nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Not all Palestinians are Muslims.
Violence begets Violence
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Not all Palestinians are Muslims.
G: "Israel locks up Muslim shrines.": Uh, I wish. Israel allows Muslims much too many rights in that area. They are given preference in religious sites that Muslims coopted from Jews. I as a Jew am forbidden my own govt. to pray at the Stone on the Temple Mount simply because Muslim squatters built a mosque over it. Muslims have their own court sytem, get financial support from the state, and many Arab Nations do not even allow Jews to switch planes in their airports let alone pray!!!
"Much of the world would be against Israel were it to bar Muslims from praying at Muslim shrines.": See above.
"Forcing the 'Palestinians' to live in a antion with 2X the population density.": What? I do not understand your point. Where would that be? Why?
"The number of Arab Nations has nothing to do with anything ebing discussed. What matters is the right of a person to walk in the land of their birth.": Sorry, but birth does not gurantee anything. a couple of thousand years before the Arab People even existed we Jews lived in that land under our own nation. Arabs are the stranger, the invader, the conquering foreigner. The fact that they have so many other nations is EXACTLY THE POINT! They already have a calvacade of homelands. If I was born in China, should I demand the Chinese change their flag? Should I throw bombs because of this? You make no sense.
"Creating a modern nation state.": Yes, ISRAEL.
"Much of the world would be against Israel were it to bar Muslims from praying at Muslim shrines.": See above.
"Forcing the 'Palestinians' to live in a antion with 2X the population density.": What? I do not understand your point. Where would that be? Why?
"The number of Arab Nations has nothing to do with anything ebing discussed. What matters is the right of a person to walk in the land of their birth.": Sorry, but birth does not gurantee anything. a couple of thousand years before the Arab People even existed we Jews lived in that land under our own nation. Arabs are the stranger, the invader, the conquering foreigner. The fact that they have so many other nations is EXACTLY THE POINT! They already have a calvacade of homelands. If I was born in China, should I demand the Chinese change their flag? Should I throw bombs because of this? You make no sense.
"Creating a modern nation state.": Yes, ISRAEL.
G Part II: "Racist ideal.": G, "Jewish Self Determination" has nothing racist about it. Perhaps you, like me, do not have English as a first lanaguage. Jewish Self Determination means that Jews have a right to determine their own lives and futures, in their own nation. It has nothing to do with excluding other demographics. Arabs have the vote just as any other Israeli has it and they too have representation in the govt. Indeed, per capita they have higher representation (their demographic is 20%, most of which are younger than 18, the voting age, and they have 12 MKs).
"Israel could not resist taking all the land.": Had Israel done so it would have been entirely within its rights and the correct thing to do in terms of context and historical rights. However, ever hear of a nation called Jordan? Perhaps you will want to get a map of the region and then rethink your view.
Ever hear of the Gazan Disengagement? Of the "WB" negotiations?
"It is easy to take advantage of those with no power or friends.": Riiiight, cause there only 25 nations in the Arab League, only 46 in the Islamic League, and how many Arabs worldwide? Want to take a gander? MORE THAN 333 MILLION. There are 14 million Jews in the entire world with one tiny nation that can be drive north to south in less than 4 hours at the speed limit, 45 minutes wide at its narrowest point. Think about what you say before you say it G.
I will also remind you, yet again, that Arabs were offered 70% of the entire landmass in 1919 but refused out of hand despite being offered more than 60% of all arable land. Why did they refuse? Because THEY WANTED IT ALL. Hmmm...
"Are all Jews the same?": Not any more than any other ethnicity is "all the same." Nearly 2000 years of Exile have produced a wonderful mosaic and yet we all share commonalities that unite as one People, just as ALL Arabs share core culturisms that allow for a shared label of "Arab." Truth be told, and I have said this plenty of times, the people called "Palestinians" used to call themselves "Southern Syrians" up until and even after 1948. Ergo, they felt a common identity with Arabs in Syria (which historically means Lebanon as well). Therefore your point is moot.
"Just because they have this commonality does not negate their right to fredom in the land of their both.": again, if I have a son in Cambodia does that means that my Jewish son can now claim the right of true self determination there simply by his birth? The idea is preposterous.
