Why they hate us....

[MGB8]

Why the Arabs hate Israel is a complex question, but one that needs to be explored. I have come to certain conclusions, and the primary one is that the Arabs hate Israel for one reason more than any other: pride.

You see, Israel is a sore in the Arab's side. It is the West in the mideast. By the 20th century, the once glorious Arab nations were under the thumb of European imperialism. Britain and France ruled them, dominated them, and shamed them with their military and economic superiority.

Unlike India, the Arab nations did not "win" their independence (by passive resistance and nonviolence, might I add). They remain shamed. But unlike Africa, they were not powerless, they had the lifeblood of modern industry - oil. Lawrence of Arabia was European.

Israel, however, is a constant reminder of the West's dominance over the Arab states. Israel is a tiny country, a country of JEWS, noless (not exactly known for their fighting prowess), that consistently defeated much larger Arab forces - of multiple nations, not 1-on-1. Israel has a modern economy, unlike the rest of the mideast. It developed the Nuclear bomb. It survived without their oil. It survived with a democracy, as opposed to a paternalistic dictatorship. Israel is a leader in science and technology. It made the desert bloom. It survived all the ways (economic, political pressure through Europe, terrorism) that the Arab nations tried to destroy it with.

And that is a reminder to the Arab people of what they HAVE NOT done. It is a constant reminder of their failures.

And that is why there can be no real peace until the Arab nations are themselves reformed into modern democracies. Because until they have pride in themselves, the only source of their pride will be the hope that Israel will eventually be destroyed.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by MGB8
Why the Arabs hate Israel is a complex question, but one that needs to be explored. I have come to certain conclusions, and the primary one is that the Arabs hate Israel for one reason more than any other: pride.

True -- the Arabs, as a society, have failed in most endeavors in which modern societies have succeeded.

Arab and Islamic societies are mired in poverty, lack of education, lack of municipal services, lack of modern healthcare, overpopulation and Islamic extremism. Instead of focusing on the elements that make for success, Islamic societies are built on hatred, racism and ignorance.

These problems are caused by the brutal and corrupt Arab dictatorships and by the extremist Islamic incitement which glorifies violence.

Still, it is up to the Arabs to solve their own problems, although it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to lock out Arab violence and keep it confined to Arab societies.

[STT]

How ironic!

You are complaining about Arabs hating Israel and feel that this is so very wrong. But it is okay for you to hate Arabs b/c they are built on fictious accusations such as the list NewsGuy made.

Islamic societies are built on hatred, racism, and ignorance? All qualities you contain.

[Mediocrates]

Islamic societies are built on hatred, racism, and ignorance?

ok, not actually built on them but happy enough to exploit them in their own people in order to maintain their own iron grip of power then. Remember, tyranny isn't paranoia, it's the fear of paranoia.

[elke]

Originally posted by STT
How ironic!

You are complaining about Arabs hating Israel and feel that this is so very wrong. But it is okay for you to hate Arabs b/c they are built on fictious accusations such as the list NewsGuy made.

Islamic societies are built on hatred, racism, and ignorance? All qualities you contain.

So, are you saying that it's OK for Arabs to hate Israel?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by STT
... fictious accusations such as the list NewsGuy made.

Islamic societies are built on hatred, racism, and ignorance? All qualities you contain.

I don't think so. Rather, I think that you are living in denial about what goes on in the racist Arab and Islamic media, in the racist and hate-filled mosques, and in Arab and Islamic society in general.

Just a tiny little example of Arab society being indocrinated with hatred, racism and ignorance:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=11708#post11708

[droberts1958]

Why the hate.

A good question worth investigating because if you understand why then maybe something can be done about it.

I find it remarkable that when posing a question from the Arab perspective you fail to raise the most obvious answer.

The land or more specifically the lack of it.

Before the 1880s the Jewish population was a small minority in the region and although the non-jewish population who lived there (for thousands of years under what ever name you may want to call them) , was not large and may not have been unified the one thing that by and large most shared was a desire to resist the immigration of Jewish people. Believe it or not they saw it as a threat to their own pursuit of independance and control over these lands.

70 or so years later in 1948 they were not entirely happy with a decision by some decaying colonial power together with new world representative organisation taken to give much of what they considered their land to people they considered interlopers. They hated it so much they tried to drive the Jewish population into the sea so they could have what they considered their land back.

As if this was not bad enough for them they then lost even the half of the split which was suppossed to be permanently given to them in 1967 when they consider they were invaded. (They forget about the provocation.)

Most no longer seriously believe they can drive the Israelis into the sea so most would be content enough with simply going back to the 1967 borders. However the constant increase of Jewish settlers in what is in their minds absolutely their land is a constant thorn in their side.

Maybe pride, maybe envy has a small part of it but mostly it is the land. They feel cheated. Frankly most of the world except some in Israel and the US and very minor exceptions beyond this feel some sympathy with the Palestinian position. The world is not being racist or anti-semetic, certainly not as racist as Newsguy seems to be, they are simply being fair.

[Mediocrates]

Ummm, No. All arabs everywhere hate all Jews because of the partition of Palestine in 1948? Sorry, but your aluminum hat is showing.

[Mediocrates]

However the constant increase of Jewish settlers in what is in their minds absolutely their land is a constant thorn in their side.


Because after all ya can't have no Jews livin on yer land, what? Can't have none of them Jews no siree bob! They might pull your card down at the jihad club. Gotta hate them Jews in the name of the peaceful peaceloving people of Peace of Palistan.

I don't suppose ya never met no civil war ya didn't like?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by droberts1958
The land or more specifically the lack of it...
Maybe pride, maybe envy has a small part of it but mostly it is the land. They feel cheated. Frankly most of the world except some in Israel and the US and very minor exceptions beyond this feel some sympathy with the Palestinian position. The world is not being racist or anti-semetic, certainly not as racist as Newsguy seems to be, they are simply being fair.
You might want to label me a racist, but it's just not so.

On the other hand, I won't hesitate to point out cultural facts of Arabs and Islamists that contribute to their massacre of Israelis and Americans. As you said correctly, one needs to understand the causes of the problem to find a solution.

You say land is the cause of Arab hatred of Israel. You are right about that to a great extent. It is a land dispute based on religious hatred and the Arab desire to ethnically cleanse the Middle East of its Jewish presence.

But other land disputes have been solved through compromise. In 1948, the UN handed land to the Arabs. That was not enough for them. For decades Israel offered land for peace, but the Arabs rejected that concept. Even when Menachem Begin ordered Ariel Sharon to forecefully evacuate the settlement of Yamit in order to hand over the entire Sinai to Egypt, the Arab hatred of Israel did not cease for even one moment. In 1993, land was given to Arafat, but was still not enough to satisfy the Arabs. In 2000, land was offered to the Arabs, but still they were not satisfied.

So, at a certain point, one would realize that land, per se, is not the basis of the Arab hatred. Rather, it is a desire to exterminate all Jewish life from the Mideast that is the goal of the Arabs, and that is very much tied into somethig other than land. This kind of Arab and Islamic hatred is rooted in a Medieval culture of massacres of the infidels with violence and racism as its religious cornerstone.

On a positive note, though, perhaps the next generation or two of Arabs will start entering modern times and adopt some civilized values that will allow them to live peacefully with their neighbors.

[Mediocrates]

It's not about land it's about creating a ethnically pure Jew Free Palistan in constrast to the democratic, multicultural albeit imperfect society of Israel. If Israel gives away its Tel Aviv suburbs in the disputed lands in exchange for some vaporous 'peace' how many of those Jewish suburbanites will be offered citizenship and equal status under the law of Palistan.

Zero that's how many.

How many will be left to be Kristallnacht'd and pogrom'd by a jeering mob of peaceful peaceloving people of peace of Palistan?

All of them that's how many.

You want to talk about ethnic cleansing? Then I need to see every advocate of the peace movement and of Palistanian freedom to stand in front of every Jewish home in the disputed lands and fend off the mobs.

[MGB8]

"The land" is not a legitimate answer, Droberts.

Its tiny, wasn't all that much occupied even in 1948, and really has ZERO affect on most Arab lives. Its religious importance to Islam has been exagerated - it was not even considered holy until the crusades.

Do you really think the land is a reason for Egypt and Syria and Saudi Arabian Arabs to hate Israel?

In reallity they couldn't care less, just like they really don't care what happens to the Palestinian Arabs (thus allowing them to become refugees, repeatedly expelling them or massacring those who claim to be of that group.).

Droberts - the reason I don't mention the land is because the hate only has to do with the land on a very superficial level. In reality, it is not about the land, but what the Land under control of "western" Israel SIGNIFIES.

[droberts1958]

MG8

I don't agree the land is a superficial motive for hate at all. What goes with it is the loss of control over their own destiny, the road blocks, the checks etc etc.

Of course the land is the answer. If you suggesting that land is not important then surely it would hold that it is not important to the Israelis either. This certainly is not the case. They are bearing so much sacrifice to keep the land that it is absolutely critical to them. To this same extent the land and the control their of is important to the Arabs.

Mediocrates.

This thread started out on the basis of trying to identify why the hate exists. Your response seems to have no relevance to this. If you want to rant and rave please do it elsewhere.

Newsguy

I think I agree that the Arabs as a generalisation would have liked to have ethnically cleansed the Middle East. They certainly felt threatened and this would have eliminated the threat. In the current climate I think you would be right that as a generalisation they would like to ethnically cleanse the region of jews. I also believe that if Israel were to give the WB and G back the majority would accept the Jewish presence. Times and people can change. Hatred does not need to be self perpetuating.

Mediocrates

You truly are being an idiot. This thread is talking about why the hate exists from an Arab perspective. Are you suggesting that the Arabs who clearly passionately believe they own all the WB and G would be happy about Jewish settlers forcing their way with Israeli government assistance on to what they consider is their land. Try to read the thread before allowing your anti-Arab bile to escape.

[Vic]

One of the factors is that anti-semitism "sells" well in parts of the Western world, playing the role of a social entrance ticket to the societies many Arabs/Muslims regard to with a kind of inferiority complex.

Cf. an article by Fareed Zakaria, written shortly after 9/11 on anti-americanism/anti-Western sentiment: http://www.msnbc.com/news/639057.asp?cp1=1 . The practical implication is that, to mimic a much too common usage on this forum, anti-semitic Germans, Frenchmen etc. are as much "Arab" (or Iranian, Pakistani etc. for that matter) as the other way round.

[MGB8]

But that's been proven not to be the case, droberts. Over the last 9 years the Palestinian Arabs HAD control over their destinies in every meaningful way.

I laugh when people mention an interim state now, what do you think Oslo set up? Sure, no uncontrolled borders (than g-d), but pretty much every thing else. And tons of money to boot. But the hate intensified, not lessened.

And the land and self determination still says nothing to the other Arab nations and peoples, who really have nothing to do with Israel.

As for the Israeli's, its about the land, yes, but on very different levels. Its about two things, really, more than the land: (1) history/religion, and (2) the holocaust/survival. Maybe a third, two, and that is keeping what has been accomplished alive.

While there is certainly a religious element to the hatred, the Quran even mentions Jerusalem as belonging to the "people of the book" ie. the Jews.

No, Droberts, this is about EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM and Arab Pride. Make no mistake, this is about much much more than a strip of land.

[Mediocrates]

Mediocrates.

This thread started out on the basis of trying to identify why the hate exists. Your response seems to have no relevance to this. If you want to rant and rave please do it elsewhere.


The HATRED exists because you and yours are haters. That's your nature, that's what you do. It's your cause and and your center. Trying to excuse it or rationalize it or intellectualize it or spin it or blame the victim doesn't answer the question but merely avoids it, but if you want to trot out your claptrappery about how it's the victims fault then take it somewhere where they appreciate it. Until then you are of course free to pick out a nice stucco wall and bang your head against it.

[peacelover]

I think there needs to be a Palestinian state, but that they will need help building their own economy, and developing medical provisions and education etc

There definitely needs to be some international involvement to supervise this:

a) Arafat (or whoever) spends his money on building a state, not buying weapons

b) The education system teaches peace with Israel, not hatred

c) But also to give advice, because the Palestinians haven't exactly made a great state so far

I realise they'll resent an international presence, but I really do think it's necessary, not only for peace, but for their own future state to be successful

[peacelover]

OK ignore that, I meant to post it on 'it's not working'

Sorry :eek: :o

[Mediocrates]

Mediocrates

You truly are being an idiot. This thread is talking about why the hate exists from an Arab perspective. Are you suggesting that the Arabs who clearly passionately believe they own all the WB and G would be happy about Jewish settlers forcing their way with Israeli government assistance on to what they consider is their land. Try to read the thread before allowing your anti-Arab bile to escape.



I don't care why it exists any more than I want to understand the psychodynamics of the knifewielding crackhead trying to slit my throat. What you are alluding to but don't have the courage to state directly is that all the Arabs and all the Palistanians don't have the mercy, ability, world view, initiative, desire to allow Jews to live with them side by side unless it's as a tiny oppressed minority. I can't less than nothing why arabs hate us, as long as that great steaming hypocrisy is sitting in the middle of the floor. As long as Palistanians want the same kind of self proscribed (because it is after all a completely synthetic 'disctinction' to be called a Palistinian) ethnically pure Arab state; just one more of many where Jews are either outlawed or kept down as untermenschen, then it matters little WHY they want that.

It's the wrong goddamn question. The right question is, how did self determination get all garbled up with racist nationalism and why is everyone buying it? Tell me this, if ethnic purity is such goddamn cherished point of order? Do you propose to draw borders around every self professed ethnic group all over the world and tell them to make their own country as long as they don't allow anyone else in? Do we carve out a piece of France for the ethnic arabs? A piece of Spain for the Catalan and the Basques? Divide Holland into French speaking and Walloon? Wave a wand over Canada and the Qubecquois go there way. Give up on the south western US just because lots of Spanish speaking people live there?

That't the Great Lie in all of this, the crazy uncle in the attic no body wants to talk about. Everyone can chatter all day like monkeys about zionism this and occupation that but the one thing everyone is afraid to broach is that a Free Palistan is a monoethnic, ethnically, culturally, linguistically, religiously pure state no different than the aims of Serbia. It's not about freedom it's not about identity it's not about self determination its not about land it's not about any of those PC euphemisms for what it is. And what it is about, at its core is racism and hatred in and of itself.

That's why it's pointless to discuss why they hate us. So you can go on postulating this or that and suddenly 'arriving' at the magic secret why it's the Jews' fault or the US's fault or an accident of history or somebody's alcoholic mother who beat them or some long dead mullah who's last garbled words of 'love you enemy' were misterpreted as 'kill the infidels' or a hundred other reasons that allow you to sleep at night. It simply doesn't matter because the struggle has never and will never be about coming to terms with your enemy. It has been, is and will always be about absolute supremacy and anything that stands in the Palistanians' way to that is expendible.

[droberts1958]

Mediocrates

This thread started

"Why the Arabs hate Israel is a complex question, but one that needs to be explored"

Your last paragraph begins

"I don't care why it exists"

Why did you bother to put to reply with so much ranting and raving if you don't care. Haven't you got something better to do with your time than rant and rave about something you don't care about.

You make no sense, you never address the issues and you go off track to what ever happens to suit you without continuity.

Make some sense, deal with the issues or better still get a life and stop clogging otherwise more interesting discussion.

[Taylor]

The reason for their hate is not so complicated. Islam is the main reason. It is true that a minority of Arabs are Christian, but the are Christians living among a Muslim majority, and have absorbed a lot of the values and ideas of the surrounding majority.

Islam is responsible for most of the ills that the people of the midEast are suffering from. Muslims are in a constant state of war with the outside world. Just look at what has gone on in Kashmir, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Sudan. The whole Islamic world is a mess. If you add to that the fact that Israel more than any other ethnic nation has a deep religious significance and that Jerusalem is the site of one of their important mosques, you have a perfect recipe for hate.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Mediocrates

This thread started

"Why the Arabs hate Israel is a complex question, but one that needs to be explored"

Your last paragraph begins

"I don't care why it exists"

Why did you bother to put to reply with so much ranting and raving if you don't care. Haven't you got something better to do with your time than rant and rave about something you don't care about.

You make no sense, you never address the issues and you go off track to what ever happens to suit you without continuity.

Make some sense, deal with the issues or better still get a life and stop clogging otherwise more interesting discussion.

Do you actually have something to say or is it blather and criticism. Let me guess - they hate us, because of the occupation. Ok just call that '#1'. And point to it and point to it and point to it. Save yourself the trouble of rationalizing to your buddies. Because if you've got anything else to say besides nattering I'd love to hear it. Until then shut the fick up.

[Mediocrates]

Well drobert? What is the reason according to you

land
land
land
land
land
land
land
land

in that order. Seriously I read your posts, I hear yuh brutha!!

The zionist occupation of this patch of land or that one once held sacred by the Palistinians. Or did I miss something in your serious thread? Was there some subtle grain of meaning I missed in your agitprop?

Tell us!!!!! Now that Dear Abby is dead there is none other than the Great Drobert!!

[Mediocrates]

Perhaps this is an insight into their hatred

http://www.arutzsheva.com/article.php3?id=1152


Any of you want to jump on this bandwagon?

[Eg31]

I might have an answer to this question "Why do the Arabs hate Jews?".

First of all, I'd like to refine it a little bit : "Why do the Arabs hate Israeli?"...
I'm a completely average European, neither Jew nor Muslim, and here in Paris where I live, there is no bloodshed based on this alleged Arab-Jew hatred.

Second, once more as a European, I guess that if one day, someone came "out of the blue" and decided that he'll take hold of that ground in my backyard then... I MIGHT quite dislike this someone.
Beware : I'm not trying here to deprive the Jews of a country to settle their nation! And I can't either admit the Arabs being denied a right to some place to decently live.

[Mediocrates]

Really and so all Arabs everywhere can make that claim? Interesting.

Why do they hate us? OK so you've redirected the argument to why do the Palistinians articulate their rationale for murdering Israeli civilians? And the people who blew up all those German tourists in Tunisia, that's their reason? And the people who blew up the barracks in Saudi Arabia, that's their reason? And the people who killed 3 dozen American sailors on the USS Cole, it was all about the Palistinians? OK thanks that's good to know.

[Eg31]

Mediocrates, you happen to quote "occupation".
Good!

When I was still a child, in my village there was an old Frenchman with id-numbers tatooed on his forearm. He'd been sent to a camp in Germany (then the IIIrd Reich) for the only reason that Resistants had been spotted in that village.

That's what I thought about when I heard about Tsahal planning to deport whole families.

Vengeance is not supposed to be characteristic feature of civilisation as we mean it. From my point of view, the Israeli government acts just as if they craved for a reason to say "You see, they DO hate us now!".
Any kid can give you a basic method to have someone hate you.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Eg31
Mediocrates, you happen to quote "occupation".
Good!

When I was still a child, in my village there was an old Frenchman with id-numbers tatooed on his forearm. He'd been sent to a camp in Germany (then the IIIrd Reich) for the only reason that Resistants had been spotted in that village.

That's what I thought about when I heard about Tsahal planning to deport whole families.

Vengeance is not supposed to be characteristic feature of civilisation as we mean it. From my point of view, the Israeli government acts just as if they craved for a reason to say "You see, they DO hate us now!".
Any kid can give you a basic method to have someone hate you.

I haven't quoted anything. Although equating Palistinians with children is interesting. The PLO acts as if anything can be framed with the label of 'oppression'. No jobs? Oppression. 12 to a bathroom? Oppression. Uncle Jalil's car comandeered by the local cell? Oppression. Auntie Umma doesn't know her kids are? Oppression. Living in a 'camp' under UN/EU/PLO control and surrounded by millions of other Palistinians who won't give you a pot to piss in or a window to toss it out? Yeah that's oppression too. Living in Jordan surroind by the Jordanian army to keep you in line in case you decide to attempt to overthrow the government again. Hey guess what that's oppression. That really is a childlike view of the world. It's all unfair and it's all someone else's fault. Someone I can't blame directly or talk to or deal with or do anything other than stew and rage over. So instead I'll break the neighbors windows and hope social services comes to bail my ass out. Childlike.

[Eg31]

Mediocrate wrote : "Although equating Palistinians with children is interesting. "

Come on Mediocrate, don't act that stupid please.
You very well understood the vengeance I refered to was that of the Israeli government :)

Besides, you'll also have noticed that I don't refer to the Jews or even the Israelis, but simply the Israeli Government because there exist very clever Israelis and Arabs in Palestine who make REAL efforts for hatred to vanish.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Eg31
Mediocrate wrote : "Although equating Palistinians with children is interesting. "

Come on Mediocrate, don't act that stupid please.
You very well understood the vengeance I refered to was that of the Israeli government :)

Besides, you'll also have noticed that I don't refer to the Jews or even the Israelis, but simply the Israeli Government because there exist very clever Israelis and Arabs in Palestine who make REAL efforts for hatred to vanish.

Nothing of the sort. I understand the wish and the will to kill and do violence. Whether you justify it by some odd correlation to one or another democratically elected government is really your concern not mine. Here's one for you - It's not any Europeans I hate, it's simply all their governments and everything they stand for, do and say. If only they could topple their governments and start thinking like fair minded rational people. But I guess they can't because they're enslaved by their evil dictatorial regimes. Oh no you say, you advocate what they do? Oh well then you must be racist murders too! How does that sit with you?

[ibrodsky]

The reason so many Arabs hate Jews is that we remind them of their many failings:

1. The Islamic Empire, which managed to keep Christians from seizing the Holy Land except for a brief period, have lost a chunk of it to the Jews.

2. The Jews were nearly eliminated by Europeans. How can such weaklings get their way in the Arab world?

3. Israel is a democracy. Arab leaders do not want a democracy as a neighbor.

4. Israel is a Western country with Western values. Honor killings, stoning people to death for victimless crimes, etc. -- all of these quaint practices are threatened by the presence of a Western society in the Arab/Muslim neighborhood.

5. Jews are supposed to be dhimmis -- second class citizens -- living in Arab countries. Instead, they had the audacity to found their own state where Arabs can live, but are prevented from being the Jews' slave masters. How humiliating!

I'm sure there are more explanations...

[Eg31]

You are certainly right Mediocrates, and I confess I do have some murderous tendencies sometimes. And I think that were I living in Israel and had one of my relatives blown to pieces by an Arab Palestinian, then I'd be very frustrated not to be able to squeeze the balls of the 'sunofabitch'.

About the rest and the enslavement of European populations under their respective governments, I'll leave that unnoticed as it slides off-thread.

[Eg31]

Ibrodski wrote :"The reason so many Arabs hate Jews is that we remind them of their many failings:" etc etc

Ermmm.... does this mean the French and Germans are wrong to live in peace now since they once hated so much each other?
Sometimes, history is not really worth rolling back. And I think it would be a great achievement for the whole of humanity if Jews and Arabs found a modus vivendi without any trying to dominate/master the other.

[Eg31]

What if an Arab honestly told us why/if he hates the Israeli?

Anybody from Jennin or Ghaza in this forum????????

[droberts1958]

Those bad bad arabs. They have the cheek to think that just because they had been living as the substantial majority for almost two thousand years largely being tolerant towards small Jewish minorities, they have the right to be upset when some mug in another continent says "Here's a good idea, lets get ourselves a country. Yerr, a country all of own where all us religous types can act well real religious like. Too bad for the people living there we'll kick them out in no time" So the story continues that because of pressure brought by rich Jews in the US and UK the local colonial rulers start allowing some immigrants but even themselves see that this is not completly fair so try and limit them. It doesn't matter the illegal immigration continues and wait for it, because this going to surprise you, the local inhabitants aren't reel keen on the interlopers. Infact there may even be some hate developing.

Then when the UN decides that the poor religious group has suffered enough, they decide to give them some land but thats not enough, so they take some more. But thats not enough so they take even more. The original majority inhabitants, not being good sports have the temerity to actually be unhappy about it and even hate the interlopers. How could it be ????

Yes its the land, and the power and control that goes with it.

Don't whinge but gees shouldn't the whole world go back to the original inhabitants because conquest and colonialism used to be just fine. Problem is the age of conquest and colonialism died more than a century ago and someone forget to tell Israel.

Now what in all this is so hard to understand.

No I don't want to see the Israelis living in the Sea, I don't even want to see them living in the 1948 boudaries. But me and most of the world ,except for the religious fruitcakes, believe that if peace can be attained the 1967 boundaries are the right ones.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Eg31
You are certainly right Mediocrates, and I confess I do have some murderous tendencies sometimes. And I think that were I living in Israel and had one of my relatives blown to pieces by an Arab Palestinian, then I'd be very frustrated not to be able to squeeze the balls of the 'sunofabitch'.

About the rest and the enslavement of European populations under their respective governments, I'll leave that unnoticed as it slides off-thread.

it was a rhetorical example anyway -

[MGB8]

[B]Those bad bad arabs. They have the cheek to think that just because they had been living as the substantial majority for almost two thousand years largely being tolerant towards small Jewish minorities , they have the right to be upset when some mug in another continent says "Here's a good idea, lets get ourselves a country. Yerr, a country all of own where all us religous types can act well real religious like. Too bad for the people living there we'll kick them out in no time" So the story continues that because of pressure brought by rich Jews in the US and UK the local colonial rulers start allowing some immigrants but even themselves see that this is not completly fair so try and limit them. It doesn't matter the illegal immigration continues and wait for it, because this going to surprise you, the local inhabitants aren't reel keen on the interlopers. Infact there may even be some hate developing.


How many times does the history of the area have to be repeated for you to remember it.

Arabs DID NOT control the area or reside in it for 2000 years. Never happened. You have to wait until Mohammed for that to even have started. In the interim there were many other rulers, and expulsions to go with it.

There are very very few long long term residents of the area, mostly located in Jerusalem and Jaffa (and some Christians in Bethlehem), but UNTIL around 1900 - IT WAS A WASTELAND. Mostly "inhabbited" by nomadic tribes.




Then when the UN decides that the poor religious group has suffered enough, they decide to give them some land but thats not enough, so they take some more. But thats not enough so they take even more. The original majority inhabitants, not being good sports have the temerity to actually be unhappy about it and even hate the interlopers. How could it be ????

First, you ignore several things, including the fact that Jews had begon migrating to the area in the early 20th century - BRINGING WITH THEM MONEY, WHICH ATTRACTED NEW ARAB IMMIGRANTS from neighbooring areas (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon).

Second, no mention of the little "suffering" the friggin Holocaust.

Third, it was British mandate territory, and Britain and France arbitrarily carved up the areas and set into power dictatorships, but as long as they were Arab, that was ok. Moreover, under the Balfour declaration, all of transhordan, Judea included, was to be given to the Jewish people.

Fourth, you forget to mention the little war in 1948, for which the UN and Europe DIDN'T come to Israel/the Jews aid.








Don't whinge but gees shouldn't the whole world go back to the original inhabitants because conquest and colonialism used to be just fine. Problem is the age of conquest and colonialism died more than a century ago and someone forget to tell Israel.

