What do you think about human rights and the Jewish question.....
- Thread starter p_p_man
- Start date
M
miles
Guest
Peepee -
"The Jewish Question" was the exact terminology used by that paperhanging sonofabitch with a bad mustache about 60 years ago.
What the fuck are you doing?
"The Jewish Question" was the exact terminology used by that paperhanging sonofabitch with a bad mustache about 60 years ago.
What the fuck are you doing?
YogiBare
Not Your Average Bare
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2001
- Posts
- 1,731
Your question
sends a chill right through me. "the Jewish question" is Nazi termonology used by Hitler in searching for "The Final Solution". As a post-Holocaust Jew, this brings the feelings of horror back. Would you please rephrase your question, p_p_man?
sends a chill right through me. "the Jewish question" is Nazi termonology used by Hitler in searching for "The Final Solution". As a post-Holocaust Jew, this brings the feelings of horror back. Would you please rephrase your question, p_p_man?
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
This is what I think. I think that the Jews have a right to live in Israel and participate in running it. HOWEVER. I think that the Palestinians have a right to live in Israel and participate in running it as well.
Jehovah may have said that Israel belongs to the Jews, but last I checked, Allah said no such thing.
What it looks like to me is pure and severely fanatical racism. I think of it this way. Israel is like Los Angeles, only with more sand. You have a cross section of the international community living there, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. No one group has a more historical right to the place than any other.
In this instance, both sides are horribly wrong. If they can't live together, well tough shit, get over it. I live in a country where you have every conceivable race and religion and we all manage to live next door to each other without causing international terroristic agendas. We don't have Jimmy Carter holding peace summits in Compton. We have police who generally put the people doing the violence in jail.
I think the Jews and the Palestinians are a pair of rival bullies fighting over a piece of turf that they would both be better off sharing. Neither one of them want the other there. They both want to run things all on their own. They refuse to work together to sort it out. Both of them use recent past persecution to garner international sympathy. We have a pair of toddlers in the guise of nations quibbling over who gets the best corner of the sandbox and all the toys. Neither side is smart enough to realize that they would be much richer for sharing.
I, for one, am sick to death of the Israeli persecution of Palestinians. I'm sick of Palestinian terrorist tactics. I think that the rest of the world should put pressure on Israel to solve their problems and that anyone on either side committing violence should be prosecuted as criminals. If it's going to be a civil war, then please have at it and get it over with already. If not, then they need to grow the hell up. Forget summits, forget ambassadors, forget all of that. Just do it. It's been how many years now?
No one has a franchise on suffering.
Jehovah may have said that Israel belongs to the Jews, but last I checked, Allah said no such thing.
What it looks like to me is pure and severely fanatical racism. I think of it this way. Israel is like Los Angeles, only with more sand. You have a cross section of the international community living there, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. No one group has a more historical right to the place than any other.
In this instance, both sides are horribly wrong. If they can't live together, well tough shit, get over it. I live in a country where you have every conceivable race and religion and we all manage to live next door to each other without causing international terroristic agendas. We don't have Jimmy Carter holding peace summits in Compton. We have police who generally put the people doing the violence in jail.
I think the Jews and the Palestinians are a pair of rival bullies fighting over a piece of turf that they would both be better off sharing. Neither one of them want the other there. They both want to run things all on their own. They refuse to work together to sort it out. Both of them use recent past persecution to garner international sympathy. We have a pair of toddlers in the guise of nations quibbling over who gets the best corner of the sandbox and all the toys. Neither side is smart enough to realize that they would be much richer for sharing.
I, for one, am sick to death of the Israeli persecution of Palestinians. I'm sick of Palestinian terrorist tactics. I think that the rest of the world should put pressure on Israel to solve their problems and that anyone on either side committing violence should be prosecuted as criminals. If it's going to be a civil war, then please have at it and get it over with already. If not, then they need to grow the hell up. Forget summits, forget ambassadors, forget all of that. Just do it. It's been how many years now?
No one has a franchise on suffering.