"Israel could not resist taking all the land.": Had Israel done so it would have been entirely within its rights and the correct thing to do in terms of context and historical rights. However, ever hear of a nation called Jordan? Perhaps you will want to get a map of the region and then rethink your view.
Ever hear of the Gazan Disengagement? Of the "WB" negotiations?
"It is easy to take advantage of those with no power or friends.": Riiiight, cause there only 25 nations in the Arab League, only 46 in the Islamic League, and how many Arabs worldwide? Want to take a gander? MORE THAN 333 MILLION. There are 14 million Jews in the entire world with one tiny nation that can be drive north to south in less than 4 hours at the speed limit, 45 minutes wide at its narrowest point. Think about what you say before you say it G.
I will also remind you, yet again, that Arabs were offered 70% of the entire landmass in 1919 but refused out of hand despite being offered more than 60% of all arable land. Why did they refuse? Because THEY WANTED IT ALL. Hmmm...
"Are all Jews the same?": Not any more than any other ethnicity is "all the same." Nearly 2000 years of Exile have produced a wonderful mosaic and yet we all share commonalities that unite as one People, just as ALL Arabs share core culturisms that allow for a shared label of "Arab." Truth be told, and I have said this plenty of times, the people called "Palestinians" used to call themselves "Southern Syrians" up until and even after 1948. Ergo, they felt a common identity with Arabs in Syria (which historically means Lebanon as well). Therefore your point is moot.
"Just because they have this commonality does not negate their right to fredom in the land of their both.": again, if I have a son in Cambodia does that means that my Jewish son can now claim the right of true self determination there simply by his birth? The idea is preposterous.
G Part III: "Israel is imposing a solution upon the Arabs and then blaming them if it goes wrong.": You believe that offering them self determination, yet again, is imposing upon them? Very curious view. Most would say it is the human thing to do. They have no right to anything. Their olive trees gain nourishment from Jewish bones. They are foreigners even with 200 years there, even if one or two is directly descended from Arabs that rode with Omar in the 7th Century CE/AD. Yet Israel offers most of its historic homeland yet again, and you call it "imposing a solution."
"It is not the world's business what borders are set, only the "Palestinians'.": Wrong. When a nation is entirely created out of scratch the International Community has a whole lot to say on the matter. Not only are Foreign Interests , commericial and otherwise, involved but the matter of International Law. If the nation of "Palestine" hopes to gain International Recognition it needs tot ake that into account.
"Using phrases like 'Historic Homeland' is just not useful.": Your outlook is a bit schizoid. On one hand you claim that history is not important, etc. but on the other you claim that being born in a place gives an inherent right to self determination. Being born is a historical event G, you do not make sense. As I have told you before, you cannot arbitrarily pick a cutoff date upon which history rests. You say 30 years ago matters but not a certain amount of years before that. It is non-sensical.
"Native American analogy.": Again, you just do not get it. "Palestinians" are not analagous to Native Americans. It is the Jews who equal Native Americans. "Palestinians" are usurpers, artificial entity existing upon the homeland of another People.
"How is a People labeled 'indigenous'?": THE FIRST PEOPLE UPON A LAND can claim that, noone else. Jews are the first among existing Peoples and therefore can easily claim THAT right. Arabs are indigenous to only one area, al Hejaz in Arabia.
"Even if HAMAS revised its Charter, Rachamim's belief in history would negate those changes since Rahcamim ,et al would take stock in the previous document.": That is just silly G. You are again not making sense.
"Dictionary definition of the word 'Native'.": And that ties into "Indigenous" in what way? You are all over the place. LINEAR THOUGHT G, it is easy. they can be native to the land, but that doe snot make them "indigenous." I was born in NYC but I am not an indigenous American. My mum was born in Bessarabia and she is not an indigenous Eastern European (nominally that would be Aslav, Magyar, and so on).
"So, Rachamim would rather the conflict continued?": IF ending it means giving up my nation's sovereignity, I will fight until I am lowered into the aoil of my homeland and do so produly and with honour. I pity anyone who cannot know that love. I wish for peace but a true peace where my nation is allowed to exist, just as 25 Arab Nations now exist.
"Israelis are just being greedy.": I suggest you look at a map. Look at Jordan and remember that IT was part of that historic Jewish Homeland. Then look at Gaza, and almost the entire so called "WB." Is it getting clearer?
