muslims that have gotten universal attention. They have indeed hijacked the religion.


The idea of a one state solution sounds great in theory but it's not a practical proposition. Just look at what happened at other parts of the world where different ethnic groups, with mutual historical enmity, attempted to form a single state confederation. Examples are Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan and even Cheslovakia (although at least the Slovak and Chech separation was fortunately peaceful and civilised).

Modern Israel was created because Jews came to the realisation that unless they have one place on this earth where they form the majority, they will always be subject to suspicion, envy, hate, persecution and murder. I think that most reasonable people would admit that based on their history, such a realisation was/is not unjustified. Sure, it would be great if people could ignore differences, respect each other and live together peacefully ever after. Unfortunately, reality is not like that at least not in our time. Eventually, humanity may become mature enough to evolve into this direction and maybe there will be just one world government for the benefit of everyone. However, I for one am not going to "hold my breath" to see it happen soon, nor do I want the Jews to be the pioneers (Guinea Pigs) to introduce this laudible but IMO overly idialistic concept.

It's unfortunate, but true. It's an ideal that we can attempt to come as close to as possible, but will never achieve. Humanity will always have its factions that are violently opposed, and willing to act on their opposition.

I don't oppose a Jewish state at all, although I don't know if I fully back your assertion that they would have continued to have been scapegoated if they hadn't gotten one. I don't know if that's h0ow things would have worked, honestly, but I'll tell yo this much: Jews most definitely deserve to have a state of their own. I really do believe that.

[Reffo]

......... although I don't know if I fully back your assertion that they would have continued to have been scapegoated if they hadn't gotten one. I don't know if that's h0ow things would have worked, honestly, but I'll tell yo this much: Jews most definitely deserve to have a state of their own. I really do believe that.Fair comment and on reflection, neither do I. However, you must admit that the on and off (more frequently 'on') persecution of Jews in many parts of the world, for 2000 years, seems to have established a definite pattern that confirms what I said in my previous post. Nevertheless, you are right to say that none of us can predict the future, it's just that in 1948 the Jews have decided that they have waited for long enough and it was time for them to take the matter of their own security into their own hands.

[Reffo]

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. On the whole, I think the idea of nations and international antagonism is stupid.
Our system of interaction is based on one group of people taking advantage of another.
If every religion reverted to their core beliefs, I think the world would be much better off, but everything is a perverted offshoot of the original idealistic doctrines.
If you look at ethnicity and religion from a pragmatic viewpoint, it becomes immediately clear that certain social beliefs came about as a way of helping a group of people cope with a hardship, or the strong ideas of a few influential and charismatic men.
The whole situation is sickening. I see nothing but a spiraling miasma of death and hatred that will drag the whole world down unless it's stopped. People really need to lighten up.
I'm a muslim, of Arab heritage, and throughout my life I have befriended many Jews. In fact, I have thought of some as brothers. Extremists hijack everything, though. So my question is this.
If the nuts and hard-liners get their way, then why can't idealistic people like you and I get ours? The squeeky wheel gets tghe oil, I guess we just don't make enough noise, or else their isn't enough money to be made in idealism. Whether it be Kahane or Khomeini, the ones that advocate death and an "us vs. them" mentality are the ones that rule the day.
That was a rant. sorry.Hi AbedS, how was your Vegas trip ? I must admit that I would also like to see the more ideal world that you and Static wish for. Unfortunately though it does not seem to be easy to get there and in the meanwhile, minorities and small nations like Israel have to behave sometimes in less than ideal ways to ensure their own survival. By the way, you asked me earlier to point you to some other threads on this forum which discuss some possible ways and means to improve the ME relations. I did reply to your request, see my post 102 (on this thread) which provides you a link to the other thread, did you see it yet ? I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

[ChristaPaloma]

Originally Posted by AbedS
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. On the whole, I think the idea of nations and international antagonism is stupid.
Our system of interaction is based on one group of people taking advantage of another.
If every religion reverted to their core beliefs, I think the world would be much better off, but everything is a perverted offshoot of the original idealistic doctrines.
If you look at ethnicity and religion from a pragmatic viewpoint, it becomes immediately clear that certain social beliefs came about as a way of helping a group of people cope with a hardship, or the strong ideas of a few influential and charismatic men.
The whole situation is sickening. I see nothing but a spiraling miasma of death and hatred that will drag the whole world down unless it's stopped. People really need to lighten up.
I'm a muslim, of Arab heritage, and throughout my life I have befriended many Jews. In fact, I have thought of some as brothers. Extremists hijack everything, though. So my question is this.
If the nuts and hard-liners get their way, then why can't idealistic people like you and I get ours? The squeeky wheel gets tghe oil, I guess we just don't make enough noise, or else their isn't enough money to be made in idealism. Whether it be Kahane or Khomeini, the ones that advocate death and an "us vs. them" mentality are the ones that rule the day.
That was a rant. sorry.

No need to apologize Abed...it was a good rant. :D

[Static]

Fair comment and on reflection, neither do I. However, you must admit that the on and off (more frequently 'on') persecution of Jews in many parts of the world, for 2000 years, seems to have established a definite pattern that confirms what I said in my previous post. Nevertheless, you are right to say that none of us can predict the future, it's just that in 1948 the Jews have decided that they have waited for long enough and it was time for them to take the matter of their own security into their own hands.

I fully agree with you that the Jews are entitled to their own country, and that it would be best for their own security. I'm just not sure I fully agree that they needed a country given their history of persecution. And I definitely question whether or not the land that is Israel was the best choice for them.

But either way, I definitely concur that a country of their own was in order.

[Womble]

I fully agree with you that the Jews are entitled to their own country, and that it would be best for their own security. I'm just not sure I fully agree that they needed a country given their history of persecution.
You mean you don't believe in the right of each nation for self-determination and self-rule? Or was the Holocaust not convincing enough an example that no nation was willing to go too far to protect those who couldn't protect themselves?



And I definitely question whether or not the land that is Israel was the best choice for them.
The ONLY choice, in fact. Jewish statehood could only be legitimate on the land to which the Jewish nation has historical ties.

[Mediocrates]

The Arabs got 75% of the Mandate - threatened to go to war, got 87% of the Mandate, actually went to war to get the remaining 13%, lost and have been complaining ever since. Life is hard, get a (Bike) helmet.

[Mediocrates]

Maybe if the Palestinians in Egypt had been able to integrate themselves into Egyptian society then the Egyptoians wouldn't have been so eager to toss them all out with Gaza. Maybe if the most radical and violent elements of Jordanian society could have intregrated themselves into the monarchy instead of trying to topple it then Jordan wouldn't have been happy to toss out the West Bank with everyone in it. The Pals don't deserve a state any more than anyone else deserves it. They'll probably get one though because as we see - murder and mayhem work. On the other hand Israel is a country right now and trying to rhetorically uninvent it is trash cooked up by racists and morons.

[Mediocrates]

You gott a love this!

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3072106,00.html


World Bank to buy settler homes?

Israel could sell all 8,000 settler houses in Gaza to the World Bank after a planned Gaza pullout to avoid looting by Palestinians, but only if plan is coordinated
By Attila Somfalvi

WASHINGTON - Israel may sell settler homes in the Gaza Strip to the World Bank after it pulls out this summer, but only if the Palestinian Authority agrees to coordinate the disengagement with Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said on Wednesday in Washington.