No, DRoberts. Conquest and Colonialism is still just fine, as long as it isn't Israel. You should understand that, too. Europe was fine wiith Germany's conquest of Czeckaslovakia.

We don't say peep about the Britain and the Falklands and numerous other territories it controls.

The only reason 'Nam and Korea were fought wasn't because of conquest but because of Communism.

[anna]

Originally posted by elke


So, are you saying that it's OK for Arabs to hate Israel?

do you know what suicide bomber is looking for ? he thinks that 72 maidens are waiting for him. so you say that israel hates arabs? arab hates him , his own arab brother that sends him to blow up himself and as a gift to get the girls in the heaven. arabs must afraid from themselves, not from israilis.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Those bad bad arabs. They have the cheek to think that just because they had been living as the substantial majority for almost two thousand years largely being tolerant towards small Jewish minorities, they have the right to be upset when some mug in another continent says "Here's a good idea, lets get ourselves a country. Yerr, a country all of own where all us religous types can act well real religious like. Too bad for the people living there we'll kick them out in no time" So the story continues that because of pressure brought by rich Jews in the US and UK the local colonial rulers start allowing some immigrants but even themselves see that this is not completly fair so try and limit them. It doesn't matter the illegal immigration continues and wait for it, because this going to surprise you, the local inhabitants aren't reel keen on the interlopers. Infact there may even be some hate developing.

When it comes to Arab propaganda, you are a sponge. As MGB8 explained, the area was a wasteland before Zionists began settling there. Most of the Arab population arrived in response to the commerce created by Jewish immigrants. The Brits limited Jewish immigration, while Arab immigration continued unabated.

If you are really concerned about religious fanatics you would be more uncomfortable with Islam than Judaism. Judaism teaches tolerance. Rabbis do not exhort their congregations to go out and kill Arabs or Muslims. But killing Jews is widely preached in Palestinian mosques and even schools. And there is a worldwide Islamist movement that openly calls for destroying the West.


Then when the UN decides that the poor religious group has suffered enough, they decide to give them some land but thats not enough, so they take some more. But thats not enough so they take even more. The original majority inhabitants, not being good sports have the temerity to actually be unhappy about it and even hate the interlopers. How could it be ????

The Jews were offerred and accepted a tiny state. The Arabs demanded it all, tried to destroy the new state of Israel, and lost additional land due to their own stubborness.


Don't whinge but gees shouldn't the whole world go back to the original inhabitants because conquest and colonialism used to be just fine. Problem is the age of conquest and colonialism died more than a century ago and someone forget to tell Israel.

When it comes to Arab conquest, you wear blinders. There are Arab countries and groups that have never accepted Israel's right to exist. If we are not to go back hundreds or thousands of years, surely we should recognize that Israel has now existed for nearly 3 biologic generations (20 years each). Where is your outrage over Arab countries and groups that still openly call for the destruction of Israel?


No I don't want to see the Israelis living in the Sea, I don't even want to see them living in the 1948 boudaries. But me and most of the world ,except for the religious fruitcakes, believe that if peace can be attained the 1967 boundaries are the right ones.

How are the 1967 boundaries the right ones if 1) the Arabs tried to destroy Israel for the nearly 20 years leading up to 1967, and 2) the Arabs never accepted the 1967 "boundaries" as borders?

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that Arab countries and groups that never accepted Israel's right to exist, who rejected Israel's peace offer shortly after the 1967 war, now get to dictate Israel's borders? Since they have spent decades rejecting every peace overture, why do they get to dictate borders that are difficult to defend?

You pretend to side with them on principle, but you clearly have one set of principles to apply to Israel, and another that you apply to her Arab, mass murderer enemies.

Last night there was a very liberal PBS program about the ME conflict. It made Israel's Likud leaders look like villians. But by the end of the program, we learn that a major reason why Arafat rejected the Barak/Clinton peace plan was that Arafat insists Jews have no holy sites in Jerusalem.

Thus, your peace-loving Palestinians not only want to settle one millionm people in Israel who never lived there, they insist that Jews give up the Temple Mount.

Even if we accepted that the whole disagreement about the Dome versus the Temple is fueled by religious fanatics on both sides, why is it that Israel's Arab enemies insist their holy sites be treated as all-important, while Jewish holy sites are treated as non-existent?

If the Palestinians were truly interested in a state living in peace, why did they reject a state over issues that have nothing to do with statehood? Clearly, by insisting that there are no Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, Arafat was trying to get secular Jews to help him deal a devastating blow to religious Jews.

Even today, Palestinians control the Temple Mount, and Jews are only allowed to visit the Wall. But the Palestinians, true to form, are still not satisified, and demand all or nothing.

[droberts1958]

ibrodsky

"the area was a wasteland before Zionists began settling there"

This idea has been discredited so often that it is not worth the time again. For a full view on this go to this link

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/april/pb_6rest_of_book.htm

The idea that it was a wasteland is so ridiculous that I must wonder about your motives for stating this. Do you truly believe this rubbish or are you paid by the Israeli government to propogate lies for purely propaganda purposes.

"Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that Arab countries and groups that never accepted Israel's right to exist, who rejected Israel's peace offer shortly after the 1967 war" Maybe you are right the 1967 boundaries are too generous. It is far more correct to go back to the boundaries which the UN chose which are far more restrictive. That is the 1948 Boundaries. These are where your state got is legitamacy so perhaps you are right we should go back to the start before the beginning of Jewish expansionism.

MGB8

"Arabs DID NOT control the area or reside in it for 2000 years. Never happened. You have to wait until Mohammed for that to even have started. In the interim there were many other rulers, and expulsions to go with it" Rubbish. See the link above.

Gees what a wonderful world you live in. Nothing existed there till the Zionists suddenly created the wealth to draw the rest of the region in. Did the Zionists also create the other continents, the moon, the sun and everything else which is good in the world. Since you read and believe all this Zionest BS I am sure you think this too. Saying over and over the land was vacant at the time of the Zionist invasion does not make it vacant. Read a bit from sources other than your books of lies.

An independant source such as Encylopedia Brittanica might be a place to start.

Yes the Germans should very guilty for the "friggin" holocaust but does that mean that the people of Palestine should take them all. Maybe to you but not to the rest of the world barring some of the conservatives in the US.

Balfour Declaration. Read the link given. You will learn something. Till then don't bore us with your pleas that the earth is flat, that the sun rises in the west and that all of trans Jordan was to be given for a Jewish homeland. Your ignorance of the facts startles me even now.

"Conquest and Colonialism .. are just fine" By your standards then so are suicide bombers because it is simply a facet of war, all of which are suddenly hereby legitimized by your extradinory admission. Do us all a favour then and try not to complain when your precious innocent breathern in Israel or the US are blown up. It is all happening as part of a process which you can totally justify. Oh by the way when you justify the process you don't get to restrict its boundaries.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958
ibrodsky

"the area was a wasteland before Zionists began settling there"

This idea has been discredited so often that it is not worth the time again. For a full view on this go to this link

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/april/pb_6rest_of_book.htm



Apparently, you haven't seen the latest issue of "Capitalism Magazine" which presents almost the exact opposite argument:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/june/yb_israel.htm

Here is one of the more delectable quotes from your source supporting my position:


Israelis have a right to the land
Only Israel has a moral right to establish a government in that area - on the grounds, not of some ethnic or religious heritage, but of a secular, rational principle. Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy. Contrary to what the Palestinians are seeking, there can be no "right" to establish a dictatorship.

As to the rightful owners of particular pieces of property, Israel's founders - like the homesteaders in the American West - earned ownership to the land by developing it. They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They worked unclaimed land or purchased it from the owners. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities-and the concept of individual rights. Those Arabs who abandoned their land in order to join the military crusade against Israel forfeited all right to their property. And if there are any peaceful Arabs who were forcibly evicted from their property, they may press their claims in the courts of Israel, which, unlike the Arab autocracies, has an independent, objective judiciary - a judiciary that recognizes the principle of property rights.

[ibrodsky]

It appears to me that the followers of Ayn Rand were for a long time hostile to Israel on the basis that it was a socialist country founded to promote ethnic/religious group rights.

They appear to be coming around to a very different perspective. They see that Israel is essentially a secular state that recognizes and defends individual rights. They see in Israel a country with tremendous entreprenuerial energy. The "settlers" remind them of American pioneers.

The also correctly recognize terrorism and Islamism as the greatests threat to individual rights today. Israel, a democracy and basically capitalist society, is surrounded by corrupt and brutal totalitarian states in which the bulk of wealth is controlled by the ruling clique. There is very little entrepreneurial activity in these countries.

Leonard Piekoff, intellectual heir to Ayn Rand, ran a full page newspaper ad demanding that the US strike international terrorism at its heart: Iran. He even insists that the U.S. use its missiles to deal with fascist-theocratic Iran.

[Micah]

Even Mark Twain knew that Israel was desolate before the Jews came...because he was there!


Mark Twain in the Land of Israel in 1867
Mark Twain
"The Innocents Abroad or the New Pilgrim's Progress"
Volume II, p.216-359 (harper and brothers 1922)

We traversed some miles of desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given wholly to weeds--a silent, mournful expanse... A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely... We never saw a human being on the whole route. We pressed on toward the goal of our crusade, renowned Jerusalem. The further we went the hotter the sun got and the more rocky and bare, repulsive and dreary the landscape became... There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. No landscape exists that is more tiresome to the eye than that which bounds the approaches to Jerusalem... Jerusalem is mournful, dreary, and lifeless. I would not desire to live here. It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken Land... Israel sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies... Israel is desolate and unlovely. And why should it be otherwise? Can the Curse of the Deity beautify a land? Israel is no more of this work-day world.

[anna]

you are right .but there are some more reasons that i want to tell you. the main reason that they hate us is the difference of mentality. israel lives in the 21st century and they? their lifestyle is different. palestinian women never worked, they are at home, they are cooking and cleaning. they have no right to go outside without husband or mother in low.many of them don't know what is written in koran, they believe what the islamists are saying to them. i'm speaking about poor people, about their hate but the higher leadership hates us because they were failed in all aspects while israilis in such a liitle period of time have built and developed and have a success
Originally posted by ibrodsky
The reason so many Arabs hate Jews is that we remind them of their many failings:

1. The Islamic Empire, which managed to keep Christians from seizing the Holy Land except for a brief period, have lost a chunk of it to the Jews.

2. The Jews were nearly eliminated by Europeans. How can such weaklings get their way in the Arab world?

3. Israel is a democracy. Arab leaders do not want a democracy as a neighbor.

4. Israel is a Western country with Western values. Honor killings, stoning people to death for victimless crimes, etc. -- all of these quaint practices are threatened by the presence of a Western society in the Arab/Muslim neighborhood.

5. Jews are supposed to be dhimmis -- second class citizens -- living in Arab countries. Instead, they had the audacity to found their own state where Arabs can live, but are prevented from being the Jews' slave masters. How humiliating!

I'm sure there are more explanations...

[ibrodsky]

Yes, Capitalism Magzine's words bear repeating (thanks droberts1958!):


They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They worked unclaimed land or purchased it from the owners. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities-and the concept of individual rights.

Of course Islamists want to kill every last Israeli Jew. Israel has introduced art galleries depicting people, universities that teach more than the Koran, a society in which women are not forced to walk around in oversized bags, and the most evil practice of all: voting for leaders at all levels.

[Vic]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Of course Islamists want to kill every last Israeli Jew. Israel has introduced art galleries depicting people, universities that teach more than the Koran, a society in which women are not forced to walk around in oversized bags, and the most evil practice of all: voting for leaders at all levels. Aren't many Palestinians rather moderate in their religious (not political) views, if not downright secular? This is the way they present themselves in my part of the world, no one connects them to Islamich fundamentalists here-

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Vic
Aren't many Palestinians rather moderate in their religious (not political) views, if not downright secular? This is the way they present themselves in my part of the world, no one connects them to Islamich fundamentalists here-

I'm sure a large percentage of Palestinians are moderate. However, polls consistently show that a majority of Palestinians support suicide/homicide attacks. There is nothing "moderate" about such behavior, and it's hard to imagine how anyone could do such things and be acting rationally. Clearly, many if not most suicide bombers believe they will be rewarded in the next life, and in some cases their families believe they too will rewarded in the next life.

It's also important to note that moderate Palestinians are intimidated by groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah. If they openly oppose these groups, they are labelled "collaborators" and liquidated. I have also heard stories from the past about Hamas sweeping through towns and villages and forcing young men to join.

Basically, the moderate Palestinians lack the numbers, organization, and leadership to change the course of their society.

The good news is that President Bush has begun to exert pressure on their behalf. Israel and her supporters should be relentless from here on out in demanding that the PA embrace democracy and leaders committed to peace.

[MGB8]

Thank you all for discrediting Droberts, who pretty much is an arab propoganda mouthpiece.

He's just another revisionist historian.

And his comments about "when your brethren Israeli and Americans get blown up...."...wow.

As to the fact that its a war...yes, its a war. And non-combatants do get hurt.

The difference between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is that they TARGET non-combatants, whereas Israel does not.

Its a distinction which Droberts refuses to see.

But, even though he is prone to rhetorical flourishes...it is HE who believes that the world is flat and the sun rises in the west.

[droberts1958]

This is a beauty. The quote is from the "learned" Ibrodsky

QUOTE
Apparently, you haven't seen the latest issue of "Capitalism Magazine" which presents almost the exact opposite argument:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2...e/yb_israel.htm
Here is one of the more delectable quotes from your source supporting my position

UNQUOTE

Ibrodsky. A couple of basic pointers to help you. A magazine usually, infact pretty much without fail, contains a variety of articles written by different people. When the point of the magazine whether published on the internet or on print is to present different point of views on controversial subjects you can depend on it expressing different views of different people.

My link was from an author named Paul Blair who writes "A series of articles investigating charges that Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine is dishonest propaganda. "(April 21, 2002)

Your link is to an article titled Israel Has A Moral Right To Its Life
By Yaron Brook and Peter Schwartz (June 23, 2002)

You quote from the second link being a different article by a different author at a different time and say that it is a quote from my source supporting your position.

Not even close. The fact that it was the same website helps you not one little bit and you know it.

What is the point of consciously trying to mislead people.

Now say after me.

I am sorry for making a direct lie. Yes you are right I was stupid.

Alternately simply admit that you are have some ulterior motive for wanting to mislead the readers of this forum.

[Mediocrates]

yes yes paul blair who's made a career of defending his criticism of joan peters who makes statements like "generally discredited by the entire community" whereas he and perhaps one or two people who are members of the american arm of the arab league have made that claim......

typical revisionist blather....

[MGB8]

No Droberts, YOU miss the point. The point is that the SAME credible magazine published articles from multiple viewpoints...each author with their own agenda, btw.

You are trying to mislead here, not anyone else.

As for the population issue..please go read accounts by those who visited the area pre 1900 and also check Turkish census data. A good place to go is mideastweb.org.

Do this before you go making points without real foundation.



Originally posted by droberts1958
This is a beauty. The quote is from the "learned" Ibrodsky

QUOTE
Apparently, you haven't seen the latest issue of "Capitalism Magazine" which presents almost the exact opposite argument:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2...e/yb_israel.htm
Here is one of the more delectable quotes from your source supporting my position

UNQUOTE

Ibrodsky. A couple of basic pointers to help you. A magazine usually, infact pretty much without fail, contains a variety of articles written by different people. When the point of the magazine whether published on the internet or on print is to present different point of views on controversial subjects you can depend on it expressing different views of different people.

My link was from an author named Paul Blair who writes "A series of articles investigating charges that Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine is dishonest propaganda. "(April 21, 2002)

Your link is to an article titled Israel Has A Moral Right To Its Life
By Yaron Brook and Peter Schwartz (June 23, 2002)

You quote from the second link being a different article by a different author at a different time and say that it is a quote from my source supporting your position.

Not even close. The fact that it was the same website helps you not one little bit and you know it.

What is the point of consciously trying to mislead people.

Now say after me.

I am sorry for making a direct lie. Yes you are right I was stupid.

Alternately simply admit that you are have some ulterior motive for wanting to mislead the readers of this forum.

[Micah]

Guess he forgot to read Mark Twain :D

[Gatorade]

dRoberts1958 does bring up a point that some of you fail to recognize - if Palestinian perception is historically accurate or not -part of the hatred that Palestinians feel does comes from the perception that Israel has taken their land.

It is important to keep informing people the historical truth - that the land wasn't the Palestinians (it was under British control) and to keep telling the historically accurate truth - that Jews, though tolerated better than in Europe, were still treated as 2nd class citizens in Arab lands.

This may sway some people who haven't been indoctrinated with a false history. But is this going to convince a Palestinian who has learned throughout his schooling that a Zionist Regime is illegally occupying their land? I think not.

It is best to know where the Palestinain anger comes from to best deal with it. Sometimes perceptions are more important than facts and that is what Israel is dealing with.

Sometimes we are blinded by our culture that values truth. We think that if we show facts that it will convince someone else. It isn't the case with deeply held perceptions. People will first deny the facts (and usually attack the messager). If they get past the denial, a conflict within themselves may grow, they will get angry and their hate may grow toward the other group. I think this is where some Palestinians are at. Part of their fight now is partly to determine who is right. Whoever wins is telling the "truth".

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958

Ibrodsky. A couple of basic pointers to help you. A magazine usually, infact pretty much without fail, contains a variety of articles written by different people. When the point of the magazine whether published on the internet or on print is to present different point of views on controversial subjects you can depend on it expressing different views of different people.


Nope, the point of Capitalism Magazine is to promote capitalism. The site is down right now, but as I recall it is associated with the followers of the late philosopher Ayn Rand. I suspect there has been some serious rethinking of the ME conflict by these people.

I'll take another look when the site is up again.

[minusthejihad]

I think this discussion title should be remained to "Why are they SO jealous....?"

[minusthejihad]

Hey DRoberts,

How does it feel to be rebuked, debunked, and misinformed all at the same time. Must be a little embarassing. Practicing the Back-peddle now, are we?

[droberts1958]

Its hard to imagine this getting any better.

MGB8 What exactly are you on. Better not stop smoking it though you could have to come back to earth.

You said " As for the population issue..please go read accounts by those who visited the area pre 1900 and also check Turkish census data. A good place to go is mideastweb.org "

So I want to www.mideastweb.org expecting to see a site showing a one sided Israeli view on the conflict showing that Israel was largely vacant before the Jewish Zionist immigration. I didn't have much time but actually it didn't look like a bad site. Yes I will go back to it. Thankyou.

Now I found the part of the site dealing with population. It is titled "The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948" and its link is http://www.mideastweb.org/PalPop.htm

Looks good so far. Problem is it acknowledges that it is difficult to give any precise figures but certainly seems to suggest that the Jewish population was outnumbered by at least 10 to 1 by the Arab population and that there were at least 400,000 Arabs living in the area.

Is this the "vacant land" you are all expousing.

Please someone give me some credible evidence to verify your claim that Israel/Palestine was vacant before the Zionist immigration began.

Can I suggest that it needs to be a bit more persuasive than Huckleberry Fins observations. The Turkish/British census figures are a good place to start but they all support what I am saying.

Gatorade. You are dead right. If the Arabs believe they have been robbed of their land its a pretty good reason to start hating. What links do people have showing what the relationship was like between the Arabs and Jews in the 1700s and early 1800s. I guess only those who accept that there may have been some Arabs living within the regions can answer this one.

[Mediocrates]

So if it's all and simply about population density what is the appropriate and EU mandated, documented and mutually agreed upon correct population density?

Apparently that will solve all their problems if only the EU would publish another fat tome documenting the correct specifications.

Tell me again how the Dutch managed not to go on a murderous rampage in protest against the French, the Belgians, the Germans and the Baltic sea in response to the repressive taking of land? And why aren't the peasants of central Spain with miles hot rolling dusty nothing in every direction the happiest most fullfilled people on earth? By this standard the Ukranian farmers of the steppes should be the preeminent society on earth, or maybe the Mongolians, with all their land.

[droberts1958]

Mediocrates

Your comments are always welcome when they are relevant and make some sense. It is unfortunate that this is not often.

The thread started was "Why they hate us" The point I made was that one of the key reasons would be that they (being the Arbas) feel that the Jews have robbed them of their land. A discussion on whether the land was vacant or not before Jewish immigration such that it could have been robbed from the Arabs seems now to have been conclusively decided, unless you are going to present some reasonable evidence, that the Arabs were there in much larger numbers before and after Zionest intervention.

I suppose everything which proves you wrong is just revisionist blather tho.


MinustheJihad - You seem a little quiet. What ignorance and embarrasement got your tongue.

[Vic]

From the mideastweb page:
Population of Ottoman Palestine

The population of Ottoman "Palestine" is difficult to estimate, because:

1. There was no administrative district of Palestine. Turkish census figures were for various districts, including the Jerusalem, Acco and Nablus districts for example. The Acre district included areas in Lebanon, outside the modern borders of Palestine in which there were no Jews.

2. Turkish census figures did not include Bedouins (estamted at a few thousand) and foreign subjects, of which there were about 10,000 Jews.

3. Both Arabs and Jews avoided the Turkish census. Foreigners who were without residence permits did not want to make their presence known. Arabs and Jews wished to avoid taxes and conscription.

As the data are ambiguous, pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist sources give different estimates. The Turkish census for 1878 listed 462,465 Turkish subjects in the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were at least 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (Bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects.

By 1908, according to Dr. Hala Fattah (http://www.jerusalemites.org/2_6_1.html) :" when Sultan Abdul-Hamid II's rule collapsed, it was estimated that the Jewish population of Palestine had risen to 80,000, three times its number in 1882, when the first entry restrictions were imposed." Other estimates put Jewish prewar population as low as 40,000 and as high as 100,000.

According to Arjan El Fassed in 1912 there were only 40,000 Jews and 525,000 Arabs in Palestine.

The war reduced both Arab and Jewish populations to some extent. Any information on whether there were some census overlaps with the areas east of the Jordan river too?



Mediocrates, what does the EU have to do with all of this? ;)

[A Boy]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Mediocrates

Your comments are always welcome when they are relevant and make some sense. It is unfortunate that this is not often.

The thread started was "Why they hate us" The point I made was that one of the key reasons would be that they (being the Arbas) feel that the Jews have robbed them of their land. A discussion on whether the land was vacant or not before Jewish immigration such that it could have been robbed from the Arabs seems now to have been conclusively decided, unless you are going to present some reasonable evidence, that the Arabs were there in much larger numbers before and after Zionest intervention.

I suppose everything which proves you wrong is just revisionist blather tho.


MinustheJihad - You seem a little quiet. What ignorance and embarrasement got your tongue.

the whole archeologic sites in israel show clearly that jews were ruling israel BEFORE the palestinians. after the romans came to israel, occupied it and ruined holy jewish places, they changed the name of israel to "philistine". the palestinians are arabs. palestine wasn't even excist. after the holocaust the jews got their chance to their own state, israel, who was called palestine by the british who mandated israel. the arabs in israel had the same chance to have an arab state. they didn't want to share israel and split it to jewish and arab state. now, the jews are back to israel and back to their history. the jews have never robbed the palestinians. the romans have robbed the jews, and when the jews got their chance they didn't hesitate like the "palestinians" did when they had a chance for their own state.

[droberts1958]

A Boy

You are right that if you go back a couple of thousand years the jews were in control of the region. If you go many thousand years back than this you probably find that the apes or the donkeys were the dominant life form so maybe we should give it to them.

The point is that some where between the 1700s / 1800s/1900s and the present day moral legitimacy to run a country did not come from simply having the largest or best army. Before then basically there were no rules and conquest, colonialism etc was all fair go. You cannot go back 2,000 years and say it was your land and you are now going to simply take it back. Well actually you can and you have but you are not morally right and the people you have displaced will keep trying to kill you till you give them a fair go.

What you are raising is a legitimate point but it deserves a separate thread. This one started "Why they hate us" Any examination of this which does not make big mention of the firm reasonable believe by the Palestinians that they have been robbed is a joke.

[A Boy]

what i was trying to say is this, they had the chance to share the state, but they didn't want to. they don't hate israelis because they 'stole' israel. they hate jews in general and the 'stolen land' is just a lame excuse to kill and ruin. they want to kill jews no matter where no matter what no matter how, that's what the PA teaches them and that's what the arab states want too.

[Mediocrates]

At 2:30 in the afternoon Mr. Mohammed Jihad owned 1.34 hectares of dirt on grid coordinate 1102448. At 2:31 in the afternoon he sold it to Mr. Chow Yun in flagrant ignorance of his holy birthright therefore the sale is void and we declare war on Mr. Chow Yun for immediate return of the land which was surreptitiously confiscated by the evil designs, no doubt inspired by zionist racist colonialist nazist treachery, of said interloper who has no claim to the land upon some arbitrary date heretofore noted as "forever - or something quite like it" - Death to the infidels

Hereby claimed this date July 3, 2002
Allah in'shallah

[Mediocrates]

So 'they' is ---- ?

And 'us' is ---- ?

And 'why' is Israel in Judea and Samaria.

(smacks forehead - )

So that's why a Tunisian bus bomb killed some German tourists. Doh!

[Vic]

Conclusion:

droberts is a flamer

Solution:

joins company with Philip, Jerry & Co. on my "ignore" list

[Gatorade]

[
The point is that some where between the 1700s / 1800s/1900s and the present day moral legitimacy to run a country did not come from simply having the largest or best army. Before then basically there were no rules and conquest, colonialism etc was all fair go. You cannot go back 2,000 years and say it was your land and you are now going to simply take it back. Well actually you can and you have but you are not morally right and the people you have displaced will keep trying to kill you till you give them a fair go .

Two issues with the above....

1) Assuming you are right about the world being different today than in the past and that morality (and you define morality as having a bigger population) outweighs military strength to determine who has legitimate claims to govern a land, there is no way the Palestinians can claim the moral superior position since they violate a higher moral standard by attacking non-combatants. Murdering non-combatants is always worse than taking their land.

So, until Palestinians stop using terrorism as a tactic, the Israelis have the higher moral position based on the principle of right to defense. By the way, Bush’s speech followed this line of thought and said once the Palestinian leaders disassociate themselves from terrorism, the Palestinians do have a legitimate right to land and the US would help support the creation of a Palestinian state.

[Gatorade]

Here is a different argument. The world has not really changed. People like to claim that morality gives legitimacy, but morality is just a tool for power. Power is still what determines morality, not vice-versa as some like to believe.

For example, Europeans decided to justify their withdrawal from their empires as a moral superior position rather than surrender. Aren't we wonderful for admitting how wrong we were! This way, the Europeans look like they took the moral high ground and that is more important than military power. But they are just trying to pull a fast one to try to appear like they have more power than they do have.

Legitimacy to a land is still based on power, and morality is just one way to gain power along with military and economic strength.

It is futile for the Palestinians to try to beat the Israel military with the use of violence. They will never be able to beat the Israeli militarily. The only thing the Palestinians could hope to achieve with their use of violence is to try to destroy Israeli economy. – hurt the Israeli tourism industry and also get economic sanctions place on Israel because if Israel responds with violence with violence, the Palestinians then point out they are weak and being attacked by a big military power. The outside nations want to be on good terms with Arabs for oil, so they will side with the Palestinians who have Arab nations as “friends.” So, other countries then place economic trade sanctions on Israel.

