DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
And what is this based on?
Violence begets Violence
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
G: "Rachamim's answer is still just pure conjecture.": No G, it is trrue. I have so many of Mesha'al's speeches on file that I could literally post over 100 of them saying what I have said. The Poltiburo, as they are sommetimes called, the Political Wing and thus the driving force of the organisation sits in Damscus, they drive policy. Noone in Gaza can do a thing save a neccessary spontaenous action if perhaps faced with an incusrion for which they had no fore knowledge but as I said that would be far and few between.
"BBC is biased.": Not just me, many Jewish groups, and others as well. In fact, the BBC Mid-East Bureau, aside from chiefs, have entire Arab staffs until they hired Alan Johnston and then they rethought their policies again when he was abducted at gunpoint in Gaza.
However, that is neither here nor threre since their inherent bias would not come into play given the comments of another person on the show(s). Also in terms of data. OPINION is what is effected by bias, not factual info.
How can you even suggest Israel consider taking an olvie branch from HAMAS unless they at least revised, or publicly disavowed their Charter which calls for EXTERMINATION OF ALL JEWS? Would you recommend negotiation with Hitler and the German Nazis in 39? 44?
I have stated ad nauseum the prerequisites that Israel would require to sit and talk with the group. Arafat took almost half a centuty but in the end he was able to od it. Abbas as well and he is talking now. Syria is a hairbreadth's distance from the table now.HAMAS can do it if it chooses but it will not choose to.
It built its entire cache around being anti-Fatah in all manner of speaking. Aside from the incredibly wide and able social welfare net they have an unflinching and uncompromising political programme. They are certainly not the most extreme of the local groups but they are the best funded and most powerful of themm. This cannot be ignored, norr can they be afforded the opportunity to regain and exceed prior strength (prior to the Gazan Coup).
They must nbe kept in check and I am sorry if you do nto agree or even see it but then you are not living in S'derot. Your kids are not facing the prospects offered by HAMAS. See what I mean? It is great to take interest in the affairs of others (I happen to believe) but not correct to impress upon them your vision.
"Enable the Arabs to make a life for themselves...": Which Arabs? Israeli-Arabs? "Palestinians?" Please be specific. Assuming you mean the former...they enjoy the highest per capita and standard of living in the entire Arab World! If you instead meant the latter, "Palestinians" need to take responsibility for their own actiuons.
They are not responsibile for the problems created by their stubborn ancestors in 1919 and ever after but they do have an opportunity now that they are sadly squandering as they dress their kids up as Suicide Bombers and wave little HAMAS flags holding plastic Kalash.
Noone in the Israeli Govt. is trying to ake "Palestinians' " lives harder at all. If anything, given the implementation of the Blair Quartet Programme and the subsequent closing of the Checkpoints, removal of roadblocks (literal), and helping them to create a viable military of their own ...especially in light of their brash Oslo Violations with regard to the PA Police among other issues. 1800 man Infantry? 22,000 Police? Donating Govt. land and infrastructure to the PA? G, you need to research, as I always say.
"BBC is biased.": Not just me, many Jewish groups, and others as well. In fact, the BBC Mid-East Bureau, aside from chiefs, have entire Arab staffs until they hired Alan Johnston and then they rethought their policies again when he was abducted at gunpoint in Gaza.
However, that is neither here nor threre since their inherent bias would not come into play given the comments of another person on the show(s). Also in terms of data. OPINION is what is effected by bias, not factual info.
How can you even suggest Israel consider taking an olvie branch from HAMAS unless they at least revised, or publicly disavowed their Charter which calls for EXTERMINATION OF ALL JEWS? Would you recommend negotiation with Hitler and the German Nazis in 39? 44?
I have stated ad nauseum the prerequisites that Israel would require to sit and talk with the group. Arafat took almost half a centuty but in the end he was able to od it. Abbas as well and he is talking now. Syria is a hairbreadth's distance from the table now.HAMAS can do it if it chooses but it will not choose to.
It built its entire cache around being anti-Fatah in all manner of speaking. Aside from the incredibly wide and able social welfare net they have an unflinching and uncompromising political programme. They are certainly not the most extreme of the local groups but they are the best funded and most powerful of themm. This cannot be ignored, norr can they be afforded the opportunity to regain and exceed prior strength (prior to the Gazan Coup).
They must nbe kept in check and I am sorry if you do nto agree or even see it but then you are not living in S'derot. Your kids are not facing the prospects offered by HAMAS. See what I mean? It is great to take interest in the affairs of others (I happen to believe) but not correct to impress upon them your vision.
"Enable the Arabs to make a life for themselves...": Which Arabs? Israeli-Arabs? "Palestinians?" Please be specific. Assuming you mean the former...they enjoy the highest per capita and standard of living in the entire Arab World! If you instead meant the latter, "Palestinians" need to take responsibility for their own actiuons.
They are not responsibile for the problems created by their stubborn ancestors in 1919 and ever after but they do have an opportunity now that they are sadly squandering as they dress their kids up as Suicide Bombers and wave little HAMAS flags holding plastic Kalash.
Noone in the Israeli Govt. is trying to ake "Palestinians' " lives harder at all. If anything, given the implementation of the Blair Quartet Programme and the subsequent closing of the Checkpoints, removal of roadblocks (literal), and helping them to create a viable military of their own ...especially in light of their brash Oslo Violations with regard to the PA Police among other issues. 1800 man Infantry? 22,000 Police? Donating Govt. land and infrastructure to the PA? G, you need to research, as I always say.
G: "Dismissing Mesha'al as a lair.": He dimisses himself. Read his Charter, then listen to what he says. See a difference? Granted he usually does keep his integrity but he is beginning the usual Arab game of double dealing in politics...saying one thing to English speakers and another to Arabic speakers and the Islamic World in general.
Gradnma: Thanks for the tip but I do not "Report" other posters. I think that is juvenile and atrocious. I believe even you have a right to be heard, good or bad. Everyone has something of value within them that might be lost to me if I choose to ignore them. I would much rather have those who claim ot be sickened by me to put me on Ignore.
I never backed down from anything Grandma. I simply and correctly replied that I was only able to access the last 6 months of posts but at this point I could not care less. What is said that yet again you are here in an absolutely valid thread and have failed to interact in it above name calling and nonsensical banter.
Panda: No, no Mod ever told me to Report anyone, but thanks for caring...and yes, Grandma DID call my mother a worse name and NO, I never reported it. The namecalling is laughable but it is the sad state of the forum that grieves me. But then comes you and I smile again....Thanks for being you!
Gradnma: Thanks for the tip but I do not "Report" other posters. I think that is juvenile and atrocious. I believe even you have a right to be heard, good or bad. Everyone has something of value within them that might be lost to me if I choose to ignore them. I would much rather have those who claim ot be sickened by me to put me on Ignore.
I never backed down from anything Grandma. I simply and correctly replied that I was only able to access the last 6 months of posts but at this point I could not care less. What is said that yet again you are here in an absolutely valid thread and have failed to interact in it above name calling and nonsensical banter.
Panda: No, no Mod ever told me to Report anyone, but thanks for caring...and yes, Grandma DID call my mother a worse name and NO, I never reported it. The namecalling is laughable but it is the sad state of the forum that grieves me. But then comes you and I smile again....Thanks for being you!
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you do, but why does that mean that you should ignore a call for peace now?
I took this opportunity to review the current BBC web page, and it indeed has many stories about the suffering of the Palestinians, and only a few about the Israelis suffering. The bombings on Israelis are reported, yet there are so many stories about Palestinian suffering, I would suggest that your conspiracy explanation is one of wishful thinking.
How dramatic, yet I looked at the charter and all I could find was the commitment to destroy Israel, which is slightly different.
Yet I take your point. That document is vitriolic, and is evidently written from the viewpoint that Islam is under attack and fearing that Israel wants control of all the land, with no acceptance of any other religion as equal. Thus I can understand their and your position, and I would suggest the need to negotiate.
This would be fine if Israel were making all efforts towards peace, yet it isn't. So their action response (as opposed to word response) is that the issues the Palestinians have are not worthy of consideration, and that they should just suck it up and accept it.
Do you think you would just suck it up if the roles were reversed? I can't imagine you would...
Could you define the difference for me please. Where do both groups live? What rights do they have? Just for the record...
I am wary of collective guilt as it is often the response if a power is unable to find a culprit. Still I accept that violence needs to be addressed which is why I suggest that Israel should stop its mistrust of calls for peace from Meshal and enter into negotiations.
Yes they do, yet you refuse to believe them if they make the slightest move towards peace, which means that your word response is fine but your action response is to fail to enter into negotiations.
Good to hear this. All this and much much more is needed.
He can hardly be said to be dismissing himself if you accept that he "usually does keep his integrity"
No matter how you cut it, the Israelis are playing a stupid game of politics. They are very obvious in being unwilling to work towards peace. If they made even a little effort in this direction, then observers such as myself would give credit, but as it is it looks like Israel is refusing to compromise or enter into negotiations because they have no respect for the issues which the Palestinians are raising. And to be upset when the world takes against Israel for this attitude, looks very much like a child throwing his toys out of the pram, then picking up a gun.
I appreciate that HAMAS need to be negotiated with to review the Charter you talk about. You need to assure them that this is not an attack on Islam, and to ensure religious freedoms for all. However you will find it difficult to do this if you decide to avoid all attempts at peace, and you should not be surprised when the world press adopt an anti-Israelis stance with such an attitude.
That said the time for compromise on some of these issues may be over now, as the latest story on the BBC tells of the HAMAS acceptance that 2 states will never happen and that they should now work towards a single state. I predicted this would happen if the Israelis failed to grasp the nettle, which could be given as evidence that those on the outside can have insight.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Then if you are not prepared to do that then stop accusing the mods of displaying some sort of bias.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
You are lying rach and this post has been reported.
editor
hiraethified
Could you produce this post please?
I seem to recall asking you this several times, so could you do it now because GD is getting very annoyed with you constantly referring to it.
This is so representative of an underlying urban75 mindset. Or is it just a 'left' mindset?
I actually hope you don't do that rachamim. I have natural sympathies towards the palestinian cause, but not always sure why. Probably because of the american input to the region.
But i like to hear other voices that can perhaps make me rethink my views.
Urban gave me that opportunity much more a couple of years ago or so. But the fucking immature mindset that pk has displayed here, is unfortunately commonplace. Many just give up and leave.
This forum and its world cousin used to be hives of debate. Not now.
Your contributions are well worth reading mate, although i have to confess when i see any really long post if the first paragraph doesn't do it for me, it will go unread...!
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
He won't and he can't.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=7102735
Thats an advanced search through my entire post history on the ME forum.
Using the key word c**t and searching all my posts in the ME forum-proof if ever there was needed I have never ever called his mother anything let alone a c**t.
G: "Even if Rachamim does have hundreds of Mesha'al speeches talking 'Death and Destruction,' why should Rachamim then ignore a current call for peace by Mesha'al?": Because it is not what you think it is. A call for peace would involve at the very least, revising your Charter and omitting the parts calling for genocide. How can you even imagine he wants peace when he is still sticking behind calls for total genocide? You do not make sense.
Here, G, I will make it easy for you. Not too long ago Durruti, another poster here, took me up on my advisement and looked at the Charter. He was so taken aback that he linked to it and did a thread on it. Ther version he linked to is one that I am familiar with, it is part of the Avalon Project by Yale University in the States, a compendium of historical documents. A great project by the way.
So, if you want, you can access that thread and go to a very good English translation of the Charter (they have no official English translation by the way but I do have the Arabic one and the Avalon version is very able, even more moderate so as to err on the side of Devil's Advocate). I will give you some parts to look at, from the Arabic into English by me, and so you will not have to read that very long book sized decleration, etc. and just review certain passages and see if what I am saying has validity.
In the Preamble, they quote Sura 3 (al Imran) of the Qu'ran, which purports to show that Jews SHOULD be persecuted because of their religious transgressions and their willfull disobediance of Allah.
Then, they immediately follow with a quote from the Islamic Martyr Imam Hasan al Banna: "Israel will be established and will stay established until Islam nullifies it as it nullified what was before it."
Shortly after, 2 small sections away, is the section entitled, "Oh People." In its 4th paragraph, we find the following: "Our battle with the Jews is very long and dangerous..." BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE: " (a sentence later) It (our war) is a phase that must be followed by succeeding phases." Do you understand G? SUCCEEDING PHASES.
This terminology is often employed by the group to discuss a possiblity of accepting a Hudna. If you follow HAMAS closely you will see the terminology and understand its clear implications. Hudna is seen as a neccessary phase when the Islamic, i.e. "Righteous" side is undermanned and/or undergunned and needs time to make up for this very large disadvantage. The succeeding phase would then be "victory."