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
p_p_man:
"Within three weeks, more than 120 Palestinians were killed and over 4,800 injured in clashes with Israeli security forces"
While the cat's bombing away, the mice will play.
There are countries all over the world that have been waiting for the US to get properly distracted, they'd be foolish to not act while we wouldn't interfer.
"Within three weeks, more than 120 Palestinians were killed and over 4,800 injured in clashes with Israeli security forces"
While the cat's bombing away, the mice will play.
There are countries all over the world that have been waiting for the US to get properly distracted, they'd be foolish to not act while we wouldn't interfer.
ppman - I know that you usually go for the "shock value" in your posts. But to use a term such as "the Jewish question" is totally out of line and offensive to many people, and I think, given your age, you know that entirely too well. What is the purpose of phrasing your question like that? To incite? To cause pain? To initiate argument? If you were some dumb-ass 19 year old, I could say - the little shit doesn't know any better. You, at your advanced years, know far better.
And tell me, oh wise one - have you included in the 120 figure that you posted the number of Palestinian suicide bombers? Or Palestinians who have blown themselves up making bombs? That is what is commonly done when quoting the number of dead among the Palestinians - they include those who blew themselves up as though the Israelis had something do with their deaths.
KM - I normally respect just about every word that you have said here on the boards. However, in this matter there shows a lack of knowledge as to how far the Israelis have gone to try to secure peace. Let us not forget that when Arafat and Barak met with Clinton at Camp David, it was Barak who was willing to make concessions to the Palestinians, giving them almost everything they wanted. It was Arafat who turned the offer down, and ended the talks.
Also, Israel did ease up the restrictions on travel for Palestinians within Israel - and within days the 2nd assasignation of an Israeli government member was carried out by a fundamentalist Palestian organization. (Who, by the way, is harbored securely in Syria, a nation who has joined the "collalition on terror" and was just recently elected to the UN Security Council) This group has pledged that they will continue to murder Israeli officials - making their next target Ariel Sharon. Is a nation supposed to take these threats lightly? Are they not to defend its leaders against such threats? Maybe, to satisfy the world, Sharon should be given over as a sacrifice? Would that make people happy? Would it cause them to rejoice, as the Palestinians did after the new of the death of Minister Ze'evi? And what would we, as Americans, expect our government to do if our leaders were threatened in such a way? What has been our past track record?
The situation is much more complex then merely having people fight a civil war over a piece of land. The Israelis have never stated they do not want a Palestinian state (though support for one varies amongst individual Israeli, the statement of the government supports this), however, the very charter of the Palestinian state calls for the complete destruction of Israel, the complete removal of every Jew in the area. That is a major difference.
Israel may have done things that appeared to the outside world as being "wrong". But until you live in a country where your enemies surround you, indeed where the enemy could be sitting next to you on the bus, you have nothing to compare it to. Especially those of us sitting in our very comfortable homes, living our very comfortable lives here in the US and in Europe.
And tell me, oh wise one - have you included in the 120 figure that you posted the number of Palestinian suicide bombers? Or Palestinians who have blown themselves up making bombs? That is what is commonly done when quoting the number of dead among the Palestinians - they include those who blew themselves up as though the Israelis had something do with their deaths.
KM - I normally respect just about every word that you have said here on the boards. However, in this matter there shows a lack of knowledge as to how far the Israelis have gone to try to secure peace. Let us not forget that when Arafat and Barak met with Clinton at Camp David, it was Barak who was willing to make concessions to the Palestinians, giving them almost everything they wanted. It was Arafat who turned the offer down, and ended the talks.
Also, Israel did ease up the restrictions on travel for Palestinians within Israel - and within days the 2nd assasignation of an Israeli government member was carried out by a fundamentalist Palestian organization. (Who, by the way, is harbored securely in Syria, a nation who has joined the "collalition on terror" and was just recently elected to the UN Security Council) This group has pledged that they will continue to murder Israeli officials - making their next target Ariel Sharon. Is a nation supposed to take these threats lightly? Are they not to defend its leaders against such threats? Maybe, to satisfy the world, Sharon should be given over as a sacrifice? Would that make people happy? Would it cause them to rejoice, as the Palestinians did after the new of the death of Minister Ze'evi? And what would we, as Americans, expect our government to do if our leaders were threatened in such a way? What has been our past track record?