Talking about morality is nice in international affairs but the truth is that until someone can enforce and does enforce their moral standards over the sovereign nations, the sovereign nation can and will govern their land as they feel is best for the sovereign nation. The international community can try to use their power with economic sanction or to change the nation but ultimately if the sovereign nation has the power to be self reliant (a lot of people want Israel to become self reliant so they don’t have depend on the international community for support) who is going to stop the sovereign nation doing what they think is in their best interest?

The other way to enforce international morality has failed for Arab nations. The Arab nations have tried to go in and enforce their moral standards with military might but have been beaten every time by the Israeli military.

But again, if the Palestinians appealed to conscience with peaceful civil disobedience rather than the use of violence, they would gain power. This is where there real power exists already but they don’t know how to tap into it.

About a two-thirds of Israelis accept the idea of creating a Palestinian state. However, Israelis don’t want to give in to terrorism because they find it threatening and think its use will escalate if it appears that its use was effective. The Israelis know that their power comes from its military and from others fear of its military, so making its military appear weak is not in its best interest.

An appeal to conscience, however, would not make the Israeli army appear weak. It would make the Israeli appear morally strong because they could claim, like the Europeans, that the Israeli are great for giving the Palestinians land to create a state while at the same time, the Israeli military wouldn’t lose any of its appearance of strength.

[Vic]

Originally posted by ibrodsky (post #47 http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=14466#post14466)
I'm sure a large percentage of Palestinians are moderate. However, polls consistently show that a majority of Palestinians support suicide/homicide attacks. There is nothing "moderate" about such behavior, and it's hard to imagine how anyone could do such things and be acting rationally.You are blending two extremisms in one, ibrodsky, the religious and what I have termed the political extremism. Being an "Islamist", i.e. a religious fundamentalist, is one thing, supporting violence against Israelis is another. The distinction is more that of purely academic importance. Palestinians are never percieved as religious fundamentalists in Europe. The latter are something the both European governments and the man and the street are prepared to act against, from controlling immigrant groups (that they are often doing it ineffectively is due to lack of competence, the inability to interprete some of the signals, rather than good will) to the current war in Afghanistan. All of this is only of limited use in the fight against Palestinian terrorism.

The public face of the Palestinians, cultivated over decades and intimately familiar to everyone here, is a very chummy, understandable, sympathetic secular one. A typical pro-Palestinian gathering is manned by crowds of very beautiful and courteous, mostly young people, absolutely Western-style, stunning young women in tight clothes, respectable middle-aged gentlemen in suits and ties, fluent in local languages, and this very eloquently, - an inviting, familiar and exciting atmosphere for the typical Westerner, the last people anyone would associate with fundamentalism.

Yet such people can be radical on popular political issues, such as fighting you-know-whom. And explaining that it is only about human rights, despair, etc. using perfectly "Western" means of conveying their positions. The result is that while many Europeans do feel threatened directly by the more obvious, "exotic" varieties of terrorism from the region, even the most virulently antisemitic Palestinians are nevertheless considered legitimate freedom fighters - well, maybe the means are not entirely good taste, but then, you know, give them bombers and they'll do better...

Hamas, Hezbollah etc. stay wisely in the background. They are here, yet no one seems to notice them. There was a quaint episode recently, when the Hezbollah tried to rent new headquarters in Berlin, and couldn't find a landlord - a few short reports in the local newspapers, but this is just about all the general public knows about them.

[Vic]

Illustrating my previous posting:

Jul. 7, 2002
Local orthodox priest: Suicide bombings part of liberation
By HAIM SHAPIRO
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1025787710837

[cerulean]

I'm curious as to what type of music they use for these demonstrations, which do indeed sound charming.

My limited exposure (a minute or so) to a pro-Palestinian demonstration indicated it was less charming and cultured than the European variety describe above, although not immediately objectionable.

There are frequent events with Palestinian-Jewish/Israeli peace activists that indicate (to me anyway) some naivete on at least one side of the equation. I've also seen advertisements for meetings that present an array of Palestinian panelists, all of whom looked to be well-educated and probably quite articulate. I've also seen advertisements by obviously left-wing/communist groups, complete with hysterical statements, for meetings promoting the Palestinian cause. (I've gone to none of these events, so I can't really say what happens at them. I should point out that in the same time I've seen all of the above advertised, I have seen no comparable events, advertised to the politically active general public, that provide a distinctively pro-Israel stance.)

[elke]

You can't hear the music with the Palestinian demonstrations: they yell way too loudly! They actually drown out the din of Times Square at rush hour! I have been "privileged" to see two of them in the past year, and let me tell you: these are ugly affairs.

The posters proclaim things like "Hitler taught them well", clutched by a woman I can't tell you my true opinion of in polite society :o . Here is a translation though: !@#$#%^ !@#$%^!!!!!!! ;) You get a headache from all those checkered quffiahs, the noise, and the sheer HATERED that is breathing at you. You want to rush at these people with everything you got, until you realize that your stiletto heels are at the office, and you have neglected learning Kung Fu.

It doesn't matter whether these are Islamic militants or our brother-socialist - communist - secular, whatever, nuts; they are equally capable of rushing you back.

[Mediocrates]

unshredded 2000 page sysouts thrown off the 15th floor would work.

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
unshredded 2000 page sysouts thrown off the 15th floor would work.

Next time, I am getting a water balloon :) (Except in New York most office buildings don't have windows that open :( . I would have to go to the roof of our 40 story building to drop the balloon off!)

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Of course Islamists want to kill every last Israeli Jew. Israel has introduced art galleries depicting people, universities that teach more than the Koran, a society in which women are not forced to walk around in oversized bags, and the most evil practice of all: voting for leaders at all levels.

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

ibrodsky....no offense..but you need to become more educated in what is secualar and what is religious. It may seem hard to seperate the two when the battle is in the Holy Land, but in reality, the Palestinians are fighting a secualar battle for a state. What you have written is mere ignorance of not only the religion, but also the situation. Most Palestinians support a secualr view in this war, and it is unjust for you to defame another religion. Hamas and Hizbollah like to put religion as a front, but even they know that thats not the case...its all secular.

By the way, Unicersities in Muslim Countries DO teach a evry wide range of academics, and the "oversized bags" come from the countries own traditions and pratice.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Intellectualme
ibrodsky....no offense..but you need to become more educated in what is secualar and what is religious. It may seem hard to seperate the two when the battle is in the Holy Land, but in reality, the Palestinians are fighting a secualar battle for a state. What you have written is mere ignorance of not only the religion, but also the situation. Most Palestinians support a secualr view in this war, and it is unjust for you to defame another religion. Hamas and Hizbollah like to put religion as a front, but even they know that thats not the case...its all secular.

By the way, Unicersities in Muslim Countries DO teach a evry wide range of academics, and the "oversized bags" come from the countries own traditions and pratice.

Thanks for "educating" me. However, the term Islamist refers to adherents of militant Islam. Please see Daniel Pipes' article "Islam and Islamism: Faith and Ideology."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/366

There is also no doubt that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are fighting for an Islamic state and not a secular state as you claim. Your claim that most Palestinians support a "secular view" is also doubtful. Poll after poll show a majority of Palestinians support suicide terrorism, a practice that is related to widespread belief that both the "martyr" and his/her family are rewarded with eternal life (and more) in Paradise. To claim that Hamas and Hezbollah do not really mean what they say is foolishness.

In fact, the claim that this is a secular struggle is just more propaganda -- another part of the Big Lie. It was also widely claimed that the revolution to overthrow the Shah of Iran was a secular struggle, and I can't tell you how many Iranian leftists assured me that Ayatollah Khomenei was just a "symbol" and that the revolution would result in a democratic state. Many of those leftists are now dead for having believed their own myth.

[Vic]

... and an expert opinion from an Israeli fellow poster: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=13519#post13519

I'll reply to the rest later.

[Mediocrates]

From an essayist and scientist named Theo Pavlidis:

'What Went Wrong' A review of the book by Bernard Lewis
http://home.att.net/~t.pavlidis/lewis2.htm

"Lewis goes on to look at some of the more plausible excuses. One is that the change in the balance of power is due not to "Middle-Easter decline but to a Western upsurge." He observes that "these comparisons do not answer the question; they merely restate it - Why did the discoverers of America sail from Spain and not a Muslim Atlantic port ... ?" He concludes with that " it is precisely the lack of freedom - freedom of the mind from constraint and indoctrination to question and inquire and speak; freedom of the economy from corrupt and pervasive mismanagement; freedom of women from male oppression; freedom of citizens from tyranny - that underlies so many of the troubles of the Muslim world."

It is probably worth buying the book (or checking it out of your public library) to read the last paragraph. I give here only the start: "If the people of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, ..." "


The other essay is 'Antisemitism as a Socio Economic Phenomenon'

http://home.att.net/~t.pavlidis/antiSemitismV01.htm

"....The main argument in favor of this explanation is that in places where there are no Jews other ethnic groups fulfill that role and they too are periodically subject to persecution. Christian minorities in some Moslem countries, Indian immigrants in Africa, Chinese immigrants in Indonesia and other Asian countries, etc. An interesting parallel is offered by the use of foreign nationals as bodyguards. The distinction ensures that they will not ally with the majority population against the ruler. Also the ruler can always keep them in check by turning the locals against them. The practice was widespread in the Middle Ages with the Swiss guards of the Pope being its most visible remnant today...."

[Vic]

Does anyone know an essay on antisemitism (and modern-day anti-Israeli sentiment) as a problem of basic communication (other than Sartre's book, but it was written in the late 40ies and doesn't stay specifically on the subject)?

[cerulean]

This article does not address the issue of hommous, however.

A History of the Mideast in the Humble Chickpea
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/10/dining/10FALA.html
...
Many Palestinians believe that Israelis have stolen falafel, a traditional Arab food, and passed it off as what postcards at tourist kiosks all over Israel call "Israel's National Snack."

"We always sort of look at each other and roll our eyeballs when we pass a restaurant that says `Israeli falafel,' " said Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American and a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Chicago.

Some do more than roll eyeballs. Aziz Shihab, a Palestinian-American and the author of the cookbook "A Taste of Palestine," once picked an argument with the owners of an Israeli restaurant in Dallas that served falafel. "This is my mother's food," he said. "This is my grandfather's food. What do you mean you're serving it as your food?"
...

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
I'm curious as to what type of music they use for these demonstrations, which do indeed sound charming.

My limited exposure (a minute or so) to a pro-Palestinian demonstration indicated it was less charming and cultured than the European variety describe above, although not immediately objectionable.

There are frequent events with Palestinian-Jewish/Israeli peace activists that indicate (to me anyway) some naivete on at least one side of the equation. I've also seen advertisements for meetings that present an array of Palestinian panelists, all of whom looked to be well-educated and probably quite articulate. I've also seen advertisements by obviously left-wing/communist groups, complete with hysterical statements, for meetings promoting the Palestinian cause. (I've gone to none of these events, so I can't really say what happens at them. I did. The music can be beautiful, satisfying the most refined of tastes. And you should see (and taste and smell!) the food served with it, and the profound concern about whether you enjoyed it. You will be touched to the depths of your cold and stiff Western hearts and wish yourself nothing else than call such lovely people your best friends ;)

It's important to understand that we are not speaking about what some of your contrymen call "towelheads" but about a unique success story, a model in assimilation. Palestinians in Europe are mostly respected members of the lower to upper middle class or, if they are new to the country, well on their way to join it. They never seem to have problems with authorities that are so typical for other immigrant groups, or with their jobs, education, housing etc. Apparently they always have some well-connected "native" friends in the background, to whose desires they adapt with incredible perfection. It's a kind of mutual benefit scheme - or one of mutual abuse.

Maybe this will give all of you some idea of the challenges involved in any kind of pro-Israel activity in Europe.
I should point out that in the same time I've seen all of the above advertised, I have seen no comparable events, advertised to the politically active general public, that provide a distinctively pro-Israel stance.) That's the problem. Many of the individuals trying their hand in pro-Israel work are of a type I'd rather lock up in a dark cellar to prevent them from appearing in public :mad:

[Mediocrates]

So somewhere two roads diverged. One road was filled with people who flocked to go somewhere else and embraced whatever was there to achieve that. The other road was filled with people who just saw it as a thing to exploit and infiltrate and take from whatever furthered their own cynical goals. One road was the normal road of emmigration. The other is the way of terrorist, the brick & the gun and utter blind hatred of everything around them that they touch.

Why do they hate us?

The sentence is too long, take off the last word you'll have part of your answer.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
So somewhere two roads diverged. One road was filled with people who flocked to go somewhere else and embraced whatever was there to achieve that. [...]One road was the normal road of emmigration. Don't confuse the American experience with the European one. I've just written more on it in the "good Arabs" thread: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=16213#post16213

"They" and "us" can get damn confusing around here, "they" are at times more "ourish" than "we" would ever admit, and the other way round... well, it all ended 1945, or what was it that you wanted to say...

I stick with Buber for definitions related to personal pronomina, but they are too highbrow for everyday usage.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Why do they hate us?

The sentence is too long, take off the last word you'll have part of your answer. An even shorter variation comes to my mind:

Why hate?

When do you profit from hate more than from (seemingly?) sensible acts?

Translated in the above situation:

Does the Palestinian "Diaspora", apparently several million strong in the West, profit more from "war" than it does from "peace"?

Question 2: What is its real influence - on the leadership, among the Palestinians in the Middle East?

Maybe the "cui bono" principle wasn't all that bad...

[Mediocrates]

Who benefits? Follow the money. I'd like to see RICO laws (racketeering, criminal enterprise..) applied to terrorist supporters in the West. Why?

Indictment powers are broad
Judicial oversight of wiretapping etc. is known but not oppressive
Assets are frozen
Criminal statutes are easier to apply

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Who benefits? Follow the money. I'd like to see RICO laws (racketeering, criminal enterprise..) applied to terrorist supporters in the West. Why?

Indictment powers are broad
Judicial oversight of wiretapping etc. is known but not oppressive
Assets are frozen
Criminal statutes are easier to apply

Plus, you can sue for treble the punitive damages, right?

Sounds good!

[Vic]

I'm sure that a considerable proportion of the nice people I've described in previous posts takes greatest care to steer clear of such connections. What you mentioned, Mediocrates, was hate, an emotion. Is it just about money, organized crime? This would be too simple. I'm more curious about the political gains and about the individual, legal ones.

And what do you call a terrorist supporter? Your average schoolteacher who has visited a couple of such "events", kindly permitted himself to be convinced by the irrefutable argumentation, and is now marching through the streets with a sign "Justice for Palestine", prepared to explain to anyone who asks that he is not an antisemite? I don't see many law systems that would convict him, such acts do fall under the freedom of expression guarantees.

Is it possible that the Palestinian "Diaspora" is much the greater obstacle to any decent settlement than the Palestinians in more or less direct contact with the Israelis?

[elke]

Not to put words into Mediocrates' mouth :) , but if I correctly understand what he is talking about, it's the big financial supporters of terrorism that could conceivably be subject to the RICO.

The idea is that if someone is providing the financial backing to ordered mass murder, they are in effect, organized crime. RICO also deals with money laundering and such, which could be very helpful in the fight with terrorism.

The hypothetical schoolteacher, who does nothing more than march in a demonstration, cannot be prosecuted under this law. Such people will have to be handled via other means, which is why the hasbara is so important.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Vic
I'm sure that a considerable proportion of the nice people I've described in previous posts takes greatest care to steer clear of such connections. What you mentioned, Mediocrates, was hate, an emotion. Is it just about money, organized crime? This would be too simple. I'm more curious about the political gains and about the individual, legal ones.

And what do you call a terrorist supporter? Your average schoolteacher who has visited a couple of such "events", kindly permitted himself to be convinced by the irrefutable argumentation, and is now marching through the streets with a sign "Justice for Palestine", prepared to explain to anyone who asks that he is not an antisemite? I don't see many law systems that would convict him, such acts do fall under the freedom of expression guarantees.

Is it possible that the Palestinian "Diaspora" is much the greater obstacle to any decent settlement than the Palestinians in more or less direct contact with the Israelis?


Well you asked 'cui bono', who benefits. Who benefits from terrorism? Terrorism is an enterprise. It sells terror, violence and radicalism. It uses hate and promises to get money manpower and materiel.

How you find who benefits is you follow the money. From where it comes to where it goes. I don't think the average AMS supporter (American Muslim Society) no matter how rabidly anti they are knows anything about the financial or organizational mechanics of terrorism.

I think that if you can disassemble the organization and finances of terrorism then it will eventually cease to attract new proselytes. Just like with the Mafia. It becomes less glamorous everytime you seen some wiseguys duckwalked into Federal Court to face hundreds of racketeering indictments. If you tie up the command structure in courts then the middle level managers and foot soldiers cease to function efficiently. One they cease to function efficiently then they can't organize meetings and marches or campus 'events'. With no core there is a degraded ability to summon up jeering mobs and brick throwing bullies. With less energy to fan the flames of hate, people move on to the mundane activities of work, eating, lovemaking and so on.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by elke
Not to put words into Mediocrates' mouth :) , but if I correctly understand what he is talking about, it's the big financial supporters of terrorism that could conceivably be subject to the RICO.

Yes that's it exactly - even if the money comes from Iraq or Saudi Arabia it has to pass through the west somewhere. It has to be laundered somewhere. It has to be banked somewhere. It has to be spent somewhere. Find the money, track it and use it. Certainly even Europe falling over it's multicultural self making apologies and ammends for murderers still has tax laws and bankng laws and financial trade laws and arms purchasing laws? Go after the money.

Where does the martyrdollar go? Where does the $25,000 or whatever/family go? It has to go somewhere.

And BTW can anyone verify this? I mean if its supposed to happen then where does the money go? Do they have to make an obligatory 'voluntary' donation to the PLO? Does it get extorted away? Are there dozens of middlemen with their hands out for the standard baksheesh? It sounds to me that even if this blood money existed it's probably all going back to Arafat, Inc. line his pockets.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Mediocrates


How you find who benefits is you follow the money. From where it comes to where it goes. I don't think the average AMS supporter (American Muslim Society) no matter how rabidly anti they are knows anything about the financial or organizational mechanics of terrorism.

I think that if you can disassemble the organization and finances of terrorism then it will eventually cease to attract new proselytes. Just like with the Mafia. It becomes less glamorous everytime you seen some wiseguys duckwalked into Federal Court to face hundreds of racketeering indictments. If you tie up the command structure in courts then the middle level managers and foot soldiers cease to function efficiently. One they cease to function efficiently then they can't organize meetings and marches or campus 'events'.

Yes.. the majority of the people dont know anything about it. Most of this enterprise is handled by a few elite who I think pretty much keep everything running. The US knows that, and I think its sad, when many of the agencies , and student associations are blamed for funding terrorism when 98 % of the time they are not responsible...its all handled elsewhere, and by other people.

Thats why they are soo hard to bust.

[elke]

But they are responsible! They may not be involved in funding terrorism directly, they may not be aware of the nefarious use their money has been put to, but it is their money that's used. The donors do bear some responsibility to try to find out where their money goes, - it should not be just the matter of tax deduction. Therefore, the route to elimination of such funding lies through closing down such shops, and making sure that everyone who contributes is questioned thoroughly.

[Philip]

"Why do they hate us?"

Here's a thought -- Listen to what they say about it. It's because Israel stole their country from them.

You guys are like a bunch of Nazi-era Germans wondering why the Jews were getting so panicky, and deciding that it must be due to a social or religious defect on their part. (I'll leave "racial defect" out as long as you do.)

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Philip
"Why do they hate us?"

Here's a thought -- Listen to what they say about it. It's because Israel stole their country from them.

You guys are like a bunch of Nazi-era Germans wondering why the Jews were getting so panicky, and deciding that it must be due to a social or religious defect on their part. (I'll leave "racial defect" out as long as you do.)

Let's pretend.

Let's pretend there is no such thing as militant Islam.

Let's pretend Islamists didn't massacre 3,000 Americans.

Let's pretend Israel occupies the bulk of land in the Middle East, and Arabs are squeezed into a tiny strip.

Let's pretend that there are no attacks against Jews, many if not most by Muslims, in the UK, France, Canada, and the US.

Let's pretend that Arab states and leaders weren't allied with Nazi Germany.

Let's pretend the Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1930s/40s -- a man who Arafat claims as his uncle -- didn't spend the last years of WW II living in Berlin and lobbying his friend Adolph Hitler to extend the "final solution" to Palestine.

Let's pretend that democratic Israel is analogous to Nazi Germany, while Israel's Arab enemies are tolerant and peace-loving.

Let's pretend that Arabs didn't start mass murdering Jews before 1948.

Let's pretend that "Palestinian" Arabs have been fighting for self-determination since before 1967.

Let's pretend Yaser Arafat is a statesman.

Let's pretend Philip isn't just a conduit for Arab anti-Israel, anti-semitic propaganda.

Let's pretend Philip is here to discuss the issues.

[Philip]

...and let's pretend that Israel didn't systematically expel the Arab population of the territory upon which it was created,

and let's pretend that Israel hasn't stolen so much water from the West Bank.

Ignoring the last two, I don't make any of the pretenses that you have listed. Do you have to ignore the last two of the pretenses that I have listed in order to make a similar claim?

[elke]

Let's pretend that Philip's arguments are not lies.

[Philip]

Let's pretend that Elke has intellectual integrity.

[elke]

Let's pretend that Philip has any intelligence, with or without integrity.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates (post #89 ?)
Well you asked 'cui bono', who benefits. Who benefits from terrorism? Terrorism is an enterprise. It sells terror, violence and radicalism. It uses hate and promises to get money manpower and materiel.Now that I'm beginning to understand my point myself - - ;)

It was a bit different: Is there a conflict of interest between the majority of the Palestinian "Diaspora", which - in Europe, I can't vouch for other places - virtually lives off its victim-of-the-Zionists (aka Jews) status, which it could at least partially lose, should the conflict die down / get off the front pages, and the majority of Palestinians "in situ", who, let's assume it for their sake, really want normal peaceful lives?

Oops again! Mediocrates' post carried the number 93 when I started to write this, now it's 89 :confused: :confused:

The forum is shrinking minute by minute...

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Philip
...and let's pretend that Israel didn't systematically expel the Arab population of the territory upon which it was created,

and let's pretend that Israel hasn't stolen so much water from the West Bank.

Ignoring the last two, I don't make any of the pretenses that you have listed. Do you have to ignore the last two of the pretenses that I have listed in order to make a similar claim?


We could ONLY pretend those things, because they didn't happen.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Vic
Now that I'm beginning to understand my point myself - - ;)

It was a bit different: Is there a conflict of interest between the majority of the Palestinian "Diaspora", which - in Europe, I can't vouch for other places - virtually lives off its victim-of-the-Zionists (aka Jews) status, which it could at least partially lose, should the conflict die down / get off the front pages, and the majority of Palestinians "in situ", who, let's assume it for their sake, really want normal peaceful lives?

Oops again! Mediocrates' post carried the number 93 when I started to write this, now it's 89 :confused: :confused:

The forum is shrinking minute by minute...

yes absolutely true - that's #99 on my page, not 89 - although I'll admit that I don't understand the time differential. The site says GMT-5, but I am and this is earlier than me. I think this is hosted in Mountain timezone and the label is wrong.

[MGB8]

Wow, Phillip. At first you were simply a person who had a different stance, but that at least was intellectually based.

Now your just a raving demagog.

We've gone over the "their country" bit - you know that its plainly untrue. Systematic expulsion? Also plainly false.

Israel has its issues, and is certainly not angelic, but now you are just lying or saying anything to justify your position.

That's sad, Phillip. It discredits you.




Originally posted by Philip
"Why do they hate us?"

Here's a thought -- Listen to what they say about it. It's because Israel stole their country from them.

You guys are like a bunch of Nazi-era Germans wondering why the Jews were getting so panicky, and deciding that it must be due to a social or religious defect on their part. (I'll leave "racial defect" out as long as you do.)

[Philip]

I'm sorry you feel that way, MGB8.

While you may think I am being dishonest, I assure you that I have only been saying what I believe to be true. While you may deny it, there is plenty of credible evidence that Jews owned very little of the land of Palestine at the time the State of Israel was created, and there is plenty of credible evidence that Jewish military regularly drove Arabs from their homes -- whether by threat or direct force -- in Israel's War of Independence.

I don't think that even the State of Israel disputes the first point at all, and it also acknowledges that there were hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees after the 1948 War. While you may choose to believe that these hundreds of thousands of refugees spontaneously decided to leave, or that someone other that Israel got them to leave, I have to think that this is a ridiculously naive, if not dishonest, position.

[MGB8]

I don't dispute that there were refugees. And certainly there were a couple atrocities commited by Israelis in '48, but they have all been well documented, and likely do not extend beyond those, or else we would have heard of them by now.

But you're playing with words. Were there Arabs living in Israel in 48? Yes. Did they or "the state" (being Britain, btw) own most of the land - THE STATE!!!!

Did Israel "steal Palestine??" No, Jordan annexed the west bank, the majority of the area, and the Arab states refused to make peace or accept the UN Partition. Moreover, an Arab State of Palestine on Judea never got set up.

So NO, their country WAS NOT STOLEN. We all know this.

And while Israel did expell a number of Arabs, It is also true that many more fled fearing the "bloodbath" that the Arab armies promised.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Philip
While you may think I am being dishonest, I assure you that I have only been saying what I believe to be true...

The reason people might think you're dishonest or maybe just plain wrong is that you omit the facts, thereby distorting the true picture.

Your statistics on the Palestinian population were taken mostly from Arab propaganda sources like Walid Khalidi, Janet L. Abu Lughod, and Ibrahim Abu Lughod, etc.

On the other hand, the statistics I find tell a completely different story:

"The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 1922_-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem. "



Sources: Governmet of Palestine, Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922 taken on 23rd of October, 1922, compiled by J.B. Barron, Jerusalem, 1922.
Government of Palestine, Office of Statistics, Village Statistics, April 1945. Jerusalem, 1945.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Settlements, their Population and Codes, 31, XII, 1967, Technical Publications Series 28, Jerusalem 1968.
Israel Defense Forces, Census of Population conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics, 1: West Bank of the Jordan, Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, Golan Heights, Jerusalem 1967.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities, their Populations and Codes, 31, XII, 1995. Technical Publications Series 68, Jerusalem 1996..
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Small Area Population: Revised Estimates for 1996, Ramallah, April 1996.

* * *

The second point you make about the 1948 shift in the Palestinian population omits the most important fact, which is that the Arab countries, who attempted to invade Israel and commit genocide against the Jewish population, ordered their own Palestinian brothers to get out. Therefore, it is the Arab countries who forced the Palestinians to leave -- which is a very good thing, actually.

What you need to understand is that Israel is the Jewish homeland and the Palestinians are just squatters where they don't belong.