Sharon made his comments after meeting U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who is slated to become the chief of the World Bank (http:///&quot;http://www.worldbank.org/&quot;') .

Sharon, who visited U.S. President George W. Bush at his Texas ranch (http:///&quot;/articles/0,7340,L-3070975,00.html/&quot;') on Monday, said selling the private houses of the 8,000 Gaza settlers to the World Bank could help avoid their looting by Palestinians after Israel’s pullout from all 21 settlements, set to start in July.

But the prime minister has said the pullout will be unilateral unless Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas dismantles terrorist groups, as required by the U.S.-backed “road map” peace plan.

"I've known him for many years and there is no doubt he represents a departure from Yasser Arafat's strategy of terror," a senior Israel official quoted Sharon as saying.

"But he must take additional steps to dismantle terrorist organizations and stop incitement or we can't move forward from the pre-road map stage," Sharon said.

Sharon said he and Wolfowitz would continue discussing the possible sale ahead of the withdrawal.

The World Bank has said economic recovery in Gaza would be plausible only if the Israeli army eases restrictions in the territory and if the Palestinian Authority carries out security and government reforms and acts to stop attacks against Israelis.

The group, which donates about USD 1 billion, or USD 350 per person, in aid to the Palestinian Authority every year, said nearly half of all 1.3 million Palestinians in Gaza live under the poverty line.

U.S. pleased with proposal

Following pressure by the United States, the prime minister said last week that Israel would not demolish settler homes in all 21 settlements in Gaza after the pullout, while synagogues and Jewish graves would be moved into Israel.

The U.S. State Department, who has urged Israel to coordinate its disengagement plan with Abbas, said the pullout was a “very important opportunity” for the Palestinians.

“We were pleased to hear the prime minister yesterday say that he did want to coordinate,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters on Tuesday. “And the President said that he hoped the Palestinians accept the proposal to coordinate the withdrawal.”

[Reffo]

I fully agree with you that the Jews are entitled to their own country, and that it would be best for their own security. I'm just not sure I fully agree that they needed a country given their history of persecution. And I definitely question whether or not the land that is Israel was the best choice for them.

But either way, I definitely concur that a country of their own was in order.I am not sure that I understand your nuance. Are you saying that you agree that the Jews are entitled to their own country in order to guarantee their security. However, on the other hand you question whether their history of being persecuted is the justification for this ? If you are saying that then I am not sure whether you are being consistent but nevertheless, I would agree with you that their history of persecution is not the MAIN justification for a country of their own although it's an important element of it. The main justification is that all people are entitled to have self determination if they seek it and in the case of the Jews they had and have a historical entitlement to the land of Israel and that land only. This does not mean that any native Arab Palestinians had no entitlements, it means that they both had entitlements. Unfortunately though, due to the intransigence of their misguided leaders, the Palestinians ended up losing out ..... but Medio described this process (above) more eloquently than me.

[Static]

I am not sure that I understand your nuance. Are you saying that you agree that the Jews are entitled to their own country in order to guarantee their security. However, on the other hand you question whether their history of being persecuted is the justification for this ? If you are saying that then I am not sure whether you are being consistent but nevertheless, I would agree with you that their history of persecution is not the MAIN justification for a country of their own although it's an important element of it. The main justification is that all people are entitled to have self determination if they seek it and in the case of the Jews they had and have a historical entitlement to the land of Israel and that land only. This does not mean that any native Arab Palestinians had no entitlements, it means that they both had entitlements. Unfortunately though, due to the intransigence of their misguided leaders, the Palestinians ended up losing out ..... but Medio described this process (above) more eloquently than me.

That is exactly what I'm saying. Their history of persecution is not the main reason they should have a country, although it is certainly one. I don't believe any people are "entitled" to a certain piece of land, and the Arabs that had been living on Palestine are just as "entitled" to it as the Jews, but that besides the point.

Either way, I think the actions on the part of many of the Arabs is completely ridiculous; why does it matter so much that a land mass smaller than many states in the US is no longer under their control? It doesn't.

[Reffo]

Static, I think we tend to be in an overall agreement although our perspectives may be somewhat different on the details. I am happy to leave it at that.

[MGB8]

I don't like the term "entitlement" either. It smacks of right, as in "I'm right, you are wrong." I prefer the term "claim." Jews had many basis for claims on Israel. So did others. Jews may have had more, I would argue.

But the only basis for "rights" would be "rights" vis-a-vis the soveriegns and individuals they PURCHASED land from (ie. if you sell, you are bound by your agreement to sell, and if you are a sovereign and have allowed a sale or bequeethed, to a large extent you are bound by it, I would argue that uncompensated takings are in fact in violation of "rights", but that is far from certain), OR, vis-a-vis organizations like the LON or the UN. Ie. Jews, by accepting the partition, had a "right" to that nation. Arabs, by rejecting it, WAIVED their right to a "Palestine", and, by starting a war and the Jordanian and Egyptian "occupations" that followed, also waved that right, as did the PLO pre '67 (I think '64) in renouncing Pal Arab claims to the WB and Gaza.

Also, Jews had even greater "rights" under the LON, vis-a-vis the Balfour declaration, although that too is arguable.

But these are the extent of the "rights" we are talking about. I think Pal Arabs could certainly make a claim of right on PROPERTY that they lost in the 48 war, in terms not of getting the property back (noone has the "right" to get land back that was taken by eminent domain) but to get monetary compensation, to the degree that the land was worth at the time, and also, to the degree that the land loser was an innocent party (did not war against Israel), as if they did act against the state, you can lose your property as war compensation.

[Mediocrates]

'Rights' is just shorthand for those things you will never agree to negotiate on. If the Pals are saying they won't negotiate then I tend to take them at their word. They are of course free to sit in squalorous anarchy as a result.

[Static]

Static, I think we tend to be in an overall agreement although our perspectives may be somewhat different on the details. I am happy to leave it at that.

No, rereading through my original post, I can see how anyone would have been confused by what I meant as it was unintentionally ambiguous. I apologize for that, but thank you for asking me to clarify.

[AbedS]

Vegas was a blast. I went for my bacheolor party. I love that town.

I'm just curious, since we're discussing rights. Does might make rights? Since entitlements and rights are null and void at this point, what makes a position legitimate? For example, the right to the land where Israel now sits was owned at some point by many different groups of people. What if the vatican came along and said "that's our land, we owned it once, and we want it back, God walked there"? Or if Italy said "Hey, we owned that land for hundreds of years, we want that and egypt back too"?
I don't agree with the notion that the land is entitled to the Jews because it was once a historic homeland. I do agree that it should be theirs because they fought for it and earned it. How else do you get anything in this world? By getting it for yourself. There is no ultimate authority that you can complain to. there is no world court to make a decision in someone's favor that has any legal legitimacy.
I do believe, though, that when you claim land which is inhabited by an indigineous population, you have an obligation to secure their rights and humanity. I think ultimately, that should be Israel's position. Fine, you get the land, no more disputes, but take care of the people that are living there and treat them with dignity and humanity.
Unfortunately, in all of my research, I have never seen a concrete instance of Israel reaching out to the indiginous populations with wholehearted acceptance and general good will.
Nip the problem in the bud, and take away popular support and reasoning for a rebellion, and you solve your problem.

