[vmarks]

The UN pays for Palestinian propaganda materials. Doesn't that strike UN supporters as a little outside the humanitarian mission? I mean, it's not food, it's not infrastructure, it's banners and bumper stickers. Talk about hitting bottom and digging.

http://www.nysun.com/article/18710

Meanwhile, at the same time as we think about the desperately poor Palestinians who have to perform suicide bombings because they have no money for conventional weapons (spent it on propaganda materials?) we should note that HizbAllah is funding missiles for Palestinian attacks.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...453595.15.html

[Millennium]

Israel isn't actually done withdrawing from Gaza yet; they're still trying to evict those Israelis who refised to leave. That said, funding the propaganda does seem to be going more than a little overboard. That money is marked for humanitarian assistance, and should be used as such; the PA can pay for its own propaganda if it wants to have any.

[von Wrangell]

Israel hasn't left Gaza.

But yes, if true something has to be done about it. UN money should not go to stuff like that.

[mojo2]

Seems the Palestinians need experience/lessons in "Winning101."

I was watching the evening news and the exultation over the gaza withdrawals felt distasteful to me. I can only imagine how the Israeli's felt.

A loser will throw any victories they experience in their foes' face. A loser can't give an inch towards achieving compromise.

[Kerrigan]

Maybe this will help ease the tension, but who knows. I feel very sad for the people dragged out of their homes over the past few days. The struggle of the Jews and Palestinians against one another is nothing short of biblical.

[vmarks]

http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/187697

The implementation of the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip marks “the beginning of the end for Israel,” said Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal.

[Hawkeye_a]

Give an inch they want a mile. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/cgi-b...248315250&fa=1

I'm shocked at whats going on there right now. But in a way very respectful towards the Israeli administration and people in Gaza, with their commitment to the deal made and not resorting to the level of terror it's been subjected to over the years.

It's time they draw the line....and have Jerusalem as their capital. palestineans can have statehood, etc if they want, but seeing as how Jerusalem has always been part and center to the Jewish faith(longer than both Christianity and Islam have been around as a matter of fact), it's only fitting they have it as their capital imo. After all, i doubt they will ban people of other faiths from worshiping like the other side probably would (based solely on past actions/policies).

If anyone knows, could you please let me know which side has control over Bethlahem and Nazareth ?

Cheers

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Seems the Palestinians need experience/lessons in "Winning101."

I was watching the evening news and the exultation over the gaza withdrawals felt distasteful to me. I can only imagine how the Israeli's felt.

A loser will throw any victories they experience in their foes' face. A loser can't give an inch towards achieving compromise.

I see their propaganda has worked wonders. Show a lot of settlers crying as well as soldiers (will probably be made a movie about this with in two years) and so on.

It doesn't matter how the settlers or the soldiers or the Israeli people feel about it. They were there illegally to begin with on land that belonged and was often owned and used by the Palestinians. Any pain they might be suffering they inflicted on themselves.

And are you really surprised that people celebrate when occupation of their land ends?

ps. the biggest "celebration" was a when the people of Gaza gathered in their mosques to pray silently. But somehow I suspect Western media has shown something else.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

If anyone knows, could you please let me know which side has control over Bethlahem and Nazareth ?

Cheers

Israel as the occupying nation. But I think Palestinians have been "granted" control over Bethlehem. But ultimately Israel has control over them as being the occupying country.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Israel as the occupying nation. But I think Palestinians have been "granted" control over Bethlehem. But ultimately Israel has control over them as being the occupying country.

Yeah, "occupied"...we get it. And palestineans have always been there since the begining of time...oh wait...Jewdaism was around before Islam. I dont know about the Quran, but hiistory seems to note the FACT that the kingdom/nation of Israel made up of mostly Jewish inhabitants was aroundlong before Palestine, thats textbook knowledge.

The fact that the Israelis (whos bloodline, tradition and culture date back to Jerusalem and that area in general) have to barter for peace and less terrorism with such an innanimate thing such as 'land' to appease a group thats so obsessed with lands they invaded in the past, inorder to live on the lands of their forefathers and in the cities their ancestors built bears no bearing, does it ?