Near the end of Chapter I, in Article VII, "The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement," we find an oft quoted epistle by Bukhari (oft quoted by HAMAS, et al), actually both al Bukhari and the theologian Muslim (in this sense a surname): "The Last Hour would not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them, and until the Jews would hide themselves behind a..." This allegedly comes from the Hadit, Islamic Scipture concerning the life and sayings of Muhammed.
In Chapter III, "Strategies and Ways," Article XIII "Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives, and International Conferences": In the 1st paragraph, in discussing PA, and other Arab Peace Iniatives, the Charter says, "The nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion, and it instructs its members to (untranslatable but akin to "stay with" ) that and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they wage jihad.
Skip 2 paragraphs and then...
Quoting the Quran once more, Sura 2, "al Bakra," "But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians until thou follow their religion..."
I could go on and on and no but aside from the U75 Charcter Count that would strictly limit my showing the Charter for what it is, you can easily get the general idea of just why your idea is false.
Here, G, I will make it easy for you. Not too long ago Durruti, another poster here, took me up on my advisement and looked at the Charter. He was so taken aback that he linked to it and did a thread on it. Ther version he linked to is one that I am familiar with, it is part of the Avalon Project by Yale University in the States, a compendium of historical documents. A great project by the way.
So, if you want, you can access that thread and go to a very good English translation of the Charter (they have no official English translation by the way but I do have the Arabic one and the Avalon version is very able, even more moderate so as to err on the side of Devil's Advocate). I will give you some parts to look at, from the Arabic into English by me, and so you will not have to read that very long book sized decleration, etc. and just review certain passages and see if what I am saying has validity.
In the Preamble, they quote Sura 3 (al Imran) of the Qu'ran, which purports to show that Jews SHOULD be persecuted because of their religious transgressions and their willfull disobediance of Allah.
Then, they immediately follow with a quote from the Islamic Martyr Imam Hasan al Banna: "Israel will be established and will stay established until Islam nullifies it as it nullified what was before it."
Shortly after, 2 small sections away, is the section entitled, "Oh People." In its 4th paragraph, we find the following: "Our battle with the Jews is very long and dangerous..." BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE: " (a sentence later) It (our war) is a phase that must be followed by succeeding phases." Do you understand G? SUCCEEDING PHASES.
This terminology is often employed by the group to discuss a possiblity of accepting a Hudna. If you follow HAMAS closely you will see the terminology and understand its clear implications. Hudna is seen as a neccessary phase when the Islamic, i.e. "Righteous" side is undermanned and/or undergunned and needs time to make up for this very large disadvantage. The succeeding phase would then be "victory."
Near the end of Chapter I, in Article VII, "The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement," we find an oft quoted epistle by Bukhari (oft quoted by HAMAS, et al), actually both al Bukhari and the theologian Muslim (in this sense a surname): "The Last Hour would not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them, and until the Jews would hide themselves behind a..." This allegedly comes from the Hadit, Islamic Scipture concerning the life and sayings of Muhammed.
In Chapter III, "Strategies and Ways," Article XIII "Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives, and International Conferences": In the 1st paragraph, in discussing PA, and other Arab Peace Iniatives, the Charter says, "The nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion, and it instructs its members to (untranslatable but akin to "stay with" ) that and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they wage jihad.
Skip 2 paragraphs and then...
Quoting the Quran once more, Sura 2, "al Bakra," "But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians until thou follow their religion..."
I could go on and on and no but aside from the U75 Charcter Count that would strictly limit my showing the Charter for what it is, you can easily get the general idea of just why your idea is false.
G: "G examined the BBC webpage and saw many stories of 'Palestinian' suffering and only a few on Israelis. G would imagine then that Rachamim's suggestion that the BBC is biased against Jews is a bit of wishful thinking.": I read and reread what you posted and I am still confused. Let me get this straight, ok? I say that the BBC is biased against Jews. Then you read the BBC page and find it deals mostly in Arab suffering and only very few stories sympathetic to Israel and you see my claim as wishful? You do not make a bit of sense G.
Indeed, this is a subject that gets bandied about quite a bit here and I am thinking of doing an actual thread on it, except that "BBC Bias Against Jews" does not neccessarily fall into the "Middle-East"category per se. Although since it primarily concerns reportage on Israel I could make the argument...Anyway, time permitting I just might do that. I have reams of information on the issue and it might be something worth discussing. In the meantime, maybe you might want to reread your own post and see if it makes sense.
Well, in retrospect I suppose you might be trying to make a point that "Palestinians" really are being persecuted by Israel and that the BBC ratio is only reflective of the reality at hand. Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. 3 cases of Jewish on Arab terrorism in 60 years, almost 13,000 of Arab on Jewish in the same time period and let us not even begin to talk about pre-Statehood years when Jews let themselves be butchered for a full 16 years without raising a finger (1920 to 1936).
The BBC reportage reflects the makeup of its staff as well as its long slanted editorial policy.
"G took a look at the Charter and all he saw was a commitment to destroy Israel.": First, forgive me for doubting you but since I have only posted about 4 pages of a 40 odd page document (not including HAMAS supplied Appendices and data), and that tiny bit clearly shows a much different picture, you are either lying or deluded. I do not want to ever call another poster a liar because I can never know either way whether one means to tell the truth or not online, right? As for deluded, I hesitaste on that one as well.
In talking to you I do find you seriously out of touch but would never find you mentally ill. So then, what is it? Why would you say that when the Charter clearly states otherwise? It does talk of destroying Israel surely, but also has a full 9 Articles on killing Jews, including ALL JEWS ON EARTH. It does not say Zionist, it does not say Israeli, it says JEW. Perhaps you wish to think about THAT part of your post as well?
"What if the role was reversed.": I am afraid you are going to have to be a tad bit more specific. Reversed in what way? Jews were in Gaza and Arabs fenced us in? If the Jewish homeland was in Saudi Arabia then why would I even wish to live in Gaza? I would be agitating to move to al Hejaz. So you see, you are again off point.
Arabs are usurpers and invaders. They OCCUPY every bit of land from the Atlantic over into Western China although aside from their culture their actual occupation stops in parts of Iran in the easterly direction. They have taken my culture and religion's holiest and richest places and tried to make them their own. I as a Jew am forbidden by my own Jewish Govt. from praying at the Jew's Holiest of Holies because a Muslim invader decided to build a Mosque on it like they did with every other Jewish holy place in the homeland.
Muslims tried to do it to Christians as well but they at least had the numerical strength to fend off such a physical occupation and have regained and retained their cultural treasures.
HaKotel? The so called "Western Wall?" It was used as the 4th wall of public bathrooms by Arabs from 1948 to 1967, they actually defecated and urinated upon what little bit of our Holiest Place was allowed us. This is the reality G.
1 billion Muslims, 46 nations, 24 Arab Nations, 14 million Jews and their 1 tiny Jewish Nation that is not even entitled to all its land... and that is the jist of it.
Indeed, this is a subject that gets bandied about quite a bit here and I am thinking of doing an actual thread on it, except that "BBC Bias Against Jews" does not neccessarily fall into the "Middle-East"category per se. Although since it primarily concerns reportage on Israel I could make the argument...Anyway, time permitting I just might do that. I have reams of information on the issue and it might be something worth discussing. In the meantime, maybe you might want to reread your own post and see if it makes sense.
Well, in retrospect I suppose you might be trying to make a point that "Palestinians" really are being persecuted by Israel and that the BBC ratio is only reflective of the reality at hand. Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. 3 cases of Jewish on Arab terrorism in 60 years, almost 13,000 of Arab on Jewish in the same time period and let us not even begin to talk about pre-Statehood years when Jews let themselves be butchered for a full 16 years without raising a finger (1920 to 1936).
The BBC reportage reflects the makeup of its staff as well as its long slanted editorial policy.
"G took a look at the Charter and all he saw was a commitment to destroy Israel.": First, forgive me for doubting you but since I have only posted about 4 pages of a 40 odd page document (not including HAMAS supplied Appendices and data), and that tiny bit clearly shows a much different picture, you are either lying or deluded. I do not want to ever call another poster a liar because I can never know either way whether one means to tell the truth or not online, right? As for deluded, I hesitaste on that one as well.
In talking to you I do find you seriously out of touch but would never find you mentally ill. So then, what is it? Why would you say that when the Charter clearly states otherwise? It does talk of destroying Israel surely, but also has a full 9 Articles on killing Jews, including ALL JEWS ON EARTH. It does not say Zionist, it does not say Israeli, it says JEW. Perhaps you wish to think about THAT part of your post as well?
"What if the role was reversed.": I am afraid you are going to have to be a tad bit more specific. Reversed in what way? Jews were in Gaza and Arabs fenced us in? If the Jewish homeland was in Saudi Arabia then why would I even wish to live in Gaza? I would be agitating to move to al Hejaz. So you see, you are again off point.
Arabs are usurpers and invaders. They OCCUPY every bit of land from the Atlantic over into Western China although aside from their culture their actual occupation stops in parts of Iran in the easterly direction. They have taken my culture and religion's holiest and richest places and tried to make them their own. I as a Jew am forbidden by my own Jewish Govt. from praying at the Jew's Holiest of Holies because a Muslim invader decided to build a Mosque on it like they did with every other Jewish holy place in the homeland.
Muslims tried to do it to Christians as well but they at least had the numerical strength to fend off such a physical occupation and have regained and retained their cultural treasures.
HaKotel? The so called "Western Wall?" It was used as the 4th wall of public bathrooms by Arabs from 1948 to 1967, they actually defecated and urinated upon what little bit of our Holiest Place was allowed us. This is the reality G.
1 billion Muslims, 46 nations, 24 Arab Nations, 14 million Jews and their 1 tiny Jewish Nation that is not even entitled to all its land... and that is the jist of it.
G PArt III: "Could Rachamim please define the many differences between Israeli-Arabs and 'Palestinians' please?": Sure, no problem. Both come from the same exact stock. That is to say, both are Arabs who prior to 1948 almost always called themselves "Southern Syrian."
Obviously in 1948 Israel was established after fighting for its life. In that almost 2 year long war the two labels were defined by actions taken during that war. Those that took up arms or who otherwise fled to other locales became, by their own coopting of a term previously applied to all people within the British Syrian Mandate, "Palestinians." Those who did not take up arms or flee became "Israeli-Arabs."
The term "Palestinian" is derived from a 2nd Century CE/AD Roman appellation for the land applied after finally defeating indigenous Jews in 300 years of on and off again bloodshed (mostly on). To deride these Jews, who had held out longer than any other People against the Romans, they renamed the land, "Land of the Phillistines," or "Palestina" in Greek" which was the actual Roman vernacular, not Latin as most would assume.The Romans believing the Phillistines to be the truest enemies of the Jews (piece of Roman ignorance, had they named the land "Amalek" they would have been dead on)
The Phillistines were a Proto-Greek People of the Myceanean Culture of Crete who had settled all along that part of the Mediterranean Basin. Through attrition and assimilation the Jews came to dominate them and made them extinct about 3000 years ago, or more than 1000 years before this Roman sacrilege.
Arabs as I have said time and again first came permanantly to the land in the Islamic Advent under Omar but did not settle there. They ruled it for about 20 years before they themselves were displaced, and even in those 2 odd decades only ruled it as a far flung province of a much larger empire.
It never held an Arab Nation, nor was there ever a nation called "Palestine." Most Arabs now living there , or should we say living there in 1948 when this conflict truly took modern shape, were very recent transplants from other Arab parts of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Almost all actually had less than 150 years on the land at the time of Israel's modern establishment.
Israeli-Arabs were given and retain every single right that Jewish Israelis hold and even a few extra ones, such as the right NOT to be summarily inducted into the military (via their own request), the right to so called Affirmative Action in both civil service and the private sector, and grants and inducements also along the lines of Affirmative Action in the areas of healthcare and education.
"Palestinians" are either residents of Gaza and the so called "WB," or 1948 Era Refugees from the land now alternatively called "Palestine" and Israel. What rights do THEY have? They have every right guaranteed to them under IHL, as well as the right of legal redress under the Israeli Justice System (if residing in Gaza and/or "WB"). For example, if the Security Barrier must take a piece of privately held Arab land, and even though it offers both a lump sum cash payout AND a monthly stipend, and said Arab does not want his or her land used, they may seek redress through the Israeli Courts.