The situation is much more complex then merely having people fight a civil war over a piece of land. The Israelis have never stated they do not want a Palestinian state (though support for one varies amongst individual Israeli, the statement of the government supports this), however, the very charter of the Palestinian state calls for the complete destruction of Israel, the complete removal of every Jew in the area. That is a major difference.
Israel may have done things that appeared to the outside world as being "wrong". But until you live in a country where your enemies surround you, indeed where the enemy could be sitting next to you on the bus, you have nothing to compare it to. Especially those of us sitting in our very comfortable homes, living our very comfortable lives here in the US and in Europe.
M
miles
Guest
First, I'm sick of hearing about the Palestinians. I'm at the point now where I think we ought to give them what they want so they will join their other war loving neighbors like Syria and Iraq, ad nauseum, in their never-ending mission to destroy Israel. Then whenever they decide they are stupid enough to pick a fight with the Israelis, they will promptly have their asses kicked and lose whatever territory they just got, and it will never end. They are a nation of terrorists led by one of the most infamous terrorists of all time - Arafat.
Second, I'd like to congratulate peepee man on reaching the official plateau of "Troll" status. Like all trolls, they need attention and don't care if it's positive or negative. They just want it. Me, I just ignore them.
Second, I'd like to congratulate peepee man on reaching the official plateau of "Troll" status. Like all trolls, they need attention and don't care if it's positive or negative. They just want it. Me, I just ignore them.
M
miles
Guest
I'm sorry PP, I forgot something
Gai tren zich!
Gai tren zich!
M
miles
Guest
My final word, troll
Fucktard
Fucktard
Myrrdin
Agrarian
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2000
- Posts
- 3,246
It's a sign of how much the events of September the 11th have damaged the Palestinian cause. The Israeli Government have been able to point out how close the Palestinian ideals have been to Osama Bin Laden's. Israel has been able to play itself as the victim of suicide attacks on it's civillians.
It has weakened Arafats position as has he sought to distance himself from the radicals by denouncing the Palestinians who broke the ceasefire. By doing so and trying to appear a peacemaker, he is risking splitting his own organisation . Several of his Generals have already ignored him. and committed themselves to war.
The same thing is happening in Northern Ireland. The Unionist Parties have put an ultimatum to the IRA. Telling them to decide if they are a terrorist organisation or not Telling them if they are really seeking a peaceful settlement they should start putting their firearms and explosives out of action.
The IRA are in a corner. Corporate America will never fund raise for them again if they appear as a terrorist organisation. The Unionists know this and have basically said "shit, or get off the pot"
It's a savage irony that among the victims of the terrorist attack on the WTC were people who sympathised and raised funds for the IRA.
It has weakened Arafats position as has he sought to distance himself from the radicals by denouncing the Palestinians who broke the ceasefire. By doing so and trying to appear a peacemaker, he is risking splitting his own organisation . Several of his Generals have already ignored him. and committed themselves to war.
The same thing is happening in Northern Ireland. The Unionist Parties have put an ultimatum to the IRA. Telling them to decide if they are a terrorist organisation or not Telling them if they are really seeking a peaceful settlement they should start putting their firearms and explosives out of action.
The IRA are in a corner. Corporate America will never fund raise for them again if they appear as a terrorist organisation. The Unionists know this and have basically said "shit, or get off the pot"
It's a savage irony that among the victims of the terrorist attack on the WTC were people who sympathised and raised funds for the IRA.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Americans, and others apparently, are awfully hypocritical towards the Isrealis. Here you have a people who were allowed to establish a nation on land that they feel is just as much their religious and ancestral homeland as anyone else's, and since they are of a different religion and race (for the most part) from the rest of the people in the area, they have been attacked since their nation was established. They are hated because their religion is different, they have western values, and they are a democracy. They are the only people in the entire region that have anything near a successful economy. They have advanced agriculture, high technology, a strong military. Yes, they are the benefactors of a big chunk of American aid, but so are the Egyptians and other counties, and I don't think Egypt is doing near as well as Isreal.