And Israel is NOT an occupying nation....well in a way it is...since they occupied that(and bult the cities) land for centuries before Palestine even existed.

Also note worthy:
-If Israel wanted it could stake claim to an even bigger chunk of land in that area, since the kingdom of Israel BC was much much larger
-You gotta admire the israeli armed forces(my opinion, best in the world), being surrounded on every side by hostile neighbours, armies and terrorists alike. They are the best example of 'defensive' forces in the world imo. Remember that incident when a couple of terroists hijacked that jetliner and flew it to idiamin or whatever ? and the israeli comandos went in and rescued em. that's a perfect example of what any armed forces needs to provide for its citizens (and worth pointing out...they didnt launch a full scale war).

[Millennium]

I don't much like the idea of internationalizing territories, but I don't really see any better solution for Jerusalem. It's too important to too many people to be allowed to fall under the control of only one. Here's one possibility:

• Israel and Palestine split into two states. Jerusalem becomes a semi-autonomous region. It may have no military of its own, and may send observers to the UN but will have no vote there. Citizens of both Israel and Palestine are also considered citizens of Jerusalem for legal purposes, and are guaranteed free passage into and out of Jerusalem (though not necessarily into the other nation).
• Jerusalem is ruled by a kind of tricameral Parliament. Of the three houses, the House of Isaac is elected only by the people of Israel, the House of Ishmael is elected only by the people of Palestine, and the House of Abraham is elected by the peoples of both nations. The houses are thus named in order to remind both nations that according to their own traditions, their two peoples originated from a pair of brothers. My rendering of the names is meant to be informative, not normative; I suspect that Israel would prefer to render them in Hebrew, while Palestine would prefer to render them in Arabic.
• The House of Abraham is considered the 'upper house' of the Parliament, while the houses of Isaac and Ishmael are considered lower houses, but equal to each other. Bills may be introduced into any of the houses, but must pass all three before becoming law.
• Executive power in Jerusalem is shared by the executive branches of Israel and Palestine. Either branch may sign bills into law. Veto power is given to Israel for bills introduced in the house of Ishmael, and veto power is given to Palestine for bills introduced in the house of Isaac (in other words, each nation may veto bills introduced in the opposite house). Both executive branches must agree in order to veto bills introduced in the house of Abraham.
• Any attack upon Jerusalem by a foreign power is considered an attack on both Israel and Palestine, and the two nations (plus whatever allies consent to this) share the responsibility of defending it. Either nation may be temporarily excused from this responsibility by the consent of all three houses of the Jerusalem Parliament, but in no event may either nation be permanently excused unless its military is permanently dissolved or Jerusalem ceases to be autonomous (see below).
• A demilitarized zone with a five-mile radius is set up around Jerusalem. Neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian militaries may enter this zone without the consent of all three houses of the Jerusalem Parliament.
• Should either nation's military violate the demilitarized zone without the consent of the Jerusalem Parliament, or fail to defend Jerusalem from attack without the consent of the Jerusalem parliament, then Jerusalem immediately and permanently ceases to be autonomous and becomes part of the other nation. In other words, neither nation may attack Jerusalem or through inaction allow it to be attacked, under pain of losing all claim to Jerusalem itself.

I don't know if this is the best possible solution, but I don't think it's any worse than giving Jerusalem to one nation or the other outright. Jerusalem is in a rather unique situation, and it calls for a unique means of government.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Yeah, "occupied"...we get it. And palestineans have always been there since the begining of time...oh wait...Jewdaism was around before Islam. I dont know about the Quran, but hiistory seems to note the FACT that the kingdom/nation of Israel made up of mostly Jewish inhabitants was aroundlong before Palestine, thats textbook knowledge.

The fact that the Israelis (whos bloodline, tradition and culture date back to Jerusalem and that area in general) have to barter for peace and less terrorism with such an innanimate thing such as 'land' to appease a group thats so obsessed with lands they invaded in the past, inorder to live on the lands of their forefathers and in the cities their ancestors built bears no bearing, does it ?

And Israel is NOT an occupying nation....well in a way it is...since they occupied that(and bult the cities) land for centuries before Palestine even existed.