[minusthejihad]

I've been pretending Fillup was dead. Made my life more enjoyable.

[Philip]

Originally posted by MGB8
I don't dispute that there were refugees. And certainly there were a couple atrocities commited by Israelis in '48, but they have all been well documented, and likely do not extend beyond those, or else we would have heard of them by now.

I agree that there were not that many full-blown atrocities (i.e., massacres of civilians); I am not as confident as you that they have all been fully disclosed (you can look up the Tantura massacre to get an idea of how free discourse on alleged atrocities is in Israel), but that is not an issue that we here can resolve very well.

However, beyond the full-blown atrocities, there was also, prior to the battles with the armies of the Arab states, a policy (Plan D)adopted by the Haganah whereby "Brigade and battalion commanders were given permission to raze or empty and mine hostile or potentially hostile Arab villages." (Morris, Righteous Victims). This policy was aparently adopted because, early in the civil war, the one vulnerability of the Jewish forces was their supply lines, and the only way they could reasonably prevent attacks against their convoys was to remove the villages where attackers and potential attackers could base themselves from and could retreat to. Some commanders (notably Allon) aparently decided to expel all Arabs; others took a more conservative interpretation.

There are numerous other instances of Israeli forces driving out Arab civilians.


But you're playing with words. Were there Arabs living in Israel in 48? Yes. Did they or "the state" (being Britain, btw) own most of the land - THE STATE!!!!

Here I completely disagree with you -- a state legitimately serves to represent the interests of the people it governs; a state that serves any other interest is illegitimate and immoral -- a fascist or totalitarian regime.

Also, there are separate issues of sovereignty -- the right to make and enforce laws -- which is something held by government, and property rights -- the right to control assets -- which is something held by individuals. While communist regimes may disagree, the US is very big in its international affairs on insisting that governments respect property rights: our long-standing dispute with Cuba, for example, stems from Castro's regime having nationalized private property without compensation to its original owners.

Within Palestine, there was a lot of common land, which I think can legitimately be said to belong to the state (subject, in my opinion, to the state's obligation to serve the interests of the population it governs); but there was also a lot of private property, and this cannot be said to completely belong to the state.


Did Israel "steal Palestine??" No, Jordan annexed the west bank, the majority of the area, and the Arab states refused to make peace or accept the UN Partition. Moreover, an Arab State of Palestine on Judea never got set up.

So NO, their country WAS NOT STOLEN. We all know this.

I know no such thing.


And while Israel did expell a number of Arabs, It is also true that many more fled fearing the "bloodbath" that the Arab armies promised.

I don' think that is true. Arab "leaders," such as they were, mostly wanted the population to stay put and help them out. There was an unintended consequence from broadcasts about Deir Yassin, which were intended to anger and motivate the Arab population to resist but instead convinced many Arabs to flee in fear.

[Philip]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
The reason people might think you're dishonest or maybe just plain wrong is that you omit the facts, thereby distorting the true picture.

Your statistics on the Palestinian population were taken mostly from Arab propaganda sources like Walid Khalidi, Janet L. Abu Lughod, and Ibrahim Abu Lughod, etc.

On the other hand, the statistics I find tell a completely different story:

"The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 1922_-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem. "

Sources: Governmet of Palestine, Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922 taken on 23rd of October, 1922, compiled by J.B. Barron, Jerusalem, 1922.
Government of Palestine, Office of Statistics, Village Statistics, April 1945. Jerusalem, 1945.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Settlements, their Population and Codes, 31, XII, 1967, Technical Publications Series 28, Jerusalem 1968.
Israel Defense Forces, Census of Population conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics, 1: West Bank of the Jordan, Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, Golan Heights, Jerusalem 1967.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities, their Populations and Codes, 31, XII, 1995. Technical Publications Series 68, Jerusalem 1996..
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Small Area Population: Revised Estimates for 1996, Ramallah, April 1996.

I gave population statistics from the only sources I could find; pro-Israeli sources have chosen not to share whatever population statistics they have for the early Zionist era, at least not that I have been able to find.

What source were you directly quoting, NewsGuy? There are clearly some conclusions made in the text that are subjective -- "by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible," for example. I was at least completely open about the admittedly biased sources I used; please extend the same courtesy.

In particular, your source ignores that many of the trends noted for the Arab population of Palestine -- urbanization and improved longevity and health care -- are trends that have been observed everywhere in the world in pre-industiral societies; it is not very convincing (and it demonstrates a strong bias) to attribute all of these trends to Jewish activities when they occurred among the Palestinian Arabs.


The second point you make about the 1948 shift in the Palestinian population omits the most important fact, which is that the Arab countries, who attempted to invade Israel and commit genocide against the Jewish population, ordered their own Palestinian brothers to get out. Therefore, it is the Arab countries who forced the Palestinians to leave -- which is a very good thing, actually.

I think that while this has been the standard Israeli line on the matter for a long time, the evidence much more strongly supports the position that Arab leaders wanted Palestinian Arab civilians to stay put. In the early going, there were apparently orders for civilians -- especially women, children, and the aged -- to leave potential combat areas, but when the extent of the refugee situation was realized, "Transjordan, the AHC (Arab High Committee of Palestine), and the ALA (Arab Liberation Army) repeatedly cautioned the inhabitants to stay put and tried to pressure those who had fled to return, to no avail." (Morris, Righteous Victims)


What you need to understand is that Israel is the Jewish homeland and the Palestinians are just squatters where they don't belong.

What you need to understand is that this is your opinion, not fact, and that many people do not share your opinion.

[Mil]

deleted by moderator - pls don't put test msgs here.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Philip
I gave population statistics from the only sources I could find
Maybe when you were browsing Mullah Omar's recommended list of reading, that's all that came up. :D



I was at least completely open about the admittedly biased sources I used; please extend the same courtesy.

Here are my sources, again:

Sources: Governmet of Palestine, Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922 taken on 23rd of October, 1922, compiled by J.B. Barron, Jerusalem, 1922.
Government of Palestine, Office of Statistics, Village Statistics, April 1945. Jerusalem, 1945.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Settlements, their Population and Codes, 31, XII, 1967, Technical Publications Series 28, Jerusalem 1968.
Israel Defense Forces, Census of Population conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics, 1: West Bank of the Jordan, Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, Golan Heights, Jerusalem 1967.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities, their Populations and Codes, 31, XII, 1995. Technical Publications Series 68, Jerusalem 1996..
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Small Area Population: Revised Estimates for 1996, Ramallah, April 1996.


In particular, your source ignores that many of the trends noted for the Arab population of Palestine -- urbanization and improved longevity and health care -- are trends that have been observed everywhere in the world in pre-industiral societies

Arab society has always lagged way behind any other society, except perhaps being on par with the most primitive countries n the planet. The Arabs have been in a state of virtual stagnation since the Middle Ages, while the Jews brought a first-world measure of progess to the Mideast. As it turns out, the Arab squatters in Israel were firtunate enough to benefit from the improvements developed by the Jewish population.

While the Arab squatters just sat smoking their hookahs and planning their next Jihad, the Jews drained the swampland and made the desert bloom, while introducing industry and commercial development.


But I'm glad you brought up the topic of the invading Arab armies forcing the "Palestinian" squatters to leave Israel to make room for what they hoped would be a genocide of the Jews.

Click here for the details (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=16638#post16638), including some fascinating admissions from Arab sources.

[MGB8]

Originally posted by Philip




Here I completely disagree with you -- a state legitimately serves to represent the interests of the people it governs; a state that serves any other interest is illegitimate and immoral -- a fascist or totalitarian regime.

Also, there are separate issues of sovereignty -- the right to make and enforce laws -- which is something held by government, and property rights -- the right to control assets -- which is something held by individuals. While communist regimes may disagree, the US is very big in its international affairs on insisting that governments respect property rights: our long-standing dispute with Cuba, for example, stems from Castro's regime having nationalized private property without compensation to its original owners.

Within Palestine, there was a lot of common land, which I think can legitimately be said to belong to the state (subject, in my opinion, to the state's obligation to serve the interests of the population it governs); but there was also a lot of private property, and this cannot be said to completely belong to the state.



I know no such thing.



I don' think that is true. Arab "leaders," such as they were, mostly wanted the population to stay put and help them out. There was an unintended consequence from broadcasts about Deir Yassin, which were intended to anger and motivate the Arab population to resist but instead convinced many Arabs to flee in fear.


Phillip...your "disagreement" is baseless, and your principles meaningless. The bottom line is that Britain had sovereignty over the area, whether rightous or not, the land was theres.

Where the land was uninhabbited, it was not "common land" but "state land" - there is a big difference. The state could come in and use it whenever they wanted, because no one held title to it. The philosophies you put forward about common land, etc. are meaningless in the eyes of the law, and in all practicality. the land belonged to the Sovereign - Britain, then the Turks before them, etc.

As for the "I know no such thing" that is willfull blindness. Of course you know that Jordan annexed the west bank, and that the Arab nations refused peace before the partition and after, nor did they aid in establishhing a Palestinian state. Their aim was the destruction of Israel - period.

At least have the intellectual honesty and courage to admit these things, even if they devestate your arguments.

[Philip]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Here are my sources, again:

Sources: Governmet of Palestine, Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922 taken on 23rd of October, 1922, compiled by J.B. Barron, Jerusalem, 1922.
Government of Palestine, Office of Statistics, Village Statistics, April 1945. Jerusalem, 1945.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Settlements, their Population and Codes, 31, XII, 1967, Technical Publications Series 28, Jerusalem 1968.
Israel Defense Forces, Census of Population conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics, 1: West Bank of the Jordan, Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, Golan Heights, Jerusalem 1967.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities, their Populations and Codes, 31, XII, 1995. Technical Publications Series 68, Jerusalem 1996..
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Small Area Population: Revised Estimates for 1996, Ramallah, April 1996.

You directly quoted someone NewsGuy. Who was it? Repeating that person's sources is not the same as revealing your source. Baruch Goldstein? Meir Kahane? Who?


Arab society has always lagged way behind any other society, except perhaps being on par with the most primitive countries n the planet. The Arabs have been in a state of virtual stagnation since the Middle Ages, while the Jews brought a first-world measure of progess to the Mideast. As it turns out, the Arab squatters in Israel were firtunate enough to benefit from the improvements developed by the Jewish population.

While the Arab squatters just sat smoking their hookahs and planning their next Jihad, the Jews drained the swampland and made the desert bloom, while introducing industry and commercial development.

Hmmm... The last time I saw something like that, it was a transcription of the Nazi attitude toward Jews.

[MGB8]

#1) You have no evidence to suggest that these are not direct sources. Even if they are not, the fact of the matter is that theses are the sources from which the information came, and whoever first put them together is really irrellevant compared to the credibility of the sources themselves - which are credible.

Are you man enough to admit this? You weren't man enough before to admit the plainly true and uncontested, can you do so now?

#2) Your continued name/nazi calling doesn't do anything other than make you look like an Arab propagandist. They are plainly unfair comparisons, and you know it. First, Nazi descriptions of Jews were (1) 99% lies and (2) made to demonize the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.

What is stated on this board is generally the truth (for example, Arab nations are behin - this has been written extensively by ARAB SCHOLARS, particularly those abroad. Arab nations still lack democracy, are stuck with either dictators or "royalty," any semblance of gender equality, religious freedom, governmentla accountabilty to the people, free press, fair and free courts, the jury system, and stable property rights. If that's not behind the rest of the world...

Second, only a couple of the fringe posters here demonize Arab people - but they do criticize Arab countries, the mdeia, and the people for not doing anything about it.

[Philip]

Originally posted by MGB8
Phillip...your "disagreement" is baseless, and your principles meaningless.

Okay, but other than that you agree with me, right?


The bottom line is that Britain had sovereignty over the area, whether rightous or not, the land was theirs.

??

Do you not believe in individual rights at all?


Where the land was uninhabbited, it was not "common land" but "state land" - there is a big difference. The state could come in and use it whenever they wanted, because no one held title to it. The philosophies you put forward about common land, etc. are meaningless in the eyes of the law, and in all practicality. the land belonged to the Sovereign - Britain, then the Turks before them, etc.

But MGB8, there was no state: Britain did not claim the land; it was only holding it in trust: mandate. And the mandate was established by the League of Nations, which violated its own covenant in establishing it. From the League of Nations covenant:


To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Someone forgot about the "sacred trust of civilisation," eh?


As for the "I know no such thing" that is willfull blindness. Of course you know that Jordan annexed the west bank, and that the Arab nations refused peace before the partition and after, nor did they aid in establishhing a Palestinian state. Their aim was the destruction of Israel - period.

And what does any of that have to do with whether or not the Israelis stole most of Palestine from the Palestinian Arabs? If Smith stands accused of having stolen someone's car, "But Jones stole his wallet!" is not a defense against the charge; neither is, "But Brown wasn't even trying to stop me from taking the car -- he just wanted to hit me for his own reasons!"


At least have the intellectual honesty and courage to admit these things, even if they devestate your arguments.

Well, I'd far prefer to disagree with you over things we both actually believe rather than to agree with you on things that we don't really believe anyway.

[minusthejihad]

Perfect example of Fillup eating his own words:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the "I know no such thing" that is willfull blindness. Of course you know that Jordan annexed the west bank, and that the Arab nations refused peace before the partition and after, nor did they aid in establishhing a Palestinian state. Their aim was the destruction of Israel - period.

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

And what does any of that have to do with whether or not the Israelis stole most of Palestine from the Palestinian Arabs? If Smith stands accused of having stolen someone's car, "But Jones stole his wallet!" is not a defense against the charge; neither is, "But Brown wasn't even trying to stop me from taking the car -- he just wanted to hit me for his own reasons!"

Any REAL debator would field the question first, reply, then say something like "but, what does this have to do with?" Its obvious that MGB8 proved you wrong, so instead you excused your lack of defense with an excuse for excusing a lack of defense. Textbook Fillup. I guess you then agreed with MGB8 by default, since you left that quote unanswered. Good job. Keep them commin.

[MGB8]

Phillip,

Now you've been reduced to meaningless blabbering.

"The sacred trust of civilization???" Come on, who are you kidding here?

Britain was in charge of the land - it owned it - in trust or what not, by military force. THAT IS THE REALITY. The league of nations decision (of a quickly defunct organization) is just a piece of paper.

The land had no title to it. There is NO SUCH THING AS NATURAL RIGHTS. "RIGHTS" are in fact limitations of freedoms (of others) imposed by a government on a people to prevent the Hobbesian "state of nature."

Title is GRANTED BY THE CONTROLLING POWER. We've started to establish some internationally accepted norms for when sovereigns change - but the idea of supervening rights is simply an ideological fantasy.

Israel did not steal most of the Palestinians land - Jordan did. Please at least admit that.

[Philip]

Originally posted by MGB8
#1) You have no evidence to suggest that these are not direct sources.

Surely you do not think that three paragraphs were directly quoted from six sources?


Even if they are not, the fact of the matter is that theses are the sources from which the information came, and whoever first put them together is really irrellevant compared to the credibility of the sources themselves - which are credible.

I doubt very much that the subjective opinions expressed in the three paragraphs came from those sources, but if they did, I think it would be relevant to know whether they were from the IDF or from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Don't you? If NewsGuy wrote the three paragraphs himself, (a) why doesn't he just say so? and (b) why did he put them in quotations?


Are you man enough to admit this? You weren't man enough before to admit the plainly true and uncontested, can you do so now?.

I guess not. But I do like to think that I have enought sense not to admit this!


#2) Your continued name/nazi calling doesn't do anything other than make you look like an Arab propagandist. They are plainly unfair comparisons, and you know it. First, Nazi descriptions of Jews were (1) 99% lies and (2) made to demonize the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.

And who did NewsGuy intend to demonize? Are Arabs not individual people? If they are plainly unfair comparisons, then there is really no reason to have this pointed out to everyone, is there? Unfortunately, I don't think that my comparison was unfair -- NewGuy's comments really did remind me of racist Nazi propaganda.


What is stated on this board is generally the truth (for example, Arab nations are behind - this has been written extensively by ARAB SCHOLARS, particularly those abroad. Arab nations still lack democracy, are stuck with either dictators or "royalty," any semblance of gender equality, religious freedom, governmentla accountabilty to the people, free press, fair and free courts, the jury system, and stable property rights. If that's not behind the rest of the world...

Second, only a couple of the fringe posters here demonize Arab people - but they do criticize Arab countries, the mdeia, and the people for not doing anything about it.

Well, there it is, isn't it? I agree, it is accurate that Arab society is backward in many regards. NewsGuy's comments, however, are tinged with racism -- "While the Arab squatters just sat smoking their hookahs and planning their next Jihad...;" "The Arab squatters were full of animosity and belligerence...;" etc.

[minusthejihad]

I figured Fillup knows and reads Nazi propaganda. I was just wondering when he'd just come out and say it himself. Thanks. I mean, as if your drivel wasn't enough to make you look like a fool, this admission just topped it.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

Arab society has always lagged way behind any other society,except perhaps being on par with the most primitive countries n the planet. The Arabs have been in a state of virtual stagnation since the Middle Ages, while the Jews brought a first-world measure of progess to the Mideast. As it turns out, the Arab squatters in Israel were firtunate enough to benefit from the improvements developed by the Jewish population.

:D Thats very funny!! Where did you get that from?? Arabs have been in a state of stagnation from the middle and late ages of the Ottoman rule. Before then, they were the most advanced civilization when Europe was in the Dark Ages. Have you been to Spain? The people of Islamic Nation were the pioneers in every field. For example, the medical books written by Muslims were used in Europe for 900 years. If you need proof, read the books in the British Library. Some of the original texts are still there, and if you can read Arabic and Persian, you will understand. However, during the Ottoman rule.. they WERE stagnant. Yes.. but to say that they had no part in the advancement of the human civilization is naieve and stupid.


While the Arab squatters just sat smoking their hookahs and planning their next Jihad, the Jews drained the swampland and made the desert bloom, while introducing industry and commercial development.But I'm glad you brought up the topic of the invading Arab armies forcing the "Palestinian" squatters to leave Israel to make room for what they hoped would be a genocide of the Jews.

Actually... the people of all three monotheistic religions fashioned and enriched the land during there time there. According to many early Jewish settlers, the Arabs were just as attached to the land as they felt they were. So the Arabs were not sitting ducks either... good farmers if not industrialists. You need to expand your reading list to included more accurate articles.

[Philip]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Perfect example of Fillup eating his own words:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the "I know no such thing" that is willfull blindness. Of course you know that Jordan annexed the west bank, and that the Arab nations refused peace before the partition and after, nor did they aid in establishhing a Palestinian state. Their aim was the destruction of Israel - period.

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

And what does any of that have to do with whether or not the Israelis stole most of Palestine from the Palestinian Arabs? If Smith stands accused of having stolen someone's car, "But Jones stole his wallet!" is not a defense against the charge; neither is, "But Brown wasn't even trying to stop me from taking the car -- he just wanted to hit me for his own reasons!"

Any REAL debator would field the question first, reply, then say something like "but, what does this have to do with?" Its obvious that MGB8 proved you wrong, so instead you excused your lack of defense with an excuse for excusing a lack of defense. Textbook Fillup. I guess you then agreed with MGB8 by default, since you left that quote unanswered. Good job. Keep them commin.

Uh huh. Maybe your memory was too strained to recall that I wrote "I know no such thing" in response to MGB8's assertion that "So NO, their country WAS NOT STOLEN. We all know this." You might want to take a moment to verify that for yourself, though I guess that would tend to delay your ability to bitch and moan at me again.

Perhaps in that context, my question in response to MGB8's reference to Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and to the aim of the Arab states in the 1948 war will make sense, at least to people who have any sense to be made.

[Philip]

Originally posted by MGB8
Now you've been reduced to meaningless blabbering.

Then what is the point in you responding?


"The sacred trust of civilization???" Come on, who are you kidding here?

It's not who I am kidding, MGB8 -- it's who I am quoting. And in this instance it was the Covenant of the League of Nations.


Britain was in charge of the land - it owned it - in trust or what not, by military force. THAT IS THE REALITY. The league of nations decision (of a quickly defunct organization) is just a piece of paper.

I guess it is also the reality that whoever wants to "own" the land will have to do so by military force as well.


The land had no title to it. There is NO SUCH THING AS NATURAL RIGHTS. "RIGHTS" are in fact limitations of freedoms (of others) imposed by a government on a people to prevent the Hobbesian "state of nature."

Title is GRANTED BY THE CONTROLLING POWER. We've started to establish some internationally accepted norms for when sovereigns change - but the idea of supervening rights is simply an ideological fantasy.

I know, as I think most people do, that ultimately there is no such thing as justice; there is only brute force. However, I believe that it is a rather pleasant interlude to believe in and to promote things like justice and individual rights, and in fact I think it is a good use of brute force to preserve that interlude. I'm sorry if you disagree.


Israel did not steal most of the Palestinians land - Jordan did. Please at least admit that.

But MGB8 -- it simply is not true. Jordan has not denied use of its territory to the original population, as Israel has.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Philip

I guess it is also the reality that whoever wants to "own" the land will have to do so by military force as well.

Well, that is certainly how the Arabs prefer to do things. Israel made them a settlement offer, but they responded with a war.



I know, as I think most people do, that ultimately there is no such thing as justice; there is only brute force. However, I believe that it is a rather pleasant interlude to believe in and to promote things like justice and individual rights, and in fact I think it is a good use of brute force to preserve that interlude. I'm sorry if you disagree.

The only country in the Middle East that recognizes individual rights is Israel. The only country in the Middle East where an individual can actually win a court case against the state is Israel.


But MGB8 -- it simply is not true. Jordan has not denied use of its territory to the original population, as Israel has.

The Arabs have been trying for 50+ years to deny Israel to its population and rightful owners. Jordan participated in the Arab effort to liquidate Israel, but has since tacitly admitted it was wrong and made peace with Israel.

[MGB8]

Then what is the point in you responding?




In the hopes that maybe you've just been brainwashed as opposed to a concious brainwasher. If its the former, then you can be slowly unbrainwashed and be forced to accept the truth. Unlike the Israeli side, you don't try at all to understand the other side, nor do you analyze their claims. You simply repeat your position.






I guess it is also the reality that whoever wants to "own" the land will have to do so by military force as well.


In the end that is always the truth. Land is "owned" by someone who has the power to keep someone else from taking it.




I know, as I think most people do, that ultimately there is no such thing as justice; there is only brute force. However, I believe that it is a rather pleasant interlude to believe in and to promote things like justice and individual rights, and in fact I think it is a good use of brute force to preserve that interlude. I'm sorry if you disagree.

I do believe in "justice." But YOUR justice and individual rights are slanted from a certian perspective, non-utilitarian, might I add, and is formulated to achieve certain ends.




But MGB8 -- it simply is not true. Jordan has not denied use of its territory to the original population, as Israel has.


oh, so now its "use" as opposed to Individual rights, sovereighnty, and self determination. Frankly, the Arabs in Israel, and Israel controlled areas, have freer use of the land and more rights than in any arab country. So your statement is simply a false, possibly a concious lie. Moreover, you should know exactly how Jordan treated its "Palestinian" population when Arafat tried to overthrow the king.

As for Original Population. The ORIGINAL POPULATION OF JUDEA WAS JEWS! They were the refugees. They returned. The great majority of 48 Israel was Jewish, also. The Arabs who left, fleeing or otherwise, really do not have any entitlement to return - again, "rights" are granted by the State - in the state of nature, all that exists is freedom of action and power.

Also, its funny when you cite a failed and defunct agency (the league of nations) for your support of certain rights. Certainly the words have an ideology they express, but that is all that it is. The LofN is a bigger joke than the UN, and the UN is a big joke by itself. Its only positive action in its existence was the partition of Judea into Palestine and Israel. Other than that its just a bunch of US soldier and signed treaties that are willfully ignored by the countries who sign them, and used simply for political and legal gamesmanship.

[Philip]

Originally posted by MGB8
In the hopes that maybe you've just been brainwashed as opposed to a concious brainwasher. If its the former, then you can be slowly unbrainwashed and be forced to accept the truth.

Good. I'm willing to deal with you on the same basis. I think in the past, we have been able to learn things from each other in this way, in spite of ultimately not agreeing. (I'm thinking here of our discussion of Israel's statements about refugee rights in making its case for admission to the UN.)


Unlike the Israeli side, you don't try at all to understand the other side, nor do you analyze their claims. You simply repeat your position.

I prefer not to think of "the Israeli side" and the "anti-Israel side" -- there are plently of opponents of Israel who I wouldn't want to be associated with in any way, and I suspect that if you are honest about it, there are allies of Israel with whom you wouldn't want to have anything to do.


I do believe in "justice." But YOUR justice and individual rights are slanted from a certian perspective, non-utilitarian, might I add, and is formulated to achieve certain ends.

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-utilitarian." I think I follow a Kantian/Rawlsian perspective of justice, though I'm sure I'm not aware of all of my motivations.


oh, so now its "use" as opposed to Individual rights, sovereighnty, and self determination. Frankly, the Arabs in Israel, and Israel controlled areas, have freer use of the land and more rights than in any arab country. So your statement is simply a false, possibly a concious lie. Moreover, you should know exactly how Jordan treated its "Palestinian" population when Arafat tried to overthrow the king.

I don't think it is accurate at all to say that Arabs have freer use of the land in Israel than elsewhere in the Middle East.


As for Original Population. The ORIGINAL POPULATION OF JUDEA WAS JEWS!

I believe the original population was actually the Canaanites.


They were the refugees. They returned. The great majority of 48 Israel was Jewish, also. The Arabs who left, fleeing or otherwise, really do not have any entitlement to return - again, "rights" are granted by the State - in the state of nature, all that exists is freedom of action and power.

I follow the American notion that rights exist a priori to government, and that government properly exists only to secure those rights. I know there are other ways of thinking about it, including yours, but I am comfortable with my perspective.


Also, its funny when you cite a failed and defunct agency (the league of nations) for your support of certain rights. Certainly the words have an ideology they express, but that is all that it is. The LofN is a bigger joke than the UN, and the UN is a big joke by itself. Its only positive action in its existence was the partition of Judea into Palestine and Israel. Other than that its just a bunch of US soldier and signed treaties that are willfully ignored by the countries who sign them, and used simply for political and legal gamesmanship.

I cited the League of Nations only because it was under the ausipes of the League of Nations that Great Britain held mandate in Palestine during the period in which you think Great Britain owned Palestine.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Philip
Hmmm... The last time I saw something like that, it was a transcription of the Nazi attitude toward Jews.

Right, I agree with you that many Arabs often sound just like their Nazi mentors, especially when discussing the Arab and Islamic attempted Jihad-genocide against Israel and Western civilization.

But the stagnation of Arab society and the fact that it lags behind other societies is reported by the Arabs themselves.

I guess you'll now have to call for a Fatwah (Muslim murder decree like against Salman Rushdie) against the authors of the study:

This from the New York Times, 07-02-2002:

"A blunt new report by Arab intellectuals commissioned by the United Nations warns that Arab societies are being crippled by a lack of political freedom, the repression of women and an isolation from the world of ideas that stifles creativity. "

More on this HERE (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=14728#post14728).