In addition, they have every right granted to them by the PA.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Obviously in 1948 Israel was established after fighting for its life. In that almost 2 year long war the two labels were defined by actions taken during that war. Those that took up arms or who otherwise fled to other locales became, by their own coopting of a term previously applied to all people within the British Syrian Mandate, "Palestinians." Those who did not take up arms or flee became "Israeli-Arabs."
The term "Palestinian" is derived from a 2nd Century CE/AD Roman appellation for the land applied after finally defeating indigenous Jews in 300 years of on and off again bloodshed (mostly on). To deride these Jews, who had held out longer than any other People against the Romans, they renamed the land, "Land of the Phillistines," or "Palestina" in Greek" which was the actual Roman vernacular, not Latin as most would assume.The Romans believing the Phillistines to be the truest enemies of the Jews (piece of Roman ignorance, had they named the land "Amalek" they would have been dead on)
The Phillistines were a Proto-Greek People of the Myceanean Culture of Crete who had settled all along that part of the Mediterranean Basin. Through attrition and assimilation the Jews came to dominate them and made them extinct about 3000 years ago, or more than 1000 years before this Roman sacrilege.
Arabs as I have said time and again first came permanantly to the land in the Islamic Advent under Omar but did not settle there. They ruled it for about 20 years before they themselves were displaced, and even in those 2 odd decades only ruled it as a far flung province of a much larger empire.
It never held an Arab Nation, nor was there ever a nation called "Palestine." Most Arabs now living there , or should we say living there in 1948 when this conflict truly took modern shape, were very recent transplants from other Arab parts of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Almost all actually had less than 150 years on the land at the time of Israel's modern establishment.
Israeli-Arabs were given and retain every single right that Jewish Israelis hold and even a few extra ones, such as the right NOT to be summarily inducted into the military (via their own request), the right to so called Affirmative Action in both civil service and the private sector, and grants and inducements also along the lines of Affirmative Action in the areas of healthcare and education.
"Palestinians" are either residents of Gaza and the so called "WB," or 1948 Era Refugees from the land now alternatively called "Palestine" and Israel. What rights do THEY have? They have every right guaranteed to them under IHL, as well as the right of legal redress under the Israeli Justice System (if residing in Gaza and/or "WB"). For example, if the Security Barrier must take a piece of privately held Arab land, and even though it offers both a lump sum cash payout AND a monthly stipend, and said Arab does not want his or her land used, they may seek redress through the Israeli Courts.
In addition, they have every right granted to them by the PA.
Hope that clears it up for you.
G Part IV: "If Israel refuses to enter into negotiations...": G, Israel has been sitting at Arab tables for almost 100 years now. You need to really study this issue. You are under some flase assumption that Israel has EVER refused to negotiate with all Arabs.
HAMAS is not representative of anything save an illegal coopting of the Gazan political system. They are NOT the legal representatives of the "Palestinian People." As such, Israel does not need to even look in their direction much less sit at a table with them and discuss anything. Furthermore, as long as they mantain that they aim to exterminate the Jewish People I do not imagine there will ever be direct contact with the group.
"Mesha'al can hardly be said to be dismissing himself when Rachamim claims 'he usually maintains his integrity'.": Sure he can. The key word there is "USUALLY." Mesha'al used to walk the walk. As I have said, just about all Semites respect strength. Now however he is playing the old Arab game of double speak. Tell Westerners one thing, knowing what they wish to hear, and then turning around and telling the Arab World a completely different thing. Arafat was a master at this. He would give a breakfast spech in English to Western journalists, talking of coexistence and mutual recognition and at lunch tell the Arab League that he would live to see Israel crushed and erased. Sadly, Mesha'al has taken to this as well.
The funny thing is, or perhaps the ironic thing, is that he went into it with idealism in hand. He began telling Westerners the truth, "Hudna this, Islamic that," and now uses words like "Ceasefire" and "Truce" which hold totally different connotations for English speakers then "Hudna" does for Arabic speakers. He is capitalising on Westerns' cultural blinders and that is a shame all around. Sounds funny mer calling it a shame but as I said, most Semites do respect strength and most of my mates in the IDF always respected HAMAS even when we hated them because of their integrity. They really lived their ideals.
I do not know many who admire deceit as a personality trait. That is why Arafat was particularly disgusting, well that and killing kindergarteners but that is another kettle of fish as they say.
"HAMAS needs to be reassured that this is not an attack on Islam. "THIS" being the examination of their Charter.": Why do you have this silly notiopn that Israel needs to hold Arab hands when you dismiss out of pocket the converse? "OH, Israel is this and that, but IT needs to reassure the Arabs..." Arabs have made war. THEY have declared it, not Israel, not Zionists, not Jews. Look at every Israeli war, even the ones literally iniated by Israel (67, Peace for Galilee AKA Lebanon I, Lebanon II AKA Lebanon 2006) were because of causus belli supplied by the Arabs.
Israel has never been looking for violence. We do not instill it in our children, we do not cherish it as a cultural trait, I do not even know of the most extreme Kahanist "Settler" who would dress up his infant son holding a rifle the way many Arab militants do! You have the dynamic completely inverted.
WHEN you iniate violence, YOU need to iniate peace. The one geting slapped is not going to ask you to dinner. "Gee, thanks for blowing up my infant daughter, like some sugar in that tea mate?" You just do not make any sense.
As for "HAMAS now wants a Single State Solution," I really wonder about how you perceive things. You need to study an Arab word,"al Dhimmi." HAMAS wants an Islamic theocracy and as such will afford Zorostrians, Christians, and Jews the status of al Dhimmi. Wow, thanks but no thanks.
HAMAS is not representative of anything save an illegal coopting of the Gazan political system. They are NOT the legal representatives of the "Palestinian People." As such, Israel does not need to even look in their direction much less sit at a table with them and discuss anything. Furthermore, as long as they mantain that they aim to exterminate the Jewish People I do not imagine there will ever be direct contact with the group.
"Mesha'al can hardly be said to be dismissing himself when Rachamim claims 'he usually maintains his integrity'.": Sure he can. The key word there is "USUALLY." Mesha'al used to walk the walk. As I have said, just about all Semites respect strength. Now however he is playing the old Arab game of double speak. Tell Westerners one thing, knowing what they wish to hear, and then turning around and telling the Arab World a completely different thing. Arafat was a master at this. He would give a breakfast spech in English to Western journalists, talking of coexistence and mutual recognition and at lunch tell the Arab League that he would live to see Israel crushed and erased. Sadly, Mesha'al has taken to this as well.
The funny thing is, or perhaps the ironic thing, is that he went into it with idealism in hand. He began telling Westerners the truth, "Hudna this, Islamic that," and now uses words like "Ceasefire" and "Truce" which hold totally different connotations for English speakers then "Hudna" does for Arabic speakers. He is capitalising on Westerns' cultural blinders and that is a shame all around. Sounds funny mer calling it a shame but as I said, most Semites do respect strength and most of my mates in the IDF always respected HAMAS even when we hated them because of their integrity. They really lived their ideals.
I do not know many who admire deceit as a personality trait. That is why Arafat was particularly disgusting, well that and killing kindergarteners but that is another kettle of fish as they say.
"HAMAS needs to be reassured that this is not an attack on Islam. "THIS" being the examination of their Charter.": Why do you have this silly notiopn that Israel needs to hold Arab hands when you dismiss out of pocket the converse? "OH, Israel is this and that, but IT needs to reassure the Arabs..." Arabs have made war. THEY have declared it, not Israel, not Zionists, not Jews. Look at every Israeli war, even the ones literally iniated by Israel (67, Peace for Galilee AKA Lebanon I, Lebanon II AKA Lebanon 2006) were because of causus belli supplied by the Arabs.
Israel has never been looking for violence. We do not instill it in our children, we do not cherish it as a cultural trait, I do not even know of the most extreme Kahanist "Settler" who would dress up his infant son holding a rifle the way many Arab militants do! You have the dynamic completely inverted.
WHEN you iniate violence, YOU need to iniate peace. The one geting slapped is not going to ask you to dinner. "Gee, thanks for blowing up my infant daughter, like some sugar in that tea mate?" You just do not make any sense.
As for "HAMAS now wants a Single State Solution," I really wonder about how you perceive things. You need to study an Arab word,"al Dhimmi." HAMAS wants an Islamic theocracy and as such will afford Zorostrians, Christians, and Jews the status of al Dhimmi. Wow, thanks but no thanks.
Editor: Could Rachamim produce the post where Grandma called Rachamim's mom a 'cun$'?": First off, as I told you the other time you asked (you only asked once mind you, that it is a stupid request being that Gradnma (not to mention others but that would be unrelated, would it not?) have called me that very name. So what if it was my mum, my poodle, or my sock puppet? Do YOU REALLY care? If it were a real issue, you would have acted on my being called the name so...to answer you...no, I will not.
Furthermore, when I did try and find it, I found that archived posts only went back a certain amount of time so even if I were willing, and I do not see the utlity in scrolling through hours upon hours of Grandma's vile nonsense (granted over the past 4 months he has apparently stopped cursing me and I give credit where it is due, just as I call people on their actions when IT is due), it does not seem as if I would even be able to do it.
In fact, EDITOR, I find a tad bit curious that you would even bring it up, given the propensity of certain poster to use names just as bad towards me and others. What does a partiocular target mean in terms of severity. Or is it that you feel it is a sort of integrity issue, as in "Rachamim is lying" and let us prove it. Sad, very sad.
Notice also, I will remind you again, I never reported Itor any other insult by Grandma OR any other poster. I believe in complete freedom of speech, even when it insults me.
I do have one question EDITOR, do you find calling a poster "spaceman" to be insulting?
Now back to the real thread...
Furthermore, when I did try and find it, I found that archived posts only went back a certain amount of time so even if I were willing, and I do not see the utlity in scrolling through hours upon hours of Grandma's vile nonsense (granted over the past 4 months he has apparently stopped cursing me and I give credit where it is due, just as I call people on their actions when IT is due), it does not seem as if I would even be able to do it.
In fact, EDITOR, I find a tad bit curious that you would even bring it up, given the propensity of certain poster to use names just as bad towards me and others. What does a partiocular target mean in terms of severity. Or is it that you feel it is a sort of integrity issue, as in "Rachamim is lying" and let us prove it. Sad, very sad.
Notice also, I will remind you again, I never reported Itor any other insult by Grandma OR any other poster. I believe in complete freedom of speech, even when it insults me.
I do have one question EDITOR, do you find calling a poster "spaceman" to be insulting?
Now back to the real thread...
Wait, wait, wait...Hold the presses..."Expletives are not banned but people who disrupt threads SOMETIMES are." Got it!
Gmart
Well-Known Member
The Charter
I'm sure we can agree that it needs to be dealt with as an issue in the longer term, but for me the priority is to deal with the violence which is happening in the present. Certainly issues in it should be brought up in any negotiations, but to use it as an excuse to ignore olive branches is not on. There is no excuse for ignoring olive branches when there is violence now. Any words written down at some point in the past are inevitably going to be less important than actual actions in the present.
The BBC
I accepted that the stories were mostly about the Palestinian suffering. What suffering on the other side do you see as not being reported? The bombings are being reported.
You state that 3 cases of Jewish on Arab terrorism in 60 years, almost 13,000 of Arab on Jewish in the same time period, yet for me to believe this description I would have to believe that ALL the news reports I have read are involved in some kind of conspiracy against the Israelis, whereas I have seen clips on youtube for example which suggest that both sides are at war and therefore indulging in dodgy tactics.
BTW the Israelis army bash their way into Arab homes a lot more than 3 times in 60 years, and I would suggest that that is a terrorist attack.
I think your argument would have been better to stick with the 'we're at war and therefore can do what we like to secure the safety of the people we consider to be our own' line. It was more believable.
I must have missed the article which called for killing all jews on earth, and I searched the whole document with word search, yet please feel free to give me the article number.
That said I accept as I say that this document would be dealt with in due time, but that any current deaths are far and away more important than some words written in anger 50 years odd ago.
So why then are you insistent on treating them differently if they are the same people? So some tried to fight for their land, and some didn't. I'm sure we can both understand this natural instinct, but the time has come to leave things in the past and to move towards one nation.
Moving towards Peace.
I get it. You don't trust HAMAS and you have historical evidence to back it up. I understand but if you want peace you will need to compromise. If you don't then carry on, and don't be surprised with the bad press you get from everyone because you are not even trying to move towards a peaceful resolution. It is inevitable that you will get the blunt end of reportage if you are not seen to be continually compromising in your efforts towards peace.
The reality looks very much like you both wish to live in the same area and need to create a system for all. No exceptions. I'm sure that all nations would love to take away all rights from their prisoners, but the sign of a modern nation is that they don't. So simply dismissing the Palestinians as outside your remit is just a convenience for the Israelis.