Jews weren't originally from Israel. They came to Israel and committed a complete genocide on the original people who lived there. Many of the Palestinians who lived in Israel/Palestine before the invention of todays Israel are the descendants of the original Israelis. How do we know this? We know this because Israeli Jews (the Arab jews) and Palestinians are more related than Palestinians and Arabs. So your argument about the Israelis being there before is irrelevant.

The second argument you use, religion, just goes to show how easy it is for Westerners to discriminate. You support the foreigners who came and expelled the original inhabitants because you believe that they as Jews have a right to live there. Not only live there but to control that land. That's nothing but discrimination and bigotry.

And the Palestinians didn't invade any land. First, they are more closely related to the Arab Jews than they are to other Arabs. Second, when the Christian crusades started the Muslims fought back (talk about the Muslims starting it is just convenient Western revisionism of history, nothing new). Do you know how the Muslims found Jerusalem and it's Temple when they came? Do you know how they rebuilt the city and treated the holy sites (for the most)? I doubt you do because if you did you wouldn't be showing such a will for discrimination and bigotry like you have this thread.

Also note worthy:
-If Israel wanted it could stake claim to an even bigger chunk of land in that area, since the kingdom of Israel BC was much much larger
-You gotta admire the israeli armed forces(my opinion, best in the world), being surrounded on every side by hostile neighbours, armies and terrorists alike. They are the best example of 'defensive' forces in the world imo. Remember that incident when a couple of terroists hijacked that jetliner and flew it to idiamin or whatever ? and the israeli comandos went in and rescued em. that's a perfect example of what any armed forces needs to provide for its citizens (and worth pointing out...they didnt launch a full scale war).

1. This might be news to you but Israel has never made an official claim of land and most importantly borders. This is something every nation has to do to become legitimate.
2. I would never, ever admire the murderous thugs that call themselves the IDF. Perhaps you need to read up on it's history. From what groups it was founded and about groups as Unit 101. Perhaps you need to read up on incidents like the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre, the Qana Massacre, Deir Yasin Massacre (cue vmarks revisionism), The Qibya Massacre, and the list goes on. I will never admire that bunch of murderous thugs. And neither would you if you just took the time to read up on their history.

[Hawkeye_a]

You seem to think Arabs(Muslims) have just 'been' there, and spontaneously sprung up from the ground. Muslims, Jews and Christians have been fighting over that piece of land for like 2000 years. Before Arab(Mulims) held claim it was the Jews(Israelis), before that, Muslims,etc..until u trace it back to the jews...and before that some pagan groups that probabl cant be bothered with that land anymore.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

You seem to think Arabs(Muslims) have just 'been' there, and spontaneously sprung up from the ground. Muslims, Jews and Christians have been fighting over that piece of land for like 2000 years. Before Arab(Mulims) held claim it was the Jews(Israelis), before that, Muslims,etc..until u trace it back to the jews...and before that some pagan groups that probabl cant be bothered with that land anymore.

They didn't spontaneously spring from the ground. I never claimed that. But you seem to completely ignore the fact that people can convert. That some of todays (or as the truth would tell us a vast majority of todays) Palestinians were from the original Israelites but decided Islam was their religion. The genetics in that area strongly support that. Which means that the only thing you have left to discriminate between these people is their religion. And guess what. It wasn't OK before and it isn't OK now.

[Hawkeye_a]

Oh yeah...Israelis just want to control that land. Palestineans just want to live there in peace with rainbows and freedom and tolerance (of all faiths...seeing as they have such a great track record of doing that).

And the Israeli armed forces deserve to be admired. they protect borders against an unseen enemy(terrorists)....even better than what the U.S. has been doing to combat terrorism imo. Its serving its citizens, and enabling that piece of land that so important to many people (even those outside the muslim world...beleive it or not) to live, worship and live there. As opposed to an enemy that targets shopping malls and civilians (as opposed to the armed forces). So yes, i do think the israeli forces are worth admiring, which is more than what can be said of the palestinean 'forces'.

IF(BIG IF) jerusalem and that entire area was handed over to the palestineans, could they guarantee the safety of Jews and Christians who wish to build places of worship of their own there ? and maybe even choose to live there ? i dont think so.

