Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Who has rights to live on land?

Luther Blissett said:
What are you basing your claim on, I want to see your proof. I'm sure other posters would like to see it too.
Someone already posted some USA tourist adverts saying 'Come to Palestine!' produced between WWI and WWII in this forum. If it didn't exist, how come there are adverts with Biblical scenes on it? http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/usa13.htm

"In the Western world, the basic unit of human organization is the nation, which is then subdivided in various ways, one of which is by religion. Muslims, however, tend to see not a nation subdivided into religious groups but a religion subdivided into nations. This is no doubt partly because most of the nation-states that make up the modern Middle East are relatively new creations, left over from the era of Anglo-French imperial domination that followed the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, and they preserve the state-building and frontier demarcations of their former imperial masters. Even their names reflect this artificiality: Iraq was a medieval province, with borders very different from those of the modern republic; Syria, Palestine, and Libya are names from classical antiquity that hadn't been used in the region for a thousand years or more before they were revived and imposed by European imperialists in the twentieth century; Algeria and Tunisia do not even exist as words in Arabic—the same name serves for the city and the country. Most remarkable of all, there is no word in the Arabic language for Arabia, and modern Saudi Arabia is spoken of instead as "the Saudi Arab kingdom" or "the peninsula of the Arabs," depending on the context. This is not because Arabic is a poor language—quite the reverse is true—but because the Arabs simply did not think in terms of combined ethnic and territorial identity. Indeed, the caliph Omar, the second in succession after the Prophet Muhammad, is quoted as saying to the Arabs, "Learn your genealogies, and do not be like the local peasants who, when they are asked who they are, reply: 'I am from such-and-such a place.' "

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/lewis.htm
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
"In the Western world, the basic unit of human organization is the nation, which is then subdivided in various ways, one of which is by religion. Muslims, however, tend to see not a nation subdivided into religious groups but a religion subdivided into nations. This is no doubt partly because most of the nation-states that make up the modern Middle East are relatively new creations, left over from the era of Anglo-French imperial domination that followed the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, and they preserve the state-building and frontier demarcations of their former imperial masters. Even their names reflect this artificiality: Iraq was a medieval province, with borders very different from those of the modern republic; Syria, Palestine, and Libya are names from classical antiquity that hadn't been used in the region for a thousand years or more before they were revived and imposed by European imperialists in the twentieth century; Algeria and Tunisia do not even exist as words in Arabic—the same name serves for the city and the country. Most remarkable of all, there is no word in the Arabic language for Arabia, and modern Saudi Arabia is spoken of instead as "the Saudi Arab kingdom" or "the peninsula of the Arabs," depending on the context. This is not because Arabic is a poor language—quite the reverse is true—but because the Arabs simply did not think in terms of combined ethnic and territorial identity. Indeed, the caliph Omar, the second in succession after the Prophet Muhammad, is quoted as saying to the Arabs, "Learn your genealogies, and do not be like the local peasants who, when they are asked who they are, reply: 'I am from such-and-such a place.' "

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/lewis.htm

You are really quite a lightweight. Not a single word in this post is your own. Furthermore, it's a weak defence of your thesis (regurgitated from some crackpot Xtian Zionist website) that the name Palestine wasn't used before the Middle Ages and then, only by "Islamics" (sic).

This isn't proof, friend, it's bullshit.
 
likesfish said:
as the israelis have nukes and a massive army the discussion is slightly academic:confused:

Why? We know they can kill a lot of people, but they can also push them to the point that they no longer care, might as well take a few of the murderers with them. And their army's not THAT massive. They haven't got the population.
 
most israelis know the whole thing will come down to a political settlement.
Unfortunatly the arab side has'nt agreed to this idea yet hamas hezzbollah et all
the jews arn't going anywhere and have nuclear weapons fact.
any plan that requires the israelis to give up land with out any guarentees for peace is a non starter
bit like a plan for NI that wants to ignore the loyalists:(
the israeli army may have made a hash of lebannon and failed to defeat hezbollah but completely diffrent story if you want some pan arab army to sweep into israel and drive the israeli's into the sea not going to happen old soviet era kit against modern western gear and tactics with fanactical resistance result loads of dead arab conscripts:(
 
Counterpunch on the author of Johnny's quote.