[MGB8]

The vatican actually does have a claim to the land. So do the Turks, the Egyptians, the Greeks, etc. etc. You evaluate claims based on utilitarian and moral principles, among other things. To an extent "rights," though, ARE dependent on might. In that all that a "right" is is a promise by someone with "might" not to take an action it could otherwise take. Ie. when a sovereign grants land, or when it says "you have free speech."

In terms of utilitarian principles, the argument, which is now moot given that its about 60 years after the fact, was that Jews needed a home state given the Holocaust and historical persecution, that jews had purchased land in the area and now had a large presence there, that they had historical and religious ties to the area, and that the Arabs were not very much prejudiced give that they got, what, 83% of the Palestine Mandate, and 99.9% of the mideast (compared with say, the Kurds or Copts, etc.)

But the "rights" of the people to have a state there certainly were by "might" - the might of the UN, following hte might of British and the LON, who followed the might of the ottomans, etc. etc. etc.

[MGB8]

As for Israeli actions vis-a-vis the Arab locals - the Druze are fine, the Bedoins... and most Arab Israelis don't want to leave. Outside of that, you do have ethnic strife to consider (you know, all those wars and pre-war battles) not to mention that Israelis simply wanted a "we leave you alone, you leave us alone" policy with Arab villages, etc, that were in Israel and the WB.

And Jews DID get the "right" to have Israel, from the might of the sovereigns - the British/LON/then UN and then some more land from defending against attack (cost of war).

Like I said "Rights" flow from "might."

[Mediocrates]

There is no such thing as indigenous rights in the way its presented here. What is presented here is an unqualified unwinding of the clock back to some completely arbitrary point in the past. Those are not rights, those are the assertions of whatever privileges you think you can get. And anyone who thinks that their abstract notion of rights trumps law or reality is fooling themself. It's just that simple. Where do people get these silly ideas that rights are like Platonic constants that float over their heads like divine objects? Where is this country governed by and only by these celestial orbs? Where? In Gulliver's travels that's where. What knotheaded nonsense it is to think that rights exist apart from the circumstances that gave rise to them.

Rights are what is non-negotiable, sometimes. Until they're not, then you haggle over them. American's have a right to free speech, sometimes, and against unreasonable search and seizure, sometimes and against cruel and unusual punishment, sometimes and all men were created equal except of course for all the blacks, women and indians. And blacks had a right to seperate but equal under Plessy v Ferguson - at least until there was no right at all and they overturned it in Brown v. Board of Education Topeka Kansas. I have a right not to be attached with a Bill of Attainder (look it up). And 18 year olds didn't have the right to vote until we gave it to them. And Jews have a right to own property, hold office and vote in the state of North Carolina, at least since 1872 and we all enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness whatever the hell that is......

What insipid nonsense I hear here when I hear people go on about rights. A right is an AGREEMENT between the government and the individual about where the limits of government power lie. A right is an AGREEMENT between one government or branch of government and another about what the guiding PRINCIPAL of LAW is and which one is preeminent. A right is a TREATY between nations that restricts and regulates the interraction between them in some way that is advantageous to both parties. A right is not some squishy yet absolute thing cut lose from human interpretation and not beholden to human civil action or belief. My dear God have any of you ever sat in a civics class? Get a clue.

[AbedS]

There is no such thing as indigenous rights in the way its presented here. What is presented here is an unqualified unwinding of the clock back to some completely arbitrary point in the past. Those are not rights, those are the assertions of whatever privileges you think you can get. And anyone who thinks that their abstract notion of rights trumps law or reality is fooling themself. It's just that simple. Where do people get these silly ideas that rights are like Platonic constants that float over their heads like divine objects? Where is this country governed by and only by these celestial orbs? Where? In Gulliver's travels that's where. What knotheaded nonsense it is to think that rights exist apart from the circumstances that gave rise to them.

Rights are what is non-negotiable, sometimes. Until they're not, then you haggle over them. American's have a right to free speech, sometimes, and against unreasonable search and seizure, sometimes and against cruel and unusual punishment, sometimes and all men were created equal except of course for all the blacks, women and indians. And blacks had a right to seperate but equal under Plessy v Ferguson - at least until there was no right at all and they overturned it in Brown v. Board of Education Topeka Kansas. I have a right not to be attached with a Bill of Attainder (look it up). And 18 year olds didn't have the right to vote until we gave it to them. And Jews have a right to own property, hold office and vote in the state of North Carolina, at least since 1872 and we all enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness whatever the hell that is......

What insipid nonsense I hear here when I hear people go on about rights. A right is an AGREEMENT between the government and the individual about where the limits of government power lie. A right is an AGREEMENT between one government or branch of government and another about what the guiding PRINCIPAL of LAW is and which one is preeminent. A right is a TREATY between nations that restricts and regulates the interraction between them in some way that is advantageous to both parties. A right is not some squishy yet absolute thing cut lose from human interpretation and not beholden to human civil action or belief. My dear God have any of you ever sat in a civics class? Get a clue.

Mediocrates, you are going to have a coronary. Why don't you do a google search on Richard Burgess Phone Call and listen to any audio clip you can find. Maybe you'll get some self-realization out of it, at the very least it's a good laugh.

[Reffo]

No, rereading through my original post, I can see how anyone would have been confused by what I meant as it was unintentionally ambiguous. I apologize for that, but thank you for asking me to clarify.No need to apologize, but I must admit that I find your "No" in the front of your current sentence ambigous. Does it mean "No, we are not in overall agreement " ? Or does it mean "No, we do agree but I can see why you (as in me Reffo) were confused" ? ;) I do think it's the latter meaning though, am I right ?

[Static]

No need to apologize, but I must admit that I find your "No" in the front of your current sentence ambigous. Does it mean "No, we are not in overall agreement " ? Or does it mean "No, we do agree but I can see why you (as in me Reffo) were confused" ? ;) I do think it's the latter meaning though, am I right ?

You are correct Sir! :p

[Reffo]

I'm just curious, since we're discussing rights. Does might make rights? Since entitlements and rights are null and void at this point, what makes a position legitimate? For example, the right to the land where Israel now sits was owned at some point by many different groups of people. What if the vatican came along and said "that's our land, we owned it once, and we want it back, God walked there"? Or if Italy said "Hey, we owned that land for hundreds of years, we want that and egypt back too"?
I don't agree with the notion that the land is entitled to the Jews because it was once a historic homeland. I do agree that it should be theirs because they fought for it and earned it. How else do you get anything in this world? By getting it for yourself. There is no ultimate authority that you can complain to. there is no world court to make a decision in someone's favor that has any legal legitimacy.
As I mentioned on my previous posts, I for one believe that the Arab Palestinians too had the right to a state of their own, as did the Jews. This was reflected by the 1947 UN resolution which partitioned the British mandate between the Jews and the Arabs. The origin of the problem is that the Arabs did not accept this even though the Jews did. Now, AbedS I am not sure whether you are justifying that Arab rejection on the basis that the Jews had no right to turn up in the late 1800s and demand their ancestral home land back from the "peaceful" native Arab population. I have to say that if that's what you are saying then you are ignoring the fact that Palestine was populated by BOTH Jews and Arabs for centuries, NOT JUST BY ARABS. In fact, some small Jewish communities lived there for 2000 years. You are also ignoring the fact that it was not only the Jewish population was inflated by migrants from Europe in the late 1800s and the early 20th Century, the Arab population was also being inflated by Arab migrants from surrounding countries. Last but not least, the sovereign powers at that time (the Ottoman Turks in the late 1800 and later the British) did not object to these migrations. So overall, given this history, I for the life of me cannot see how people give credence to the myth that the Jews were usurpers and that only the "native Arabs" had the right to all of Palestine (on top of the whole of the rest of the Middle East and North Africa). What about the rights of the native Jews ?