The Isrealis have settled in a region where the vast majority of people live in poverty and ignorance to the modern world, aside from some improvements that have been produced by the lucky fact that they are sitting on some of the largest petroleum reserves in the world. Yet, the Isrealis alone, and without any oil have done something with the tiny piece of land they are on. They are successful and strong, and that just pisses a lot of people off, doesn't it? Almost every other nation in the region is oil-rich, yet most of their people live in squalor because their governments are totalitarian and corrupt.
The question is...how much more can Isreal be expected to give up? They are surrounded by enemies, and have an enemy living within their borders, an enemy that has professed it's hatred of Isreal and it's desire to see them driven into the sea. The country is what, ten miles wide at it's narrowest point? Their military has one hell of a job just trying to defedn one of the most un-defendable countries on earth.
Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario...
Let's suppose that the area occupied by the U.S. is now what we'll call HispanoAmerica. HispanoAmerica is a nation made up of loosely affiliated states, occupied by people that are all of Hispanic descent. They all speak one form of Spanish or another, and finally are all overwhelmingly Catholic. They have said publicly they want to desroy the relatively new state of California.
In this scenario, California was formally established by a group of people called, strangely enough, Californians. Californians were an oppressed group of people throughout the ages, and felt that an area on the west coast of HispanoAmerica was their rightful home, and The United Nations decided to let the Californians establish California where it is now. Before the Californians came to Hispanoamerica and established their state, the area was like the rest of Hispanoamerica- undeveloped, with most of it's people living several centuries behind the modern world.
But the Californians adopted a modern way of life and established a democratic government, and it's people lived in relative freedom and prosperity in within it's borders.
The Californians fought several wars with different states of HispanoAmerica, and managed to kick their enemies ass every time and survive. Even though the Californians are militarily stronger than the other states in HispanoAmerica, they have given up land in the name of "peace", and this has severly affected their national security.
Now as everybody knows, the American Indians were really the first people to populate California, followed by Spanish conquistadors, which led to the Mexicans moving north, and finally the Americans moving west, primarily after the gold rush. My own personal view is that no one has a "right" to any particular piece of ground...basically land, on the level of nations and states belongs to the people who are strong enough to hold it, and to a much lesser extent, people earn the right to live there by actually doing something productive with it. This may not be the most "moral" way to look at it, but it is the way the real world works, and the most pragmatic. But, I digress...
Let's suppose that the main minority in California are the Mexicans. This group has decided that they are oppressed, and that the land actually belongs to them because their ancestors were here first. They decide, in a more or less organized way, that they are going to rise up and drive all the Californians into the Pacific ocean. Since they do not control the military, they resort to guerrilla warfare and terrorism. They begin blowing up restaurants, bus stations, movie theatres, and are sponsored and supported by the other states in HispanoAmerica. They riot in the streets of L.A., S.F., Fresno, and Sacramento, throwing rocks and molotv cocktails at police and Army troops trying to control the riots. Hundreds of people are being killed by terrorist acts as each year passes.
Keeping in mind the American way of thinking, what would the President of California do to resolve the situation? Would he give up half the state to the terrorists, as Isreal effectively has? Would he turn over important religious and cultural sites to them, in order to appease their anger over having their land "stolen" from them so many years ago, as the Palestinians want? Would he allow them to have their own police force and a even a small amount of control over their lives, as the Isrealis have given the Palestinians?
No. None of these things would happen. I'll tell you what would happen. The people involved in the rioting would be told to stop and desist immediately, and if they didn't they would be arrested, or shot in the streets if necessary. They would understand that this is California, and we have built a thriving society here. We don't care who used to "own" this land, or who thinks they have more of a claim on it. We live in freedom and are productive, and we are not giving that up for anything. We're here now, and we aren't going to let terrorists destroy our society.