"It is not the world's business what borders are set, only the "Palestinians'.": Wrong. When a nation is entirely created out of scratch the International Community has a whole lot to say on the matter. Not only are Foreign Interests , commericial and otherwise, involved but the matter of International Law. If the nation of "Palestine" hopes to gain International Recognition it needs tot ake that into account.
"Using phrases like 'Historic Homeland' is just not useful.": Your outlook is a bit schizoid. On one hand you claim that history is not important, etc. but on the other you claim that being born in a place gives an inherent right to self determination. Being born is a historical event G, you do not make sense. As I have told you before, you cannot arbitrarily pick a cutoff date upon which history rests. You say 30 years ago matters but not a certain amount of years before that. It is non-sensical.
"Native American analogy.": Again, you just do not get it. "Palestinians" are not analagous to Native Americans. It is the Jews who equal Native Americans. "Palestinians" are usurpers, artificial entity existing upon the homeland of another People.
"How is a People labeled 'indigenous'?": THE FIRST PEOPLE UPON A LAND can claim that, noone else. Jews are the first among existing Peoples and therefore can easily claim THAT right. Arabs are indigenous to only one area, al Hejaz in Arabia.
"Even if HAMAS revised its Charter, Rachamim's belief in history would negate those changes since Rahcamim ,et al would take stock in the previous document.": That is just silly G. You are again not making sense.
"Dictionary definition of the word 'Native'.": And that ties into "Indigenous" in what way? You are all over the place. LINEAR THOUGHT G, it is easy. they can be native to the land, but that doe snot make them "indigenous." I was born in NYC but I am not an indigenous American. My mum was born in Bessarabia and she is not an indigenous Eastern European (nominally that would be Aslav, Magyar, and so on).
"So, Rachamim would rather the conflict continued?": IF ending it means giving up my nation's sovereignity, I will fight until I am lowered into the aoil of my homeland and do so produly and with honour. I pity anyone who cannot know that love. I wish for peace but a true peace where my nation is allowed to exist, just as 25 Arab Nations now exist.
"Israelis are just being greedy.": I suggest you look at a map. Look at Jordan and remember that IT was part of that historic Jewish Homeland. Then look at Gaza, and almost the entire so called "WB." Is it getting clearer?
Nino: CORRECT.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Well that is where we fundamentally disagree - I empathise with anyone who might be born into slavery in the way you describe - It is one of the most basic human rights to be free in the land of your birth, and no amount of history will change that.
Once again you misrepresent my view and then accuse me of not making sense - I am NOT going to consistently repeat myself just because you are unable to read.
Either that, or you are not thinking about what I am saying.
Such emotion, yet so stupid. YOU HAVE WON! You could compromise on EVERYTHING and you would get exactly what you want. The way you are talking sounds as if you feel that the Jews are somehow at risk of losing Israel. Rubbish!
All you have to do is to accept all the Palestinians as equal citizens and after a few years concentrating on improving their economic position, you will find that they will prefer peace. The existence of the Israeli-Arabs shows that this is possible...
Moving towards a 1 state solution is the route to peace. The next 100 years I suspect will have intelligent people like yourself desperately trying to avoid this reality. Good luck, sadly your descendants won't thank you for your lack of compromise, or your insistence on continuing the conflict when you could so easily stop it.
G: First, please forgive me for not repyling sooner but your posts require more attention than others (the volume of points raised, etc) and I do not always have the time needed to reply as I ought to.
That said...Your belief that a birthright means something but history does not is non-sensical but then I have said this to you often to no avail. You do not seem to be able to assimilate what I am getting at. If you arbitrarily pick a date to begin offering rights to people you will run the risk of offending one demographic or another. Ergo, you need to take the circumstances of all demographics concerned into account when trying to deal with geopolitical problems. Your way of doing this is to impose an unwanted solution on both, this will never work.
The fact that Jews were on the land for so many years continuously, predating even the first Arab on Earth by literally thousands of years should not be a deciding factor in anything UNLESS all other things are equal. Luckily, they are NOT equal and therefore this argument does not need to be stressed. I offer the factoid only when people pretend that Israel is some extension of Colonialism or Imperialism, etc. I also offer it when ignorant people try to pretend that Israel is a country founded by Europeans (not calling you "ignorant" per se).
Israel exists by virtue of several DIFFERENT and varying circumstances.