One has to wonder exactly what you are defending. Obviously Israel has a right to self defence, but you seem to be giving excuses as to why Israel need not take every chance towards peace. I could accept your need to maintain Israelis military gains even but to stop working towards peace is inexcusable. Even if you don't think the Palestinians have anything to be upset about (another extreme opinion you do nothing to disavow), it seems incredible that you should be happy that Israel is so against any peace and that its war existence is a reasonable state of affair which you are happy with.
Of course you might claim to be aiming towards peace on Israelis terms only, yet the implication of that is that the Palestinians have absolutely nothing to be upset about, which is just extreme.
The Israelis turned up and occupied a land which was relatively empty, and they decided to settle. I have no problem with that, but it is a matter of courtesy to allow the few inhabitants already there to also exist there as equal citizens. For the people who turned up they have every right to set up a system of government for themselves, and it is to Israel's credit that they offered land to them to set up their own country. Still to push them into camps is the same as what happened to the Native Americans all those years ago. In fact the more I think about it, it looks like the Israelis are following the same road as the US did with them!
On the other hand we have the current Israelis who are suffering from some bad decisions by their ancestors. It must have seemed like a good idea after the war to take advantage of the situation and argue for the need for a homeland. Yet here we are sixty years on and still the Palestinians are insisting that it is their homeland too. The obvious solution is to have one strong nation taking the best of both traditions and with the freedom of religion which is accepted by all civilised countries. Yet the temptation to exclude the Palestinians was there and taken. Any Israelis at the time could have predicted that taking advantage of a weak enemy had better wipe him out or else it would rebound and cause too many problems.
Taking more and more land must also have seemed like a good idea because the Israelis line was that there was plenty for them, and like boiling frogs they were fine at the beginning...
I'm sure we can agree that it needs to be dealt with as an issue in the longer term, but for me the priority is to deal with the violence which is happening in the present. Certainly issues in it should be brought up in any negotiations, but to use it as an excuse to ignore olive branches is not on. There is no excuse for ignoring olive branches when there is violence now. Any words written down at some point in the past are inevitably going to be less important than actual actions in the present.
The BBC
I accepted that the stories were mostly about the Palestinian suffering. What suffering on the other side do you see as not being reported? The bombings are being reported.
You state that 3 cases of Jewish on Arab terrorism in 60 years, almost 13,000 of Arab on Jewish in the same time period, yet for me to believe this description I would have to believe that ALL the news reports I have read are involved in some kind of conspiracy against the Israelis, whereas I have seen clips on youtube for example which suggest that both sides are at war and therefore indulging in dodgy tactics.
BTW the Israelis army bash their way into Arab homes a lot more than 3 times in 60 years, and I would suggest that that is a terrorist attack.
I think your argument would have been better to stick with the 'we're at war and therefore can do what we like to secure the safety of the people we consider to be our own' line. It was more believable.
I must have missed the article which called for killing all jews on earth, and I searched the whole document with word search, yet please feel free to give me the article number.
That said I accept as I say that this document would be dealt with in due time, but that any current deaths are far and away more important than some words written in anger 50 years odd ago.
Historically lots of shrines, churches etc have been built on and that's just how it is. It in no way entitles anyone to restrict the freedom of religion.
So why then are you insistent on treating them differently if they are the same people? So some tried to fight for their land, and some didn't. I'm sure we can both understand this natural instinct, but the time has come to leave things in the past and to move towards one nation.
Moving towards Peace.
I get it. You don't trust HAMAS and you have historical evidence to back it up. I understand but if you want peace you will need to compromise. If you don't then carry on, and don't be surprised with the bad press you get from everyone because you are not even trying to move towards a peaceful resolution. It is inevitable that you will get the blunt end of reportage if you are not seen to be continually compromising in your efforts towards peace.
The reality looks very much like you both wish to live in the same area and need to create a system for all. No exceptions. I'm sure that all nations would love to take away all rights from their prisoners, but the sign of a modern nation is that they don't. So simply dismissing the Palestinians as outside your remit is just a convenience for the Israelis.
One has to wonder exactly what you are defending. Obviously Israel has a right to self defence, but you seem to be giving excuses as to why Israel need not take every chance towards peace. I could accept your need to maintain Israelis military gains even but to stop working towards peace is inexcusable. Even if you don't think the Palestinians have anything to be upset about (another extreme opinion you do nothing to disavow), it seems incredible that you should be happy that Israel is so against any peace and that its war existence is a reasonable state of affair which you are happy with.
Of course you might claim to be aiming towards peace on Israelis terms only, yet the implication of that is that the Palestinians have absolutely nothing to be upset about, which is just extreme.
The Israelis turned up and occupied a land which was relatively empty, and they decided to settle. I have no problem with that, but it is a matter of courtesy to allow the few inhabitants already there to also exist there as equal citizens. For the people who turned up they have every right to set up a system of government for themselves, and it is to Israel's credit that they offered land to them to set up their own country. Still to push them into camps is the same as what happened to the Native Americans all those years ago. In fact the more I think about it, it looks like the Israelis are following the same road as the US did with them!
On the other hand we have the current Israelis who are suffering from some bad decisions by their ancestors. It must have seemed like a good idea after the war to take advantage of the situation and argue for the need for a homeland. Yet here we are sixty years on and still the Palestinians are insisting that it is their homeland too. The obvious solution is to have one strong nation taking the best of both traditions and with the freedom of religion which is accepted by all civilised countries. Yet the temptation to exclude the Palestinians was there and taken. Any Israelis at the time could have predicted that taking advantage of a weak enemy had better wipe him out or else it would rebound and cause too many problems.
Taking more and more land must also have seemed like a good idea because the Israelis line was that there was plenty for them, and like boiling frogs they were fine at the beginning...
G: "The Charter DOES need to be dealt with but G is more concerned with the violence which is in the here and now and ergo more pressing of a problem.": G, HAMAS' violence is driven by a narrow ideology. This ideology is rationalised in a very codified mission statement, i.e. The Charter. What better raison d'etre than "Allah commands me to do it"?
IF the Charter were to be dealt with and the offending things expunged, one would see a huge decrease right down the line. What happened when the PLO changed its Charter? To talk peace you must first forgo violence and that is extremely simple common sense.
"Ignoring olive branches.": Again, there are no such thing. G, please do us both a favour and research the concept of "Hudna," as well as the exact terms HAMAS is offering and you will see it is far from a serious anything. By the way, Israel entered into a Cease Fire with HAMAS, mediated by Egyptian Intel. One of those conditions, supposedly even a prerequisite to Borders Opening, was the release of abducted IDF Armoured soldier Gilad Schalit.
Where is Schalit? True, PRC spearheaded the abduction but according to HAMAS AND Intel he was transferred solely to HAMAS' care some while ago. Why is he being held as a pawn? HAMAS does what HAMAS wants to do and solely for HAMAS' benefit.
You imagine that the group is somehow flexible on many issues. It is one of the most rigidly structured groups in the dynamic.
"What stories does Rachamim feel the BBC is ignoring? G saw that they report the 'Palestinian' bombing.": Reporting an incident is not indicative of objectivity. Phrasing is a huge part. There is not a news source on the planet that does not hold an inherent bias one way or another. Then, in addition, most also have editorial policies that also set a distinct tone. When one tunes in Fox they know full well what to expect.. When one turns on Pacifica they know that as well.
I still do not know whether or not a BBC thread would be prudent. Perhaps instead I will just offer as summary in this thread, etc.
"G saw Youtube clips that seem to show that both Israel and its opponents are engagfing in dodgy tactics.": Here is the thing...Has Israel EVER been charged with anything in any International Court? LEt me be clear since this is becoming a redundant subject given its concurrent placement in at least one other thread: A failure to prosecute or even charge is not proof positive of Israel's innocence but it is highly indicative.
ANYONE can post clips on Youtube and unless they contain pornography or HARDCORE hatred they will air. It is not proof of anything. Israel has more Operational experience than any other military entity on the planet, bar none. The closest competitor is not even in the ballpark. At the same time Israel is operating in some of the most densely populated parts of the planet.
IF Israel were engaging in dodgy happenstance it would not escape the scrutiny of so many eager beavers. Aside from CCTV both official and otherwise covering just about every centimeter of the land(s), you have locals AND foreigners walking around with camera phones, digicams, and so on. Then add journalists to the mix.
First, what sort of clips are you seeing? Professional clips? Even they have been shown at times to be fraudelent. Study the Muhammed al Dura case if you have time. Study the Qana incident in the 2006 War. Those are good just for starters and you will then see that sadly, filmed accounts have precious little worth. BUT, even with their dismissive nature what do you see? How many do you see?
How many Arabs live in Gaza? How many in the so called "WB?" How many "smoking guns" in terms of film do you see? If anything film or lack thereof is helping ot prove Israel's case.
As for "both sides are at war," only one side is a legal entity: ISRAEL. Only legal entities are allowed to enage in war unless it is a war of national resistance and since there has never been a nation called "Palestine," the 27 militant groups plus the PA do not have a legal leg to stand on.
"Israel bashes its way into Arabs' homes a lot more than 3 times and bashing into homes is a terrorist act in G's eyes.": Tell me, you live in the UK, yes? DO police in the UK enter a suspect's home? Israel is not only fighting terrorism but also legally administering both Gaza and the so called "WB." IT has left Gaza to its self as long as Gaza leaves Israel alone but Israel still retains ultimate rights and responsibility as far as Security is concerned per the Interim Agreement and International Law.
If Israel receives reliable infromation that a known terrorist is ensconced in a home Israel then has the legal right to ebter the premises. This happens in every nation on Earth. Do you consider British police who do this to be terrorists?
"Rachamim's 'We are at war and therefore well within our rights to do whatever it takes to protect our People,' it is more believable.": The problem though, is that I NEVER said that...NOR do I believe it in the least. Israel is bound not only by International Law but by its own set of moral standards. War does not excuse criminality. The question then becomes, "What constitutes 'criminality'?" I believe I have been more than clear on this issue.
IF the Charter were to be dealt with and the offending things expunged, one would see a huge decrease right down the line. What happened when the PLO changed its Charter? To talk peace you must first forgo violence and that is extremely simple common sense.
"Ignoring olive branches.": Again, there are no such thing. G, please do us both a favour and research the concept of "Hudna," as well as the exact terms HAMAS is offering and you will see it is far from a serious anything. By the way, Israel entered into a Cease Fire with HAMAS, mediated by Egyptian Intel. One of those conditions, supposedly even a prerequisite to Borders Opening, was the release of abducted IDF Armoured soldier Gilad Schalit.
Where is Schalit? True, PRC spearheaded the abduction but according to HAMAS AND Intel he was transferred solely to HAMAS' care some while ago. Why is he being held as a pawn? HAMAS does what HAMAS wants to do and solely for HAMAS' benefit.
You imagine that the group is somehow flexible on many issues. It is one of the most rigidly structured groups in the dynamic.
"What stories does Rachamim feel the BBC is ignoring? G saw that they report the 'Palestinian' bombing.": Reporting an incident is not indicative of objectivity. Phrasing is a huge part. There is not a news source on the planet that does not hold an inherent bias one way or another. Then, in addition, most also have editorial policies that also set a distinct tone. When one tunes in Fox they know full well what to expect.. When one turns on Pacifica they know that as well.
I still do not know whether or not a BBC thread would be prudent. Perhaps instead I will just offer as summary in this thread, etc.
"G saw Youtube clips that seem to show that both Israel and its opponents are engagfing in dodgy tactics.": Here is the thing...Has Israel EVER been charged with anything in any International Court? LEt me be clear since this is becoming a redundant subject given its concurrent placement in at least one other thread: A failure to prosecute or even charge is not proof positive of Israel's innocence but it is highly indicative.
ANYONE can post clips on Youtube and unless they contain pornography or HARDCORE hatred they will air. It is not proof of anything. Israel has more Operational experience than any other military entity on the planet, bar none. The closest competitor is not even in the ballpark. At the same time Israel is operating in some of the most densely populated parts of the planet.
IF Israel were engaging in dodgy happenstance it would not escape the scrutiny of so many eager beavers. Aside from CCTV both official and otherwise covering just about every centimeter of the land(s), you have locals AND foreigners walking around with camera phones, digicams, and so on. Then add journalists to the mix.
First, what sort of clips are you seeing? Professional clips? Even they have been shown at times to be fraudelent. Study the Muhammed al Dura case if you have time. Study the Qana incident in the 2006 War. Those are good just for starters and you will then see that sadly, filmed accounts have precious little worth. BUT, even with their dismissive nature what do you see? How many do you see?