[Mediocrates]

"Against the beautiful and the clever and the successful, one can wage a pitiless war, but not against the unattractive: then the millstone weighs on the breast. "

"Despair is the price one pays for setting oneself an impossible aim. It is, one is told, the unforgivable sin, but it is a sin the corrupt or evil man never practices. He always has hope. He never reaches the freezing-point of knowing absolute failure. Only the man of goodwill carries always in his heart this capacity for damnation. "


- Graham Greene

[Vic]

What cozy, enlightened, Western post-WWII statements... Too optimistic for our times.

[Mediocrates]

Well he WAS an unregenerate Catholic :)

[MGB8]

The "Cananites" were not an ethnic identity, but a bunch of city states and tribes. The first NATION in the area was the nation of the Jews - Israel.

I also would like to here your response to Ibrodsky's posted information on the Ignorance thread - that 70+% of the land was un-owned in 1948, that there was a sizable Jewish majority in 48 Israel.

I'd also love to here you acknowledge that (1) yes, Arab armies did ask Arabs to leave the area in 1948 to avoid the "oncomming slaughter," (2) that Arafat is a proven muderer (US diplomat, 72 games, etc. etc. etc.) and liar (breakings of the Oslo accords, for one of many many many lies - I love the late King Husseins qoute "Arafat never met a bridge he couldn't double cross"), (3) that Palestine is a roman word given to Judea after the great revolt, and has nothing to do with Arabs, (4) that Arabs do indeed control 97-99% of the middle east, (5) that you acknowledge the Jewish religious claims to Jerusalem (or do you not believe Roman and Egyptian recorded history, as well as Christian history), I have more, but that's enough for now.

[Philip]

Originally posted by MGB8
The "Cananites" were not an ethnic identity, but a bunch of city states and tribes. The first NATION in the area was the nation of the Jews - Israel.

This is something that maybe matters to you, but not to me. I don't think that nations have rights; I think that only individuals have rights. To speak of the "rights of nations" is, to me, a fascistic notion that invites the trumping of individual rights for "the greater good."

I note, however, that you have indirectly acknowledge that your original assertion that "As for Original Population. The ORIGINAL POPULATION OF JUDEA WAS JEWS!" was simply false.


I also would like to here your response to Ibrodsky's posted information on the Ignorance thread - that 70+% of the land was un-owned in 1948, that there was a sizable Jewish majority in 48 Israel.

I don't currently have access to a good primary source of information on land-ownership circa 1948. I suspect, however, that not a small amount of land that had been declared "unowned" under whatever standard was used would not stand up to objective scrutiny -- would any objective person hold that pasture land that had been used exclusively by one clan, or even two or more clans, for as long as anyone can remember is "unowned land?" (It's a rhetorical question, MGB8, and you are not objective in any case.)


I'd also love to here you acknowledge that (1) yes, Arab armies did ask Arabs to leave the area in 1948 to avoid the "oncomming slaughter,"

I believe that there were isolated instances of this -- Benny Morris cites "more that half a dozen villages -- just north of Jeruselum and in the Lower Galilee" where civilians were directed to evacuate, as well as Arab High Council instructions that the evacuation of Haifa should continue after it was already underway. Elsewhere, women, children, and the infirmed were ordered out. But I don't think anyone has ever produced any evidence that there was a broad order to leave the portions of Palestine earmarked for a Jewish state in 1948 in order to "avoid the 'oncoming slaughter,'" as you alledge. If you have such evidence, please provide it.


(2) that Arafat is a proven muderer (US diplomat, 72 games, etc. etc. etc.) and liar (breakings of the Oslo accords, for one of many many many lies - I love the late King Husseins qoute "Arafat never met a bridge he couldn't double cross"),

I've seen the claim about the PLO assassination of a US diplomat a couple times here now -- can you give more details? I had not heard of this.

In any case, a lot of the sins of Palestinian groups cannot be laid at Arafat's feet: he opposed, for example, the PFLP's proposal in the late 1960's of starting a airline hijacking campaign, and even sought to expel the PFLP from the PLO. The Munich killings were the work of a group calling itself "Black September." Different people claim both that this group is part of Arafat's Fatah and that it is not.

As to the "breaking of the Oslo Accords," I think the one thing he clearly did was import weapons, as on the Karine B. However, what is often lost in the shuffle in what is reported about the Karine B is that most of the weapons found on it were anti-tank missles. Now, if we recall that at the time of the Karine B being captured, Israel was in the midst of its first recent invasion of the West Bank, it might do to admit that, when the Oslo Accords were signed, Arafat could not have imagined that his alleged partner in peace would be engaged in a tank invasion of his people. And in that light, the claims that are often made (for Israel!) that there is always an unlimited right to defend oneself illuminate the Karine B affair in a somewhat more complexity than is usually acknowledged.

Still, Arafat is a rotten person: a liar, a thug, a butcher. I don't deny that.

I had seen a quote of Moshe Dayan, responding to a question about whether or not some agreement he'd made wouldn't prevent Israel from accomplishing one of its clear goals, saying, "We'll double cross that bridge when we get to it." But I couldn't find it just now on the internet.


(3) that Palestine is a roman word given to Judea after the great revolt, and has nothing to do with Arabs,

That may be true, but it is certainly irrelevant.


(4) that Arabs do indeed control 97-99% of the middle east,

Again, that is true, but irrelevant.


(5) that you acknowledge the Jewish religious claims to Jerusalem (or do you not believe Roman and Egyptian recorded history, as well as Christian history), I have more, but that's enough for now.

I acknowledge that there are all manner of religious claims that I put absolutely no stock in, and Jewish "ownership" of Jerusalem is among them.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Philip
I had seen a quote of Moshe Dayan, responding to a question about whether or not some agreement he'd made wouldn't prevent Israel from accomplishing one of its clear goals, saying, "We'll double cross that bridge when we get to it." But I couldn't find it just now on the internet.


That's because you have the wrong person attributed to that quote.

From http://www.honestreporting.com/critiques/2001/90_benyehuda.asp:
As Jordan's King Hussein once said: "Arafat never met a bridge he didn't double cross."

[WithinMySelf]

...
Hi…

I am a new member…
And I would like to participate with you people…
I searched in your forum for a thread to introduce my self, but things are really different here…!
In most Arabic forums, there is always a space for new members to introduce them selves…
…
I know that I will be kicked out very soon, hehehe ^_^
…
Yes…, I am Arabian… Not a Palestinian...
A Gulfie - to be precise (from the Gulf).
And, yes, I AM a Muslim…
I know that you have the absolute power to remove me from your forum, but please don’t rush… Please give me the chance to speak with you.
…
You can remove me any time later if you wish.
Be patient.
Ahem, you can also notice that my English is not that good…

I came a cross many topics which really interested me.
And I would like to try to participate in most of them.
Will you give me the chance?
Thanks! ^_^

And nothing better than MGB8's “Why they hate us....” topic to start with… …
Why do “we” hate “you”, you say?
Hmmmmm…
I think it is very obvious…
Here we go again…
“Give the land back to its "original" people, and things will run smooth"!
Clear? ^_-


Originally posted by NewsGuy

So, at a certain point, one would realize that land, per se, is not the basis of the Arab hatred. Rather, it is a desire to exterminate all Jewish life from the Mideast that is the goal of the Arabs, and that is very much tied into somethig other than land. This kind of Arab and Islamic hatred is rooted in a Medieval culture of massacres of the infidels with violence and racism as its religious cornerstone.
"Medieval culture"??? :confused:
Yeah... that’s right... :rolleyes:
That’s why we live peacefully with Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists in the gulf (with the exception of Saudi Arabia of course...), they don't do something bad to them, but they don't allow them to enter the holy land for reasons very well known to non Muslims in the region.

Originally posted by NewsGuy

On a positive note, though, perhaps the next generation or two of Arabs will start entering modern times and adopt some civilized values that will allow them to live peacefully with their neighbors.
Yes indeed...
Neighbors...
Neighbors who don't take our land by force of coarse ... ... ^_^
:)

[Mediocrates]

That’s why we live peacefully with Jews,

Since when, where, what are the names of the communities and how many Jews more or less live there, for how long and what is their social economic and legal status vis a vis anyone else who lives there.

Thanks.

they don't do something bad to them, but they don't allow them to enter the holy land for reasons very well known to non Muslims in the region.

Is that a statement about SA or about the region generally?

[MGB8]

Peacefully, eh???

I think that the Kurds, Druz, Christians, Hindu's and Budhists (particularly in Kashmir and India) would have something to say about that.

How about all those expelled Judean Arabs from SA and Kuwait?

And the Shiite and Suni infighting is great peace.

[Mediocrates]

“Give the land back to its "original" people, and things will run smooth"!
Clear? ^_-

Crystal.

Under UN dictat which many people are so proud to quote or misquote, what you refer to is unique even in the annals of the UN. They allowed whomever wished, to self designate as "Palistinian" based on an undefined 'residency' of the previous two years - with or without supporting documentation. Basically they left open the assignment of who was where to whomever wanted to make that claim.

So who precisely are the original inhabitants assuming of course you don't mean someone else further back in history.

What always amazes me is that when you make this kind of argument you pound, figuratively, your shoe on the table proclaiming history. But how do you make the claim that history began and ended more or less with the dates you describe? History is a wonderful thing. But it didn't begin in 1946 and end in 1948 did it?

Or, we could turn that on its head and ask you to hand over tracts of Bagdad and other cities from which the Jews were 'escorted' at gunpoint. Why suddenly no historical imperative? eh?

[minusthejihad]

Neighbors who don't take our land by force of coarse ... ... ^_^

And in exactly what land, do you permit your neighbors to join up with other neighbors to try to kill your neighbor for what he or she was born, then try to take the land they bought, were granted by the controlling authorities, and cultivated? Here's a simple answer:

If you attack and then lose: Don't be sore losers and turn yourselves into victims, especially when the neighbor that defended themselves has given you more than enough opportunity to get most of your land back.

And secondly, I hate to break this to you, but, ummmmm:

Jews were around and living in that vicinity long before your religion was even invented. So just how do you think your people were there before? One slip in Abrahams mood that day, and you would probably be Jewish today. He he. Scary, huh?

[minusthejihad]

And the Shiite and Suni infighting is great peace.

Don't forget the Suftis as Brotha Vic pointed out. Yes, I keep forgetting about how peaceful the Muslim religion was. I'm sorry, I was too busy checking out Jew on Jew violence.

[thatwhy]

All this already bring the muslim in south-east asia to start to hate Amercian. As far as I see. As long they are muslim. The blame on Bush or Israel. You can see how they work.

As long a muslim is hurt or kill. The whole race of muslim no matter who is right or wrong will come chasing you down. They will not care what happen. The muslim is correct and the non-muslim is wrong. See ? This is how they work all the time since day one. They will never shift the blame to themselves unless it is a muslim's matter.

So like now. More Israel attack. They hate more jew everyday. Even they never met a jews in their whole life. Hate work in strange ways.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


Islamic attempted Jihad-genocide .

That doesn't make sense. If its Islamic Jihad.. then it cant be genocide. If its genocide.. it cant be Islamic Jihad. The two are contradictory.

[qoute]I guess you'll now have to call for a Fatwah (Muslim murder decree like against Salman Rushdie) against the authors of the study:[/quote]

A FATWA is a a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader. Salman has a fatwa against him because he slandered a prophet of GOD. That ruling goes towards all prophets.. from the first to the last.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by MGB8


I think that the Kurds, Druz, Christians, Hindu's and Budhists (particularly in Kashmir and India) would have something to say about that.
And the Shiite and Suni infighting is great peace.

Kashmir and India are not part of the Gulf.

Actually, that infighting causes problems in their respective communities. However.. the fighting is not religious .. its political.

[danholo]

Originally posted by Intellectualme


Kashmir and India are not part of the Gulf.

Actually, that infighting causes problems in their respective communities. However.. the fighting is not religious .. its political.

I got the idea that the Islamic militants are fighting to "liberate" the southern side of Kashmir from its non-Muslim ruler.


Originally posted by thatwhy
the whole race of muslim

The "race" of Muslim?! I believe that does not exist.
Unlike Jews and Judaism, Islam is only a religion, not a people.
And the term "race" doesn't apply to any of these.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by minusthejihad


Don't forget the Suftis as Brotha Vic pointed out. Yes, I keep forgetting about how peaceful the Muslim religion was.


What are Sufti's??? Sufi is a sect, and whatever fighting does on between the sects are political... not a result of their religion. However... if they DID follow what it says in their books.. they wouldnt even be fighting for political reasons. The religion like all religons is peaceful... but its every man for himself

[MGB8]

Intellectualme....just because YOU think that its contradictory doesn't mean that the way OTHERs use the term Jihad is not completely compatible with genocide.

After all, the 48 war against the Jews, and the subsequent wars, promising to kill all the jews and push Israel into the see, was often put in terms of Jihad by many.

Words by themselves don't have fixed definitions...



Originally posted by Intellectualme


That doesn't make sense. If its Islamic Jihad.. then it cant be genocide. If its genocide.. it cant be Islamic Jihad. The two are contradictory.

[qoute]I guess you'll now have to call for a Fatwah (Muslim murder decree like against Salman Rushdie) against the authors of the study:

A FATWA is a a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader. Salman has a fatwa against him because he slandered a prophet of GOD. That ruling goes towards all prophets.. from the first to the last. [/B][/QUOTE]

[cerulean]

Originally posted by trainspotter18
so MGB8, u are arguing that Islam is a violent religion?

How arrogant of u.

I can't speak for MGB8, and I don't know what post you are referencing, but my general concern is about Islamism, also called radical Islam or fundamentalist Islam or militant Islam. I think this is what most posters mean when making a shorthand reference to Islam.

Islam has had many peaceful practitioners who choose to interpret the Koran in a different way than Hamas or Al-Qaeda (among other terrorist organizations) have chosen to do so. Unfortunately, violent interpretations of Islam seem to have a huge worldwide following currently. These violent interpretations pose an obvious and huge danger both to peaceful Muslims and to so-called infidels.

[cerulean]

This article does not mention Palestinians directly, but it may be applicable. It helps to explain both European anti-Americanism and pro-Palestinianism.

http://www.corpse.org/issue_11/broken_news/fernandez.html
On the Perception of Depth
by James D. Fernandez

According to a certain way of looking at the world that is surprisingly prevalent in Europe and elsewhere, there would seem to be a relation of inverse proportion between power and depth, or between powerlessness and superficiality. The more powerful a group is, the more superficial it must be; the more helpless, the deeper.
Deeper as in more rooted in history -- or perhaps more rooted in suffering. (But does history equal suffering? Now there's a question!) Deeper as in more authentic and therefore invested with more moral legitimacy, prima facie. To put it in the kind of comic book terms we are getting used to these days: on one side, the United States would stand for might without depth -- a place with no culture, no history, only greed and frivolity and the armies needed to defend those shallow vices; on the other, Osama bin Laden, or some other surrogate claiming to represent the dispossessed of the world, claiming to tap into some ancient telluric force, and charged with exacting revenge for ancestral wrongdoings. The gloss of the screens of the Pentagon briefing room on one side; the depths of Afghanistan's caves, on the other. ...

[cerulean]

Trainspotter, I see no basis for comparison between Muslim extremists and so-called Jewish extremists.

I do agree that Muslim extremists are also targeting Muslim secularists, in addition to Israel, the United States, etc.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by MGB8
Intellectualme....just because YOU think that its contradictory doesn't mean that the way OTHERs use the term Jihad is not completely compatible with genocide.

After all, the 48 war against the Jews, and the subsequent wars, promising to kill all the jews and push Israel into the see, was often put in terms of Jihad by many.

Words by themselves don't have fixed definitions..


Tell me... Who are these "others" that you are talking about. It is my belief that if one wants to learn and understand a religion, then one would go to a authentic scholar, and go with their interpretations. According to them... there is no such thing as jihad genocide. Not only is the meaning NOT compatible with it.. but neither is any interpretation. The words that we use to define a situation should be correct.

What MANY MANY people FAIL to realize is that majority of the ME speaks ARABIC. That means that when they say the word Jihad...which means struggle.... it does not automatically mean that they are using it in the Islamic context. There actions certainly NEVER fit the description. That has always been just a word in their vocabulary.. long before Islam.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by danholo


I got the idea that the Islamic militants are fighting to "liberate" the southern side of Kashmir from its non-Muslim ruler.



well. their religion is Islam and they are fighting for independence. Many of them are Kashmiris themsleves. They want self-determination because they feel that the the Indian government is deniing them their rights to self-government. DUH

[cerulean]

When I see the Arab world engaged in a collective struggle for self-improvement and thoroughly renouncing terrorism, then I will believe that "jihad" is not related to committing wars and terrorist acts against infidels.

It's not a matter of convincing non-Muslims that "jihad" is harmless, but a matter of convincing those Muslims who embrace a militant description of the term.

I have been curious about one thing recently. I know that the Arabic version of "Mein Kampf," by Adolf Hitler, is a bestseller in the Arab world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F19%2Fnmein19. xml

"Kampf" is typically translated from German as "struggle." I wonder what the title of "Mein Kampf" in Arabic is.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=IA10402

Conclusion
Human development was defined in the report as "a process of enlarging choice."[22] However, the report, prepared by Arab academicians, portrays a picture of human development where the choices in many vital areas such as health, education, gender inequality and most importantly, political participation and governance, are not expanding fast enough and, in some areas and in comparison with other regions of the world, they are contracting. In the words of the Kuwaiti daily Al Watan's editorial about the report, "The United Nations: The Arabs live in the dark ages."[23] The lead author of the report put it best: "A person who is not free is poor. A woman who is not empowered is poor. And a person who has no access to knowledge is poor."

*********
My god when the UN publishes a grim report like this you know it's got to be some awful reality on the ground. OF course they go through the motions of the obligatory "It's the Jews fault":

The Israeli Dimension
While the report excludes Israel from its analysis it does not spare this country from severe criticism because of its "illegal occupation of Arab lands."[19] It attributes all political, social, and economic dysfunctions in the Arab world to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The report asserts that "occupation casts a pall across the political and economic life of the entire region." With no empirical evidence or supporting data the report concludes that "in all these ways, occupation freezes growth, prosperity and freedom in the Arab world." [Italics added.][20]

For reasons of their own, the authors of the reports disregarded two of the most recent destabilizing events in the Middle East in the last two decades with lingering and destabilizing effects to the present day. One is the Iraq-Iran war and the other is the invasion of Kuwait by its northern neighbor." It is hard to believe that poverty in oil-rich Saudi Arabia is the result of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Just a few days ago, the daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi tells the story of the poor people in Riyadh, the political capital of Saudi Arabia, who wait outside the palaces of the princes for the hope of a few drops of clean drinking water dripping from their faucets.

So basically in the end the UN concludes that the Arab world is completely hosed and in true UN tradition, they have no real 'idea' why or how to really fix it.

I think it's important though, a baby step to note that the entire Arab region is sinking into disarray despite oil wealth.

[Leon Uris]

I think it is sheer jealousy , pure and simple. Look at what the Jews have done to a barren land. Despite such barbaric neighbors, you have one of the most high-tech nations on the face of the planet. That is what these Arabs/Muslims cannot stomach. Being the adherent of such a medieval and exclusivist religion, it boggles their mind that they, the chosen of Allah, live in cow-pie while the cursed jews actually have been able to build a life for themselves. They covet everything that the jews have.

If someone on this forum thinks, that just giving away land is going to quest the blood-thirsty arabs/muslims and suddenly peace is going to break out and Arafat is going to break out into a hosanna , then pardon me, I am on the wrong Forum.

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
When I see the Arab world engaged in a collective struggle for self-improvement and thoroughly renouncing terrorism, then I will believe that "jihad" is not related to committing wars and terrorist acts against infidels.

It's not a matter of convincing non-Muslims that "jihad" is harmless, but a matter of convincing those Muslims who embrace a militant description of the term.

I have been curious about one thing recently. I know that the Arabic version of "Mein Kampf," by Adolf Hitler, is a bestseller in the Arab world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F19%2Fnmein19. xml

"Kampf" is typically translated from German as "struggle." I wonder what the title of "Mein Kampf" in Arabic is. German is, unlike English and, AFAIK, Arabic, rather poor on synonyms. Kampf can be translated as "fight", "struggle", etc.

Still - a good question for Intellectualme or any other Arabic speaker here: what is the title of "Mein Kampf" in Arabic? Thx.

[cerulean]

A picture of the Arabic book cover for "Mein Kampf" (with both the Arabic and German titles) is available at

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/mein.html

[shiva]

What can anyone expect from a holy book that tells it's followers to live by the sword, and to execute anyone who speaks against it. Or values a good liar? (the better the lie, the smarter one is seen to be), plus the means justify the end. There is no tone of hatred in mgb8's comments, just a thesis, but one that hits the mark. Arab hatred is far more serious than any Israeli feeling. Those few predictables who dissagree, try read the koran.

[shiva]

Originally posted by Vic
One of the factors is that anti-semitism "sells" well in parts of the Western world, playing the role of a social entrance ticket to the societies many Arabs/Muslims regard to with a kind of inferiority complex.

Cf. an article by Fareed Zakaria, written shortly after 9/11 on anti-americanism/anti-Western sentiment: http://www.msnbc.com/news/639057.asp?cp1=1 . The practical implication is that, to mimic a much too common usage on this forum, anti-semitic Germans, Frenchmen etc. are as much "Arab" (or Iranian, Pakistani etc. for that matter) as the other way round.

I just read that article and it sheds an enormous light on the matter. Makes sense.

[shiva]

Phillip, the hole you're digging is getting deeper. I've been reading what has been said on this thread, and although some disagree, they are too good for you to take on. You're in over your head. However, keep it coming, because you are bringing out some of the most enjoyable wit I have read so far. You make an excellent clown.

[droberts1958]

Shiva - I also have read much of this thread and your "valuable" contributions. The one thing that Trainspotter and Phillip have behind them is the overwhelming support of most of the world. You would dismiss Europe as being anti-semetic because of its past, Africa because of its dominant religion, Asia and South America, Australia and much of North America who knows how but they all share a common belief that peace will only come in a fair settlement of land for peace. You reject this notion because you have no sense of fairness or history. You are in short a blind religious finatic out of pace with the world.

You enjoy this forum because here you are far from alone. You are also far from ever achieving peace while people like you have any influence over decision makers. The nice thing is that given a bit more time even they will see this. You are irrelevant and becoming more so.

[shiva]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Shiva - I also have read much of this thread and your "valuable" contributions. The one thing that Trainspotter and Phillip have behind them is the overwhelming support of most of the world. You would dismiss Europe as being anti-semetic because of its past, Africa because of its dominant religion, Asia and South America, Australia and much of North America who knows how but they all share a common belief that peace will only come in a fair settlement of land for peace. You reject this notion because you have no sense of fairness or history. You are in short a blind religious finatic out of pace with the world.

You enjoy this forum because here you are far from alone. You are also far from ever achieving peace while people like you have any influence over decision makers. The nice thing is that given a bit more time even they will see this. You are irrelevant and becoming more so.


:cool:

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by droberts1958
You enjoy this forum because here you are far from alone. You are also far from ever achieving peace while people like you have any influence over decision makers. The nice thing is that given a bit more time even they will see this. You are irrelevant and becoming more so.

One could analyze the motivations behind being hated instead of ignored, too. The fact is that I could plug Israel into Google and find at random 15,000 websites that spew hate and filth and let's kill all the jews.

And we are as far from peace as you are from achieving Palistinian hegemony.

[signupforpeace]

Day after day this goes on yet the real root is never challenged...

the following is a quote from a teacher to the world - Krishan Kaul - his religious and national ties are irrelevant....this is a quote from a sanskrit shloka...

'when the mouth is parched, one drinks water, sweet and scented; tormented by hunger, one takes a morsel of food, that is rice with condiments; when the fire of passion catches the heart, one embraces one's wife fondly; thus [the] counter-action of pain is really misunderstood by people as some positive happiness.'

If this statement means anything to you and you want to make a personal commitment to peace - please join our petition...

at http://www.signupforpeace.com/petition.asp

or find out more at http://www.signupforpeace.com

Thanks.

[IsraelAdvocate]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by droberts1958
[B]Why the hate.



70 or so years later in 1948 they were not entirely happy with a decision by some decaying colonial power together with new world representative organisation taken to give much of what they considered their land to people they considered interlopers. They hated it so much they tried to drive the Jewish population into the sea so they could have what they considered their land back.




How IRONIC.
You seem to be describing the Aboriginals of Australia.

Don't forget that your country was created by "Colonial Powers" and very much thru "Settlements".

Infact, Great Britian dumped it's proverbial garbage in Australia, filling it with Criminals.

[fred]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates
If Israel gives away its Tel Aviv suburbs in the disputed lands in exchange for some vaporous 'peace' how many of those Jewish suburbanites will be offered citizenship and equal status under the law of Palistan.

Zero that's how many.

Not true. Arafat has stated on a number of occasions that that since their are Palestinian citizens and legal residents of Israel then he would be happy to extend the same rights to Israeli Jews who want to live in (the future state of) palestine in the West bank and Gaza.

In fact there are currently a few Jews who do live and work in the Palestinian Areas and have Palestinian IDs. A couple of them are observers on the Palestinian National Council.

[Vic]

Originally posted by fred
Not true. Arafat has stated on a number of occasions that that since their are Palestinian citizens and legal residents of Israel then he would be happy to extend the same rights to Israeli Jews who want to live in (the future state of) palestine in the West bank and Gaza.

In fact there are currently a few Jews who do live and work in the Palestinian Areas and have Palestinian IDs. A couple of them are observers on the Palestinian National Council. The human rights record of the PA in the 90ies was anything but respectable. Are there really many Israelis who would be prepared to subjugate themselves to such a rule, even if formally assigned "equal status" with the Palestinians?

As for the current Jews with Palestinian IDs - interesting. Could you provide more information on them?

[droberts1958]

Israel Advocate, You bloody yanks take yourselves too seriously. I am very happy with my convict heritage. If you are going to try to insult me and get me upset I would try a different approach.

No doubt much of your bitterness is caused because you weren't invited to the Commonwealth Games. Oh well tough. You wouldn't have won much anyway.

You are 100 percent correct that there is a great similiarity between the settlement of Israel/Palestine by Jewish Israelis and the poms settling Australia. You are also right that I believe our aborginals have good reason to feel that they have gotten a raw deal. No argument from me so far.

Obviously many countries which have been invaded by a more "developed" (what ever exactly that means) country would fall into the same category.

There is a big difference however which is crucial and which most of the Israeli militants do not seem ever to accept. It is the timing. When modern man was kicking out cro-magnan man he was using force and at the time that was just fine. When more modern countries were taking over less developed countries such as Europeans did in North and South America, Australia, Africa and parts of Asia for the most part it was also fine. This was the way the world worked and survival of the fittest was still the way to resolve disputes. But this last period has finished and it is no longer acceptable to simply decide I need a bigger backyard lets take over our neighbours and kick them out.