I do believe, though, that when you claim land which is inhabited by an indigineous population, you have an obligation to secure their rights and humanity. I think ultimately, that should be Israel's position. Fine, you get the land, no more disputes, but take care of the people that are living there and treat them with dignity and humanity.
Unfortunately, in all of my research, I have never seen a concrete instance of Israel reaching out to the indiginous populations with wholehearted acceptance and general good will.
Nip the problem in the bud, and take away popular support and reasoning for a rebellion, and you solve your problemI do agree that any government should govern responsibly and justly on behalf of all the inhabitants irrespective of ethnic origin or status. Having said that, Israel did and does do exactly that with respect to it's one million Arabs who live in Israel proper. These Arabs are full citizens with full rights, some of them even serve in the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament). The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza on the other hand have a different status. They are not (nor can they be) Israeli citizens because they are under occupation. In other words, everyone recognises the fact that ultimately, after a proper peace settlement, they will be citizens of another country. Israel has found it very hard to reach out to these people because of their hostile actions and hatred. I am not saying that individual Israelis may not to some extent contributed to this hatred, they may have. However, on the whole, the overall responsibility for this hatred rests squarely with the Palestinian leadership and their elites. They have never stopped the incitement against Israel and the Jews as well as the preaching of hatred. I suppose their rationale has always been that time is on their side and that eventually they will get rid of Israel, with the help of other Arab states, as they got rid of the crusaders. Given this state of mind, it has been very difficult for Israel to reach out. Every time they tried in the past, the rate of terrorism increased. Let's hope that it will be different this time.

[Static]

I concur with the both of you. They both have inherent "rights" to the land.

The only issue I raise is that Arabs have MANY countries in the Middle East which they can go to. Many. Whereas the Jews have none. This is a decisive factor for me, because in my opinion, they should just allow the Jews to have Israel. I mean, the land mass is incredibly small, as well as very insignificant in terms of size and resources...

But the underlying issue for the Jews is that they believe the land was ordained to them by God, and one of the holiest sites in Islam lies in Israel for the Palestinians'.

Bah. *scowls*

[Reffo]

But the underlying issue for the Jews is that they believe the land was ordained to them by God, and one of the holiest sites in Islam lies in Israel for the Palestinians'.Many Jews still believe this but not all. Many, nowdays are not religious but even these Jews have a sentimental attachment to the Jewish holy sites, not necessarily for religious reasons but rather for historical reasons as well as sentimental reasons derived from traditions.

[Mediocrates]

No, it's about incrementalism. Next week they'll decide that Tel Aviv is the 7th holiest site in Islam.

[AbedS]

No, it's about incrementalism. Next week they'll decide that Tel Aviv is the 7th holiest site in Islam.
Good God, you have issues. I can assure you that your worries are baseless. The only thing some arabs want with Tel Aviv is to watch it burn to the ground, so I think you're safe.

[AbedS]

Reffo, I can completely understand your position, and it's true that while much of the responsibility for the ill feelings rests with the Palestinians, let us not forget that neither side is innocent, since that quality can only be attributed to infants, and I'm sure you agree that Israel is not run by babies.
The fact of the matter is that while pals have been inciteful, not all of their complaints and greivances are unjustified. Think of the immigrant Jew whose been in Israel for 5 months, barely speaking Hebrew telling a lifelong native of the land whose hebrew is flawless whether he can come and go. Think of collective punishement which has been going on for much longer than's being reported in the news. I met an Israeli who served in the Army in the 70's, and after a night of a drunk political discussion, he started telling me about how they would bulldoze whole orchards in the occupied lands because of the suspicion of terrorist activity in the area. We can go on and on, and fall into this perpetual cycle of blaming each side for minor and major greivances, and more eye for an eye stuff. I'd rather just try to wipe the slate clean and do whatever's necessary to start fixing the relationship. What kind of future can we have if we don't?

[Static]

Good God, you have issues. I can assure you that your worries are baseless. The only thing some arabs want with Tel Aviv is to watch it burn to the ground, so I think you're safe.

LOL

[Reffo]

Reffo, I can completely understand your position, and it's true that while much of the responsibility for the ill feelings rests with the Palestinians, let us not forget that neither side is innocent, since that quality can only be attributed to infants, and I'm sure you agree that Israel is not run by babies.
The fact of the matter is that while pals have been inciteful, not all of their complaints and greivances are unjustified. Think of the immigrant Jew whose been in Israel for 5 months, barely speaking Hebrew telling a lifelong native of the land whose hebrew is flawless whether he can come and go. Think of collective punishement which has been going on for much longer than's being reported in the news. I met an Israeli who served in the Army in the 70's, and after a night of a drunk political discussion, he started telling me about how they would bulldoze whole orchards in the occupied lands because of the suspicion of terrorist activity in the area. We can go on and on, and fall into this perpetual cycle of blaming each side for minor and major greivances, and more eye for an eye stuff. I'd rather just try to wipe the slate clean and do whatever's necessary to start fixing the relationship. What kind of future can we have if we don't?AbedS, I have already acknowledged this, see below:


I am not saying that individual Israelis may not to some extent contributed to this hatred, they may have. It is also probably true, in hindsight, that the Israeli government itself made some mistakes. However, I cannot overemphasise the fact that the primary responsibility for the ME mess rests with the Pal elite and their leadership. Look, even the ordinary Pal folk cannot be totally absolved because they accepted their leaders directions uncritically. Nevertheless, on the whole, one has to be a bit more lenient with ordinary people because ultimately they were victims even though they were victims of their own history, culture, leaders, other Arab countries and it's doubtful that they were masters of their own destinies, at least in the past. However, I am no longer sure that they have this excuse in this modern age of communication. after all, they too have access to alternate points of view and it's high time that the forces of moderation within Palestinian society should take matters into their own hands. One is not asking for too much, I would just for once like to see mass demonstrations on the Palestinian side in favour of "Peace Now". I would hope that such demonstrations would clearly condemn the culture of war, violence and hate that is still prevalent in their society, even if they also condemn Israeli transgressions at the same time. After all, this has happened many times on the Israeli side and they directed their full attention towards what Israel had to do, I don't recall them preaching to the Palestinians when they demonstrated for "Peace Now".