We would find out who was controlling the terrorist activity, and roll tanks and fighters down on their headquarters and camps and kill them. Does this sound similar to what's going on in Afghanistan right now? Why do the Isrealis not have the right to do this as well?
Since September 11th, I understand a little better what the Isrealis have had to live with for fifty years.
I think if this was going on in America, we would be a hell of a lot tougher on those who choose to terrorize us and destroy our way of life, yet the Isrealis seem to show amazing restraint most of the time.
The Isrealis have settled in a region where the vast majority of people live in poverty and ignorance to the modern world, aside from some improvements that have been produced by the lucky fact that they are sitting on some of the largest petroleum reserves in the world. Yet, the Isrealis alone, and without any oil have done something with the tiny piece of land they are on. They are successful and strong, and that just pisses a lot of people off, doesn't it? Almost every other nation in the region is oil-rich, yet most of their people live in squalor because their governments are totalitarian and corrupt.
The question is...how much more can Isreal be expected to give up? They are surrounded by enemies, and have an enemy living within their borders, an enemy that has professed it's hatred of Isreal and it's desire to see them driven into the sea. The country is what, ten miles wide at it's narrowest point? Their military has one hell of a job just trying to defedn one of the most un-defendable countries on earth.
Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario...
Let's suppose that the area occupied by the U.S. is now what we'll call HispanoAmerica. HispanoAmerica is a nation made up of loosely affiliated states, occupied by people that are all of Hispanic descent. They all speak one form of Spanish or another, and finally are all overwhelmingly Catholic. They have said publicly they want to desroy the relatively new state of California.
In this scenario, California was formally established by a group of people called, strangely enough, Californians. Californians were an oppressed group of people throughout the ages, and felt that an area on the west coast of HispanoAmerica was their rightful home, and The United Nations decided to let the Californians establish California where it is now. Before the Californians came to Hispanoamerica and established their state, the area was like the rest of Hispanoamerica- undeveloped, with most of it's people living several centuries behind the modern world.
But the Californians adopted a modern way of life and established a democratic government, and it's people lived in relative freedom and prosperity in within it's borders.
The Californians fought several wars with different states of HispanoAmerica, and managed to kick their enemies ass every time and survive. Even though the Californians are militarily stronger than the other states in HispanoAmerica, they have given up land in the name of "peace", and this has severly affected their national security.
Now as everybody knows, the American Indians were really the first people to populate California, followed by Spanish conquistadors, which led to the Mexicans moving north, and finally the Americans moving west, primarily after the gold rush. My own personal view is that no one has a "right" to any particular piece of ground...basically land, on the level of nations and states belongs to the people who are strong enough to hold it, and to a much lesser extent, people earn the right to live there by actually doing something productive with it. This may not be the most "moral" way to look at it, but it is the way the real world works, and the most pragmatic. But, I digress...
Let's suppose that the main minority in California are the Mexicans. This group has decided that they are oppressed, and that the land actually belongs to them because their ancestors were here first. They decide, in a more or less organized way, that they are going to rise up and drive all the Californians into the Pacific ocean. Since they do not control the military, they resort to guerrilla warfare and terrorism. They begin blowing up restaurants, bus stations, movie theatres, and are sponsored and supported by the other states in HispanoAmerica. They riot in the streets of L.A., S.F., Fresno, and Sacramento, throwing rocks and molotv cocktails at police and Army troops trying to control the riots. Hundreds of people are being killed by terrorist acts as each year passes.
Keeping in mind the American way of thinking, what would the President of California do to resolve the situation? Would he give up half the state to the terrorists, as Isreal effectively has? Would he turn over important religious and cultural sites to them, in order to appease their anger over having their land "stolen" from them so many years ago, as the Palestinians want? Would he allow them to have their own police force and a even a small amount of control over their lives, as the Isrealis have given the Palestinians?
No. None of these things would happen. I'll tell you what would happen. The people involved in the rioting would be told to stop and desist immediately, and if they didn't they would be arrested, or shot in the streets if necessary. They would understand that this is California, and we have built a thriving society here. We don't care who used to "own" this land, or who thinks they have more of a claim on it. We live in freedom and are productive, and we are not giving that up for anything. We're here now, and we aren't going to let terrorists destroy our society.