"So much emotion, yet so stupid.": The really comical thing is that you seem to forget that 15 year olds are blowing themselves up to gain 72 Houris (often mistranslated as 72 doe eyed virgins by Westerners). An Israeli -Jew offers that he would proudly offer his life in the service of his ancient nation DEFENCIVELY and you find it "stupid." I think that your assesment says alot more about you than it ever would about me or my motives.
SOME people abhor all forms of Nationalism. SOME people are ardent pacificsts. You on the other hand simply believe that history and anything it offers are totally dependant upon some arbitrary date that only you can pick. Slavery is evil you tell us but then in the next breath offer that history does not matter. If history does not matter, nothing that ensues matters but then this escapes you and back to square one.
"Rachamim talks as if Jews are somehow at risk of losing Israel! What rubbish!!!": G, have you EVER looked at a map? Even read an almanac? Know how many Muslims there are in the world (although not all are our enemies, by any means)? How about the number of Arabs (same disclaimer applies)? Do you know how many Arab States are formally still at war with Israel? Do you know that in the last 3 months more than 50 of my countrymen have been subjected to kidnapping attempts simply for their nationality? Do you know that not only can I NOT enter several Arab Nations, but I am not even allowed to use their flagged airlines or airports (their laws, not ours)?
It is true that we are the 4th largest military in the world, in fact a higher ranking if you look at all our armed apprattuses. It is also true that operationally we are ranked at number one in the world. However, in war luck is often the only thing that saves the day and after every single war, from the first one in 48 to the last one in 2006 luck has saved our collective as#es.
A wrong tactical move, a second front opened up, any number of incidents could lead to our defeat and the very real truth is that a single defeat means the end of our nation. We know this and therefore we fight in the manner we do. However, to pretend that Israel's position and place in the world is immutable is just silly.
"All Israel has to do is accept 'Palestinians' as equal citizens...": We accept Arabs as equal citizens. "Palestinians" do not want to be Israeli, they want their own land. The issue is just how much land will constitute this envisoned nation of theirs. We have agreed formally to coexistence since 1921, informally since 1919, they only agreed in 1993 and that was only on paper. We are still trying to get them to accept the responsibilities of nationhood but as you English speakers love to say, "You can lead a thirsty horse to water..."
As I have told you many times, we have an Arab minority making up just about 20% of our overall population, 24% if you include groups like Bedua, Druse, Circassians and such that do not consider themselves to be Arab at all. These minorites not only have EQUAL RIGHTS, they have more rights than any Israeli-Jew.
"Rachamim's descendants...": Neither mine nor the "Palestinians' " will probably ever wish for a 1 State Solution so it is of no importance either way. You have never bothered to explain why you champion a cause unwanted by BOTH SIDES. Care to explain yourself?
That said...Your belief that a birthright means something but history does not is non-sensical but then I have said this to you often to no avail. You do not seem to be able to assimilate what I am getting at. If you arbitrarily pick a date to begin offering rights to people you will run the risk of offending one demographic or another. Ergo, you need to take the circumstances of all demographics concerned into account when trying to deal with geopolitical problems. Your way of doing this is to impose an unwanted solution on both, this will never work.
The fact that Jews were on the land for so many years continuously, predating even the first Arab on Earth by literally thousands of years should not be a deciding factor in anything UNLESS all other things are equal. Luckily, they are NOT equal and therefore this argument does not need to be stressed. I offer the factoid only when people pretend that Israel is some extension of Colonialism or Imperialism, etc. I also offer it when ignorant people try to pretend that Israel is a country founded by Europeans (not calling you "ignorant" per se).
Israel exists by virtue of several DIFFERENT and varying circumstances.
"So much emotion, yet so stupid.": The really comical thing is that you seem to forget that 15 year olds are blowing themselves up to gain 72 Houris (often mistranslated as 72 doe eyed virgins by Westerners). An Israeli -Jew offers that he would proudly offer his life in the service of his ancient nation DEFENCIVELY and you find it "stupid." I think that your assesment says alot more about you than it ever would about me or my motives.
SOME people abhor all forms of Nationalism. SOME people are ardent pacificsts. You on the other hand simply believe that history and anything it offers are totally dependant upon some arbitrary date that only you can pick. Slavery is evil you tell us but then in the next breath offer that history does not matter. If history does not matter, nothing that ensues matters but then this escapes you and back to square one.