[Static]

However, I am no longer sure that they have this excuse in this modern age of communication. after all, they too have access to alternate points of view and it's high time that the forces of moderation within Palestinian society should take matters into their own hands.

One of my all-time favorite quotes (I have a whole word document full of 'em, so that's saying a lot!) -

"If we'd been born where they were born and taught what they were taught, we would believe what they believe."

While I fully concur with you on the last part of your statement - it IS imperative that they take matters into their own hands, I feel you're forgetting to retain sight of the fact that one's social circle completely dictates how they interpret the world...

[Reffo]

Static, I agree with you but nevertheless, "the ball just has to get rolling sometimes". What I mean is that now is the time for some leadership from within the Palestinian ranks. They just have to start treading this path somehow. Otherwise, I am afraid the bad old patterns of the past will just continue. After all, irrespctive of how "powerful the Israelis" are, they cannot be the only ones who compromise and "self flaggelate", they are victims too and they too have their extremists who make things difficult. I am afraid that If a robust and visible Pal peace camp does not arise, their Israeli counterparts will not be successful either.

[Static]

Static, I agree with you but nevertheless, "the ball just has to get rolling sometimes". What I mean is that now is the time for some leadership from within the Palestinian ranks. They just have to start treading this path somehow. Otherwise, I am afraid the bad old patterns of the past will just continue. After all, irrespctive of how "powerful the Israelis" are, they cannot be the only ones who compromise and "self flaggelate", they are victims too and they too have their extremists who make things difficult. I am afraid that If a robust and visible Pal peace camp does not arise, their Israeli counterparts will not be successful either.

Yes, I do agree with you there.

[KettleWhistle]

But the underlying issue for the Jews is that they believe the land was ordained to them by God

This couldn't be further from the truth. It wasn't the motive for the largely-atheist early Zionists, and most do not believe that now either. Jews came back to Israel because it is our native land. We are the indigenous inhabitants of it. It got nothing to do with God. And there is no more of a historical awkwardness in Jews living in the Land of Israel than there is in Germans living in Germany, or in Irish living in Ireland, or in Japanese living in Japan.

Regarding the rights to the land, 96% of the UN partition was owned by the Jews at the time. The rest was the state land. Nobody was relocated or expelled because of the partition and the subsequent establishment of Israel.

[pelsar]

But all of the above is really besides the point here. I don't believe that we should be the world's policeman. Add to that, the fact (yes, FACT) that most of us are pretty ill-informed about the situations in most places in the world, and our media is very one-sided in presenting various conflicts where our government wishes to engage. If you need an example, just look at the whole Kosovo story. How much does an average American know about the Serbian side of the story, or about the political affairs that led to the NATO actions there? So do you really think that we ought to police the world or try to shove our way of life down the throats of people who don't want it? I would say no to that.

The US has a obligation to promote human rights, democracy etc thoughout the world. Granted the UN should be doing that, but given that its now a haven for every petty dictator, the US has to step in. Dictators, theocratic regimes, have no right to exist, there is no such thing as "moral equivalency. The Taliban, the Saudi govt, the iraninan govt etc...all threaten western style democracys in various ways and as such should be on "the list". That list should provide relentless pressure be it political, economic or military on regimes which have stolen their countries from their own people. But thats actually a "secondary reason" (a feel good I'm a humanist reason), the real reason is that they threaten the existance and values of western style democracies, either directly or indirectly.

Somebody has to be the leader, no culture/society/community can exist without a leadership, and that includes the world as well.

[Gilgamesh]

Yaffe Me'odd. Well said and well put!

[Sumud]

This couldn't be further from the truth. It wasn't the motive for the largely-atheist early Zionists, and most do not believe that now either. Jews came back to Israel because it is our native land. We are the indigenous inhabitants of it. It got nothing to do with God. And there is no more of a historical awkwardness in Jews living in the Land of Israel than there is in Germans living in Germany, or in Irish living in Ireland, or in Japanese living in Japan.


And when some Americans return to England 2000 years into the future they'll be able to claim it as their native land?

[Sumud]

Static, I agree with you but nevertheless, "the ball just has to get rolling sometimes". What I mean is that now is the time for some leadership from within the Palestinian ranks. They just have to start treading this path somehow. Otherwise, I am afraid the bad old patterns of the past will just continue. After all, irrespctive of how "powerful the Israelis" are, they cannot be the only ones who compromise and "self flaggelate", they are victims too and they too have their extremists who make things difficult. I am afraid that If a robust and visible Pal peace camp does not arise, their Israeli counterparts will not be successful either.

I always find this logic curious.

The basic situation is one of Israeli boots on Palestinian necks and somehow, if the Palestinains were just more peaceful, the Israelis will be able to make peace.

It's a lovely fairytale, but I'm too old for fairytales.

[Womble]

And when some Americans return to England 2000 years into the future they'll be able to claim it as their native land?
They could, if:

1)They were driven out of Britain by force
2)They had no other Anglo-Saxon state to live in
3)They had a nationalist movement that viewed Britain as their one and only native land.

[Sumud]

I'd love to be around in 2000 years and watch you tell the English why they should give up their land to these Americans. :D

If you just want to argue from a point of view of need, eg. as refugees, then I've no problem, but when you start telling them it's the newcomers "native land" I'm sure people would roll about laughing.

Can I claim part of Africa as my 'native land', afterall, we all came from there once :rolleyes:

[Womble]

I'd love to be around in 2000 years and watch you tell the English why they should give up their land to these Americans. :D
I won't have to. The Americans do not consider themselves British and have their own state. They have relinquished their claim for Britain- and fought a pretty damn big war for their right to do so.



If you just want to argue from a point of view of need, eg. as refugees, then I've no problem, but when you start telling them it's the newcomers "native land" I'm sure people would roll about laughing.
Well, there's always a few people who feel the constant need to roll about laughing. Since we're talking about Britain, over there they put some people into "funny farms".
I am arguing from the point of view of an exiled nation returning to the place from which it was exiled. Think Reconquista.



Can I claim part of Africa as my 'native land', afterall, we all came from there once :rolleyes:
YOUR native land? Are you a one man nation now? :p

[Sumud]

Why not, anything goes! I belong to the nation of man, and we all came from there. :D

So all those recent Russian immigrants to Israel, they're part of the 'nation' (Israeli Goct estimates were that maybe a third were actually Jewish) of Israel?

But really, why not, afterall the latest addition to Israel is, apparantly, going to be a small tribe from northern India. One of the lost 10 tribes. :rolleyes:

[Womble]

Why not, anything goes! I belong to the nation of man, and we all came from there. :D
Well then, there's plenty of human states in Africa, you're welcome to join either.



So all those recent Russian immigrants to Israel, they're part of the 'nation' (Israeli Goct estimates were that maybe a third were actually Jewish) of Israel?
Yep. And "a third" is a false figure to boot. But just like your wife is a member of your family, people married to Jews can, if they so desire, become a part of the Jewish nation.



But really, why not, afterall the latest addition to Israel is, apparantly, going to be a small tribe from northern India. One of the lost 10 tribes. :rolleyes:
Not necesserily one of the lost tribes, but a Jewish community that has spent a few too many centuries isolated from the rest of the nation. Their claim for Jewish heritage was investigated by scientists, by the way, it's not like Israel brings in every single person who makes a claim (some people here could tell you what pains one at times has to go through to prove that they qualify).