He has dedicated his entire career, spanning more than five decades, to a "project to debunk, to whittle down, and to discredit the Arabs and Islam." Said writes:

The core of Lewis's ideology about Islam is that it never changes, and his whole mission is to inform conservative segments of the Jewish reading public, and anyone else who cares to listen, that any political, historical, and scholarly account of Muslims must begin and end with the fact that Muslims are Muslims.​

Although Lewis's objectives are ominous, his methods are quite subtle; he prefers to work "by suggestion and insinuation." In order to disarm his readers and win their trust and admiration, he delivers frequent "sermons on the objectivity, the fairness, the impartiality of a real historians


http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html

Who here is a sophist? :D
 
My take it that, yes, JohnnyCannuck2 has an agenda.

Judging by his stubborn defense of the Israelis' use of a laser guided bomb to take out the UN Base in Southern Lebanon, his agenda involves a willingness to see his fellow Canadians killed by Israelis.
 
likesfish said:
most israelis know the whole thing will come down to a political settlement.
Unfortunatly the arab side has'nt agreed to this idea yet hamas hezzbollah et all
the jews arn't going anywhere and have nuclear weapons fact.
any plan that requires the israelis to give up land with out any guarentees for peace is a non starter
bit like a plan for NI that wants to ignore the loyalists:

If the Israelis showed any desire at all for peace things would not be the way they are now. They keep moaning about no partners for peace - they supported the founding of Hamas to oppose the PLO - and they are now giving weapons to Fatah to fight Hamas. Hamas became too dangerous after they turned to politics and were democratically elected.

Since you seem to like NI analogies, what do you think would happen if all the democratically elected Sinn Fein politicians here were seized and imprisoned without trial? Do you think the people here wouldn't resist?

Peace would be easy to attain - just stop the bombing and settlements, set the prisoners free, pull the wall and the checkpoints down, and retreat to the pre-1967 borders - that's the legal solution. But Israel doesn't want peace - Israel doesn't want to give up the occupied territories, or the large measure of control they now have over the daily lives of palestinians, and they don't want to combine into one big secular state, which is the alternative solution.
 
I don't think they gove two hoots over the lives of the palenstinians what they do want is not to be attacked from any land they give up and as gaza spectacularly failed I doubt there going to do any more withdrawing anytime soon :(
 
word (aimed at ZAMB)

ZAMB said:
and they don't want to combine into one big secular state, which is the alternative solution.

and ultimately the only sustainable long-term solution that's too little discussed, imho.
 
Jonti said:
My take it that, yes, JohnnyCannuck2 has an agenda.

Judging by his stubborn defense of the Israelis' use of a laser guided bomb to take out the UN Base in Southern Lebanon, his agenda involves a willingness to see his fellow Canadians killed by Israelis.

I think he's buggered off, you know. He's had his arsed well and truly kicked on this thread. If he should return, it will be to hurl veiled abuse around and post up some soapy article from Mirielle Silcoff. :D
 
likesfish said:
I don't think they gove two hoots over the lives of the palenstinians what they do want is not to be attacked from any land they give up and as gaza spectacularly failed I doubt there going to do any more withdrawing anytime soon :(

they spectacularly failed to 'withdraw' from Gaza. Given the two lines of fences, the IOD-controlled borders, the naval blockade, the refusal to allow connection to Egypt or to control any kind of 'foreign policy' the continual use of blockades and aerial bombardments, including intentional 'sound bombs' - what you are talking about is Israel running the largest prison on earth. not 'withdrawing' - that's just a term for international consumption and any reading of the situation on the ground shows quite how inappropriate it is. And yes, illegally incarcerated and tortured inmates have a right, even a duty to resist. why wouldn't they?

i agree the basic attitude towards palestinians is that they are sub-human. that bit i agree with - it's what happens when you build a nation on racial-supremacist ideology and practice.
 
bruise said:
word (aimed at ZAMB)
and ultimately the only sustainable long-term solution that's too little discussed, imho.

Strangely enough, it's also the solution put forward by the much maligned President of Iran. Apartheid is not the answer, as was shown by South Africa's experience - even though Israel supported apartheid in SA too, and gave them nukes - the regime ultimately was unsustainable.

Israel's relations with South Africa are different than its interactions with any of its other arms clients. That Israel gave South Africa its nuclear weapons capability underscores the special nature of Tel Aviv's relations with the white minority government and begins to describe it - a full-fledged, if covert, partnership based on the determination of both countries to continue as unrepentant pariahs and to help each other avoid the consequences of their behavior.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Israel_SAfrica.html
 
Back
Top Bottom