How many Arabs live in Gaza? How many in the so called "WB?" How many "smoking guns" in terms of film do you see? If anything film or lack thereof is helping ot prove Israel's case.
As for "both sides are at war," only one side is a legal entity: ISRAEL. Only legal entities are allowed to enage in war unless it is a war of national resistance and since there has never been a nation called "Palestine," the 27 militant groups plus the PA do not have a legal leg to stand on.
"Israel bashes its way into Arabs' homes a lot more than 3 times and bashing into homes is a terrorist act in G's eyes.": Tell me, you live in the UK, yes? DO police in the UK enter a suspect's home? Israel is not only fighting terrorism but also legally administering both Gaza and the so called "WB." IT has left Gaza to its self as long as Gaza leaves Israel alone but Israel still retains ultimate rights and responsibility as far as Security is concerned per the Interim Agreement and International Law.
If Israel receives reliable infromation that a known terrorist is ensconced in a home Israel then has the legal right to ebter the premises. This happens in every nation on Earth. Do you consider British police who do this to be terrorists?
"Rachamim's 'We are at war and therefore well within our rights to do whatever it takes to protect our People,' it is more believable.": The problem though, is that I NEVER said that...NOR do I believe it in the least. Israel is bound not only by International Law but by its own set of moral standards. War does not excuse criminality. The question then becomes, "What constitutes 'criminality'?" I believe I have been more than clear on this issue.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
It matters because its part and parcel of your made up ad hom defence. Calling your mother a c**t is particularly loathsome-and the fact you fall back on it shows you know no shame. You will stoop as low as possible to fend off your critics.
Bullshit. Click on the link-which part of 'every single post on the ME forum are you struggling with? You are a liar.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/sea...archid=7102735
Are you accusing me of throwing ad homs after calling me a wanker.....yeah right o....
G Part II: "G reviewed the HAMAS Charter, looked for the part that Rachamim claims says HAMAS wants to kill every Jew on Earth but failed to find it. G even used Word Search and still has not located it. Could Rachamim give G the Article, etc. in which it is contained?": G, did I know not list the portion of Hadit attributed to both al Bukhari and Muslim on Judgement Day? Read my post again...but there ARE more certainly.
It also accuses Jews of taking all money, causing all the alcoholism and drug addiction in the world, using organisations such as Rotary and Lions Clubs as fronts for taking over the world, claims the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is factual and true, Jews control all the media in the world, are responsible for every war in the world since the French Revolution, denies the Holocaust, responsible for both communism and capitalism, created the L. of Nations and UN as tools for world domination, and a host of other gems. Rather than my quoting it line for line, please take your time and read it very slowly. Think about it and read it carefully. If you truly hope to understand what is going on, you need to begin by learning as much as you can about the various demographics involved.
I have to add though for clarity that they do allow for coexistence under Islamic Domination, as I described to you earlier. On a couple of counts they call for extermination and yet in Chapter IV, Part F, Article XXXI they say that it is possible for Judiaism and Christianity to coexsit "IN THE SHADOW OF ISLAM" in "safety and security." They go on though, to explain that they need to submit to Islam (as the dominant religion) because they are not capable of governance. I guess it is like the Qu'ran, the latter dictum cancelling the former dictum, but in this case they continue further along with another call for extermination. Go figure.
As I said though, you (and others) should read it in its entirety and slowly. My thought in quoting it earlier was to inspire you and others to actually read it instead of having you and others merely read synopses,etc.
"The Charter was written in anger 50 odd years ago." What made you think either thing? It was written in the early 1990s, with HAMAS itself being formally founded in 1987 (although it does have very old roots as the Gazan ranch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood). As for "anger," it was written over the course of years, not in one night and one dares say they took a modicum of consideration with what they would express to the world as their core set of values.
"Shrines are built upon lots of times. It is just the way it is. That it is that way does not then entitle one to deny religious freedom to others.": What are you saying? It is ok for others to build upon my shrines but not ok for me to do so to theirs? You are again not making sense.
Two words: "BAMIYAN BUDDHAS." Everything Islam comes near it steps on with its utter need to dominate and usurp. This is not PC but it is accurate and needs to be aired out.
"If Israeli-Arabs and 'Palestinians' are the same People, why is Israel intent upon treating them differently?": OK, are Chicanos and Mexicans the same People? They come from the same root stock but are separated by an International Border and as a result have slightly differing cultures and outlooks. That is a perfect analogy for the Israeli-Arabs and the "Palestinians."
They are no longer "One People." They can even be literally physical brothers but they have differnet affectations, different ways of life, different motivations and goals in many cases. I have precious little faith in Poll Science but I believe it perhaps worth mentioning that very recently an anti-Israeli Arabic newspaper from the region polled the residents of a midsized Israeli-Arab town and asked them , if in the best of possible scenarios ("Palestine" was not only fully independant but economically viable as well, equal at least to Israel's current economic status), would these Israeli-Arabs choose to exchange their citizenship for PA citizenship and homes for equal homes in that independant "Palestine." The answer? I believe it was in the high 80th percentile that responded that under no circumstances whatsoever would they think of doing so.
As I have said often, Israeli Arabs enjoy the highest standard of living (non-subsidised as in UAE, Kuwaiti,etc.) as well as the higest rated Human and Civil Rights. Their is not a perfect existence by any means but it is apprently a preffarable one to that imagined within an independant "Palestine."
"Some tried to fight for their land.": Turks owned virtually all land not owned by Jews. Arabs of any background (meaning from every part of the Ottoman World) owned less than 10% of the total landmass and this of course is including modern day Jordan which was illegaly carved out of the Mandate as well...In other words "Palestine" is already in existence, JORDAN.
It also accuses Jews of taking all money, causing all the alcoholism and drug addiction in the world, using organisations such as Rotary and Lions Clubs as fronts for taking over the world, claims the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is factual and true, Jews control all the media in the world, are responsible for every war in the world since the French Revolution, denies the Holocaust, responsible for both communism and capitalism, created the L. of Nations and UN as tools for world domination, and a host of other gems. Rather than my quoting it line for line, please take your time and read it very slowly. Think about it and read it carefully. If you truly hope to understand what is going on, you need to begin by learning as much as you can about the various demographics involved.
I have to add though for clarity that they do allow for coexistence under Islamic Domination, as I described to you earlier. On a couple of counts they call for extermination and yet in Chapter IV, Part F, Article XXXI they say that it is possible for Judiaism and Christianity to coexsit "IN THE SHADOW OF ISLAM" in "safety and security." They go on though, to explain that they need to submit to Islam (as the dominant religion) because they are not capable of governance. I guess it is like the Qu'ran, the latter dictum cancelling the former dictum, but in this case they continue further along with another call for extermination. Go figure.
As I said though, you (and others) should read it in its entirety and slowly. My thought in quoting it earlier was to inspire you and others to actually read it instead of having you and others merely read synopses,etc.
"The Charter was written in anger 50 odd years ago." What made you think either thing? It was written in the early 1990s, with HAMAS itself being formally founded in 1987 (although it does have very old roots as the Gazan ranch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood). As for "anger," it was written over the course of years, not in one night and one dares say they took a modicum of consideration with what they would express to the world as their core set of values.
"Shrines are built upon lots of times. It is just the way it is. That it is that way does not then entitle one to deny religious freedom to others.": What are you saying? It is ok for others to build upon my shrines but not ok for me to do so to theirs? You are again not making sense.
Two words: "BAMIYAN BUDDHAS." Everything Islam comes near it steps on with its utter need to dominate and usurp. This is not PC but it is accurate and needs to be aired out.
"If Israeli-Arabs and 'Palestinians' are the same People, why is Israel intent upon treating them differently?": OK, are Chicanos and Mexicans the same People? They come from the same root stock but are separated by an International Border and as a result have slightly differing cultures and outlooks. That is a perfect analogy for the Israeli-Arabs and the "Palestinians."
They are no longer "One People." They can even be literally physical brothers but they have differnet affectations, different ways of life, different motivations and goals in many cases. I have precious little faith in Poll Science but I believe it perhaps worth mentioning that very recently an anti-Israeli Arabic newspaper from the region polled the residents of a midsized Israeli-Arab town and asked them , if in the best of possible scenarios ("Palestine" was not only fully independant but economically viable as well, equal at least to Israel's current economic status), would these Israeli-Arabs choose to exchange their citizenship for PA citizenship and homes for equal homes in that independant "Palestine." The answer? I believe it was in the high 80th percentile that responded that under no circumstances whatsoever would they think of doing so.
As I have said often, Israeli Arabs enjoy the highest standard of living (non-subsidised as in UAE, Kuwaiti,etc.) as well as the higest rated Human and Civil Rights. Their is not a perfect existence by any means but it is apprently a preffarable one to that imagined within an independant "Palestine."
"Some tried to fight for their land.": Turks owned virtually all land not owned by Jews. Arabs of any background (meaning from every part of the Ottoman World) owned less than 10% of the total landmass and this of course is including modern day Jordan which was illegaly carved out of the Mandate as well...In other words "Palestine" is already in existence, JORDAN.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I defend their right to want to kill every Jew, that's just a matter of freedom of speech. They'll never be able to do it. Lots of people have views which are unsavoury like this, but if you believe in giving people freedom, then you have to accept it.
I appreciate your attempt to make things clearer by giving me a run down of what the document says, but I would prefer it if you quoted exactly, stating the article and line.
I appreciate your attempt to make things clearer by giving me a run down of what the document says, but I would prefer it if you quoted exactly, stating the article and line.
G Part III: "Israel only has itself to blame if it garners bad press because of its failure to compromise on peace with HAMAS.": First, aside from Norway, everyone outside of the Islamic World is ostracising HAMAS and Gaza. However, let us say that changes as you imagine, so what? Bad press? If it comes down to protecting its citizens or a smiley editorial or article, Israel will opt for the welfare of its citizens every day of the week. How can I say this with so much certainty?
Israel has made a vertiable cult out of devotion to its citizens, almost slavish in its intensity. For that matter, its devotion to the Jewish People. The current debacle in Georgia? The remnant of Jewry left there has been spirited out this week by Israeli jets, as have the last of the Bene Yisroel (Ethiopian Jewry). Look how far Israel went just to retrieve the 2 bodies of its abducted and killed soldiers?
Unless HAMAS is no longer presenting a real threat to Israel you will not see any real changes. In fact, should Likud win the upcoming election you might see the opposite direction, a move to the firm right and that would kill the alleged Cease Fire in Gaza (that has never even existed save in name).
"Seems like both Peoples want the land...": Yep. and that is why there is an "Israel" and there will be a "Palestine," in addition to Jordan. The irony? It is so, so, so rich...You see Israel as unwavering, refusing to compromise and yet Israel is the only nation in recorded history that is willing to give away the bulk of its historic land so that an invader might better themself! THEN, it is doing this AS the invader is attacking its women and children!!! How much compromise can one expect?
Do us both a favour (another one). Take out a map and look at the land in question. Add Gaza, so called "West Bank," Israel, AND Jordan and look at how much land is represented. Next simply look at Israel and compare the 1967 Borders to all that other land and then remember that ALL of it is Jewish historically (save a tiny sliver of modern day Jordan that housed a city -state named Petraeus, AKA Petra.
"G could see if Israel was so reluctant about compromising for peace in order to hold onto its military gains...": What gains would those be? I do not know how old you are G but maybe you should review Sinai and the dynamic involved when Israel returned it to Egypt. Israel is not an expansionist entity , nor is it colonialist. It has no desire to tule other lands OR Peoples. It merely dreams of a peaceful, secure existence within its legally defined borders.
I imagine you must be very young indeed if you have no impression of the Oslo Era. Speaking about an Israel that never compromises is so far removed from reality as to be bizarre.
"Rachamim is happy Israel exists in perpetual war.": The exact opposite. I desire peace very much but not a dreamy doe eyed fantasy. I desire true peace on equal terms. I do not believe in coddling terroirsts , nor in rewarding them for their vile and atrocious acts. I do however recognise that even the most base human being is capable of change, whether from introspection or from pragmatism. Either way is fine as long it leads to a true and lasting peace. As it is, HAMAS has done nothing worthy of even slight consideration.
You base your whole position on a couple of phrases uttered by Mesha'al. Ever hear, "Action speaks louder than words"?
"Israel turned up and occupied a land that was relatively empty.": No, not empty at all. The truth is that there was a decent population but it was confined to 3 settlement belts. You could travel for days and not see another human but when you came to a population center it might seem as large as any cosmopolitan city in terms of overcrowding. It does not seem to make much sense to the modern human but that is how people tended to live in those days, in that region.