We would find out who was controlling the terrorist activity, and roll tanks and fighters down on their headquarters and camps and kill them. Does this sound similar to what's going on in Afghanistan right now? Why do the Isrealis not have the right to do this as well?
Since September 11th, I understand a little better what the Isrealis have had to live with for fifty years.
I think if this was going on in America, we would be a hell of a lot tougher on those who choose to terrorize us and destroy our way of life, yet the Isrealis seem to show amazing restraint most of the time.
lazarus UK
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Posts
- 115
Mmmmm ....
Whilst I have some sympathy for the comments about post-Sept 11th America having a better understanding of terrorism - as experienced by some of us elsewhere, and I'd agree with the "irony" of people who funded the IRA being in the WTC, I have a couple of small reservations about the comparison of your scenario with Israel and the Palestinians.
Stern & Irgun zwei Leumi for a start - pre 1948 Palestine when the Israeli's were the bad guys ... terrorists - at least from a British viewpoint. King David Hotel anyone?
Secondly, getting a few Palestinians killed is a relatively good investment for bin Ladin and his ilk ... the more the merrier in fact.
Whilst I have some sympathy for the comments about post-Sept 11th America having a better understanding of terrorism - as experienced by some of us elsewhere, and I'd agree with the "irony" of people who funded the IRA being in the WTC, I have a couple of small reservations about the comparison of your scenario with Israel and the Palestinians.
Stern & Irgun zwei Leumi for a start - pre 1948 Palestine when the Israeli's were the bad guys ... terrorists - at least from a British viewpoint. King David Hotel anyone?
Secondly, getting a few Palestinians killed is a relatively good investment for bin Ladin and his ilk ... the more the merrier in fact.
M
miles
Guest
lazarus UK
Resume your dirt nap, dude.
When the Israelis bombed the King David Hotel they called in a warning before the bomb was detonated. Most evacuated except for a few British officers who said "we don't take orders from Jews."
Resume your dirt nap, dude.
When the Israelis bombed the King David Hotel they called in a warning before the bomb was detonated. Most evacuated except for a few British officers who said "we don't take orders from Jews."
Lazarus - to add further to what Miles has stated: the Irgun, or Stern Gang, was never fully accepted or recognized by the leadership of pre-Israel. The Hagana (Israel's primary defense pre-1948) separated itself from them as well. Why? Because of the use of terror. It went against everything the leaders and the Hagana wanted for the land.
Prior to 1946, David Ben-Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister, for the uninitiated) supported an uneasy alliance with the Irgun. When the Irgun blew up the wing of the King David hotel (which was against the British and not Arabs, btw), the leadership and the Hagana had nothing more to do with the organization.
Study up on your historical facts before posting, Lazarus. It makes you look less of a fool.
Prior to 1946, David Ben-Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister, for the uninitiated) supported an uneasy alliance with the Irgun. When the Irgun blew up the wing of the King David hotel (which was against the British and not Arabs, btw), the leadership and the Hagana had nothing more to do with the organization.
Study up on your historical facts before posting, Lazarus. It makes you look less of a fool.
lazarus UK
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Posts
- 115
Not entirely wishing to look a fool ...
The principles expressed seem to be:
a) Terrorism is ok if you call in a warning - you should take orders from terrorists (Miles)
b) As long as your "officials" manage to distance themselves it's ok as well and you have no responsibility for their actions (SexyChele)
Refraining from mentioning that, from a British viewpoint, the Hagana was not an entirely laudable thing ... and that membership of Stern or Irgun didn't subsequently prevent you gaining office in Government - Moshe Dayan springs to mind - this wasn't quite the point I was trying to make.
And I suspect a) and b) weren't quite the points you were trying to make either.
I was trying to address ProblemChild's analysis in the preceding post which also seems a little lacking in historical fact ...
