Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Should Israel have been given to the Jews?

jonH said:
samskara is valid hindu philosophy and eating less beef and milk products would reduce the risk of cattle spreading TB, you are a sad and angry little man
Actually, consuming less dairy and bovine meat products wouldn't statistically reduce the risk at all even though it would reduce the herd, you'd have the same degree of risk, merely held in a smaller population.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Then the british gave it to the jews.
The British gave it to the Jews only in the sense that they withdrew, and the jews having superior armed force then took the opportunity to steal land and property from Arabs. You can read about jews quite literally taking houses, the land, businesses, even the furniture and personal possessions from the houses of expelled Arabs.
 
Spion said:
The British gave it to the Jews only in the sense that they withdrew, and the jews having superior armed force then took the opportunity to steal land and property from Arabs. You can read about jews quite literally taking houses, the land, businesses, even the furniture and personal possessions from the houses of expelled Arabs.

That's how the jews lost their possessions in the first place. The germans etc did the same thing!
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Of which Hebrew is one.
not really modern hewbrew is about as semitic as my arse... as has been said it's a hybrid language using some old refference words and alot of modern interpretations of words to form the majority of the language...
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
not really modern hewbrew is about as semitic as my arse... as has been said it's a hybrid language using some old refference words and alot of modern interpretations of words to form the majority of the language...

Just what qualifies it as more or less semitic? I'm sure the language has changed, as all do; modern english bears little resemblance to old english, but 'english' remains an indo european language now, as it was then.
 
jonH said:
couldn't we call them zionists?
depends surelyu on your definition of Zionism really.

Zionism is defined as the wish to establish a Jewish homeland or state which is govern by the tennants of jueadism inside of the land of isreali it makes little claim as to where this is however as it's an ideaology. Zionism in it's modern form was a term coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum. Intrestingly however although he founded the student nationalist party Kadimah he then turned away from the idea and became an ardent anti zionist...
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Just what qualifies it as more or less semitic? I'm sure the language has changed, as all do; modern english bears little resemblance to old english, but 'english' remains an indo european language now, as it was then.
jesus dude scroll up... VP has already discussed this is the internet slow in your part of the world...

:rolleyes:
 
Spion said:
The British gave it to the Jews only in the sense that they withdrew

big chunk of history...
another big chunk of history... a few more events of a fairly reasonable size...

and the jews having superior armed force then took the opportunity to steal land and property from Arabs.

as you were :)
 
Dubversion said:
fuck off and die, garf, there's a good lad.

how about you take your ego ridden posts off to pm and leave the thread on it's original course rather than poluting it with personal attacks and irrelvances about other threads and FAQ busting cross thread postings.

HMMM can you actually not turn this topic into another thread about you?

Are you capable of that...

grow up and debate the topic cease playing the man and not the ball or take it to pm's...

either way stop your bollocks here... i really don't care other than you are now making this about you rather than the topic...

there's a good child.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
But he got it wrong. He seems to be implying that it's somehow an ethnic grouping. :rolleyes:
no he clearly is discussing the nature of modern hebrew v's anceint hebrew, pointless. your refusal to read the post properly notwithstanding...
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
no he clearly is discussing the nature of modern hebrew v's anceint hebrew, pointless. your refusal to read the post properly notwithstanding...

Maybe you should read it a bit more carefully.

The Jews were a Semitic people, once. Now we're hybrids. Once the Diaspora occurred we intermixed with just about every people and culture we came across. Very few Jews are "pure" Semites, just as, to a lesser degree because of their insularity, Arabs aren't.
As for language and culture,...

You can see that he starts by discussing ethnic identity, then goes on in the second paragraph to discuss language.

But, 'semitic', actually only refers to language.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Maybe you should read it a bit more carefully.



You can see that he starts by discussing ethnic identity, then goes on in the second paragraph to discuss language.

But, 'semitic', actually only refers to language.
you do understand right that the two paragrahs are connceted and although the new sentences introduce new ideas they are relevant to the whole comment...

what is it with the moroic comments ...

anyone would think both dubversion and Jonny don't want people to discuss the matter least viewpoints which they don't approve of arise, with the level of deliberate obtuse derailing going on here...

anything to say on topic Jonny rather than this futile attempt to derail....

Again....
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
you do understand right that the two paragrahs are connceted and although the new sentences introduce new ideas they are relevant to the whole comment...

what is it with the moroic comments ...

anyone would think both dubversion and Jonny don't want people to discuss the matter least viewpoints which they don't approve of arise, with the level of deliberate obtuse derailing going on here...

anything to say on topic Jonny rather than this futile attempt to derail....

Again....

You've zeroed in on this one post where I correct what VP said. Why not comment on some of the other posts of mine on the thread?
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
not really modern hewbrew is about as semitic as my arse... as has been said it's a hybrid language using some old refference words and alot of modern interpretations of words to form the majority of the language...

Palestinians complain to me "not only did they steal our land, they stole our best words too".

Modern Hebrew is a made-up language with a great deal of, er, borrowing from Arabic - I am told that, spoken, they're much more mututally comprehensible than speakers of either usually let on. Friends learning Arabic find they can get the gist of Hebrew as well.

The Zionist claim that "there are no Palestinians" could so easily be turned around.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
That's how the jews lost their possessions in the first place. The germans etc did the same thing!
Exactly.

I didn't think you liked comparisons between the nazis and zionists? I think they're fine when they are accurate, such as the parallel you've drawn here
 
Spion said:
Exactly.

I didn't think you liked comparisons between the nazis and zionists? I think they're fine when they are accurate, such as the parallel you've drawn here

Happens all over. When the Japanese were kicked out of BC during the second world war, and interned on camps on the prairies, their possessions, like their homes, their fishing boats, etc, were sold to white canadians for pennies on the dollar.
 
citydreams said:
big chunk of history...
another big chunk of history... a few more events of a fairly reasonable size...



as you were :)
err, not really

The UN gave 55% of Palestine to the community that owned >6% of it on 29 Nov 47
The British withdrew on 15 May 1948

The Haganah began attacking and clearing Arab villages in early Dec 47. By the beginning of May 48 they'd cleared 200-ish villages and whole city quarters of Arabs (including Haifa, where 50,000ish Arabs were driven into the sea on 21/22 April).
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Happens all over. When the Japanese were kicked out of BC during the second world war, and interned on camps on the prairies, their possessions, like their homes, their fishing boats, etc, were sold to white canadians for pennies on the dollar.
And you think that's right? It's called theft in my book
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
No. Btw, did only nazis get the free jewish houses, etc, or did other germans benefit as well?

I asked why do you think theft is acceptable? I'm still waiting

Why did you respond with that question?
 
jonH said:
we're not talking Compulsory Purchase Orders are we?;)
recipients of CPOs get money for their property, Germany paid reparations to Israel. Israel has done nothing for Palestinians in recompense for what they stole
 
Spion said:
I asked why do you think theft is acceptable? I'm still waiting

Why did you respond with that question?

No, theft is a bad thing.

Here, however, the jews kept asking for a homeland, and the british, who were the imperial overlords of the area at the time, gave them palestine.

Is that theft, and if so, who stole it from whom?
 
Spion said:
recipients of CPOs get money for their property, Germany paid reparations to Israel. Israel has done nothing for Palestinians in recompense for what they stole
There was the Civil Wrongs Law but I don't think it helped the palestinians
 
Back
Top Bottom