"Rachamim talks as if Jews are somehow at risk of losing Israel! What rubbish!!!": G, have you EVER looked at a map? Even read an almanac? Know how many Muslims there are in the world (although not all are our enemies, by any means)? How about the number of Arabs (same disclaimer applies)? Do you know how many Arab States are formally still at war with Israel? Do you know that in the last 3 months more than 50 of my countrymen have been subjected to kidnapping attempts simply for their nationality? Do you know that not only can I NOT enter several Arab Nations, but I am not even allowed to use their flagged airlines or airports (their laws, not ours)?
It is true that we are the 4th largest military in the world, in fact a higher ranking if you look at all our armed apprattuses. It is also true that operationally we are ranked at number one in the world. However, in war luck is often the only thing that saves the day and after every single war, from the first one in 48 to the last one in 2006 luck has saved our collective as#es.
A wrong tactical move, a second front opened up, any number of incidents could lead to our defeat and the very real truth is that a single defeat means the end of our nation. We know this and therefore we fight in the manner we do. However, to pretend that Israel's position and place in the world is immutable is just silly.
"All Israel has to do is accept 'Palestinians' as equal citizens...": We accept Arabs as equal citizens. "Palestinians" do not want to be Israeli, they want their own land. The issue is just how much land will constitute this envisoned nation of theirs. We have agreed formally to coexistence since 1921, informally since 1919, they only agreed in 1993 and that was only on paper. We are still trying to get them to accept the responsibilities of nationhood but as you English speakers love to say, "You can lead a thirsty horse to water..."
As I have told you many times, we have an Arab minority making up just about 20% of our overall population, 24% if you include groups like Bedua, Druse, Circassians and such that do not consider themselves to be Arab at all. These minorites not only have EQUAL RIGHTS, they have more rights than any Israeli-Jew.
"Rachamim's descendants...": Neither mine nor the "Palestinians' " will probably ever wish for a 1 State Solution so it is of no importance either way. You have never bothered to explain why you champion a cause unwanted by BOTH SIDES. Care to explain yourself?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
It is the only solution which leads to less fighting and less war in the long run. I can see your points in everything you say and agree and disagree on many issues, but I am interested in a long term solution, and for that both sides would have to compromise more than they are willing. And until they do, the conflict will continue.
Meanwhile I suspect that the Palestinians will throw their weight behind a 1-state solution in time as they will realise what I say, and it would have the added benefit of pissing the Israelis off while having support from abroad.
Meanwhile the history thing is key. If I bought land, then my ownership has precedence over all previous ownership. That is just a basic, and I am surprised that you are so unable to recognise my point here. The present is more important than the past. The past is over. Time to learn what lessons as were needed and move on into the future...
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Didn't Ahmadinejad (sp) recently say he would recognise Israel if Palestine did?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I didn't hear about that. Any Muslim country would risk the wrath of its people by recognising Israel without Palestinian recognition which means that Israel needs to find a way to persuade the Palestinians to make peace if they wish to avoid having the Muslim countries as enemies.
Isn't this thread interesting. When it comes down to the end, the Israelis are so fixed in the past that they are unable to accept the basic premise that the present is more important than the past.
Even when confronted with the obvious example of a new contract taking precedence over an old one they still are reluctant to accept this principle because it forces them into living in the present, and negates their historical emphasis.
Inevitably the Palestinians will return to their more traditional one-state solution, and gradually as the deaths mount up the Israelis will recognise that a modern state with freedom for all would be the only solution for them too. All the Israelis would be able to live in this new state with the same freedoms of movement and religion that we all take for granted. So would there be much change?
I personally doubt that this end could have been avoided anyway by the previous two-state solution. Even the Israelis press accept that it is dead in the water (see here).
The best thing to do now is to try and work out what the precise problems with this solution would be (see article below).
I
In case my reference is a bit too pro-Israel, here is a link for a more reflective, balanced view.
Good Article, though a bit long.
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Guardian link
This, of course, was not widely reported in the West. An interesting article, full of links.