But there you go
The principles expressed seem to be:
a) Terrorism is ok if you call in a warning - you should take orders from terrorists (Miles)
b) As long as your "officials" manage to distance themselves it's ok as well and you have no responsibility for their actions (SexyChele)
Refraining from mentioning that, from a British viewpoint, the Hagana was not an entirely laudable thing ... and that membership of Stern or Irgun didn't subsequently prevent you gaining office in Government - Moshe Dayan springs to mind - this wasn't quite the point I was trying to make.
And I suspect a) and b) weren't quite the points you were trying to make either.
I was trying to address ProblemChild's analysis in the preceding post which also seems a little lacking in historical fact ...
But there you go
M
miles
Guest
It may not be historical fact, but it made perfect sense to me.
lazarus UK
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Posts
- 115
Miles, you amaze me ...
The problems - or at least some of them - seem to be:
Who does the land belong to?
The argument seems to be that possession is nine-tenth's of the law - the problem here is that if the Israeli's were "pushed into the sea", then on that argument, there should be no problem ... I doubt you'd agree.
The state of Israel was populated by Ashkenazy and Sephardic Jews predominantly from outside it's borders - some of whom seem to believe that land ownership is a religious question.
Israel is supported by nations, some of whom believe land ownership is a question of politics and conscience - the latter group, for acts in which the Palestinians had no part. Some of them have quasi-religious views too ...
(Contrast: "From the mountains to the prairies" with "Von dem Maas bis an die Menel" if you don't believe me ... )
To add to the confusion, some Palestinians believe much the same thing and so do their sponsors.
So what are the rights, if any, of the people who happen to be living there?
None?
The Palestinians were there before 1948. Nobody asked them. The British and previously the Turks ran the country, but didn't live there - it's never belonged to the Palestinians.
So what the rest of the world thinks is good enough?
If the Jewish homeland had been made in Uganda, as was once suggested, how would that affect things? Economically, I'm sure they would have had an equal success.
Try this - nobody much lives in say, Nevada. There's a lot of Afghan refugees who might love it ... so is it ok for them to move in if the UN says it's ok?
Answers on a postcard please ...
So what do you do if you are Palestinian?
Difficult ...
No one cares very much, so wherever you are you are nobody - unless you fit into someone else's political agenda. Yesterday's nobodies have taken your land so forget the sympathy vote ... it's been taken.
So you hang on to your identity and where does that get you?
Well, it worked for the people who took the land ...
So where next?
a) No one is going to find either the Israeli's or the Palestinians a new homeland.
b) Both want the same place and both believe it belongs to them. Both care deeply about it. Both believe that this land is more than just a piece of dirt.
They've got a lot in common ...
Who does the land belong to?
The problems - or at least some of them - seem to be:
Who does the land belong to?
The argument seems to be that possession is nine-tenth's of the law - the problem here is that if the Israeli's were "pushed into the sea", then on that argument, there should be no problem ... I doubt you'd agree.
The state of Israel was populated by Ashkenazy and Sephardic Jews predominantly from outside it's borders - some of whom seem to believe that land ownership is a religious question.
Israel is supported by nations, some of whom believe land ownership is a question of politics and conscience - the latter group, for acts in which the Palestinians had no part. Some of them have quasi-religious views too ...
(Contrast: "From the mountains to the prairies" with "Von dem Maas bis an die Menel" if you don't believe me ... )
To add to the confusion, some Palestinians believe much the same thing and so do their sponsors.
So what are the rights, if any, of the people who happen to be living there?
None?
The Palestinians were there before 1948. Nobody asked them. The British and previously the Turks ran the country, but didn't live there - it's never belonged to the Palestinians.
So what the rest of the world thinks is good enough?
If the Jewish homeland had been made in Uganda, as was once suggested, how would that affect things? Economically, I'm sure they would have had an equal success.
Try this - nobody much lives in say, Nevada. There's a lot of Afghan refugees who might love it ... so is it ok for them to move in if the UN says it's ok?
Answers on a postcard please ...
So what do you do if you are Palestinian?
Difficult ...
No one cares very much, so wherever you are you are nobody - unless you fit into someone else's political agenda. Yesterday's nobodies have taken your land so forget the sympathy vote ... it's been taken.