The key question is when did this period end. I am not sure and this issue should be a separate thread.

However one thing I know for sure is that it ended before 1967. I think maybe 1948 was still within the survival of the fittest period so I fully support Israel's right to exist but only within the boundaries given to it in 1948. Not what it grabbed in 1967.

[fred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
[b]Mediocrates

As long as Palistanians want the same kind of self proscribed (because it is after all a completely synthetic 'disctinction' to be called a Palistinian)

I beg to differ.
I come from a long line of Palestinian Jews, about a dozen generations. If Palestine never existed then why did the Jerusalem Post used to be called the Palestine Post. Why did the early Zionist literature refer to the colonization of Palestine. Your mythology started with the establishment of the State of Israel and a national policy of delegitimization of the Palestine national identity for Jews, Muslims and Christians here.

Keep in mind also that all modern nation states are 'synthetic'. There never was nation states before the modern era, Jewish, Chritial, Muslim or othrwise. The former kingdoms of the Jews and everyone else were autocratic, despotic, and violent.

If we ever arrive at a point where we all can define ourselves as both Israeli and Palestinian then we may make a move towards true peace.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by fred
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates
If Israel gives away its Tel Aviv suburbs in the disputed lands in exchange for some vaporous 'peace' how many of those Jewish suburbanites will be offered citizenship and equal status under the law of Palistan.

Zero that's how many.

Not true. Arafat has stated on a number of occasions that that since their are Palestinian citizens and legal residents of Israel then he would be happy to extend the same rights to Israeli Jews who want to live in (the future state of) palestine in the West bank and Gaza.

In fact there are currently a few Jews who do live and work in the Palestinian Areas and have Palestinian IDs. A couple of them are observers on the Palestinian National Council.

A couple? How generous. Do you know what dhimmi status is? I'd to see some directly evidence of your 1st paragraph.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by fred
If Palestine never existed then why did the Jerusalem Post used to be called the Palestine Post. Why did the early Zionist literature refer to the colonization of Palestine.


I dunno why is New York called New York? Is is because they are all Yorkians?

[mizpah]

Quote: Mediocrates.

Why is New York called New York?
_______________________________

The question to ask in the current conflict "Why is Jerusalem called Jerusalem"? This has been a matter of debate with able scholars differing on its origins. It is recorded that the Rabbis believed that the name Shalem was bestowed on it by Shem (their traditions with Melchizedek)and the name Jireh by Abraham
(after the deliverance of Issac on Mount Moriah) with both names being fused together. Another view was that it wasa called after the tribe of the Jebusites who dwelled there or even Jebu-salem after King Solomon who confirmed it when he took up his reign. King David moved from Hebron to rule a united kingdom from this place.

Jerome disagrees and says that Salem was not Jerusalem as believed by the famous historian Josephus and Christian scholars but a town called Scythopolis now Salem where the ruins of the palace of Melchizedek are seen. Joshua ch15 v 8 clearly mentions Jerusalem and gives its geography. Professor Stanley holds that Jerusalem only became the Capital until a later date in the history of the nation. Bethel, Shechem and Hebron held prominent positions much earlier. Ezekiel ch 5 v5 "Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and counteries that are round about her". Jerome held that Jerusalem was the cross roads between East and West and between North and South "the navel" of the world.

It is commonly accepted that it dates from the second millennium BC and considered sacred by the three great monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. During the division of the kingdom as early as the 5th year under Rehoboam, the temple and royal palace was plundered by Egyptian troops, (1 Kings 14 v25) Philistine and Arab marauders again plundered the palace in Jehoram's reign. Additional raids took place after that. Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon destroyed the city and Temple in 587 BC. At the end of that century the Jews, under Persian rule, were allowed to return to their land and city, and they rebuilt the Temple, but the city walls remained in ruins until Nehemiah restored them in the middle of the 5th Century BC.

Alexander the Great was the next conqueror in the 4th Century followed by his general Ptolemy who subsumed Jerusalem into his Egyptian dynasty until Antiochus 111 arrived, the Seleucid king of Syria and after 30years Antiochus 4th entered Jerusalem, destroying its walls and desecrating the Temple. A Syrian garrison was established and Judas Maccabee led a Jewish revolt and in 165 the Temple was rededicated. Independance was won for Judea and the Hasmonaean dynasty ruled until the middle of the 1st Century. Roman rule began when their generals forced their way into the city in 63 and 54 while a Partian army plundered it in 40 and after that Herod the Great fought his way into it to take control.

More and yet more attacks and destructions of city and Temple took place from Roman to Byzantian Christian rule and back again to Persian in 614 to Byzantine and then the Muslims in 637 led by Caliph Omar and a Muslim presence ever since. In 691 Caliph Abd al-Malik erected the Dome of the Rock. Both Christians and Jews aere treated tolerantly by Muslims until the 11th Century when semi-barbarian Turks displaced the Arabs. The Crusades resulted and in 1099 Jerusalem was captured by the Crusaders and a Christian kingdom established. Saladin reconquered it in 1187and the city was in Egyptian hands until 1517 when the Ottoman Turks took control under Salem 1st. In 1542 The Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the city walls . The Ottoman Turks held Palestine until the 1st World War when Britih Troops under General Allenby conquered it. He entered Jerusalem in 1917. Since them it was under British rule until 1948, when it was divided between Arabs and Jews. Jerusalem lies on the frontier between Israel and the Hashemite kingdom of Jordon, and so the city is divided. Since then, 'The Old City' which was in Jordon was taken by the Jews who want Jerusalem to be their city.


The questian has to be asked, Why all these wars over Jerusalem? From earliest days, other kingdoms and religions took it over from each other and finally it was handed over a divided city trying to please both sides in the modern conflict.
I would ask the Arab, Muslim leaders why Jerusalem? If it is a Holy city they need surely they have Mecca. All counteries in the world have their cities. Is it not reasonable to allow the Jews of Israel to have a National City and a Holy City. They have only one city in the world to call their own. It was taken away from them time and time again. A divided Jerusalem was a Gentile decision by men who did not fully understand the religious signifinance of Jerusalem.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Jerusalem is the city of the Jews according to their history, religion and culture. It was taken from them, it is time to give it back. That saying, people of different backgrounds could live there if they could live at peace with these facts.


________________________________

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down from God out of Heaven
----------- Revelation ch 21 v 2

[Mediocrates]

2/3rds of all Palistinians live in camps outside of Yesha. Mostly in Jordan and Syria. How is life for them there? Do you know do you have an actual answer?

[Teacake]

Here again TS opinion does not a fact, make.


The majority of Palestinians hate Israel because the creation of the state of Israel has destroyed their lives. They either fled their homes from terror when the Israeli army first came or were forced out. None have been allowed back in.

Wrong. The IDF did not exist until the 60's. And it's not like Israel was created over night. The process took about 20 years, of which every existing arab king at the time was directly involved in. There was no real attempt to not create Israel as much as how to divide "palestine" to their satisfaction. That the arabs set out to destroy Israel in less than 24 hours of her re-creation, shows nothing more than the signitures on the League of Nation documents was nothing more than a deception.

None have been allowed back in? If that was true Israel would be a safe place to live. Exactly who then are these blood-thristy savage gangs that swarm thoughout Israel with semi-automatic weapons and explosives?

The facts are that they are very much all over Israel but refuse to accept a government other than their choosing. That is the crux of the situation. Islamics in the ME will not tolerate a government with even 1% Jewish influence. They could easily move to a number of arab/islamic states, but that even a grain of sand is under Jewish control is too much for these people.

1948. Since when are huts and tents comsidered homes? If you know any history of the ME, which it's obvious you don't, arabs have typically led nomadic lives for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, the arabs never built any of the cities. Wherever an islamic city came into being it was due to a hostile take over. They have a legacy of being aggressive carpetbaggers. They have a history of hostile take-overs, and have never created much of anything.

[shiva]

I don't think anyone will be able to deal with traincrash and what he/she says, it is simply too galling, and over the top. but it's a good thing you clarified the situation, so people can see this. thanks :)

[Mediocrates]

As reported in the Christian Science Monitor about 2 months ago - about 1500 Palistinians are turned away daily on the Allenby Bridge from travelling into Jordan ostensibly to settle there. They are trying to do this on their own, unasked, unforced yet Jordan refuses. Most of them are originally from Jordan, were displaced in the 1970-1 Jordanian war and have family still there.

[shiva]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
As reported in the Christian Science Monitor about 2 months ago - about 1500 Palistinians are turned away daily on the Allenby Bridge from travelling into Jordan ostensibly to settle there. They are trying to do this on their own, unasked, unforced yet Jordan refuses. Most of them are originally from Jordan, were displaced in the 1970-1 Jordanian war and have family still there.

And where is the world outcry? If this was Israel, the barrage would be tremendous. I could probably hear it in my back yard.

[fred]

Originally posted by Vic
As for the current Jews with Palestinian IDs - interesting. Could you provide more information on them?
Uri Davis has observer status on the Palestinian National Council, as does the representative from Naturei Carta. I believe A. Halevi is on the staff of the labor ministry. They are three I know about

[fred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

I dunno why is New York called New York? Is is because they are all Yorkians?

Of course 'New Yorkers' call themselves just that. Although I believe 'Manhatten' was derived from the original inhabitants. However the designation Palestinian and the attendant national movement is a modern one, which paralleled the development of Zionism. Let's not forget that the drive to establish a Jewish state had little to do with Judaism during most of it's development. In fact there was much debate in the early 20th century whether to establish the Jewish State in Uganda, which was supported by Hertzle. Our revival of the religious mythology justifying the state at its present location came much later. Anyone know when the NRP was founded?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by fred

Uri Davis has observer status on the Palestinian National Council, as does the representative from Naturei Carta. I believe A. Halevi is on the staff of the labor ministry. They are three I know about

And who are these people?

Uri Davis believes that Israel is the terrorist. Whether he believes Israel engineered the World Trade Center attack I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Naturei Carta supports Arab countries and groups determined to destroy the modern state of Israel. They brag about friendly relations with the theocratic-fascist rulers of Iran who publicly talked about one day resolving the conflict through nukes and their willingness to sacrifice 10% of Muslims for the cause of obliterating Israel.

You side with people who encourage, support, and glorify mass murder terrorism against civilians, who spread slanders against Jews, and who complain about "illegal occupation" that resulted from their lust to recreate "the Islamic Empire." You speak respectfully of "president Ararat" -- the Father of Modern Terrorism. What more do we need to know?

[fred]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


And who are these people?

Uri Davis believes that Israel is the terrorist. Whether he believes Israel engineered the World Trade Center attack I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Naturei Carta supports Arab countries and groups determined to destroy the modern state of Israel. They brag about friendly relations with the theocratic-fascist rulers of Iran who publicly talked about one day resolving the conflict through nukes and their willingness to sacrifice 10% of Muslims for the cause of obliterating Israel.

You side with people who encourage, support, and glorify mass murder terrorism against civilians, who spread slanders against Jews, and who complain about "illegal occupation" that resulted from their lust to recreate "the Islamic Empire." You speak respectfully of "president Ararat" -- the Father of Modern Terrorism. What more do we need to know?

I never said I supported any of these people's views. I provided, at your request, examples of Jews who work within the Palestinian Authority. However I have read Uri Davis' writings and had discussions with him and have never heard him 'glorify mass murder' (your words) or anything close to it. Naturei Carta has a theology that closely parallels may Jewish Ultra-Orthodox groups inasmuch as they do not recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist State. many of our other ultra-orthodox groups feel likewise but in their hypocracy they are happy to dip into the coffers of the state to further their religious goals. As far as Naturei Carta's support for fascist regimes - they are right alongside the USA in this regrard - both equally deplorable.

I certainly don't have much respect for Arafat, about on a par with our own Sharon. I think that only when we can all rid ourselves of these Warmongers will there ever be a chance to live as neighbors. What more would you like to know?

[Vic]

Originally posted by fred
However I have read Uri Davis' writings and had discussions with him and have never heard him 'glorify mass murder' (your words) or anything close to it.I doubt that he does it, however ha might choose better addressees for his writings: http://psc.za.org/pscsa3apr2002.htm , cf.: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=14357#post14357

The examples you cited are, however, those of Jews with clearly political goals. Would an average, say, center-to-right-wing Israeli Jew be able to survive just on his "Palestinian ID"? And then there is - sorry, yet again, - the human rights record of the PA to consider.

[fred]

Originally posted by Vic
I doubt that he does it, however ha might choose better addressees for his writings: http://psc.za.org/pscsa3apr2002.htm , cf.: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=14357#post14357

The examples you cited are, however, those of Jews with clearly political goals. Would an average, say, center-to-right-wing Israeli Jew be able to survive just on his "Palestinian ID"? And then there is - sorry, yet again, - the human rights record of the PA to consider.

Interestingly enough there are some (very) right wing settlers who are willing to entertain the notion of residency in a Palestinian state under the right conditions. As to your last comment, we also need to consider Israel's sorry human rights record. However both societies need to get beyond who did what to whom, and stop doing it. Then maybe we can settle the squabble and learn to live together.

[Mediocrates]

But does the PA see a free Palistine as a Jew Free Palistine?

[Mohoc]

I think the real problem is that Israel was created with the help of guns. Since Israel and all the land surrounding it were colonies at one time, the people of the area had no real ablility of self-determination. The Jews AND Arabs of the area claim the land as their own, and both are right. Currently Israel hold the upper hand, because it is supported by most the US and many European states, but it could not survive on its own. Currently the Jews in Israel are surpressing the right of the arabs for self-determination through an elaborate system of occupation, laws and settlement of key areas. Since there is no leader in the arab community that advocates pure peace, there is nobody that could tell the Palistinians to stop the terror. Israel responds in kind with military retribution. This circle can only be stoped by Israel through a uni-lateral AND complete withdrawel from the occupied territories.

[MGB8]

No, the real problem is Arab PRIDE, because Israel shouldn't have been formed by guns. Had they accepted the partition plan, each area would have had sovereignty and self determination with a minimum of land transfer and invonvinience, as Israel would mainly be composed of already Jewish land (purchased) and "crown land" which belonged to Britain.

The problem is not with Israel's existence, it is with Arab refusal to acknowledge it as legitimate, based on pride reasons.



Originally posted by Mohoc
I think the real problem is that Israel was created with the help of guns. Since Israel and all the land surrounding it were colonies at one time, the people of the area had no real ablility of self-determination. The Jews AND Arabs of the area claim the land as their own, and both are right. Currently Israel hold the upper hand, because it is supported by most the US and many European states, but it could not survive on its own. Currently the Jews in Israel are surpressing the right of the arabs for self-determination through an elaborate system of occupation, laws and settlement of key areas. Since there is no leader in the arab community that advocates pure peace, there is nobody that could tell the Palistinians to stop the terror. Israel responds in kind with military retribution. This circle can only be stoped by Israel through a uni-lateral AND complete withdrawel from the occupied territories.

[Mohoc]

Pride is ALWAYS involved.
BOTH SIDES have shown to much pride to make a real peace






Originally posted by MGB8
No, the real problem is Arab PRIDE, because Israel shouldn't have been formed by guns. Had they accepted the partition plan, each area would have had sovereignty and self determination with a minimum of land transfer and invonvinience, as Israel would mainly be composed of already Jewish land (purchased) and "crown land" which belonged to Britain.

The problem is not with Israel's existence, it is with Arab refusal to acknowledge it as legitimate, based on pride reasons.

[ibrodsky]

This isn't about "pride." It is about conflicting ideologies. Perhaps Fred can't see there is no comparison between Israel and most Arab countries when it comes to human rights abuses, but most well-educated people can.

The Arab world is motivated largely by militant Islam, a classic fascist movement that seeks world domination and the complete regimentation of society. Israel is dramatically different: an open society that periodically changes leaders in an orderly and peaceful manner; a society in which all views are aired; a society in which there is a commitment to consensus rather than decree.

This is reflected by the fact that after the F-16 attack in Gaza Israel agonized over the deaths of innocents. Even if some agonized only over the bad PR, it is qualitatively superior to the Palestinian reaction to killing of Jews: joyous street celebrations.

BTW Fred, I never said that Uri Davis glorifies terrorism. I said you side with people who do (the Palestinians). Just in case you have any trouble comprehending this, I'm not saying you glorify terrorism either -- just that you apparently can't tell the moral low ground from high ground.

[ibrodsky]

P.S.: if the conflict were over "pride" the Oslo Peace Process would have worked. Israel was obviously willing (eager, really) to make concessions. This would have allowed the PA to reciprocate had pride been the key obstacle.

There is nothing about the goals of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, ad nauseum that suggests this is just about pride. This is certainly the kind of excuse, however, I would expect from people who wholeheartedly embraced the Oslo Peace Process sham.

This battle is about Good versus Evil. Unless, of course, you think blowing up busloads of Israeli commuters is an appropriate response to the "humiliation" of checkpoints -- checkpoints that are the Palestinian proxy fighters' fault to begin with.

[fred]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
This isn't about "pride." It is about conflicting ideologies. Perhaps Fred can't see there is no comparison between Israel and most Arab countries when it comes to human rights abuses, but most well-educated people can.

The Arab world is motivated largely by militant Islam, a classic fascist movement that seeks world domination and the complete regimentation of society. Israel is dramatically different: an open society that periodically changes leaders in an orderly and peaceful manner; a society in which all views are aired; a society in which there is a commitment to consensus rather than decree.

BTW Fred, I never said that Uri Davis glorifies terrorism. I said you side with people who do (the Palestinians). Just in case you have any trouble comprehending this, I'm not saying you glorify terrorism either -- just that you apparently can't tell the moral low ground from high ground.

So what!? Does Israel really want to compare itself to a bunch of tinpot regimes, or have higher aspirations. Most Israelis proudly refer to the country as a democracy. So let's use that as a benchmark, and look to other successful pluralistic democracies for inspiration. I certainly want to live in a human society, and I beieve we all want that. You speak of consensus. Are you referring to the consensus of the entire citizenry, or just the 62% who are Jewish? Consensus, by definition, is something everyone can live with. A consensus onlyamong the Jewish majority is majority rule, not consensus. And we only seem to have that when we are at war. I know of no consensus in Israeli society about where we are going, what our borders should be, the role of religion in civic life etc. What about our 350,000 foreign workers from Thailand, the Philipines, Ghana etc.(5%of the population). Most of them aren't leaving. Where do they fit into the consensus. Most of them are invisible to Israeli Jews.

My definition of a humane democracy is the traditional one that judges society by how we treat the least among us, Jewish, Muslim, Philipino or otherwise. The political and economic policies of Israel is curently moving more in the direction of disenfranchising the weakest segments, as evidenced by the recent budget and our political drift to the right. I heard the term 'Capitalistic Zionism' for the first time last week. It seems to reflect the times.

[Vic]

Originally posted by fred
So what!? Does Israel really want to compare itself to a bunch of tinpot regimes, or have higher aspirations. Most Israelis proudly refer to the country as a democracy. So let's use that as a benchmark, and look to other successful pluralistic democracies for inspiration. I certainly want to live in a human society, and I beieve we all want that. You speak of consensus. Are you referring to the consensus of the entire citizenry, or just the 62% who are Jewish? Consensus, by definition, is something everyone can live with. A consensus onlyamong the Jewish majority is majority rule, not consensus. And we only seem to have that when we are at war. I know of no consensus in Israeli society about where we are going, what our borders should be, the role of religion in civic life etc. What about our 350,000 foreign workers from Thailand, the Philipines, Ghana etc.(5%of the population). Most of them aren't leaving. Where do they fit into the consensus. Most of them are invisible to Israeli Jews.

My definition of a humane democracy is the traditional one that judges society by how we treat the least among us, Jewish, Muslim, Philipino or otherwise. The political and economic policies of Israel is curently moving more in the direction of disenfranchising the weakest segments, as evidenced by the recent budget and our political drift to the right. I heard the term 'Capitalistic Zionism' for the first time last week. It seems to reflect the times. Fred, excuse me, but like many Israelis you seem to have a rather idealistic view of real-world democracy. In case you mean Europe, let me tell you that the human rights records of many countries here are abysmal, particularily where concerning minorities. Curiously enough, some of the worst offenders are also the most vocal critics of Israel, but this, of course, might be a pure coincidence. Foreign workers, along with refugees etc., are invisible in all European countries, as are more often than not their children and grandchildren, who may have been even born in the respective countries. Compared to this, Israel's record is actually much better than many believe. While it is always an honourable quest to improve one's own society, please don't forget that you are demanding to create the best and most just country that ever existed. In the real world, most if not all democratic countries are run by majorities, not by what you define as concensus. Minority participation is invariably a painful issue.

[elke]

There is nothing wrong with shooting for the stars. In fact, it's a terrific thing to want to make your country the best it can be. However, please don't succumb to the self-loathing that seems to be so prevalent in the Western world today, Fred!

Immigrants and transients (such as the guest workers) have limited rights and little if any, say in public matters in any country. In democracies, immigrants gain some say once they become citizens - to one degree or another, depending on the country. In the US, for example, they officially become full-fledged members of the society, with full rights to work anywhere (i.e. if they get the classified clearance, they can work on classified stuff as well). In other countries, from what I've heard, it's not quite as rosy.

Guest workers and such never gain any say, unless they become citizens, in the US either.

[Vic]

Originally posted by elke
Immigrants and transients (such as the guest workers) have limited rights and little if any, say in public matters in any country. Permit me a correction, Elke: Germans often define as "transients" - both legally and socially - people whose parents were born in the country, the current definition for "Arabs" in France, quite popular in some quarters, is, it seems, "illegal immigrants" - never mind that some their families' French citizenship can date back to the 19th century. As I have written before, what really irritates me is the way both the population and the government of such countries fall over themselves to help poor darling Palestinians while ignoring the reality right in front of them. If one had the choice between being an Israeli Arab arrested on the suspicion of terrorist activity and being a French Arab meeting a bunch of patriotically minded and maybe a bit bored policemen on a French street, I am not sure that I wouldn't recommend the former.

I don't notice much self-loathing among members of our ethnic majorities about this either. They don't really mind, taking care of one's own dirty laundry is never a thrilling occupation.

But - shooting for the stars is a marvellous position, no doubt about that. I only wish that some of the people around me would take a couple of lessons from Israelis on this.

[ayesha]

Originally posted by MGB8
No, the real problem is Arab PRIDE, because Israel shouldn't have been formed by guns. Had they accepted the partition plan, each area would have had sovereignty and self determination with a minimum of land transfer and invonvinience, as Israel would mainly be composed of already Jewish land (purchased) and "crown land" which belonged to Britain.

hello all, id like to add something if i may..
the Palestinians rejected the UN Partition Plan because, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended that a Jewish State be established in Palestine. They proposed the Jews should have about 54% of the total area of the country while they only owned 6% of the land.

[MGB8]

According to the statistics I've seen, Jews owned 7% of the land, concentrated on the strip between Tel Aviv and Haifa, while Arabs owned about 40%, concentrated in the west bank, and the rest was British land, mostly unoccupied.

Of the Land that Israel recieved in the partition, much of it was the Negev - barren rocky desert.

Also, it was not "the Palestinians" who rejected the partition plan - Palestinians didn't exist as a group until 1964.

It was the ARABS, who gained a bunch more British land (as well as jewish land, though insignificant in relation) in the mideast, gaining 99.9% of it.




Originally posted by ayesha


hello all, id like to add something if i may..
the Palestinians rejected the UN Partition Plan because, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended that a Jewish State be established in Palestine. They proposed the Jews should have about 54% of the total area of the country while they only owned 6% of the land.

[fred]

Originally posted by Vic
Fred, excuse me, but like many Israelis you seem to have a rather idealistic view of real-world democracy. In case you mean Europe, let me tell you that the human rights records of many countries here are abysmal, particularily where concerning minorities. Curiously enough, some of the worst offenders are also the most vocal critics of Israel, but this, of course, might be a pure coincidence. Foreign workers, along with refugees etc., are invisible in all European countries, as are more often than not their children and grandchildren, who may have been even born in the respective countries. Compared to this, Israel's record is actually much better than many believe. While it is always an honourable quest to improve one's own society, please don't forget that you are demanding to create the best and most just country that ever existed. In the real world, most if not all democratic countries are run by majorities, not by what you define as concensus. Minority participation is invariably a painful issue.

I lived in Europe for 16 years, in the USA for 15 years. So I am well aware of the shortcomings of Western democracies. However Israel's treatment of guest workers is perhaps the worst among the democracies. We only provide a guest visa for a specific employer under terms that creates a de-facto indentured servant. Many of our building contactors confiscte the passports of their guest workers and force them to live packed into small huts surrounded by barbed wire, often next to the luxury villas of nearby Israelis. We are now into our second generation of foreing workers. There are tens of thousands of African and Asian teenagers who speek fluent Hebrew, go to school here, and absorb Israeli culture. yet there is no mechanism to legalise their status. It's a time bomb in Israeli society because, like Europe, they are not going back to the countries of their parents. They like it here. Eventually we will have to offer citizenship to the second or third generation. This will change the demographics of the country in a manner that most Israelis can't see yet.

I and not demanding the 'best and most just society', as you put it. I merely want to see the same rights for non-Jews in Israel that are currently accorded to minorities in most other democracies. The problem here is that most of our laws and regulations explicitly give more rights to Jews than non-Jews (citizens). Many countries in Europe may still have Christianity as the 'official' religion but the laws apply equally to all citizens. Not so in Israel. the most glaring example is the Land Laws. The Israeli State owns 92% of the land in Israel. By law and regulations only Jews may lease that land or own businesses on it, despite the fact that over 25% of our citizens are non-Jewish. This is embodied in the regulations of the Jewish national Fund and the israeli Lands Administration. Keep in mind also that most of the 92% was confiscated from the Palestinians who fled the war of 1948 and were not allowed back.

Imagine a European country passing a law declaring that non-Christians were confined to live only in certain areas. Despite Europe's problems with immigrants, It couldn't happen today.

[fred]

Originally posted by elke
There is nothing wrong with shooting for the stars. In fact, it's a terrific thing to want to make your country the best it can be. However, please don't succumb to the self-loathing that seems to be so prevalent in the Western world today, Fred!
I've never understood why the desire to improve one's country is redefined as 'self-loathing', or as I've been called a 'self-hating' Jew. For the record I am a proud Jew, keeping a kosher home, and observing many mitzvot. It is interesting to note the origing of the epithet. In Germany during the 1930s and 1940s it was common to call people who helped Jews 'self-hating Germans'.



Originally posted by elke
Guest workers and such never gain any say, unless they become citizens, in the US either.
Right, but in Israel there is no legal mechanism to naturalise foreign workers as citizens, or their Israeli children. The current, unrealistic assumption, is that they will all go back to their original countries with their children (and soon grandchildren). Currently the only peoeple who can become citizens of Israel are every Jew in the world (as defined under 'The Law of Return), their immediate relatives, and a few Palestinians under a family unification rule.