This, of course, was not widely reported in the West. An interesting article, full of links.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I think HAMAS will want to do whatever the Israelis don't want the most, just based on the fact that they feel wronged by what has happened, the present state of affairs is too difficult to cause peace, and so simple bloody mindedness will push them towards fighting for the one-state solution. They can surely see that the Israelis have no interest in a powerful Palestine on their doorstep and so will try and conclude the 2-state solution with giving the Palestinians the least possible - and this will cause more anger and more unrest of course.
Further interesting stories here and specifically on the one-state solution, here
Hardliners like our friend Rach may see the world in an 'old' Israel way, but maybe the next generation is recognising the need for compromise to make a world in which their children can live in peace with their neighbours?
Whatever the case, violence just causes more violence and so one hopes that both sides are prepared for a fair compromise...
Further interesting stories here and specifically on the one-state solution, here
Hardliners like our friend Rach may see the world in an 'old' Israel way, but maybe the next generation is recognising the need for compromise to make a world in which their children can live in peace with their neighbours?
Whatever the case, violence just causes more violence and so one hopes that both sides are prepared for a fair compromise...
G: Obviously I do not agree that the "Palestinians" will "eventually throw their weight behind the 1 State Solution." As for the point about "buying property," then you would champion the Israelis over the "Palestinians" since they bought their land, even though it was the land stolen from their own ancestors. Any way you vcut it Israel is right.
Again, you try and arbitrarily draw some line and decide on your own which point iniates history. history, in human terms, is linear. We were there and in nationhood before Arabs even existed as a People so there is no real room for argument on the points you have raised.
"A modern state with freedom for all...": You mean just like Israel?
"Palestinians more traditional 1 State Solution.":Traditional? How so? They have never had anation? They have no "tradition."
Dexter: "Did Ahmadinejad not recently say that he would recognise Israel IF 'Palestinians' did?": Not to my knowledge. Ahmadinejad's opposition is not political, it is religious. He opposes Israel's existence because the Qur'an dicates it so. "Palestinians" could fall in love with Israel, that would not change Islamic theology one iota.
"Not widely reported in the West.": No offence but that is soemthing the PLO and PFLP was pushing in the 1960s. It is not new and itis not feasible. They wish to only allow certain Israeli Jews to remain, people like my family whose presence on the land predates Modern Israel's. Even those taking the very moderate position on that line claim that ALL "PAlestinians" would be able to return thus negating Zionism and the State of Israel without a single shot.
While this no doubt pleases some here, it is not legal, nor is it moral. Arabs have 31 Nations. The "Palestinians" have nation carved out of the bulk of the Mandate: JORDAN. Then they also have all of Gaza, and will have land equalling ALL of the so called "WB." Should not the Jews ALSO have a tiny sliver of land?
It is not enough for some that Jews give up the bulk of their land to aPeople who have only existed for 60 years, but they would also have the Jews give up even the tiny sliver remaining. Sad. Shame on people imagining that.
Again, you try and arbitrarily draw some line and decide on your own which point iniates history. history, in human terms, is linear. We were there and in nationhood before Arabs even existed as a People so there is no real room for argument on the points you have raised.
"A modern state with freedom for all...": You mean just like Israel?
"Palestinians more traditional 1 State Solution.":Traditional? How so? They have never had anation? They have no "tradition."
Dexter: "Did Ahmadinejad not recently say that he would recognise Israel IF 'Palestinians' did?": Not to my knowledge. Ahmadinejad's opposition is not political, it is religious. He opposes Israel's existence because the Qur'an dicates it so. "Palestinians" could fall in love with Israel, that would not change Islamic theology one iota.
"Not widely reported in the West.": No offence but that is soemthing the PLO and PFLP was pushing in the 1960s. It is not new and itis not feasible. They wish to only allow certain Israeli Jews to remain, people like my family whose presence on the land predates Modern Israel's. Even those taking the very moderate position on that line claim that ALL "PAlestinians" would be able to return thus negating Zionism and the State of Israel without a single shot.
While this no doubt pleases some here, it is not legal, nor is it moral. Arabs have 31 Nations. The "Palestinians" have nation carved out of the bulk of the Mandate: JORDAN. Then they also have all of Gaza, and will have land equalling ALL of the so called "WB." Should not the Jews ALSO have a tiny sliver of land?
It is not enough for some that Jews give up the bulk of their land to aPeople who have only existed for 60 years, but they would also have the Jews give up even the tiny sliver remaining. Sad. Shame on people imagining that.