What happened was this: Zionists turned up and aside from the local Jewish population began to buy huge pieces of land at much more than market price and of very little actual value. Local Arabs very rarely owned any land at all and so resented the Zionists for a couple of reasons that would seem very good to the objective reader...Among them: One land owner was exchanged for another but the latter usually did away with the Arab tenants, causing them to become extremely poor in addition to rootless which was seen as dishonourable among "Settled" Arabs.
Jewish owned businesses created way too much competition for places like Shachem AKA Nablus), Hebron, and Gaza City. Knowing the Jewish religious connection to the land many Arabs feared that their holy places would revert to Jewish possesion (something often manipulated by al Mufti al Husseini, the ally of Hitler and man most responsible for the 1920 Pogroms which swept the land and caused my own grandfather and uncle's deaths).
Rents quickly rose with the Jewish land buying frenzy and impovershed local Areabs were ill equipped to deal with it.
All these things plus others contributed to early contention that got worse as time went on.
"It is a matter of courtesy to offer the few inhabitants living there to share in this new nation and enjoy the same, equal rights.": They were offered just that. As you can see, Israel's minority of nearly 20% (Arab) attests to this.
"It was nice enough for those Arabs to offer the Jewish newcomers land with which to build their nation.": What? As I said, local Arabs barely owned the clothes on their backs with a couple of very notable exceptions. Almost all land was absently owned by Ottoman vassals (Turks, not Arabs and not living there at all. Some owners had never even visited the land at any time in their lives). Jews BOUGHT sub-standard often maalrial land at very inflated prices. No gifts were given.
"The more G thinks about it, the more similarities G sees between the US/Native American dynamic and that of the Israeli/"Palestinian" dynamics...":
Oh yes, absolutely! EXCEPT...The Native Americans being indigenous of course are equal to the Jews. The whites being alien and invading are equal to the Arabs. You hit it right on the head without even trying to G!
"G's perfect vision for a 1 State Solution that respects all religions and the best of both cultures...": And they lived happily ever after...NOT. Israel already has 100% freedom of religion save one thing: Prostelysation is prohibited. On the other hand, should HAMAS for example, take the reins, non-Islamic faiths would be restricted to Chritianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judiaism (if they do not exterminate us that is), but with al Dhimmi status which is less than second class. Other faiths? AGAIN: BAMIYAN BUDDHAS.
Israel has made a vertiable cult out of devotion to its citizens, almost slavish in its intensity. For that matter, its devotion to the Jewish People. The current debacle in Georgia? The remnant of Jewry left there has been spirited out this week by Israeli jets, as have the last of the Bene Yisroel (Ethiopian Jewry). Look how far Israel went just to retrieve the 2 bodies of its abducted and killed soldiers?
Unless HAMAS is no longer presenting a real threat to Israel you will not see any real changes. In fact, should Likud win the upcoming election you might see the opposite direction, a move to the firm right and that would kill the alleged Cease Fire in Gaza (that has never even existed save in name).
"Seems like both Peoples want the land...": Yep. and that is why there is an "Israel" and there will be a "Palestine," in addition to Jordan. The irony? It is so, so, so rich...You see Israel as unwavering, refusing to compromise and yet Israel is the only nation in recorded history that is willing to give away the bulk of its historic land so that an invader might better themself! THEN, it is doing this AS the invader is attacking its women and children!!! How much compromise can one expect?
Do us both a favour (another one). Take out a map and look at the land in question. Add Gaza, so called "West Bank," Israel, AND Jordan and look at how much land is represented. Next simply look at Israel and compare the 1967 Borders to all that other land and then remember that ALL of it is Jewish historically (save a tiny sliver of modern day Jordan that housed a city -state named Petraeus, AKA Petra.
"G could see if Israel was so reluctant about compromising for peace in order to hold onto its military gains...": What gains would those be? I do not know how old you are G but maybe you should review Sinai and the dynamic involved when Israel returned it to Egypt. Israel is not an expansionist entity , nor is it colonialist. It has no desire to tule other lands OR Peoples. It merely dreams of a peaceful, secure existence within its legally defined borders.
I imagine you must be very young indeed if you have no impression of the Oslo Era. Speaking about an Israel that never compromises is so far removed from reality as to be bizarre.
"Rachamim is happy Israel exists in perpetual war.": The exact opposite. I desire peace very much but not a dreamy doe eyed fantasy. I desire true peace on equal terms. I do not believe in coddling terroirsts , nor in rewarding them for their vile and atrocious acts. I do however recognise that even the most base human being is capable of change, whether from introspection or from pragmatism. Either way is fine as long it leads to a true and lasting peace. As it is, HAMAS has done nothing worthy of even slight consideration.
You base your whole position on a couple of phrases uttered by Mesha'al. Ever hear, "Action speaks louder than words"?
"Israel turned up and occupied a land that was relatively empty.": No, not empty at all. The truth is that there was a decent population but it was confined to 3 settlement belts. You could travel for days and not see another human but when you came to a population center it might seem as large as any cosmopolitan city in terms of overcrowding. It does not seem to make much sense to the modern human but that is how people tended to live in those days, in that region.
What happened was this: Zionists turned up and aside from the local Jewish population began to buy huge pieces of land at much more than market price and of very little actual value. Local Arabs very rarely owned any land at all and so resented the Zionists for a couple of reasons that would seem very good to the objective reader...Among them: One land owner was exchanged for another but the latter usually did away with the Arab tenants, causing them to become extremely poor in addition to rootless which was seen as dishonourable among "Settled" Arabs.
Jewish owned businesses created way too much competition for places like Shachem AKA Nablus), Hebron, and Gaza City. Knowing the Jewish religious connection to the land many Arabs feared that their holy places would revert to Jewish possesion (something often manipulated by al Mufti al Husseini, the ally of Hitler and man most responsible for the 1920 Pogroms which swept the land and caused my own grandfather and uncle's deaths).
Rents quickly rose with the Jewish land buying frenzy and impovershed local Areabs were ill equipped to deal with it.
All these things plus others contributed to early contention that got worse as time went on.
"It is a matter of courtesy to offer the few inhabitants living there to share in this new nation and enjoy the same, equal rights.": They were offered just that. As you can see, Israel's minority of nearly 20% (Arab) attests to this.
"It was nice enough for those Arabs to offer the Jewish newcomers land with which to build their nation.": What? As I said, local Arabs barely owned the clothes on their backs with a couple of very notable exceptions. Almost all land was absently owned by Ottoman vassals (Turks, not Arabs and not living there at all. Some owners had never even visited the land at any time in their lives). Jews BOUGHT sub-standard often maalrial land at very inflated prices. No gifts were given.
"The more G thinks about it, the more similarities G sees between the US/Native American dynamic and that of the Israeli/"Palestinian" dynamics...":
Oh yes, absolutely! EXCEPT...The Native Americans being indigenous of course are equal to the Jews. The whites being alien and invading are equal to the Arabs. You hit it right on the head without even trying to G!
"G's perfect vision for a 1 State Solution that respects all religions and the best of both cultures...": And they lived happily ever after...NOT. Israel already has 100% freedom of religion save one thing: Prostelysation is prohibited. On the other hand, should HAMAS for example, take the reins, non-Islamic faiths would be restricted to Chritianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judiaism (if they do not exterminate us that is), but with al Dhimmi status which is less than second class. Other faiths? AGAIN: BAMIYAN BUDDHAS.
Gradnma: "What ad hom defence are you talking about? Are you suggesting that you did not denigrate me with all manner of filthy names until about 4 months ago, in every single post made to me? Not to mention posting in every thread I did just to do so?
Furthermore, you say calling my mum a "cun%" is particularly vile. Why would it be any more vile than your calling ME one? You do not seem to make much sense at all.
"The link to all of Grandma's posts in Mid-East Forum.": Thanks, but no thanks by any means. I will not waste a second more searching your posts. I did that once ebfore and THAT was too much. A question though and maybe eomseone might know if you do not: Are deleted posts kept in the Archive as well?
I have no way of knowing if the post I refer to is to be had in your link although I would imagine that as obsessive as you seem to be you have already had a major go of it and failed to find the referenced post. Ergo, you offer up this handy link. I wonder if it includes ALL your posts in this forum, and let us not forget how you followed me to other forums spewing that inane nonsense while we are at it, and furthermore, as I said, that deleted posts just might be unretrievable.
In any event, I would have hoped that you would have moved on but I can see that any mention of it just gets you wound up over and over. Sorry then that I even thought to mention it. Fine, let us pretend you never said a word. Will THAT allow threads to continue in a mature and orderly manner?
As for your last bit, the "wanke$" thing, I have no idea what you are trying to express. Anyway, as I said, leet us move on.
Furthermore, you say calling my mum a "cun%" is particularly vile. Why would it be any more vile than your calling ME one? You do not seem to make much sense at all.
"The link to all of Grandma's posts in Mid-East Forum.": Thanks, but no thanks by any means. I will not waste a second more searching your posts. I did that once ebfore and THAT was too much. A question though and maybe eomseone might know if you do not: Are deleted posts kept in the Archive as well?
I have no way of knowing if the post I refer to is to be had in your link although I would imagine that as obsessive as you seem to be you have already had a major go of it and failed to find the referenced post. Ergo, you offer up this handy link. I wonder if it includes ALL your posts in this forum, and let us not forget how you followed me to other forums spewing that inane nonsense while we are at it, and furthermore, as I said, that deleted posts just might be unretrievable.
In any event, I would have hoped that you would have moved on but I can see that any mention of it just gets you wound up over and over. Sorry then that I even thought to mention it. Fine, let us pretend you never said a word. Will THAT allow threads to continue in a mature and orderly manner?
As for your last bit, the "wanke$" thing, I have no idea what you are trying to express. Anyway, as I said, leet us move on.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Show me where I am claiming that?
If you really can't tell the difference then you are either being thick or obtuse? Which is it?
Face facts Rach. Thats search was done on EVERY post I have made in the ME forum. Now unless you can prove otherwise withdraw the claim. Or is that too much to ask....no wait don't answer that.
Try looking FFS. There are a handful of thread where I have used the word in question. I promise you it won't take you more than five minutes-but no-you carry on lying. Its your hole-you keep digging yourself in it. Its not me being exposed for the liar you are.
Still struggling with this aren't you. Jesus wept.
This means nothing-you are lying. If you really want to apologise stop peddling this lie that I denigrated your mother.
What do you think I mean? You have the audacity to claim I throw ad homs at you yet you have called me a wanker on this very forum!
Usual double standards eh Rach
Gmart
Well-Known Member
You make such a big thing about 'historic' lands, and that is such a red herring. i thought my pointing out the ridiculousness of the Native American example might stop you, but you seem unable to see how ridiculous it is.
Even if the Native Americans had gone off to the rest of the world and come back with bigger guns to kick the US and to get their land back, I would still be saying that they don't deserve to get the land, because the US is there now! No matter what document they produced I would not accept it coz the past must be left behind by definition. So you're right your re-written metaphor is pretty good.
I suppose that's the best definition of the difference between us. I believe the Now is the most important thing. The past is gone, finished. Time to learn our lessons and move on.
You go on:
Why would the Ottoman Empire have any claim on the land over the existing population? Only through force.
That is your game really, you are hiding behind an iron fist. Your instinct is to rule by force. Maybe war has made you too angry to accept peace and compromise. You sound like you would fight to the end, no compromise! that is the sort of attitude which perpetuates war.
You need to marginalise the Palestinians who have nothing to live for and who thus fight. you need to find a way to make them happy or else they WILL start talking about Hudna etc, because they would have reason.
Trouble is that it can't coz you refuse to believe a word they say.
What do you mean indigenous?
Even if the Native Americans had gone off to the rest of the world and come back with bigger guns to kick the US and to get their land back, I would still be saying that they don't deserve to get the land, because the US is there now! No matter what document they produced I would not accept it coz the past must be left behind by definition. So you're right your re-written metaphor is pretty good.
I suppose that's the best definition of the difference between us. I believe the Now is the most important thing. The past is gone, finished. Time to learn our lessons and move on.
You go on:
Why would the Ottoman Empire have any claim on the land over the existing population? Only through force.
That is your game really, you are hiding behind an iron fist. Your instinct is to rule by force. Maybe war has made you too angry to accept peace and compromise. You sound like you would fight to the end, no compromise! that is the sort of attitude which perpetuates war.
Perhaps you could describe your vision for such an ideal future. One or Two state solution? Why would it not descend into war again?
You need to marginalise the Palestinians who have nothing to live for and who thus fight. you need to find a way to make them happy or else they WILL start talking about Hudna etc, because they would have reason.
Trouble is that it can't coz you refuse to believe a word they say.