[Teacake]

ITs the same people who have had a history of killing Jews who are the ones griping about Jews having control of their own nation. Does anyone know of any other group of people who have been in constant mortal danger for 2000 years? Isn't that why the League of Nations finally decided to "allow" "Palestine" to be returned to the Jews after 2000 years of pograms?

If in fact the Jewish people did not have this unique problem in this world, then of course it would be wrong to have polices that put Jews above non-Jews, who for 2000 years have never stopped to this day to take Jerusalem and the rest of Israel for their own devises.

Israel faces problems that no other nation faces. No other nation has ever had the entire global community band together against one tiny little nation. No other people have had to carve out a place of their own just in order to survive. As it is, Jews are an endangered culture. Even Japan with 100 million people have stated that they believe they are an endangered people on the brink of extinction.

Up until 2000 years ago Jews were once 1/3 of the population. True, the global population was only 1 billion, but still, now that the global population has ballooned to over 6 billion, we are less than 20 million. YES! We have a special situation that needs special protection. The planet is huge. Israel is a speck on the planet, with just so much space, and with our unique problems dealing with others, I don't see why it is a problem at all to make sure Israel is protected against it becoming controled by the same people who have been "after us" for the past 2000 years.

As I recall, there are in fact other countries with very strict regulations about who can own property and who can not. Where is the global outcry for those nations with strict policies? The one that comes to mind right off the bat is New Zealand and Australia. Up until very recently immigration laws have been highly restrictive globally.

IF Jews loose control of Israel, its bye bye for us. I for one have no desire to live on the moon just so that my existance doesn't bother non-Jews.

[fred]

Originally posted by Teacake
Up until 2000 years ago Jews were once 1/3 of the population.
That's an interesting piece of information. Where did you find it?


Originally posted by Teacake
As I recall, there are in fact other countries with very strict regulations about who can own property and who can not.
That may be true, but Israel is the ONLY democracy where 25% the citizens do not have, by law, equal rights to live where they chose. And this right is denied only because they are not Jews.
Teacake - how would you feel if you were told by the US federal government that because you were Jewish you could only live in Long Island, Brooklyn, North Philadelphia, and Central Florida. That's how our Israeli Arab citizens are treated.

[Mediocrates]

Actually we did have that and it took decades of legislation at the local level to change that. Still to this day 'redlining' exists and we've put a friendly face on our antisemitism. But I guess we don't have the same PR machine as the Palestinians because the only response you'll typically get is something like "there go those graspy Jews again whining about something, why don't they know their place?"

What did the Palestinians do for nearly 20 years they had dominion over their land?

[Mediocrates]

Right, but in Israel there is no legal mechanism to naturalise foreign workers as citizens, or their Israeli children.

Which is more liberal than the US and most non EU modern countries that don't have guest worker policies at all.

Would you move your entire family to another country if you didn't know how permanent your status would be and you had no exit plan? It seems to me that if Palestinians want to do that they should appeal to the EU as refugees. They would probably have better success.

[Mediocrates]

We only provide a guest visa for a specific employer under terms that creates a de-facto indentured servant. Many of our building contactors confiscte the passports of their guest workers.

that's a labor law issue not an immigration policy issue.

yet there is no mechanism to legalise their status.

Why should there be? Isn't the point of guest worker to be a guest? It's supposed to be termporary.

Eventually we will have to offer citizenship to the second or third generation.

Why?

[Teacake]

how would you feel if you were told by the US federal government that because you were Jewish you could only live in Long Island, Brooklyn, North Philadelphia, and Central Florida. That's how our Israeli Arab citizens are treated.

Well, there is something slightly slimilar to that right here in the US. All Native American reservations are considered soviergn nations and only Native Americans are allowed to live on these reservations, buy homes, etc. No one here seems to mind.

But, my point seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. Israel has special circomstances that no other nation on this planet has. The arabs have the ENTIRE middle east to live where they want. Are you telling me that Jews can buy home, live in safety with the same rights anywhere else in the ME (other than Israel)? Anyhow, of all nations in the ME, women have no rights at all, unlike Israel. And unlike Israel, the human rights abuses thoughout the ME are absymal.

[fred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Actually we did have that and it took decades of legislation at the local level to change that.
That's right and it will take Israeli civil rights groups a few more decades to weed the same kind of racism out of Israeli law. We're working on it.


Originally posted by Mediocrates
What did the Palestinians do for nearly 20 years they had dominion over their land?
I don't believe they've ever had dominion. First there was Ottoman control, then Brittish, Then Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian, and for the past 35 years under Israeli control with some limited autonomy for the past 9 years in 30% of the West Bank and 60% of Gaza.

[Mediocrates]

I don't believe they've ever had dominion. First there was Ottoman control, then Brittish, Then Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian, and for the past 35 years under Israeli control with some limited autonomy for the past 9 years in 30% of the West Bank and 60% of Gaza

It's absurd to think that unless they were handed a complete working country on a platter their lot in life must be someone else's fault. Why after the single instance of them assassinating the Jordanian king in 1951 did they forever give up on wresting something useful out of the land for themselves? Why did they sit in Egyptian camps and look to Israel for their salvation?

Everyone has been under the 'control' of some other group at one time or another. That's what most of recorded is a record of. I simply don't buy the special case of the Palestinians anymore. They have not been uniquely opressed or particularly handicapped.

What they have done is accept the utterly immoral, impractical warmongering glory seeking of their leaders. I'll trade you a Machiavellian Eamon De Valera for St. Arafat of the Murdering Blockheads any day of the week. And I'll tell you that the Irish have a LOT more to be angry at the British about than the Palesitinians could ever point to. REAL genocide for example.

And the Palestinians have to understand on some level whether they admit it or not that their program of supporting Arafat and chanting in unison 'death to the Jews' won't get them anywhere.

[MGB8]

Fred, I don't know this restricted living condition law that you speak of.

I know about the controversial and unpassed propsal for "Jewish only" neighborhoods, but nothing concrete.

Could you please show us the law, so we can debate this with more information?

[Mediocrates]

The problem here is that most of our laws and regulations explicitly give more rights to Jews than non-Jews (citizens). Many countries in Europe may still have Christianity as the 'official' religion but the laws apply equally to all citizens.

But that's not precisely the case. The US is about 85% Protestant/Catholic. And there are all sorts of laws, great and small that reflect that.

Blue Laws - can purchase certain goods or open certain businesses on the Christian Sabbath.

Marriage laws - determined by Christian beliefs as to age of consent and general guidelines (several states still have adultery as a CRIME)

Polygamy - a big no no, no matter if Allah or Joseph Smith told you it's ok.

Swear an oath on the New Testament.

Certain crops are illegal to own and harvest. Not all cultures see it that way but the Calvinists prevail!

Regulated liquor laws per the demands of one or two majority religions.

Banks that charge interest (in flagrant violation of Islamic law ;) )

And so on. The point is, I as a non Chrisitian have to live under this yoke regardless of my religion, ethics or personal feelings.

The point is that societal requirements and legal standards are not indifferent to religion. They never are.

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fred

I've never understood why the desire to improve one's country is redefined as 'self-loathing', or as I've been called a 'self-hating' Jew...

It's not. Self-loathing is defined as self-loathing ;) : i.e. feeling like nothing currently done by one's own is done right.

Personally, I save such terms as "self-hating Jew" for the likes of Stanley Cohen, the US attorney for Hamas. Believing that something needs improvement in one's own country, IMO is certainly call for action, rather than the sign of self-hate.

I am sorry I wasn't clear enough regarding what I meant to say. The reason I mentioned it is that many very good people (Americans, mainly) I admire greatly, seem to feel that the fact that injustices exist in their country, means that the whole thing is to be scrapped. I don't find such attitudes productive or healthy.

[MGB8]

I still don't know what laws we're speaking of, but certainly many nations have religiously determined laws.

even the US, possibly the most secular nation in the world with mandated separation of Church and State, has common sunday liquour laws (you can't buy liquour until certain times on sunday), oaths on the Christian bible, national holidays determined by Christianity, and a host of "morals laws" based on Christianity, including abortion, polygamy, age-of-consent, etc.

Islamic nations are MUCH MUCH "worse." I'm not sure about Europe's legal system, but I wouldn't be surprised to see many many religion based or favoring laws in all of the nations.

[fred]

Originally posted by MGB8
Fred, I don't know this restricted living condition law that you speak of.

I know about the controversial and unpassed propsal for "Jewish only" neighborhoods, but nothing concrete.

Could you please show us the law, so we can debate this with more information?

The Jewish national Fund and the Israel lands administration control all the State owned land (92% ) in Israel. The bylaws of the Jewish National Fund state that no non-Jew may lease this land or own businesses on it. I don't have their by-laws handy or I would quote you the line numbers. All new communities in Israel built on State land are for Jews only, despite the tax shekels of the non-Jewish citizens being used to build the infrastructure.

The government has a policy dating back to the fifties to 'Judaise' the land. In practise that meant first to confiscate all the land belonging to the Palestinians who fled the 1948 war (about 70% of Israel's land), and then using land use planning and zoning laws to restrict the development and expansion of the remaining non-Jewish towns, and establishing only new Jewish communities in areas, such as the Galilee, that have relatively large numbers of non-Jews.

The recent cabinet approved proposa was to further restrict where non-Jews could live by allowing Jewish municipalities to pass local ordinences forbidding non-Jews from living there, thus giving the existing discrimination the force of law. However in practice this situation exists already. The town I live in, Raanana, is all Jewish. Any Christian or Muslim Arab who tried to rent or buy an apartment there would be told that none was available. A few non-Jews do live in otherwise all Jewish communities by having a Jew buy a house for them, or offering a premium price for a property that the (Jewish) owner can't turn down. Raanana even fenced in our public park several years ago to keep non-Jews out. Not from any security concerns but from a desire for social separation from non-Jews. We have a nice mostly Muslim small town nearby called Tira where I do much of our shopping and attend cultural events. A (Jewish) friend of mine recently opened a Chiropractic clinic there and was visited on the opening day by the mayor to wish him well. A similar occurance in Raanana would possibly result in picketing of the clinic by angry Jews who want to keep the town pure. The municipality recently fired all the non-Jewish street cleaners and custodial staff from the schools, despite the fact that many of the employees had worked there for over 20 years.

So Israeli discrimination is both institutional and personal, and I believe, extememely counterproductive in terms of improving relations among all citizens

[Vic]

Take a look at a related thread:

New Israeli law allows "Jews only" urban communities
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=1116

[fred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Right, but in Israel there is no legal mechanism to naturalise foreign workers as citizens, or their Israeli children.

Which is more liberal than the US and most non EU modern countries that don't have guest worker policies at all.

Would you move your entire family to another country if you didn't know how permanent your status would be and you had no exit plan?

Yes, if it meant improving my economic status. that's why they come. Most of them come from impoverished circumstances and come here to work to improve their families' lives. That's why the Mexican laborers come to the USA, which does in fact have a liberal policy of naturalizing guest workers AND illegal residents. In the past 20 years there have been several 'amnesties' whereby a US guest worker or illegal alien could register with the Immigration Authorities and eventually receive a green card.

It should also be noted that the vast majority of the legal Russian immigrants came to Israel during the 1990s for the same reasons, not because they wanted to live in a Jewish state. For most of them the USA would have been the country of choice but there was no visa available for them. There were even rumers in the 80s and 90s that the Jewish Agency was lobbying the US State dept. to further restrict the number of visas available for Russians in order to steer as many of them as possible to Israel.

I know that some modern countries do not allow guest workers but ALL of them that do, have had to create mechanisms for the workers or their children to become citizens. it is unrealistic for Israel to assume otherwise, especially since our guest workers, legal and illegal, now number over 300,000, or about 5% of the population.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by fred

The government has a policy dating back to the fifties to 'Judaise' the land. In practise that meant first to confiscate all the land belonging to the Palestinians who fled the 1948 war (about 70% of Israel's land), and then using land use planning and zoning laws to restrict the development and expansion of the remaining non-Jewish towns, and establishing only new Jewish communities in areas, such as the Galilee, that have relatively large numbers of non-Jews.

This is a Big Fat Lie. We have already discussed the fact, which no one has disputed, that 70% of the land in 1947 western Palestine was state-owned. In the Partition area proposed for the Jewish state, there were 600,000 Jews and 350,000 Arabs. However, about 150,000 of those Arabs were immigrants or people who moved from predominantly Arab areas of western Palestine.

You are apparently assuming that all of the state-owned land automatically belonged to the Arabs.... even in an area where Jews were the overwhelming majority.

NewsGuy has also presented evidence that Israel not only gives Arabs access to land, but in some cases gives them preferential access.


The recent cabinet approved proposa was to further restrict where non-Jews could live by allowing Jewish municipalities to pass local ordinences forbidding non-Jews from living there, thus giving the existing discrimination the force of law. However in practice this situation exists already. The town I live in, Raanana, is all Jewish. Any Christian or Muslim Arab who tried to rent or buy an apartment there would be told that none was available. A few non-Jews do live in otherwise all Jewish communities by having a Jew buy a house for them, or offering a premium price for a property that the (Jewish) owner can't turn down. Raanana even fenced in our public park several years ago to keep non-Jews out. Not from any security concerns but from a desire for social separation from non-Jews. We have a nice mostly Muslim small town nearby called Tira where I do much of our shopping and attend cultural events. A (Jewish) friend of mine recently opened a Chiropractic clinic there and was visited on the opening day by the mayor to wish him well. A similar occurance in Raanana would possibly result in picketing of the clinic by angry Jews who want to keep the town pure. The municipality recently fired all the non-Jewish street cleaners and custodial staff from the schools, despite the fact that many of the employees had worked there for over 20 years.

Given your track record here, I would take everything you say with a grain of salt. I'm sure given all of the nice things Arabs do for Israel that some people are fed up and would like to see a "Jews-only" Israel with a very tall fence around it. But then Arabs demand a Jews-only WB and GS, and have managed to convince much of the world that this jewel of racism is a perfectly reasonable demand.

Of course, it doesn't occur to you that most of the Muslim world -- let along just the Arab world -- wants to destroy Israel. If this rabid hostility did not exist, relations between Israeli Jews and Arabs would no doubt be much better.

[fred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The problem here is that most of our laws and regulations explicitly give more rights to Jews than non-Jews (citizens). Many countries in Europe may still have Christianity as the 'official' religion but the laws apply equally to all citizens.

But that's not precisely the case. The US is about 85% Protestant/Catholic. And there are all sorts of laws, great and small that reflect that.

Blue Laws - can purchase certain goods or open certain businesses on the Christian Sabbath.

Marriage laws - determined by Christian beliefs as to age of consent and general guidelines (several states still have adultery as a CRIME)

You missed the point. The key word in the top quote is 'rights'. As a Jewish citizen of Israel I have more legal right to the resources of the state than a non-Jewish citizen. This is reflected most glaringly in the allocation of State land on which by law and regulation only Jews may lease property. We have many other laws that explicitly give more rights to Jews than non-Jews. The situation has some parallels to the 'Jim Crow' era in the USA when people could legally discriminate against non-Wasps in employment, housing and use of public facilities. I know it's not exactly the same here, but much of the Israeli discrimination has the force of state law behind it.

The problem in Israel is the definition of a Jewish State. Unlike other democracies we do not permit the bulk of our non-Jews to serve in the army or offer them alternative service. Unlike other democracies we only allow members of one religion to immigrate and forbid political parties to advocate anything else - ie. A 'legal' political party in Israel may not advocate a policy that the government defines as 'undermining Zionism'.

Perhaps when we mature as a society, and security becomes a lesser concern, we can attend to the civil rights deficiencies.

[Mediocrates]

Yes, if it meant improving my economic status. that's why they come. That's foolish and short sighted. That's why there is no such thing as economic refugee status for anyone in the west.

Most of them come from impoverished circumstances and come here to work to improve their families' lives. That's why the Mexican laborers come to the USA, which does in fact have a liberal policy of naturalizing guest workers AND illegal residents. In the past 20 years there have been several 'amnesties' whereby a US guest worker or illegal alien could register with the Immigration Authorities and eventually receive a green card

It does not. You are either admitted as an alien with the likelihood of citizenship or you are here on a student or H1B type visa in either case the criteria are clear and narrow. Or, you are an illegal alien. There is in fact NO guest worker status in the US. And the purported amnesties have been very difficult and very unsuccessful because whatever the Federal government says can still be interpreted by and is implemented by, the States themselves which are loathe to pick up more people that the Federal government refuses to support or subsidize.

[fred]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


This is a Big Fat Lie. We have already discussed the fact, which no one has disputed, that 70% of the land in 1947 western Palestine was state-owned. In the Partition area proposed for the Jewish state, there were 600,000 Jews and 350,000 Arabs. However, about 150,000 of those Arabs were immigrants or people who moved from predominantly Arab areas of western Palestine.

You are apparently assuming that all of the state-owned land automatically belonged to the Arabs.... even in an area where Jews were the overwhelming majority.

No I don't assume that. Much of the land was owned by absentee landlords in Damascus and Istambul, how much I don't know. However I'd like to point out though that there was no state in 1947 to 'own' any of the land. Jewish owned land in 1947 was about 30% of what became Isreal.

The issue is that Israel currently holds 92% of the land as State property and all citizens do not have the same rights of access and use. How else do you explain that the government has developed with public funds hundreds of new towns and villages for Jews only, but has devoped no new communities for non-Jews except for a few Beduin villages in the Negev. All this despite intense housing pressure in the Christian and Muslim populations.

Don't you think it would go a long way towards fostering better intercommunal relations if the government announced that it would make land available for new housing to all communities in proportion to their numbers. Perhaps instead of proposing more segregation, as it did recently, the government might be better advised to convince a few all Jewish towns to declare themselves 'open communnities' and encourage social integration.
All this planned 'Hafrada' or separation can't be too healthy in the long run.

[MGB8]

Fred, according to the other thread which Vic provided for us, your numbers are wrong, or something is off with what you are saying.

Could you post some "official" numbers with citation so we can have a good look at the extent of the discrimination in Israeli building?

I have no doubt that some exists...the question is how much, and, in THE Jewish state, how much extra-benefits to Jews should be acceptable.

[fred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yes, if it meant improving my economic status. that's why they come. That's foolish and short sighted. That's why there is no such thing as economic refugee status for anyone in the west.

That's right, but our 300,000+ guest workers in Israel come from Thailand, the Phillipines, Ghana, Nigeria etc. And they are definately economic migrants. They are not refugees either. They come here with limited visas tieing them to a single employer. However a significan number do not leave and raise families here. it's very similar to the situation in Germany with the Turkish guest workers. Now into their third generation, the German government finally had to do something to legalise their status. So will we.


Originally posted by Mediocrates
It does not. You are either admitted as an alien with the likelihood of citizenship or you are here on a student or H1B type visa in either case the criteria are clear and narrow. Or, you are an illegal alien. There is in fact NO guest worker status in the US. And the purported amnesties have been very difficult and very unsuccessful because whatever the Federal government says can still be interpreted by and is implemented by, the States themselves which are loathe to pick up more people that the Federal government refuses to support or subsidize.
I am not current on immigation laws in the USA. However when I was an illegal alien there in the 1970s there was a great many Mexicans and central Americans who were admitted under temporary visas. I was not aware that it was discontinued.
I, like many illegal aliens, worked hard and kept my nose clean, ran a couple of businesses, paid taxes, and was finally granted legal status under the first amnesty, as were hundreds of thousands of others. America has always been built by immigrants. It is well known that the most upwordly mobile class in the population is the 2nd & 3rd generation from immigrant parents. This is true for Jews, Irish, Vietnamese or Central Americans.

In Israel we are seing the same dynamic. I am familiar with clusters of Chinese and African illegal immigrants who live here quetly, are mostly self employed, own homes, and contribute to the economy by providing jobs for other immigrants and Israelis. Their kids are fluent in Hebrew and becomming socialised to the prevailing secular culture here. These families are entrepreneurial, honest and would make good citizens, if and when the government decides to allow it. In the meanwhile the live with the risk, as I did in the USA, of arrest and deportation.

[Mediocrates]

That's right, but our 300,000+ guest workers in Israel come from Thailand, the Phillipines, Ghana, Nigeria etc. And they are definately economic migrants. They are not refugees either. They come here with limited visas tieing them to a single employer. However a significan number do not leave and raise families here. it's very similar to the situation in Germany with the Turkish guest workers. Now into their third generation, the German government finally had to do something to legalise their status. So will we.


You want to tear up the laws because it is unpleasant to enforce them. Awfully dangerous in many cases to do this. As I said this is not an immigration problem it's a labor law problem. If guest workers knew that they only had 1 year or 2 or 5 and they had to leave after that they would approach it differently. And if the Israelis were strict instead of waffling and saying "well ok you can stay" and leave them in limbo status things would be improved.

It's really stupid to ignore the problem until it conquers you. What they should do is granfather the people who are there now and crackdown hard on future non compliance.

In the US if we ignore that 3.5 million people a year enter and fade into the woodwork. There are few ways to deal with this:

Document everyone and have an opendoor policy. Very expensive but the most humane.

Throw everyone out. Period. Also very expensive and not at all humane.

Eliminate Quotas that are in place now and allow guest workers and potential immigrants with a minimal set of conditions such as they must demonstrate gainful emplouyment for x of the last y months, establish a place to live, and so on. Use closed end qualifications such that if you can meet them you are sent home.

The only other alternative is one which will piss off my Canadian friends who claim that Canada does not sell citizenship but I think it does. It has an investment and/or escrow proviso that allows foreign nationals to reserve a slot for future citizenship based on a capital investment in Canada, a business for example. This might not be an entirely bad idea because frankly how many no/low skilled guest workers does a country need? I mean the Palestinians were replaced by Thai. I 'm sure the Thai can be replaced by someone else - Angolans maybe?

[fred]

Originally posted by MGB8
Fred, according to the other thread which Vic provided for us, your numbers are wrong, or something is off with what you are saying.

Could you post some "official" numbers with citation so we can have a good look at the extent of the discrimination in Israeli building?

First I think the figure of 92% Israel State owned land is not in dispute. Israel has almost no privately owned land. FYI Prime Minister Sharon owns one of the largest tracts of privately owned land in the country. Let's set aside the history of how Israel obtained the 92%. All the numbers are in dispute, both on this forum, and in public circles. It does us no good to rehash it. However I came accross an interesting quote:

"Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000-400,000 dunums ...are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the mandatory regime [2 percent]. The JNF and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunum [10 percent]. Almost all the rest [i.e. 88 percent of the 20,225,000 dunums within the 1949 armistice lines] belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country (Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel, p.xxi, The Jewish National Fund)"

So an official Jewish National Fund document tells us that almost 90% of current State owned land originated with Arab owners, more than I thought.

However to be fair here's another quote from an Israeli official who claims the percentage of confiscated land was only 70%:

"The Custodian of Absentee Property does not choose to discuss politics. But when asked how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants - an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British Mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property - Mr. Manor [the Custodian in 1980] believes that 'about 70 percent' might fall into that category (Robert Fisk, : The Custodian of Absentee Property', The Times, 24 December, 1980)

As general background this is an interesting quote from Moshe Dyan:

"We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs but after 1948 we confiscated much more. Instead of the Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu'a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village" (Dayan, 19 March 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, 4 April 1969

However it only takes a drive through the center and north of the country to see that all the gleaming new communities are built for Jews only, with government subsidised infrastructure. The simple fact is that government land is not made available for the growth of non-Jewish communities.

[HEB]

I couldn't agree with everything you said more. Absolute ego and pride has led them to this 'brain rotten' hate.

An entire nations perspective has been systematically conditioned over time, call it an unbalanced cocktail of faith, hate and fear. They believe the timeless myths about blood sucking Jews without considering the fact that it is forbidden for Jews to consume food or drink if it has even one drop of blood. The Holy Kuran is a Book of Lies. If you are a Muslim, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the writing is on the wall, my friends.

Very many once blamed this 'passionate struggle' against Israel on their ignorance, their lack of understanding but the times of sand have passed and even the educated few are simmering in those feelings of deep seething hate. Let's not forget, many foes had an opportunity to send their children off to learn in Western Universities and those children returned and they are contributing in large force of this international 'JIHAD'.

There will be peace, it is inevitable, whether they love Jews (highly doubtful) or hate Jews (more likely). Its a sad picture nontheless because the Truth will surface. There is no denying the great injustices done to one another, but the instigators were more often the Arabs. Its a well documented fact, afterall, that the Jews who first settled in 1948 had every intention of building the country together with the Palestinian population. The Arabs refused and the struggle for the land once again, erupted.

When peace arrives, future generations of Arabs will have to deal with the fact that they, as a people, culture, race, literally wasted precious time and so many lives on a cause that could have never been won with brutality. It will require a deep enlightenment, where the minds and hearts accept the undeniable Truth.


- HEB

[Vic]

Fred, are you a member of the "Israeli Comittee Against House Demolitions" (http://www.icahd.org)?

You link to the site in your profile - a sure candidate for the "best designed Israeli site" title, if such exists ;)

[fred]

Originally posted by Vic
Fred, are you a member of the "Israeli Comittee Against House Demolitions" (http://www.icahd.org)?

Yes I have been involved with the organisation for a few years.

[Mediocrates]

On vitally important thing that is lost is,

What if it works?

Say it out loud, slowly.

What if it works?

What if it IS a deterrent to violence?

What if it does disseude murderers?

What if it actually saves lives both Israeli and Palestinian?

What if property really is worth less than human life?

See the thing is everyone wants to jump up and down about how brutal and unfair and a million other adjectives it is because they project their own emotions into the situation and wonder what it would be like to be made suddenly homeless. But many countries do more or less things except with sheriffs and lawyers instead of machinery. Here in the states in public housing there are many places where a single drug conviction of one member of a family means eviction of the whole family.

I draw the parallel of Sherman's march through Georgia in the US Civil War. Sherman was excoriated as a war criminal because he attacked the infrastructure instead of troops. But in fact there were far FEWER casualties in the South than had he simply attacked the Southern Armies.

So what if it works? What if demolition and eviction actually save lives? What if families DO have some influence over people who would be murderers? Don't be too sure that EVERYTHING in Palestinian society is beyond anyone's control. That's an ignorant and patronizing point of view.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
On vitally important thing that is lost is,

What if it works?

Say it out loud, slowly.

What if it works?

What if it IS a deterrent to violence?

What if it does disseude murderers?

What if it actually saves lives both Israeli and Palestinian?

What if property really is worth less than human life?Call me a cynic, but I can't help asking back:

Does it really work?

(Yes, I know that the IDF has recently claimed that it does, but it is basically praising its own policy...)

[Mediocrates]

Well like all social sciences there is no control group so it's rather hard to test but what if mama and poppa are sitting round the kitchen table with Achmed and Raisa telling them that they could be homeless, everything lost, thrown in the street without even an address for Saddam's JihadExpress to send a $25,000 check to if one of them decides to kill him/herself?