I've actually had an Indian Jewish roommate several years ago, and he considered himself Jewish rather than Indian. He told me about his community back in India, their traditions and how they differ from the Indian ones. Was quite fascinating.

[MGB8]

Sumud has led you into a blatantly false analogy. First, Jews remained in Israel. Second, England is a nation state, whereas there weren't any nation states in the Palestine Mandate. Third, there is no ethnicity/tribe called Americans, so there is no ethnic/tribal issue.

If the Palestinian Arabs had actually had a state in the mandate, then they, as the soveriegns, could have said "no" under there power as sovereign - because the sovereign controls the land. THEY DID NOT.

The analogy is a lie, and sumud is a liar. Nothing new here.

[Womble]

Sumud has led you into a blatantly false analogy. First, Jews remained in Israel. Second, England is a nation state, whereas there weren't any nation states in the Palestine Mandate. Third, there is no ethnicity/tribe called Americans, so there is no ethnic/tribal issue.
Of course. But his arguments don't hold even on the grounds on which he is trying to make them- which is what I wanted to demonstrate.



If the Palestinian Arabs had actually had a state in the mandate, then they, as the soveriegns, could have said "no" under there power as sovereign - because the sovereign controls the land. THEY DID NOT.
Even then, a case still could be made under the UN charter for Jewish self-rule on the land of Israel.

[Sumud]

Yep. And "a third" is a false figure to boot. But just like your wife is a member of your family, people married to Jews can, if they so desire, become a part of the Jewish nation.


Not if they're Palestinian they can't.

[Womble]

Not if they're Palestinian they can't.
:rolleyes: What did I tell you about making fallacious claims, again?

1)Palestinians CAN become Israeli citizens on certain conditions- which is, in my opinion, a case of fantastic liberalism. What other country at war ever granted citizenship to people from the hostile entity unless they were refugees from that entity's ruling regime?
2)When did the Palestinians request Israeli citizenship on the basis of claiming Jewish heritage?

[Sumud]

If an Israeli citizen marries someone form the West Bank or Gaza, can that spouse apply for Israeli citizenship?

No. They can't even live together in Israel.

[Womble]

If an Israeli citizen marries someone form the West Bank or Gaza, can that spouse apply for Israeli citizenship?

No. They can't even live together in Israel.
They could until a short time ago. Now the rules are stricter- but again, you are talking about two nations at war with each other. How many Germans could apply for American citizenship in the middle of the wars on the grounds of being married to an American?

[minusthejihad]

If an Israeli citizen marries someone form the West Bank or Gaza, can that spouse apply for Israeli citizenship?

No. They can't even live together in Israel.

Well, I'm sure the Jewish spouse can move to Gaza with his or her mate and have a lovely life there following all of his/her beliefs, including walking around with a Kipa!

[minusthejihad]

Thanks Reffo,

I just noticed that pretty much everything Sumud says negative of Jews/Israel is 10 times worse when you turn his theories around on themselves.

[Reffo]

I always find this logic curious.

The basic situation is one of Israeli boots on Palestinian necks and somehow, if the Palestinains were just more peaceful, the Israelis will be able to make peace.

It's a lovely fairytale, but I'm too old for fairytales.Sumud and your alternative fairy tale is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad carry on with their indicriminate murder campaign while "Colonialist" Israel withdraws and meekly hands over territories "with their tails between their legs"? All this, while the Israeli public watches, on TV, orgasmic Hamas parades and celebrations in Gaza or Ramlla after each successful suicide bombing, you know the scene, we have all seen these on our TV.

Sumud, do you think that under such a triumphant scenario, the popularity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad would improve or would it deterirate ? Would their greater popularity improve the chance for a peaceful Middle East ?

[Sumud]

They could until a short time ago. Now the rules are stricter- but again, you are talking about two nations at war with each other. How many Germans could apply for American citizenship in the middle of the wars on the grounds of being married to an American?
So your claim of my "fallacious claims" is fallacious. ;)

[Sumud]

Sumud and your alternative fairy tale is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad carry on with their indicriminate murder campaign while "Colonialist" Israel withdraws and meekly hands over territories "with their tails between their legs"? All this, while the Israeli public watches, on TV, orgasmic Hamas parades and celebrations in Gaza or Ramlla after each successful suicide bombing, you know the scene, we have all seen these on our TV.

Sumud, do you think that under such a triumphant scenario, the popularity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad would improve or would it deterirate ? Would their greater popularity improve the chance for a peaceful Middle East ?
It would deteriorate.

Hamas and IJ's popularity decreases in proportion to the perceived proximity of a settlement to the conflict. When it seems far away, their fortunes improve.

[Ophra]

Well, I'm sure the Jewish spouse can move to Gaza with his or her mate and have a lovely life there following all of his/her beliefs, including walking around with a Kipa!

Idiot !! He is talking about Israeli Arabs that marry Palestinians . :rolleyes:

[Sumud]

That's right Ophra.

minusthejihad seems to be very un-informed.

[Ophra]

That's right Ophra.

minusthejihad seems to be very un-informed.

He's Russian... what do you expect ?? :D

[Reffo]

It would deteriorate.

Hamas and IJ's popularity decreases in proportion to the perceived proximity of a settlement to the conflict. When it seems far away, their fortunes improve.Hold on there Sumud. You started out by saying that:


(1) It's a fairy tale for Israel to expect Palestinians to behave peacefully while the "Israeli boots on Palestinian necks"

I then pointed out to you that your proposition is also a fairy tale if you expect peace by allowing:

(2) The continued violence by a triumphant Hamas and IJ. I said that instead, it is likely to raise their popularity and therefore the prospects for peace in the ME will be reduced.

Now you are telling me that their popularity would reduce even though the perception would be that Israel's withdrawal could only be achieved as a result of Hamas and IJ violence (as you said, in (1) above: "No Peaceful" behaviour by the Pals until Israel gets off their neck")? Who are you trying to kid, me, yourself or anyone reasonable out there who reads this?

You know what is the funniest part of your post ? Well, I will tell you anyway: It's the fact that when Israel DID "get off the Palestinians necks", the end result was still violence by the Palestinians. Of course they always had a suitable excuse for their violence, things like:

Barak's offer was not good enough
The return of the refugees
Sharon's visit of holy places that are sacred to Jews too not just to Moslems (why can't both parties worship at holy places peacefully ?)
Whatever else

In fact, as I proved to you before, the Palestinian violence never stopped. It went on before Oslo, after the onset of Oslo, during Oslo and after the collapse of the Oslo peace process. It never stopped, it just varied in it's intensity even though Israel relaxed it's grip, they never had a payoff for it. The vicious cycle just continued. Don't you think it's time that the Palestinians should change, stop the violence and give peace a real chance ?

[MGB8]

Idiot !! He is talking about Israeli Arabs that marry Palestinians . :rolleyes:

Idiot!! The retort was to point out that something similar to the reverse WASN'T POSSIBLE. Those who live in glass houses...