I dont know about Syria and Jordan, but i know there were civil wars in Lebanon between Muslims and Christians, i know Turkey is at odds with Greece over Cyprus(border dispute....fancy that), i know Kashmir is still a problem for India(fighting Pakistan...land dispute fancy that), Muslims and Christians fighting in the largest muslim country Indonesia(East Timor issue....wanna guess over what ?) And then you have ppl like those in Saudi Arabia and Iran who support the terrorists in palestine(not to enable it to get statehood...but rather to do away with Israel).

So seeing all those disputes(mostly over territory), with people of so many different faiths.... how can you guarantee that that region will be open to people of different faiths the way it is now under Israel ? How can you possibly argue that a Palestinean rule would be better ? Under Israel everyone gets to live and worship and choose whatever they want there. Under palestine, Hammas,etc would roam free blowing up churches and Synagogues (obviously this is based on whats happened in the past).

I think another justification for Israel is the fact that they have proved to be tolerant of Muslims with freedom of worship(for all)., so nobody, jewish, muslim or christian miss out on the opportunity to practice their religion, unlike the other side and its supporters, which constantly seems to have an ego problem in that it beleives it's the only true way, and if anyone else sets foot on their land... automatically makes them infidels and dosent deserve to live, let alone practive another religion on their 'rightful' land.

The only high level non-muslim in the middle east was Tariq Aziz(iraqi) i beleive (not sure). But why dosent the leadership in Turkey, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, S.Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, etc...have representitives of other cultures and faiths ? The rest of the world..... The Americas, Australia, Europe, Israel, India, etc...have all evolved to be so tolerant of any culture and religion and race, why are the muslim nations so against somthing like that ?

And if im being discriminate about such a significant difference, it;s cause it stands out so much and it does hurt(trust me ive experienced it), because when we accept everyone into our countries, they are treated as equals, with equal respect for their voices and rights, and yet when we go there, we have to fear our lives because of land disputes or religios beleifs. why is that ?

If i were a Muslim, and i cared about the other muslims in the middle east, id lobby for them to care more about their outlook on the world, and their need for tolerance and equality (across race, ethnicity and gender) rather than encourage fighting over land disputes. If i was a muslim in the free world, id be busy trying to convince people in the middle east, the benefit of freedom of choice and faith, freedom of speech and democracy and personal rights, rather than trying to blame all their problems on outsiders.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

...seeing as they have such a great track record of doing that).

Do a quick look at the history of Jerusalem. Start with Wikipedias article.

And the Israeli armed forces deserve to be admired. they protect borders against an unseen enemy(terrorists)....even better than what the U.S. has been doing to combat terrorism imo. Its serving its citizens, and enabling that piece of land that so important to many people (even those outside the muslim world...beleive it or not) to live, worship and live there. As opposed to an enemy that targets shopping malls and civilians (as opposed to the armed forces). So yes, i do think the israeli forces are worth admiring, which is more than what can be said of the palestinean 'forces'.

Like I mention above, read up on the massacres committed by the Israeli forces. Have you done that?

I dont know about Syria and Jordan, but i know there were civil wars in Lebanon between Muslims and Christians, i know Turkey is at odds with Greece over Cyprus(border dispute....fancy that), i know Kashmir is still a problem for India(fighting Pakistan...land dispute fancy that), Muslims and Christians fighting in the largest muslim country Indonesia(East Timor issue....wanna guess over what ?)

And the interesting part here is that you imply that the Muslims are responsible for all these conflicts.

Under palestine, Hammas,etc would roam free blowing up churches and Synagogues (obviously this is based on whats happened in the past).

And under Israel mosques are bulldozed. Look up the Moroccan quarter in Jerusalem. You have no problem with that. Or perhaps you just don't want to know about that because that would challenge your beliefs.

The only high level non-muslim in the middle east was Tariq Aziz(iraqi) i beleive (not sure). But why dosent the leadership in Turkey, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, S.Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, etc...have representitives of other cultures and faiths ? The rest of the world..... The Americas, Australia, Europe, Israel, India, etc...have all evolved to be so tolerant of any culture and religion and race, why are the muslim nations so against somthing like that ?