We hear so much about how reasonable the 'real' Palestinians are. Isn't that a reasonable point of view to have? Or do we simply naturally assume that everything in Palestinian society is feral and utterly beyond the grasp of normalcy?

[Vic]

Mediocrates, you are writing about what might be roughly called "average Palestinian". For myself, I tend to assume that there are considerable individual differences. While it may be quite useful to remind mommas and poppas to watch their kids more closely, I doubt that brainwashed fanatics, which is what one should usually be in order to perform the deed, can be stopped by such mundane considerations. It just doesn't fit :confused:

And if the suicide murderers are - on the background of their current surroundings - not fanatics but reflect the social norm, then there is something very wrong with the whole Palestinian society indeed. I'd rather stick to the first version, unless someone can disprove it.

[Mediocrates]

Then it leads us inexorably to the conclusion that they are absolutely beyond repair.

You know there are historical instances of societies that destroyed themselves from 'madness'. Perhaps the Palestinians are one of them.

[Simon]

Then it leads us inexorably to the conclusion that they are absolutely beyond repair.

Sad, but true. And i think the Israelis are slowly waking up to the fact that peace with the Palestinians is NEVER GOING TO BE POSSIBLE. The reasons are simple enough. Unless the Palestinians are willing to indulge in some serious introspection, however painful it may be, and are willing to reverse this indoctrination of hatred and false Goebbelsian propaganda, forever emphasizing hatred of the jew, this war will last forever.
That will never happen. Introspection requires a society to be tolerant, the presence of leading intellectuals/leaders within that society who are willing to lead, a minimum degree of education, etc. None of these factors are present in virtually any islamic country on earth.

The war between the Jews of Israel and the murderous palestinians is going to last forever. Or at least until the last jew on earth has breathed his last or the last palestinian on earth has suicide-bombed himself/herself.

[cerulean]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=28093
US Money for a Palestinian Girls’ School, Named for a Terrorist Who Murdered 36 Israelis and An American

(IsraelNN.com) Introduction: The Unites States has been attempting to bypass the Palestinian Authority [PA] misuse of American financial aid by directly funding specific projects. However, even in these projects, US money can be used to promote terrorism in subtle but effective ways.
[...]
Dalal Mughrabi is the woman terrorist who participated in the murder of 36 Israelis and an American nature photographer, Gail Ruban, in 1978. A girls’ high school named for the terrorist - “The Dalal Mughrabi School” - is now being renovated with money from USAID - through ANERA (American Near East Refugee Aid). A school named after a terrorist promotes murder and terrorism as positive values to children in general, and especially to those children studying in that school. US money is helping to support an educational structure that is inherently promoting terrorism and glorifying the murderer of an American.

This school’s name is not an exception. Numerous schools, summer camps and sports teams are named for terrorist-murderers, including Ayyat al-Akhras, the woman suicide bomber, and symbols of violence continue to be used in educational and sport structures. The background poster of a UNICEF funded summer camp includes a gun.
...
=========
Sometimes I think it's a waste of time to try to be reasonable, balanced, and subtle.

[MGB8]

Fred,

Forgive me for doubting you, but your quotes seem hard to believe when the highest % of land west of the Jordan river in 1948 attributed to Arab ownership I've seen is under %50, at mideastweb.org.

How could %50 grow to %70, much less %90?

I also don't understand why, for example, the Israeli minestry of the interior doesn't have statistics on how much land the state owns.



Originally posted by fred

First I think the figure of 92% Israel State owned land is not in dispute. Israel has almost no privately owned land. FYI Prime Minister Sharon owns one of the largest tracts of privately owned land in the country. Let's set aside the history of how Israel obtained the 92%. All the numbers are in dispute, both on this forum, and in public circles. It does us no good to rehash it. However I came accross an interesting quote:

"Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000-400,000 dunums ...are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the mandatory regime [2 percent]. The JNF and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunum [10 percent]. Almost all the rest [i.e. 88 percent of the 20,225,000 dunums within the 1949 armistice lines] belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country (Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel, p.xxi, The Jewish National Fund)"

So an official Jewish National Fund document tells us that almost 90% of current State owned land originated with Arab owners, more than I thought.

However to be fair here's another quote from an Israeli official who claims the percentage of confiscated land was only 70%:

"The Custodian of Absentee Property does not choose to discuss politics. But when asked how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants - an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British Mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property - Mr. Manor [the Custodian in 1980] believes that 'about 70 percent' might fall into that category (Robert Fisk, : The Custodian of Absentee Property', The Times, 24 December, 1980)

As general background this is an interesting quote from Moshe Dyan:

"We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs but after 1948 we confiscated much more. Instead of the Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu'a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village" (Dayan, 19 March 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, 4 April 1969

However it only takes a drive through the center and north of the country to see that all the gleaming new communities are built for Jews only, with government subsidised infrastructure. The simple fact is that government land is not made available for the growth of non-Jewish communities.

[MGB8]

I did some quick research.

According to this web site:

http://www.israeleconomy.org/policystudies/ps49.pdf


The Jewish National fund owns 6.5 million acres of land in Israel, or about 17% of Israel's land.

The JNF actually owns land in Syria and Jordan, too, purchased before demarcation, apparently.

The JNF apparently got 250 thousand acres of "absentee land" - land abandoned by arabs in 1948, from the government in a possible purchase (they may not actually have paid for the land, though).

Although JNF land cannot be sold to anyone via its constitution, it is leased, and a subagency has its own land that it CAN sell.

JNF land has been taken and given to the PA by the Israeli government, some with compensation, some without.

BTW - this paper is DEFINATELY anti-JNF.

[Paris]

Hi I am new to the group as of today, but area of the thread caught my attention. I have just finished (well mostly finished to be honest) the article MGB8 listed in his/her post. I have some questions regarding what has been said previously and from what I just read.

1. The group responsible for the “Absentee property” the Development Authority, who runs this? Does the DA represent the absentee owners directly or at all?
2. During the reading I realised I don’t even know the official borders of Israel. Could someone fill me in on this?
3. The article listed in MGB8s post mentions that the Deheisheh refugee camp is on JNF land. Who was it purchased from?

I have been wondering about the land ownership issue with regards to settlements for a while now, could someone point me towards a reliable source on this topic?

Thanks
Chris

[Paris]

slowly waking up to the fact...

I to have been slowly waking to the fact the peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians may never be possible. Introspection is a key idea I agree, but this should not fall solely on the shoulders of the Palestinians. Take a listen to someone like Daniel Ben Avraham on Arutz Sheva, emphasizing hatred is not an attack to be levelled against the Palestinians alone. Calling Arabs “wide asses of men” and saying that Arabs, not some Arabs but all of them, are murders and liars does not come from a long day of soul searching.

I would also point out that saying that Palestinians as a whole are: intolerant and have no education and implying that they area all would-be suicide-bombers may show that you need to take you own advice.

Chris

[elke]

Welcome, Chris - or Paris :)

There are, unfortunately, idiots of every stripe and nationality in the world. We are not immune to this plague, just like any other nation. I don't think, however, that you would find wide support for such narrow-minded views as you described, among the majority of Israelis or Diaspora Jews.

The mainstream thought process in the Jewish world is simply that terrorism must stop. As of now, there is apparent widespread support for the suicide murders in the Palestinian society. Whether such support is real or is expressed out of fear, is not clear - probably, some of both. Regardless of the reasoning, somehow this phenomenon of suicide murder must be stopped.

Please take a look at this website. It may help answer many of your questions.
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/

[Simon]

Paris: I am from India and am solely resposible for my own views.

Having said that, not all generalizations are untrue and making generalizations that one believes to be true and given the actions of Palestinians (a majority of whom support terrorism), you may well dismiss such views as narrow-minded but it does not make the reality any less harsher.

As an Indian and a hindu, I have experienced Islamic terrorism first hand. Hatred for the non-muslim is something felt by at least 90% of the muslims I have come across and I have come across a wide variety of them.

Coming back to the Israeli-Arab conflict. It is not narrow-minded to either state or recognize the fact that Arabs/Palestinians/muslims would have slaughtered the Jews en masse had Israel lost any of its wars with the Arabs. You may wish, in the best tradition of an ostrich, to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality, but the Jews of Israel (as are the Indians) facing this hatred every day.

So at the end of the day, I get risked being blown to bits by a muslim or if I live thro' and if I have the gumption to call a spade a spade, then I'm narrow-minded.

I'll take narrow-minded over dead anyday, thank you.

[elke]

Sorry, Simon! :o

Chris, also sometimes people generalize as a "shorthand" way to express themselves. I think we are all guilty of that, at one time or another.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Paris
slowly waking up to the fact...

I to have been slowly waking to the fact the peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians may never be possible. Introspection is a key idea I agree, but this should not fall solely on the shoulders of the Palestinians. Take a listen to someone like Daniel Ben Avraham on Arutz Sheva, emphasizing hatred is not an attack to be levelled against the Palestinians alone. Calling Arabs “wide asses of men” and saying that Arabs, not some Arabs but all of them, are murders and liars does not come from a long day of soul searching.

I would also point out that saying that Palestinians as a whole are: intolerant and have no education and implying that they area all would-be suicide-bombers may show that you need to take you own advice.

Chris

I believe that it can be possible.. but its going to need ALOT of work from both sides to bring it about. Its probably going to take long.. but I am a firm believer that peace is possible. Like you said.. both sides have extreme elements that prevent progress. However... it should not speak for their religions or the general population. No religion advocates hate, killing, etc, and thats a fact. However, every where you are going to get people that are ignorant, or prejudieced. I hate geeneralized anything to fit the situation.. but i think thats one thing that has always been there since the beginning of time. What people cannot understand, or want to understand.. they choose to distort.

[elke]

Originally posted by Intellectualme


I believe that it can be possible.. but its going to need ALOT of work from both sides to bring it about. Its probably going to take long.. but I am a firm believer that peace is possible. Like you said.. both sides have extreme elements that prevent progress. However... it should not speak for their religions or the general population. No religion advocates hate, killing, etc, and thats a fact. However, every where you are going to get people that are ignorant, or prejudieced. I hate geeneralized anything to fit the situation.. but i think thats one thing that has always been there since the beginning of time. What people cannot understand, or want to understand.. they choose to distort.

Absolutely! I would only want to add one thing: it will take a lot of work on the part of the Muslim world as well, not to mention the other players: US and Europe.

[fred]

Originally posted by Paris
1. The group responsible for the “Absentee property” the Development Authority, who runs this? Does the DA represent the absentee owners directly or at all?
The Israeli Land Development Authority is a department of government and as such manages all state owned land, including land owned by the Jewish National fund, together about 92% of all real estate in Israel. Much of the land was obtained by confiscating it from the 'absentee' owners' in the 1950s. Absentee owners fall into several categories.
1. Palestinians who left the part of Palestine that became Israel in 1948
2. Non-Jewish Landlords who were residents of other countries in 1948
3. 'Internal Refugees' - Palestinians residents of post-1948 Israel who were under military rule until 1963, and in many cases were forcably denied access to their land. They were defined as 'Resident Absentees' by the Israeli government in the 1950s and had their land confiscated by the state.


Originally posted by Paris

2. During the reading I realised I don’t even know the official borders of Israel. Could someone fill me in on this?
Israel has no 'official' borders!, except the Medterranean, the border with Egypt, and Lebanon. There is no legal (Israeli or international) border to the east. Many maps published Israel for two generations do not show the Green Line (1948 cease fire line). Some view this as appropriate since there is considerable support in Israel to settle the entire West Bank. However this is illegal under international law since the UN has defined the West Bank as 'Occupied Territory'. Israel calls it 'Disputed Territory'. Therein lies what many view as the essence of the current Intifada


Originally posted by Paris
I have been wondering about the land ownership issue with regards to settlements for a while now, could someone point me towards a reliable source on this topic?
The following link is a comprehensive report on the subject by the Foundation for Middle East Peace

http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&article=57 (http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&article=57)

[MGB8]

Fred,

First, the link you gave didn't work towards an article.

Second, to the extent it did work, it led to a very partisan website.

I don't know how much land the Israeli government owns, or how much of it is leased or used as military bases or desalinization plants or energy instalations or airports or parks or on one of the remaining government owned industries.

BUT, you are making some very serious allegations, so its YOU who need to prove them.

Here's your chance.

[Vic]

This link should function:
Originally posted by fred
http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&article=57The text sounds rather slanted to me too. Why cite such an obviously anti-Israeli institution as the UN as an independent authority, for one?

[fred]

Originally posted by MGB8
Fred,

First, the link you gave didn't work towards an article.

Second, to the extent it did work, it led to a very partisan website.

I don't know how much land the Israeli government owns, or how much of it is leased or used as military bases or desalinization plants or energy instalations or airports or parks or on one of the remaining government owned industries.

BUT, you are making some very serious allegations, so its YOU who need to prove them.

Here's your chance.
OK. First source of the article was on the web site of The Foundation for Middle East Peace in the USA. They are fairly well respected for the facts they publish. There is no better source for a comprehensive overview of the settlements question. Go to http://www.fmep.org/
The Foundation for Middle East Peace (http://www.fmep.org/)

Now, exactly which 'allegations' are you referring to. Please list them.
Thanks,
Fred

[fred]

Originally posted by Vic
This link should function:The text sounds rather slanted to me too. Why cite such an obviously anti-Israeli institution as the UN as an independent authority, for one?
Ok, so you don't like the analysis. Let's stick to the facts.

From the Foundation for Middle East Peace
July 1977 Begin refused President Jimmy Carter's request to freeze settlement activity. At the time, there were about 50,000 Israelis living in annexed East Jerusalem, but only 7,000 settlers in 45 civilian outposts in the West Bank and Gaza.
In September 1977 Begin's minister of agriculture, Ariel Sharon, unveiled "A vision of Israel at Century's End," calling for the settlement of 2 million Jews in the occupied territories. The Likud plan proposed settling Jews in areas of Arab habitation and for numerous settlement points as well as large urban concentrations in three principle areas:
-- a north-south axis running from the Golan through the Jordan Valley and down the east coast of Sinai;
-- a widened corridor around Jerusalem; and
-- the populated western slopes of the Samarian heartland of the West Bank.

(All this info is freely available from the Israei Government. Contact the Government press people. )

More . . . .
Government of Israel has has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the development and expansion of settlements in occupied territories. Settlement construction fluctuates between 2,000 and 5,000 housing units each year. By the end of 1985, the settler population in the West Bank and Gaza stood at 42,000, a 100 percent increase since 1982. By 1990, it stood at 76,000. In addition, 120,000 Israelis had settled in East Jerusalem, 10,000 more were in the Golan Heights, and 3,000 lived in Gaza.

As of February 2002, there are 400,000 Israelis living in occupied territory. In the West Bank, there are 206,000 Israeli settlers and 2 million Palestinians, although settlements, adjacent confiscated land, settlement roads and other land controlled by the IDF cover 59 percent of the area. In the Gaza Strip, 7,000 settlers control 20 percent of this 140 square mile area amidst about 1.1 million Palestinians. There are 170,000 settlers in East Jerusalem and 16,000 in the Golan Heights.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has devoted his career to expanding settlements, has built 25 new settlement outposts since his election in January 2001.

SETTLEMENT FACTS
Number of settlements in the West Bank (5,640 sq. km.): 130
Number of settlements in the Gaza Strip (360 sq. km.): 16
Number of settlement areas in East Jerusalem: 11
Number of settlement areas in the Golan Heights: 33
Total settler population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
1972: 1,500
1983: 29,090
1992: 109,784
2001: 213,672
Total settler population in East Jerusalem:
1972: 6,900
1992: 141,000
2000: 170,400
Total settler population in the Golan Heights: 17,000
Palestinian population:
-- 2 million in 650 locales in the West Bank (including 200,000 in East Jerusalem)
-- 1.1 million in 40 locales in the Gaza Strip
An estimated 100,000 Israelis, comprising 50 percent of the settler population, reside in eight settlements. The average population in the remaining one hundred forty settlements is 714.
Built-up settlement areas occupy 1.4 percent of the West Bank's 5,640 sq. km. Settlement boundaries enclose almost 10 percent of West Bank territory. In addition, with the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada in September 2000, Israel appears to be planning "no-go" areas between 70 and 500 meters wide around each settlement and every military installation in the occupied territories.
According to the YESHA Council, 3,000 settlers--comprising 1.5 percent of the settler population of 200,000--in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip--moved out of the settlements during 2001. This exodus was more than compensated for by natural increase and an influx of new residents, enabling the settler population to grow at a rate of 5 percent.
On August 12, 2001, Ha'aretz reported that the settler departure rate had exploded to 5 percent--or 10,000 people. A typical annual rate is 1 percent.
At least 360 Palestinian homes were demolished in the Gaza Strip by the IDF during the first year of the intifada. Since October 2000, Israeli authorities have demolished more than 200 houses in the West Bank.
In September 1993, there were 32,750 dwelling units in the West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements. Between 1993 and July 2000, construction was initiated on an 17,190 units.
Settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights received government mortgages during 2000 at a rate more than twice the national average. There were 16 new mortgages for every 1,000 settlers during the year 2000, compared to 6 per 1,000 Israelis.
Israel has uprooted 5.5 sq. km. of Palestinian orchards and destroyed 4.5 sq. km. of field crops.

© Copyright 2002 The Foundation for Middle East Peace. All Rights Reserved
***********************
Sorry for the long post but since a couple people of people objected to he analysis on the web site I thought it best to post only facts which anyone can verify, and for which the FFMC is known to be accurate.


The Foundation for Middle East Peace (SETTLEMENT FACTS
Number of settlements in the West Bank (5,640 sq. km.): 130
Number of settlements in the Gaza Strip (360 sq. km.): 16
Number of settlement areas in East Jerusalem: 11
Number of settlement areas in the Golan Heights: 33
Total settler population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
1972: 1,500
1983: 29,090
1992: 109,784
2001: 213,672
Total settler population in East Jerusalem:
1972: 6,900
1992: 141,000
2000: 170,400
Total settler population in the Golan Heights: 17,000
Palestinian population:
-- 2 million in 650 locales in the West Bank (including 200,000 in East Jerusalem)
-- 1.1 million in 40 locales in the Gaza Strip
An estimated 100,000 Israelis, comprising 50 percent of the settler population, reside in eight settlements. The average population in the remaining one hundred forty settlements is 714.
Built-up settlement areas occupy 1.4 percent of the West Bank's 5,640 sq. km. Settlement boundaries enclose almost 10 percent of West Bank territory. In addition, with the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada in September 2000, Israel appears to be planning "no-go" areas between 70 and 500 meters wide around each settlement and every military installation in the occupied territories.
According to the YESHA Council, 3,000 settlers--comprising 1.5 percent of the settler population of 200,000--in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip--moved out of the settlements during 2001. This exodus was more than compensated for by natural increase and an influx of new residents, enabling the settler population to grow at a rate of 5 percent.
On August 12, 2001, Ha'aretz reported that the settler departure rate had exploded to 5 percent--or 10,000 people. A typical annual rate is 1 percent.
At least 360 Palestinian homes were demolished in the Gaza Strip by the IDF during the first year of the intifada. Since October 2000, Israeli authorities have demolished more than 200 houses in the West Bank.
In September 1993, there were 32,750 dwelling units in the West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements. Between 1993 and July 2000, construction was initiated on an 17,190 units.
Settlers in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights received government mortgages during 2000 at a rate more than twice the national average. There were 16 new mortgages for every 1,000 settlers during the year 2000, compared to 6 per 1,000 Israelis.
Israel has uprooted 5.5 sq. km. of Palestinian orchards and destroyed 4.5 sq. km. of field crops.

© Copyright 2002 The Foundation for Middle East Peace. All Rights Reserved
*******************************

Check out the source.
Fred

[URL=http://www.fmep.org/)

[Simon]

The following parable perfectly serves to illustrate the Palestinian/Pakistani mindset.

Want to know why "they" hate "us", look no further.


I'm going to tell you about a scorpion who wanted to cross a river. First, he asked a frog to carry him, but the frog said no.. " If I let you on my back you may sting me, and the sting of a scorpion is death." "Now where," asked the scorpion, "is the logic of that? If I sting you, you will die, and I will drown." So the frog became convinced and allowed the scorpion to climb onto his back. But, just as they reached the middle of the river, the frog felt a terrible pain rush through his body. The scorpion had stung him. "Logic!" cried the dying frog as he started going under, taking the scorpion down with him. "There is no logic in this!" "I know," said the scorpion, "but I can't help it. It's who I am."

[Mediocrates]

fred what is your point? we know the Jews didn't suddenly appear there like crop circles....

[ibrodsky]

The Golan Heights are now part of Israel, as is East Jerusalem. If Syria didn't want to lose the Golan Heights, they shouldn't have used the area as a shooting range, and they shouldn't have launched multiple attacks against Israel.

Divided cities don't work. When the Arabs controlled East Jerusalem, they did not allow Jews to visit the Wall. Even today, while Israel permits them to maintain sovereignty over their mosque with its "no infidels allowed" perimeter, they occasionally attack Jews praying/visiting at the wall.

Again, they have lost East Jerusalem through their own folly -- their intolerance, hatred, and belligerence.

Fred, we know much more about militant Islam than you do. They created a vast network here in the U.S. Militant Islam is even more dangerous than German Nazism was. These people are bent on killing all Jews and destroying the West.

No, not all Palestinians or Arabs in general are involved in militant Islam. But it has been estimated by leading Muslims in the U.S. that 80% of mosques and islamic centers in the US are controlled by people who support (and often fund) terrorism.

Perhaps you should learn about people like the professor at University of South Florida, Sami Al-Arian, who has led a double-life preaching death to all Jews and supporting Hamas. Perhaps you should look at the many pro-Palestinian Web sites that include viscious slanders against Jews. Perhaps you should consider why so many Palestinian supporters "understand" terrorism, i.e., mass murder of civilians.

The only problem with your radical chic "Look at all the things wrong my country does" is that it whitewashes 21st century Nazism, militant Islam. Go ahead, pretend that Jihad-genocide is not the problem. But be glad that your country doesn't teach its youth to blow themselves in an effort to wipe out another race.

[Simon]

Originally posted by elke
Sorry, Simon! :o

Chris, also sometimes people generalize as a "shorthand" way to express themselves. I think we are all guilty of that, at one time or another.


Elke: I think we look at the current situation in Israel (and in my case, India too) very differently. You believe it is possible to have peace; a stage I passed through about 8 yrs ago. I know better now.

Only time will tell which one of us was right.

[leftwinglinks69]

I know what Israel is hated, its simple really

Its because Israel is a brutal and apartheid state. In Israel citizens who are not Jews are required to carry identification cards designating them as non-Jews, non-Jews cannot acquire land or buy or rent homes in most of the country, they are not eligible for service in the armed forces and therefore denied the important state benefits which are attached toperforming military service. Not only does Israel subject all non-Jews to these human rights abuses, Israeli law also bans any political party or legislation calling for equal rights for non-Jews.

Now I don't care what race or religion anybody is nobody should be treated like this. Germany persecuted and killed the Jews which was very bad, Germany have said sorry, prosecuted those responsible and done their best to make amends, Israel should do the same. Stop abusing the Palestinians and try the likes of Ariel Sharon for war crimes. Then Israel won't be hated and there will be peace. Which is what we all want right? Jews and Arabs should be able to live together as equals in Israel just like they can in America and Europe.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Simon
The following parable perfectly serves to illustrate the Palestinian/Pakistani mindset.

Want to know why "they" hate "us", look no further.


I'm going to tell you about a scorpion who wanted to cross a river. First, he asked a frog to carry him, but the frog said no.. " If I let you on my back you may sting me, and the sting of a scorpion is death." "Now where," asked the scorpion, "is the logic of that? If I sting you, you will die, and I will drown." So the frog became convinced and allowed the scorpion to climb onto his back. But, just as they reached the middle of the river, the frog felt a terrible pain rush through his body. The scorpion had stung him. "Logic!" cried the dying frog as he started going under, taking the scorpion down with him. "There is no logic in this!" "I know," said the scorpion, "but I can't help it. It's who I am." Amazing coincidence. The best book I have ever read on Israel ends with this anecdote :) :)

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by leftwinglinks69
[B][QUOTE]Its because Israel is a brutal and apartheid state. In Israel citizens who are not Jews are required to carry identification cards designating them as non-Jews, non-Jews cannot acquire land or buy or rent homes in most of the country, they are not eligible for service in the armed forces and therefore denied the important state benefits which are attached toperforming military service. Not only does Israel subject all non-Jews to these human rights abuses, Israeli law also bans any political party or legislation calling for equal rights for non-Jews.

One of the perks of being left-wing is that you don't have to know anything: you just dutifully parrot the official propaganda.

We have dealt with most of these lies before. There are no "non-Jew" identity cards; Jews have intermarried with non-Jews for centuries and today there is considerable disagreement over who is or isn't a Jew. The idea that non-Jews can't buy or rent homes in most of the country is a Big Fat Lie.

No one is denied the opportunity to serve in Israel's armed forces because of race or religion. This is another shameless lie from someone who "knows" only what he has been told by people who make endless excuses for terrorism. Today, there are Druze and Bedouin Arabs serving in the Israeli armed forces. The actual law is that Arabs are not required to serve in the armed forces because Israel understands that not all of them may feel comfortable fighting other Arabs (though some have no qualms about it: Israel's Druze have fought heroically).

As for banning parties that call for equal rights, I think you are confusing Israel with her Arab totalitarian neighbors.


Now I don't care what race or religion anybody is nobody should be treated like this. Germany persecuted and killed the Jews which was very bad, Germany have said sorry, prosecuted those responsible and done their best to make amends, Israel should do the same. Stop abusing the Palestinians and try the likes of Ariel Sharon for war crimes. Then Israel won't be hated and there will be peace. Which is what we all want right? Jews and Arabs should be able to live together as equals in Israel just like they can in America and Europe.

But you have no complaint about savages who blow up innocent school girls at a disco.

According to Amnesty International's recent report, the Palestinians are guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and possibly War Crimes. But you ignore all of that... or perhaps just can't see past your left-wing blinders.

[elke]

Originally posted by Simon



Elke: I think we look at the current situation in Israel (and in my case, India too) very differently. You believe it is possible to have peace; a stage I passed through about 8 yrs ago. I know better now.

Only time will tell which one of us was right.

I guess, for me it's hope against hope in the future...

I am sorry, I don't know very much about India yet, although I have always found it very fascinating. I am learning, though, thanks to you and other Indians who come here. Thank you!

[Paris]

leftwinglinks69 and ibrodsky

I have just finished reading your resent posts. You both made point regarding military service “they are not eligible for service in the armed forces… ” and “The actual law is that Arabs are not required to serve in the armed forces… ” could either of you please post a reference backing your statements up?

Thanks
Christopher

[Paris]

Elke “You believe it is possible to have peace; a stage I passed through about 8 yrs ago. I know better now.” What do you propose instead?

Also I live in a country with an Islamic population also, that being Canada. Canadian followers of Islam are just that people who follow Islam. I would not presume to think that they are terrorists.

Cheers
Christopher