[minusthejihad]

Ophra is such a nice person!

I am just happy my mother doesn't call people idiot and insult people because of where they were born.

Very Ironic:

Ophra's Sig:
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

Ophra's attacks:
"Idiot !!" and
"He's Russian... what do you expect ?? "

The hypocrisy is unbelievable! :)

[Ophra]

Ophra is such a nice person!

I am just happy my mother doesn't call people idiot and insult people because of where they were born.

Very Ironic:

Ophra's Sig:
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

Ophra's attacks:
"Idiot !!" and
"He's Russian... what do you expect ?? "

The hypocrisy is unbelievable! :)

Excuse me ..... but you threatened me with physical violence ... so who is the hypocrite ??
Bite me sunshine and I will bite back.... don't expect me to like you just because you are a Jew.... to me you are just another ignorant violent Russian :p

[minusthejihad]

Excuse me ..... but you threatened me with physical violence ... so who is the hypocrite ??
Bite me sunshine and I will bite back.... don't expect me to like you just because you are a Jew.... to me you are just another ignorant violent Russian :p

Threat? Hardly. LOL! What a foul person you are.

[Mediocrates]

I think I knew a hippie chick from Chappaqua who's name was Bite Me Sunshine or maybe it was Bite Me Sunflower. Dunno - brown acid, ya know.

[Ophra]

Threat? Hardly. LOL! What a foul person you are.

Are you denying threatning me ???
Cute :rolleyes:
Here :
"" If you keep this up, you will be banned, if not, I'll fly to Israel and knock your f'in teeth out, Adam Shapiro. ""
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=7758&page=7&pp=15

Ditto .. what a foul lying Russian you are.

[minusthejihad]

Are you denying threatning me ???
Cute :rolleyes:
Here :
"" If you keep this up, you will be banned, if not, I'll fly to Israel and knock your f'in teeth out, Adam Shapiro. ""
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=7758&page=7&pp=15

Ditto .. what a foul lying Russian you are.

I'd nock anyone's teeth out that insulted me to my face, especially my Russian-Jewishness. That goes for any fat cow, not just you, so please don't get an ego.

[Ophra]

I'd nock anyone's teeth out that insulted me to my face, especially my Russian-Jewishness. That goes for any fat cow, not just you, so please don't get an ego.

Ah so ... "" ...to me you are just another ignorant violent Russian ""
I rest my case :D

[Static]

Well, that was a mature little exchange. Keep it up, guys.

[minusthejihad]

Well, that was a mature little exchange. Keep it up, guys.

This coming from the person who said "And the indigenous Arabs on the land called Palestine had indeed made it their home long before the Jews."

Talking about maturity with such a lack of knowledge of history! LOL!

[Static]

Talking about maturity with such a lack of knowledge of history! LOL!

Indeed. Perhaps you have a source that would indicate otherwise?

[minusthejihad]

Indeed. Perhaps you have a source that would indicate otherwise?

Classic revisonist tactic for sheezy.

You state a complete fallacy and intend for me to disprove it? Are you kidding?

Please tell me where you found proof that there were Palestinians in the land of Israel BEFORE there were Jews there?

[MGB8]

Static,

There are tons of sources that show otherwise. It really depends on what you are saying.

There has been a CONTINUOUS, if small, Jewish presence in Israel going back to biblical times. A number of Jews were always there. The Arabs, from ARABIA later invaded. Nomadic peoples came and went. Turks, Mamaluks, and others came and went. The Jews stayed. Eventually Jews whose ancestors had been expelled or fled returned to a STATELESS territory which was part of the Palestine Mandate (which included modern day Jordan). While the land was sparcely populated, it did have inhabitants, which included people who would later take the name "Palestinian Arabs."

In essence, your point generalizes, as the Jewish presence ABSOLUTELY preceeds the Arab presence in the lands that are now Israel. However, you were probably talking about "European" Jews who came back starting in the late 1800's.

[minusthejihad]

However, you were probably talking about "European" Jews who came back starting in the late 1800's.

I sure hope she was, maybe I misunderstood her, because I don't know how she could have one shred of credability left after that statement.

[Shala]

To Title,I don't believe America is anti-islam,general but yes there are strong anti-muslim lobby in the USA,but we can't generalise this

[AbedS]

Static,

There are tons of sources that show otherwise. It really depends on what you are saying.

There has been a CONTINUOUS, if small, Jewish presence in Israel going back to biblical times. A number of Jews were always there. The Arabs, from ARABIA later invaded. Nomadic peoples came and went. Turks, Mamaluks, and others came and went. The Jews stayed. Eventually Jews whose ancestors had been expelled or fled returned to a STATELESS territory which was part of the Palestine Mandate (which included modern day Jordan). While the land was sparcely populated, it did have inhabitants, which included people who would later take the name "Palestinian Arabs."

In essence, your point generalizes, as the Jewish presence ABSOLUTELY preceeds the Arab presence in the lands that are now Israel. However, you were probably talking about "European" Jews who came back starting in the late 1800's.

MGB8, If I may, just a quick corrective notation. Yes, it is absolutely true that Jews have been in Israel for a very long time, stretching back to antiquity. I, as an Arab, wouldn't question that. But to say that Arabs later invaded from Arabia is just decieving yourself. Before anything, please think about the term semetic. I think what you are implying is that the only inhabitants of Israel were Jews. Use logic and you'll see that's just not possible. And isn't it possible that not everyone who moved within "Jewish" areas wasn't a Jew? I find that impossible, with distances of less than 1000 miles separating the Arabian peninsula and modern day Israel. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that there has been an Arab population in Israel for almost as long as there's been a jewish one.
After all, there were Jews living in Arabia for hundreds of years, possibly a thousand. An arab wouldn't attempt to question that.

[MGB8]

The term "semetic" from *shem* doesn't apply much to this situation.

When Israel was the Kindgdom of Israel or the Kingdom of Judea (or both when both existed), to my knowledge, either the vast majority of the population or the ENTIRE population was ONLY JEWISH. There may have been some nomadic tribes of non-Jews, the ancestors of the Bedouins, but it was a kingdom of Jews.

Afterwords, there were many invasions that brought new people, but, again, to my knowledge, the Arabs, FROM ARABIA, invaded in the 7th century.

The argument "there must have been some Arabian people there just as there were Jews in Iran, etc." has some sense, but not that much. First, it would have been a small small minority. Second, it would not have approached the level of Jews in other countries - because the reason Jews were in other countries was due to the numerous expulsions. The Arabs just didn't face that.

The biggest flaw is that not all of the people there are really "Arabs" - some are local, probably former Jews, whose families converted in order to avoid oppression and/or death, or for some other reason (that's also possible, although I would say unlikely, given the circumstance - guys with big armies come, you tend to convert as a practical matter.)

But I am not fooling myself. Its you who is. Before Israel, sure, there were many other peoples there - city states. As Israel coalesed into a nation, the Canaanites and other groups were expelled from Israel. It was a Jewish nation. Just like Egypt was vastly majority Egyptian (again, with some small minorities, which increased with Rome, refugees, etc.... but we are talking the vast areas.)