The Iranian constitution guarantees Jews representation in their parliament (I hope that didn't give you a heart attack). Show me one Muslim in the US Senate.

And if im being discriminate about such a significant difference, it;s cause it stands out so much and it does hurt(trust me ive experienced it), because when we accept everyone into our countries, they are treated as equals, with equal respect for their voices and rights, and yet when we go there, we have to fear our lives because of land disputes or religios beleifs. why is that ?

Unbelievable. Perhaps you should try to be "Muslim" for a week in the West?

If i were a Muslim, and i cared about the other muslims in the middle east, id lobby for them to care more about their outlook on the world, and their need for tolerance and equality (across race, ethnicity and gender) rather than encourage fighting over land disputes. If i was a muslim in the free world, id be busy trying to convince people in the middle east, the benefit of freedom of choice and faith, freedom of speech and democracy and personal rights, rather than trying to blame all their problems on outsiders.

If the ME wasn't under constant attacks we might have time and the ability to do that. But as it is now two nations are under occupation by the West, about 5 or more are under dictatorships sponsored by the West and the only nation that has some kind of democracy is under constant threats. Open your eyes for just one second. Most of these problems stem from the outsiders interfering. But until you accept that there is little we can do.

[SSharon]

I miss those pre-67 days where I could visit the western wall at will . . . oh wait. no I couldn't because the Jordanians were too busy trashing it.

What evidence is there that the Palestinians would treat it better? No offense, but are you nuts? Jordan made peace with Israel and it seems to be working well, I have been to Jordan after all, but can't remember ever going to a spa in syria. This isn't something that we can try out. If the Palestinians control any part of Jerusalem they will destroy any physical connections with the Jewish and Chrisitan faiths. When that happens you can't just take it away and rebuild the sacred sites.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SSharon

I miss those pre-67 days where I could visit the western wall at will . . . oh wait. no I couldn't because the Jordanians were too busy trashing it.

What evidence is there that the Palestinians would treat it better? No offense, but are you nuts? Jordan made peace with Israel and it seems to be working well, I have been to Jordan after all, but can't remember ever going to a spa in syria. This isn't something that we can try out. If the Palestinians control any part of Jerusalem they will destroy any physical connections with the Jewish and Chrisitan faiths. When that happens you can't just take it away and rebuild the sacred sites.

Perhaps you haven't been to a spa in Syria since Israel continues to occupy parts of Syria? And regularly violates its airspace to conduct bombing runs on people you suspect of being terrorists.

And before you start complaining about how other would treat Jewish and Christian sites (which both is bull for the most part) you should remind yourself of a place called the Moroccan Quarter. You've probably been there a few times.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Do a quick look at the history of Jerusalem. Start with Wikipedias article.

Like I mention above, read up on the massacres committed by the Israeli forces. Have you done that?

And the interesting part here is that you imply that the Muslims are responsible for all these conflicts.
And under Israel mosques are bulldozed. Look up the Moroccan quarter in Jerusalem. You have no problem with that. Or perhaps you just don't want to know about that because that would challenge your beliefs.
The Iranian constitution guarantees Jews representation in their parliament (I hope that didn't give you a heart attack). Show me one Muslim in the US Senate.
Unbelievable. Perhaps you should try to be "Muslim" for a week in the West?

If the ME wasn't under constant attacks we might have time and the ability to do that. But as it is now two nations are under occupation by the West, about 5 or more are under dictatorships sponsored by the West and the only nation that has some kind of democracy is under constant threats. Open your eyes for just one second. Most of these problems stem from the outsiders interfering. But until you accept that there is little we can do.

Lol...be a muslim for a week in the west ? after 9/11, Madrid, London,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc ....u gotta be joking lol. i dont have a death wish like those extremist islamists. lol Blame them for any mistreatment of muslim CITIZENS of the west. now if only there were western citizens in the middle east...oh wait theyre not allowed, and instead expected to lived in seperate segregated cities. forget equality and respect of personal beleifs....force the women to cover themselves from head to toe(Christian women i may add), and abolish freedom of congregating. Last i heard Mulims had equal rights in the every western nation(upto 9/11 were suspicions were brought forward for national security urposes...which is justifable, since even muslims born n bread in the free world decide to go kamazazee, despite enjoying the freedoms our socities provide for).