G: If you see me, a card carrying member of Kadima as a "hard liner," there is no hope of you EVER understanding even half of what is taking place.
Licking wounds? Hardly. I just did not focus on U75. I do have other things in life. You ought to try it TP, it works wonders on the psyche.
PS: What "wounds" do you imagine I have? I have no idea what you are talking about but between this and the other thread you posted in I gather you feel I did soemthing wrong, etc. I actually have no idea what you are on about.
As I said there, I was well aware that the less than able Mods had given me a 48 hour ban some while back, for I believe "Double Posting" or some such thing but to be honest I do not have the faintest clue what it means and imagine it is just the Mods way of osniping or soemthing though to be honest I could not care less. I would not care if they banned me for life. the site is an exercise in futility mostly, although I do still get warm words and thanks via PM, for my willingess to persist in presenting views running counter to the usual spoiled Liberal whining that passes for Activism on this site.
After the ban I just did not care to try and post as I had just returned here and had other things to deal with.
Now that you have my explicit thoughts on the NON-issue, can we discuss actual issues?
PS: What "wounds" do you imagine I have? I have no idea what you are talking about but between this and the other thread you posted in I gather you feel I did soemthing wrong, etc. I actually have no idea what you are on about.
As I said there, I was well aware that the less than able Mods had given me a 48 hour ban some while back, for I believe "Double Posting" or some such thing but to be honest I do not have the faintest clue what it means and imagine it is just the Mods way of osniping or soemthing though to be honest I could not care less. I would not care if they banned me for life. the site is an exercise in futility mostly, although I do still get warm words and thanks via PM, for my willingess to persist in presenting views running counter to the usual spoiled Liberal whining that passes for Activism on this site.
After the ban I just did not care to try and post as I had just returned here and had other things to deal with.
Now that you have my explicit thoughts on the NON-issue, can we discuss actual issues?
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Judging by your compulsive behaviour on this fourm, that's a likely story indeed!
TP: You see my particpation as a form of compulsive behavior? Actually, I have to psyche myself up to even open the site in all honesty. I often do not feel like even looking at it.
When I had gotten that ban I had opened up the page the day after I last posted and saw a notification that I had been banned for "Double Posting" and could not understand what they were talking about. It seemed to be nonsense so I just put the site out of mind. Then I also had been travelling back and forth between another island, where we have our main home. It is quite easy not to post here.
When I had gotten that ban I had opened up the page the day after I last posted and saw a notification that I had been banned for "Double Posting" and could not understand what they were talking about. It seemed to be nonsense so I just put the site out of mind. Then I also had been travelling back and forth between another island, where we have our main home. It is quite easy not to post here.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Time will tell on that one.
That's fine, my criticism is concerning the people stating that a previous claim is more important than a later claim. This is hypocritical when claiming the land for yourselves.
I am not starting history from a certain point, I am merely stating that prior claims do not have precedence. It is a simple point. History just goes back - little relevance to anything really except that we all evolved on the same planet etc. It is the present that matters.
There you go again. Stating that being there 'first' is important in some way, when actually it is being there LAST which is key.
Your failure to see this inconsistency is strange, esp. when you are there now and so have precedence. Going on about your own misconception draws attention to history when the nation needs to move on.
I was under the impression that everyone is NOT free to move about how they wish, and that there are still road blocks, no right to return etc.
How wonderfully colonial of you; the 'they're just savages' attitude is sooo passe...
They certainly feel that they were a nation, and deserve respect for this opinion, even if you don't share it.
I would say they were a nation, but that there was a lot of space to move into. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that you use history to wish them out of existence. Their presence was legal and they should have been incorporated into a modern state structure. Instead it seems that Israel was set up as a racist institution, which continues to this day. I understand the preference for Jews - that's fine if that's what you want, it is the insistence that the Palestinians don't exist and don't have the right to be equal within the nation the Israelis decided to build.
Anyway it looks like Obama will try to revive the 2-state solution anyway - tho I suspect this will just prolong the conflict for further generations.
Of course I understand the reluctance the Jews have for the 1-state solution - becoming a minority would be a difficult reality check - but a minority you are - so just accept it - you have a modern nation - many nations don't even have a national religion (see Korea), so what's the problem? History again?
Similar threads