Some of the people who lived in the Palestine mandate probably descended from people who had lived there during the time of the Kingdom of Israel/Judea... but I'd be fairly confident that the vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs did not - they came from later migrants. The Druze, the Bedouin... sure, that makes sense. Their lifestyle hadn't changed for 2,000 years, really. Ramallah...other Arab villages....likely they were established by arab immigrants post 7th century.

Now, you might ask...well, who was left after the Romans expelled most of the Jews? And the answer is... mostly Romans, and again, the nomads and tribesmen of the area. Maybe some more people in the region moved in to fill the void, although we don't get much history in that area between the Jewish expulsion and the Arab/Islamic conquest (maybe it all remained a more-or-less wasteland). The Romans (later Byzantines) held the area until invasion by the Arabs. So, again, some of the people may be "locals" who later converted to Islam. But we are not talking the majority of Pal Arabs here. We are talking a small minority.




MGB8, If I may, just a quick corrective notation. Yes, it is absolutely true that Jews have been in Israel for a very long time, stretching back to antiquity. I, as an Arab, wouldn't question that. But to say that Arabs later invaded from Arabia is just decieving yourself. Before anything, please think about the term semetic. I think what you are implying is that the only inhabitants of Israel were Jews. Use logic and you'll see that's just not possible. And isn't it possible that not everyone who moved within "Jewish" areas wasn't a Jew? I find that impossible, with distances of less than 1000 miles separating the Arabian peninsula and modern day Israel. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that there has been an Arab population in Israel for almost as long as there's been a jewish one.
After all, there were Jews living in Arabia for hundreds of years, possibly a thousand. An arab wouldn't attempt to question that.

[Leon]

From the time of Joshua to the destruction of the second temple 70 years into the christian era the Jews lived in Israel for well over 1000 years. over 600 years after the destruction of the second temple Mohammed founded Islam. in 638 the Arabs invaded the Holy land and briefly ruled over it for 22 years as part of a vast empire.

An arab presence in Israel was as long as a Jewish one? Well if you say that around 1700 years isnt long than fair enough. And if you argue that there is not much of a difference b/w - over 400 years of Jewish soverignty of this land as oppossed to Arab colonial control of 22 years (no different to the Roman invasion and colonalisation), fair enough.



After all, there were Jews living in Arabia for hundreds of years, possibly a thousand. An arab wouldn't attempt to question that.

And how many Jews question the Arab/Muslim right to claim Mecca/Medina as their Holy land?

[Mediocrates]

There are anthropologists working in Lebanon today who are trying to trace the lineage of the Phoenicians. I say give Phoenicia back to them and toss out those invader Lebanese. And we all know that real Egyptians should be given back Egypt, not those Greek speaking Jonny come lately Ptolemies. See the point is, its a stupid point to make. I can always find someone with some kind of 'claim' even if its bullsh**t. In either case it doesn't matter.

[AbedS]

There are anthropologists working in Lebanon today who are trying to trace the lineage of the Phoenicians. I say give Phoenicia back to them and toss out those invader Lebanese. And we all know that real Egyptians should be given back Egypt, not those Greek speaking Jonny come lately Ptolemies. See the point is, its a stupid point to make. I can always find someone with some kind of 'claim' even if its bullsh**t. In either case it doesn't matter.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Ultimately, you can't have a claim to land because claims like that are baseless.
Suppose you were born in an house, and you lived there for 25 years of your life.
One day, the house gets foreclosed. Of course, you were born there, so in essence, you have a claim to the house. But what can you do about it? Claim the house? I'm sure native Americans are following that route.
It is and will always be impossible to claim land for one group of people. Period. Who are you going to argue to, the Hague court? LMAO.
Good point about the Phoenicians, though.

A little tidbit for all you doubting Shlomo's out there.

Between the period of 1200 B.C. and 900 B.C. there was no major military power in Mesopotamia. Therefore smaller states like Phoenicia and the Hebrew kingdom were able to prosper.
ROUTES OF THE PHOENICIANS
The Fertile Crescent is roughly an arc-shaped area which stretches from the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers at the Persian Gulf, west to the Red Sea. About
5,000 years ago it was inhabited by a race know as Semites. The Semites who
lived in the eastern portion of the Fertile Crescent were Sumerians, Assyrians,
and Babylonians. In the western portion lived the Amorites. Those Amorites
who settled in what are today Lebanon, Syria, and Israel were know as
Canaanites. Later, the Greek called them Phoenicians

[MGB8]

Two things, AbedS,

First, That tidbit seems 100% wrong. The term "Semite" comes from "Shem." Its used to describe middle eastern people (as opposed to anti-semitism.) Arabs are a subgroup of semites, they are a semetic people, but not all semites are Arab.

What is really wrong with that term, however, is that Canaanites I don't believe would be considered semites (see "Shem"), and the Phoenicians were actually a helenic people - they came from the Sea and invaded Lebanon and established a quasi-state there. Thus, they were not Semites as such.

Where did you get that "tibit?"



Second, you are, IMO, confusing a claim with a right. The early Egyptians certainly have a claim on Egypt. While the Lebanese seem to have strong genetic ties to the phoenicians, had it been the case that the two were more separate, then a phoenician group could make a CLAIM on sovereignty over the land.

But, having a CLAIM is very different than having a RIGHT. A lot of different people have a lot of different claims on, for example, Jerusalem. Nu? Some of those claims have been abandoned and others not. However, a claim does not equal a right.

I have repeatedly said, Jews (pre Balfour etc.) did not have any RIGHT to Israel. They eventually built up a right, based on various things - the LON, Balfour, the UN, etc. etc. etc. - cumulating in the Establishment of the State of Israel - the existance of which gives Israel the RIGHTS of the sovereign on the land, its existance is its right. But, while Jews had no "RIGHT" to Israel, they certainly had many different types of CLAIMS. Certain groups evaluated those claims and found them to be worthwhile, among other things/reasons, and granted the Jews a RIGHT, which was in their power to do.

[MGB8]

I have found another definition that is not ethnically based but language based. It includes North Africans, many Ethiopians, and also Phoenicians - based not on an ethnic understanding of Semite as "descended from Shem" but on a related langauge. If you want to use that definition, that's fine, but it invalidates the earlier point (if I understood your point) about how Arabs, as a subgroup of semites, had people living in Israel. If Semetic only is a language based term, then is it really a meaningful term? If it is used in its ethnic components, then, for example, Phoenicians are almost universally considered to have invaded from the sea and conquered lebanon, more helenic than related to the natives. I don't know if the Canaanites would be considered Semetic, either, under that understanding. Maybe?

The original question still stands - what does that have to do with anything?

The issue is the extent and validity of claims. Specifically, the present day Arab claim is that the Jews just came and took over, massively changing the demographic balance from a minority group to a majority. And this is a true claim. But it ignores that the Arabs did the same thing earlier in history. If Israel is somehow invalid because it was a product of an "unnatural" demographic swing, then the Arab presence in Israel is similarly invalid.

[Mediocrates]

From the people who's sense of 'rights' comes at the end of the point of a sword or the shockwave of a carbomb, telling me about rights is a humourous waste of everyone's time. Israel is a country - get over it, accept it. Or not, but killing women and children isn't going to make you more right about it.