What do you mean indigenous?
Without vision all is lost.
Grandma: "Show Grandma where he is claiming NOT have called me all manner of filthy names until about 4 months ago, in every single post directed towards me.": GREAT, WE AGREE.
"IF Rachamim really cannot discern the difference between his mum being called a "cun%" and Rachamim being called a "cun%," he is being thick or obtuse, which is it?": Sorry, but I really would imagine your calling ME such a name is far worse than your calling someone else that name. You have never met my mum so of course what you say or do not say about her is meaningless to me.
On the other hand you HAVE interacted with me online and therefore your calling ME that vile insult would tend to carry far more meaning. Seeing though as how I am rational and am able to easily realise you do not know me from jack, it is all meaningless. Argue whichever way you weant, it just shows you for what you are.
I love how Westerners get all wound up over their mums being called this or that, like it all carries weight. Such naieve creatures. I wish the world were all so very simple, black and white like that. "You called my mommy a bad name and now I am going to kick your as^." WHATEVER. Such childish schoolyard nonsense. I would not get mad even if you lived next door to her. Make a physical move to her though and it is far different (she is long dead by the way). See, that is how I see life. I wish all others did as well.
My point in bringing it to bear is that you use all manner of insult towards me, or rather USED since you no longer do so (well you still do but not with any expletives and on that I do commend you). Another brought up the issue in THIS thread and I just offered some reverb when mentioning it. NOW, CAN we move on?
By the way, you use the phrase "Jesus wept" quite often. What do you mean by it? It seems non-sensical. Who cares if he cried? I mean, no offence to Christians (even though they worship a man who never existed and if he did called them dogs so..) but what in the world does it have to do with my posting?
I called you a wanker? I do not even use that word at all so when would I ever have called you that? Yet you claim it was in thsi hread. Now, who is REALLY being thick or obtuse?
"IF Rachamim really cannot discern the difference between his mum being called a "cun%" and Rachamim being called a "cun%," he is being thick or obtuse, which is it?": Sorry, but I really would imagine your calling ME such a name is far worse than your calling someone else that name. You have never met my mum so of course what you say or do not say about her is meaningless to me.
On the other hand you HAVE interacted with me online and therefore your calling ME that vile insult would tend to carry far more meaning. Seeing though as how I am rational and am able to easily realise you do not know me from jack, it is all meaningless. Argue whichever way you weant, it just shows you for what you are.
I love how Westerners get all wound up over their mums being called this or that, like it all carries weight. Such naieve creatures. I wish the world were all so very simple, black and white like that. "You called my mommy a bad name and now I am going to kick your as^." WHATEVER. Such childish schoolyard nonsense. I would not get mad even if you lived next door to her. Make a physical move to her though and it is far different (she is long dead by the way). See, that is how I see life. I wish all others did as well.
My point in bringing it to bear is that you use all manner of insult towards me, or rather USED since you no longer do so (well you still do but not with any expletives and on that I do commend you). Another brought up the issue in THIS thread and I just offered some reverb when mentioning it. NOW, CAN we move on?
By the way, you use the phrase "Jesus wept" quite often. What do you mean by it? It seems non-sensical. Who cares if he cried? I mean, no offence to Christians (even though they worship a man who never existed and if he did called them dogs so..) but what in the world does it have to do with my posting?
I called you a wanker? I do not even use that word at all so when would I ever have called you that? Yet you claim it was in thsi hread. Now, who is REALLY being thick or obtuse?
G: "Even IF Native Americans COULD get their lands back, G would not want them to because the US is there now.": Well thenm you have no sense of justice I say. Native Americans were collectively subjectied to the worst holocaust in hsitory. Entire cultures were comepltely wiped out and indeed it si happening still, even as I post this! To hell with whites I say. Not everyone white person is guilty of anything at all but in tyerms of dominion, they should not be l-rding anything over anyone.
Native Americans were there first (disregarding Kenniwick Man and Alternative Anthropology of course, of which I AM a keen follower and on THAT issue in agreement to a point). The point here though, IS that Native Americans were in the Americas before the Modern Euroepan Conquest and were there for eons and so they posses an inherent right to self determination.
Your belief that they are less deserving because of technological inferiority is chauvinism at its worst. I know you have long argued that history has no importance, yada, yada but that statement makes absolutely no sense. If it does not matter, why in the world would Israel give a sh%t about Arabs?
Let us examine it from YOUR point of view; We ("WE" being Israel in this sense) have the world's best operational armed forces, EVERY Arab and his mother could not dislodge us from our land and yet, according to you, we should not only let them dictate our flag but give them half our country so to speak, even though they have 26 others! Do you not recognise the lunacy you are expressing?
i certainly do not mean to insult you because I find you a nice enough person (online of course) but you just are not making any sense whatsoever. Arabs are there, we both agree. But by your call that means they then have a right to negate Jewish self determination. But wait, if history has no meaning whatsoever, why not just commit genocide agains the Arabs. I mean, we would never have to pay the consequences in any sense of that word according to your logic. Would that not be more expedianet and much more simple than giving away our hearth and home?
ALL VIABLE and COHESIVE cultures have a right to self determination fi they posses enough demographic share. That is the rule of thumb in Anthropology, and I view it as the rule of thumb in reality as well. It has usually been so and where itis not it SHOULD BE.
How many Conquistadores conquered the Aztecs? the Inca? Why should the cultural descendants of those Conquistadores (and other European EQUIVALENTS) be given preference over the cultural descendants of the Aztec and Inca (and THEIR equivalents)?
"Why would the Ottoman Empire have any claim over that land? Through Force!?": Correct, but then that is exactly how Arabs come to now say THEY have any claim? See, I very patiently and clearly explained to you the history of that land and the Arab connection to it...more importantly the LACK of connection to it!
A Turk has much more right than any Arab and I will tell you why! Both are COMPLETELY FOREIGN INVADERS but the Turk has half a millenia controling that land! Next to Jews, they have the longest consecutive time. Arabs had all of 20 years. That is it, end of story, and in those 20 years did absolutely nothing but build edfice atop edifice. Turks built an entire infrastructure so if you dare to compare Turk and Arab in this sense the Turk must win, hands down.
Native Americans were there first (disregarding Kenniwick Man and Alternative Anthropology of course, of which I AM a keen follower and on THAT issue in agreement to a point). The point here though, IS that Native Americans were in the Americas before the Modern Euroepan Conquest and were there for eons and so they posses an inherent right to self determination.
Your belief that they are less deserving because of technological inferiority is chauvinism at its worst. I know you have long argued that history has no importance, yada, yada but that statement makes absolutely no sense. If it does not matter, why in the world would Israel give a sh%t about Arabs?
Let us examine it from YOUR point of view; We ("WE" being Israel in this sense) have the world's best operational armed forces, EVERY Arab and his mother could not dislodge us from our land and yet, according to you, we should not only let them dictate our flag but give them half our country so to speak, even though they have 26 others! Do you not recognise the lunacy you are expressing?
i certainly do not mean to insult you because I find you a nice enough person (online of course) but you just are not making any sense whatsoever. Arabs are there, we both agree. But by your call that means they then have a right to negate Jewish self determination. But wait, if history has no meaning whatsoever, why not just commit genocide agains the Arabs. I mean, we would never have to pay the consequences in any sense of that word according to your logic. Would that not be more expedianet and much more simple than giving away our hearth and home?
ALL VIABLE and COHESIVE cultures have a right to self determination fi they posses enough demographic share. That is the rule of thumb in Anthropology, and I view it as the rule of thumb in reality as well. It has usually been so and where itis not it SHOULD BE.
How many Conquistadores conquered the Aztecs? the Inca? Why should the cultural descendants of those Conquistadores (and other European EQUIVALENTS) be given preference over the cultural descendants of the Aztec and Inca (and THEIR equivalents)?
"Why would the Ottoman Empire have any claim over that land? Through Force!?": Correct, but then that is exactly how Arabs come to now say THEY have any claim? See, I very patiently and clearly explained to you the history of that land and the Arab connection to it...more importantly the LACK of connection to it!
A Turk has much more right than any Arab and I will tell you why! Both are COMPLETELY FOREIGN INVADERS but the Turk has half a millenia controling that land! Next to Jews, they have the longest consecutive time. Arabs had all of 20 years. That is it, end of story, and in those 20 years did absolutely nothing but build edfice atop edifice. Turks built an entire infrastructure so if you dare to compare Turk and Arab in this sense the Turk must win, hands down.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
I'll ask again-where have I claimed such a thing. Stop wriggling and answer the question.
Its meaningless yet you still continue to purport this lie. If it means nothing to you then why keep repeating it?
Sure-apologise for lying and or stop repeating this blatant lie. Balls in your court.
Funnily enough I never denigrate the mothers of urbanites either-but you still keep parroting the same lie. So why should I let facts get in the way who said what? You called me a wanker and its not the first time you've thrown around ad homs. So please-if you will....stop bleating about name calling when clearly you behave in the same manner.
G Part II: "Rachamim should describe his vison for the future, would it be a 1 State or 2 State Solution?": I have done that many times, but ok. It is a 2 State Solution as epitomised by the Kadima Platform. I am a member of the Kadima Party, the ruling party in Israel. We believe that all of Gaza and more than 90% of the so called "WB" should be given to "Palestinians" so that they may enjoy total and unfettered self determination. This is of course predicated upon their willingness to forgo violence against us.
"Why then would the region not descend into war again?": IT very well might BUT if it does, it will again be the choice (i.e. FAULT) of the Arabs, not us. You cannot ask a People who have given up almost 60% of their historic homeland to give up more. No other People on the planet have ever given their homeland to anyone willingly and yet we are doing so.
Sadly, most Arabs will never stop with that. They will fight untul they have all the land or until they die. They will never have all the land. Make no mistake, I do not advocate genocide by any means and never would but I will never bend over or let my sons and daughters do so. If they fight, they die. Pretty simple although to most Westerners I would imagine it sounds barabric and backwards...but then the West would do not diffrent, nor should any group.
Arabs have from Morrocco to Bahrain, that is more than enough. Now we give them Gaza and almost the entire so called "WB" which as I have told you, is actually named JUDEA and SAMARIA in English...in other words, JEWISH LANDS through and through. Should they ask for more by force, well you already know my view on the outcome I am sure.
The Kadima Platform was orchestrated by fromer PM Ariel Sharon and goes along the lines of this: In the absence of a partner for peace, build a Unilateral Border around Israel (not to be confused with the current Security Barrier in the so called "WB"). Build gates in it but unless the Arabs truly give us peace. Close those gates and lock them firmly. Then, if they try to break through those gates by force, erase the threat. That was Sharon's thinking and in essence is the expanded Platform today.
That was what drove the Gaza Disengagement. HAMAS very astutely though stopped this direction in its tracks by staging its Gazan Coup. They knew that IF Kadima followed through, the "Palestinians" would have little if any hope of ever getting ALL the land.
The world would never support them if Israel built its borders VERY close to the so called Greenline, and gave the rest to them, and they failed to stay satsified. See, they sell the world on the "Occuptaion/Resistance" bullshi$. They have 2 whole generations of people in the world who do not know that terrorism began long before Israel even thought about gaining Gaza and the so called "WB." The world tends top see it sas Israel occupying, and Arabs simply fighting for a bit of precious land. IF ISrael succeeded in setting borders that the world deemed acceptable, and then the Arabs still tried to overtake THOSE borders, Israel would have the rationale needed to firmly put their threat in check. Follow?
Most Westerners have no understanding of this. HAMAS though, staged its coup knowing Israeli long standoing doctrine on threat containment. The Gazan Coup was a throughly textbook chaotic threat and Israel, very sadly to me, and more than a few others, reacted in text book fashion. What we should have done was SPEEDUP the Disenagement from the so aclled "WB."
When we pulled out of Gaza we also pulled out of 4 so called "WB" Districts. These were the operational models for a total Disengagement that was slated to take place within 18 months of Gaza (which of course was August/September 2005). HAMAS caused this Disenagement to be first temporarily postponed and then put permanantly on hold. This is to their credit. They are not stupid in any sense , outside of their unrealstic view of Islamic World Domination...although given the 1 billion Muslims today they might be intelligent there as well.
I need to clarify soemthing though...HAMAS believes in Stgaed Struggle as I quoted to you from their Charter. That is the sticking point between them and many other Islamo-Fascist groups like al Qadeh. Much press has been given to al Zawhiri of al Qadeh giving out letters of adminishment to HAMAS for limiting their struggle to so called "Palestine" while ignoring opportunities for wider Jihad. HAMAS believes that first they must win "Palestine," and then worry about wider Jihad (i.e. World Domination).