So you hang on to your identity and where does that get you?
Well, it worked for the people who took the land ...
So where next?
a) No one is going to find either the Israeli's or the Palestinians a new homeland.
b) Both want the same place and both believe it belongs to them. Both care deeply about it. Both believe that this land is more than just a piece of dirt.
They've got a lot in common ...
Who does the land belong to?
lazarus UK
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Posts
- 115
The Canaanites?
Lazuras,
My answer regarding the Irgun was not an attempt to say that if a nation's leader distance themselves from an organization, then everything is just fine. Let's not forget that Menachem Begin was very powerful in the Irgun, and even tried to usurp power from Ben-Gurion. (Altalina incident)
What I was trying to state was that there are some people who think the Irgun was an accepted, respected organization within the nation of Israel. And they were not. There were a group of thugs - and that has always been the accepted view of them, even in modern times.
Also, the land of Israel/Palestine was not wholly populated by Palestinians exclusively. There have been Jewish people living there for generations that extend back hundreds of years. And, yes, they consider the land their own.
Also, we seem to be throwing around the idea that there is a religious right to the land for the Jews. While there is a faction in the Jewish people known as "Religious Zionism", most Zionist, in fact most Israelis, are secular. Zionists seem themselves first as Israelis, and then as Jews - and most are actually atheists. They have no religious agenda.
The facts are there - Israel has agreed to give land to the Palestinians to build a homeland. That cannot be argued. However, Hamas - the terrorist organization within Palestine - has already stated they will never accept peace with Israel at any cost. Period. Prior to the last year, look at the history. When Rabin and Barak - both supporters of the Oslo accords - were in office, buses were being blown up, there were more suicide bombers, etc. When Netanyahu came into power - a man who did not agree entirely with the Oslo accords, and even stopped the peace process until Arafat proved himself, Hamas lessened their attacks against Israel.
The point? If Hamas gets its way - no peace - terrorism stops. As soon as "peace" is put into motion, Hamas starts its attacks.
It may also surprise many here to know that among individuals, there are many Israelis who are friends with Palestinians - much like the North and South prior to the American Civil War. This battle, in many ways, is being fought by leadership, not by the individuals living there.
Just some points to poinder.
My answer regarding the Irgun was not an attempt to say that if a nation's leader distance themselves from an organization, then everything is just fine. Let's not forget that Menachem Begin was very powerful in the Irgun, and even tried to usurp power from Ben-Gurion. (Altalina incident)
What I was trying to state was that there are some people who think the Irgun was an accepted, respected organization within the nation of Israel. And they were not. There were a group of thugs - and that has always been the accepted view of them, even in modern times.
Also, the land of Israel/Palestine was not wholly populated by Palestinians exclusively. There have been Jewish people living there for generations that extend back hundreds of years. And, yes, they consider the land their own.
Also, we seem to be throwing around the idea that there is a religious right to the land for the Jews. While there is a faction in the Jewish people known as "Religious Zionism", most Zionist, in fact most Israelis, are secular. Zionists seem themselves first as Israelis, and then as Jews - and most are actually atheists. They have no religious agenda.
The facts are there - Israel has agreed to give land to the Palestinians to build a homeland. That cannot be argued. However, Hamas - the terrorist organization within Palestine - has already stated they will never accept peace with Israel at any cost. Period. Prior to the last year, look at the history. When Rabin and Barak - both supporters of the Oslo accords - were in office, buses were being blown up, there were more suicide bombers, etc. When Netanyahu came into power - a man who did not agree entirely with the Oslo accords, and even stopped the peace process until Arafat proved himself, Hamas lessened their attacks against Israel.
The point? If Hamas gets its way - no peace - terrorism stops. As soon as "peace" is put into motion, Hamas starts its attacks.
It may also surprise many here to know that among individuals, there are many Israelis who are friends with Palestinians - much like the North and South prior to the American Civil War. This battle, in many ways, is being fought by leadership, not by the individuals living there.
Just some points to poinder.