Anyway, we are now negotiating with the PA to accomplish that postponed Disengagement and G-D willing it iwll happen fast.
"Why then would the region not descend into war again?": IT very well might BUT if it does, it will again be the choice (i.e. FAULT) of the Arabs, not us. You cannot ask a People who have given up almost 60% of their historic homeland to give up more. No other People on the planet have ever given their homeland to anyone willingly and yet we are doing so.
Sadly, most Arabs will never stop with that. They will fight untul they have all the land or until they die. They will never have all the land. Make no mistake, I do not advocate genocide by any means and never would but I will never bend over or let my sons and daughters do so. If they fight, they die. Pretty simple although to most Westerners I would imagine it sounds barabric and backwards...but then the West would do not diffrent, nor should any group.
Arabs have from Morrocco to Bahrain, that is more than enough. Now we give them Gaza and almost the entire so called "WB" which as I have told you, is actually named JUDEA and SAMARIA in English...in other words, JEWISH LANDS through and through. Should they ask for more by force, well you already know my view on the outcome I am sure.
The Kadima Platform was orchestrated by fromer PM Ariel Sharon and goes along the lines of this: In the absence of a partner for peace, build a Unilateral Border around Israel (not to be confused with the current Security Barrier in the so called "WB"). Build gates in it but unless the Arabs truly give us peace. Close those gates and lock them firmly. Then, if they try to break through those gates by force, erase the threat. That was Sharon's thinking and in essence is the expanded Platform today.
That was what drove the Gaza Disengagement. HAMAS very astutely though stopped this direction in its tracks by staging its Gazan Coup. They knew that IF Kadima followed through, the "Palestinians" would have little if any hope of ever getting ALL the land.
The world would never support them if Israel built its borders VERY close to the so called Greenline, and gave the rest to them, and they failed to stay satsified. See, they sell the world on the "Occuptaion/Resistance" bullshi$. They have 2 whole generations of people in the world who do not know that terrorism began long before Israel even thought about gaining Gaza and the so called "WB." The world tends top see it sas Israel occupying, and Arabs simply fighting for a bit of precious land. IF ISrael succeeded in setting borders that the world deemed acceptable, and then the Arabs still tried to overtake THOSE borders, Israel would have the rationale needed to firmly put their threat in check. Follow?
Most Westerners have no understanding of this. HAMAS though, staged its coup knowing Israeli long standoing doctrine on threat containment. The Gazan Coup was a throughly textbook chaotic threat and Israel, very sadly to me, and more than a few others, reacted in text book fashion. What we should have done was SPEEDUP the Disenagement from the so aclled "WB."
When we pulled out of Gaza we also pulled out of 4 so called "WB" Districts. These were the operational models for a total Disengagement that was slated to take place within 18 months of Gaza (which of course was August/September 2005). HAMAS caused this Disenagement to be first temporarily postponed and then put permanantly on hold. This is to their credit. They are not stupid in any sense , outside of their unrealstic view of Islamic World Domination...although given the 1 billion Muslims today they might be intelligent there as well.
I need to clarify soemthing though...HAMAS believes in Stgaed Struggle as I quoted to you from their Charter. That is the sticking point between them and many other Islamo-Fascist groups like al Qadeh. Much press has been given to al Zawhiri of al Qadeh giving out letters of adminishment to HAMAS for limiting their struggle to so called "Palestine" while ignoring opportunities for wider Jihad. HAMAS believes that first they must win "Palestine," and then worry about wider Jihad (i.e. World Domination).
Anyway, we are now negotiating with the PA to accomplish that postponed Disengagement and G-D willing it iwll happen fast.
G Part III: "Israel needs to find a way to make the Arabs happy or they will start talking Hudna.": That is known as "APPEASEMENT." It did not work with the Nazis and neither will it work with "Islamo-fascists."
"HAMAS is unable to do anythign worth of consideration for peace because Israel does not believe a word it says.": Uh, they could disarm, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. They could, at the very, very, very least begin REVISING their Charter.THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING.
"What does Rachamim mean by the word 'indigenous'?": The text book definition, "native." Arabs are native to al Hejaz in modern day Saudi Arabia. Jews are native to Judea and Samaria.
"Without vision all is lost.": Fortune cookie wisdom again. See the Kadima Platform.
"HAMAS is unable to do anythign worth of consideration for peace because Israel does not believe a word it says.": Uh, they could disarm, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. They could, at the very, very, very least begin REVISING their Charter.THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING.
"What does Rachamim mean by the word 'indigenous'?": The text book definition, "native." Arabs are native to al Hejaz in modern day Saudi Arabia. Jews are native to Judea and Samaria.
"Without vision all is lost.": Fortune cookie wisdom again. See the Kadima Platform.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Rachamin Solution
And much as you might think that the rest of the world would support you, there would be a significant number of the religious of all denominations who would sympathise with the inability to worship at the shrines. To suggest such a plan without any consideration of the right to travel to the shrine, just makes your plan the next stage in the oppression, rather than a PEACE plan, which would have peace at the end. Calling it a peace plan with big bold letters at the top, doesn't change what it really is.
This is before I point out that your plan would be forcing the Palestinians to live in a country with double the population density.
This is also about creating a modern nation state, not realising some archaic dream with no relevance anymore.
Anyway, your insistence on the equality of the existing Israelis-Arabs means you have already compromised on this.
Basically, the existence of other Arab lands does not detract from the Arab claim to freedom within the land of their birth.
You go on:
I am not calling for the pre-1967 borders, my attitude towards history works in your favour there. It is only common sense that if you want peace, then you have to come up with a peace plan which is agreed on both sides. Imposing a peace plan would just polorise the conflict and ensure that it continues.
I certainly do think that the Israelis do not seem able to compromise, thus calling into question whether they want peace or not.
Native Americans as a metaphor.
The Israelis are repeating the mistake the US made, by doing the same to the Palestinians as the US did to the Native Americans. Moving them onto less and less arable land, while consequently raising their population density until they are living in as low a living standard as possible.
The Arab connection to the land
Being born on the land is enough of a connection for most people. It is pretty self evident that the individual will always consider themselves to be of that land, and to consider that land as home. Wherever you were born, you probably consider it to be your home. And try to imagine your reaction to an outside force telling you that it isn't!
If you want peace, then any other issues are secondary. Israel has shown itself as unwilling to move towards peace because they are unwilling to compromise. Thus they are stating through their actions that they are not interested in peace.
Fortune Cookie Wisdom
Your ability to dismiss the logical with this pithy reply is a fallacy. I could say the same thing about your:
History
Even if they did compromise on the document and changed ALL the passages you quote, your belief that history is of more relevance than now, would mean that the previous document would be the one you would value.
I love the fact that you go on about the importance of history over the present, but then you shout:
I am sure that if Israel could get away with it, they would ignore the Arabs completely. Indeed the Ivory Tower vision you described is consistent with this. Yet most people care for their fellow human beings because they recognise that other people are the same as themselves on a conscious level.
I have stated before that history is fine but the present is of paramount importance, going back with ever less importance into history. Anything beyond a lifetime is best left alone and regarded as stories to learn from, nothing more.
notice the word 'born'...
It is not that it has NO meaning Mr Strawman, it is just less important the further back one goes.
I understand everything you say, but your reasoning for not compromising is that historically this land was Jewish, and that this is more important than any possible peace.
So you would rather the conflict continues..?
Another fortune cookie classic - cutting off your nose to spite your face - comes to mind...
It is such naivety to think that an imposed solution might tend towards peace.
In fact naive is a good adjective to describe the 'might is right' current mindset. You need to give the Palestinians enough so that they can go back to their people and say that they got one over on the Israelis, while still having a homeland.
The Israelis are being greedy, and they need to decide whether they want peace or not.
In your peace plan you make no comment on the effect on the Muslims. Israel locks itself and the Muslim shrines into an Ivory Tower and you expect the Muslims to be happy with this imposed settlement? This is unreasonable because the result would inevitably be a continuation of the war as opposed to peace.
And much as you might think that the rest of the world would support you, there would be a significant number of the religious of all denominations who would sympathise with the inability to worship at the shrines. To suggest such a plan without any consideration of the right to travel to the shrine, just makes your plan the next stage in the oppression, rather than a PEACE plan, which would have peace at the end. Calling it a peace plan with big bold letters at the top, doesn't change what it really is.
This is before I point out that your plan would be forcing the Palestinians to live in a country with double the population density.
Why on earth would the number of Arab nations have anything to do with it? This is about people being free to walk in the land of their birth.
This is also about creating a modern nation state, not realising some archaic dream with no relevance anymore.
If you had missed out the word 'Jewish' then that would have been fine, it is your insistence on a purist, racist ideal of having all Jews only, which is so archaic and obsolete in the modern world. You would only have been able to have a pure race self-determination if there had been no one on the land. But Israel couldn't resist taking all the land. In the same way, the US couldn't resist it with the Native Americans. It is easy to take advantage of those with no power or friends.
Anyway, your insistence on the equality of the existing Israelis-Arabs means you have already compromised on this.
Are 'Jews' all the same as well? The 'whites' also have a lot of land, but that doesn't mean that someone can come along and use this as justification to take a proportion of the lands they have.
Basically, the existence of other Arab lands does not detract from the Arab claim to freedom within the land of their birth.
You are imposing a solution on the Arabs without any consideration of the issues they have. And then wish to blame the Arabs if it goes wrong.
You go on:
Why would you try and get the rest of the world to agree the borders? It is none of their business. It is the Palestinians who you need to agree with NOT the rest of the world.
Compromise is difficult, but it is the only route to peace. Mentioning words such as 'historic homeland' is just not useful. What point is there in dragging up the past again? The UK used to be in charge of most of France, but it serves no cause to bring that up. What is past is past!
I am not calling for the pre-1967 borders, my attitude towards history works in your favour there. It is only common sense that if you want peace, then you have to come up with a peace plan which is agreed on both sides. Imposing a peace plan would just polorise the conflict and ensure that it continues.
I certainly do think that the Israelis do not seem able to compromise, thus calling into question whether they want peace or not.
Native Americans as a metaphor.
The past is the past, it is important to learn the lessons and then to move on while not repeating the mistakes made.
The Israelis are repeating the mistake the US made, by doing the same to the Palestinians as the US did to the Native Americans. Moving them onto less and less arable land, while consequently raising their population density until they are living in as low a living standard as possible.
So for you, you think that the length of time on the land dictates how much the occupants can claim the title of indigenous! How much time has to elapse before the right to self-determination kicks in?.. and how does this relate to your later comment?:
Because I get the feeling that the Palestinians consider themselves to meet these criteria.
The Arab connection to the land
Being born on the land is enough of a connection for most people. It is pretty self evident that the individual will always consider themselves to be of that land, and to consider that land as home. Wherever you were born, you probably consider it to be your home. And try to imagine your reaction to an outside force telling you that it isn't!
If you want peace, then any other issues are secondary. Israel has shown itself as unwilling to move towards peace because they are unwilling to compromise. Thus they are stating through their actions that they are not interested in peace.
Fortune Cookie Wisdom
Your ability to dismiss the logical with this pithy reply is a fallacy. I could say the same thing about your:
But of course you don't think that this is 'fortune cookie wisdom' because you believe it.
History
Even if they did compromise on the document and changed ALL the passages you quote, your belief that history is of more relevance than now, would mean that the previous document would be the one you would value.
I love the fact that you go on about the importance of history over the present, but then you shout:
which is contradictory.
It's less important than the present, not of no importance
I am sure that if Israel could get away with it, they would ignore the Arabs completely. Indeed the Ivory Tower vision you described is consistent with this. Yet most people care for their fellow human beings because they recognise that other people are the same as themselves on a conscious level.
I have stated before that history is fine but the present is of paramount importance, going back with ever less importance into history. Anything beyond a lifetime is best left alone and regarded as stories to learn from, nothing more.
Just using another word is not really a definition, though I understand your reluctance to engage on this one. Here is the definition of native from dictionary.com:
notice the word 'born'...
It is not that it has NO meaning Mr Strawman, it is just less important the further back one goes.
I understand everything you say, but your reasoning for not compromising is that historically this land was Jewish, and that this is more important than any possible peace.
So you would rather the conflict continues..?
Another fortune cookie classic - cutting off your nose to spite your face - comes to mind...
It is such naivety to think that an imposed solution might tend towards peace.
In fact naive is a good adjective to describe the 'might is right' current mindset. You need to give the Palestinians enough so that they can go back to their people and say that they got one over on the Israelis, while still having a homeland.
The Israelis are being greedy, and they need to decide whether they want peace or not.
Similar threads