As far demolishing Mosques in jerusalem(which is the capital of jewdaism and Israel i may add).

How would you like it, if Churches were constructed in Mecca and Medina ? oh wait...now i remember the only time churches were allowed in that country thats the height of intolerance, was when they needed our armed forces, otherwise it was out of the question. You can argue politics and economics all you want. fact is mulims nations are horrible at tolerating other religions (hence most of the worlds conflicts today involve muslim nations). While in the 'evil' west, muslims, jews, christians, hindus, budhists, pagans, athiests, roam free....with hardly any prejudice.

Thats the fundamental difference between the Christianity and Islam. to sum it up....the three beleive in the same God. But where Jesus gives you the choice to follow him, Mohammed forces you to submit. And that can be said of the respective societies in general as well. (on the individual level it's different of course, but as far as rights, politics, laws, etc go...thats the fundamental difference). You seem to be enjoying it quite nicely in Iceland i might add.

And as for Muslim leaders in the west.....what can i say ? The west was founded by anglo saxon christian beleifs......but that hasnt stopped ppl like Liberman, and other non-white and non-christian westerners from attaining leadership. As for the middle east....dont forget that Jewdaism AND Christianity also originated there...long before Islam i might add. And converts to islam were usually not out of free will but rather through conquests. how else could you end up with nearly 100% muslm population, with BARELY any jews or Christians ? Remember Constantenople ? yeah.....knock down the cross and put up the cresent moon....that makes it muslim land for now and forever....and to hell with everybody else.

My main problem is the differene in tolerance. as i mentioned thats the distinguishing characteristic between the two civilizations involved here. Sure religion is open to interpretation. But i doubt you have Jews or Christians who beleive it's their mission to do away with Islam all together, instead you have westerners fighting for their rights all oer the palce. And at the same time you have idiots in palestine and Saudi Arabia who want to do away with ISrael and the jewish religion all together.....and the people actually support that nonsence. Then you have OBL who beleivs anything non muslim is the spawn of satan, and the taliban going around blowing up budhists monuments in 'their' own country. I would hardly count demolitions of a few mosques upto that.....since there have been churches and synagogues that have suffered the same fate. If you are arguing Jewrusalem ...you better back it up with an equally significant Muslim location such as Mecca or Medina.

It's perfectly understandable that Jews and Christians want control of that area, since thats where our beleif systems originated in the first place, and theyre not banning muslims or demolishing historical buildings, What i dont understand is why Muslims are so obsessed with that land ? does it hold nearly as much signifiance to Islam as it doe to the Jewish and Christian faiths ? And if so, why wouldnt you as a person not what it in the hands of a community that can guarantee free passage, and worship to anyone who dosent threaten the other communities ? And how could you want it in Palestine hands, when it's obvious all they will do is limit access to our hold sites ?

Also....if Israel were to disappear, and palestine ruled that area. What do YOU think would happen to the hold jewish and christian sites ? and to the things like freedom of speech, worship, dress code, etc....not just on a political level, but also in the form of laws and on the ground level between the people ?

Ill tell you what i think....on the outside they'll be all rosy ...and say everyone and anyone is welsome, as long as the women cover themselves from head to toe. And that the Main jewish and Christian sites had to be demolished to make way for apartment blocks since it was prime property.On the ground level, if a person is deemed a Jew or christian they'd probably be harassed if not murdered, while any claims to polie for help would go unheard.

[von Wrangell]

I'm going to ignore most of your rant and just deal with the following:

does it hold nearly as much signifiance to Islam as it doe to the Jewish and Christian faiths ? And if so, why wouldnt you as a person not what it in the hands of a community that can guarantee free passage, and worship to anyone who dosent threaten the other communities ?

1. Yes. You are showing your ignorance of Islam again. Just search for Muhammed( ), Isra and Mi'raj.

2. You mean like when the Christians of Jerusalem handed over the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to Muslims?

[vmarks]

http://www.israel-wat.com/pics2_eng.htm

We know that there is a Muslim Waqf campaign to eradicate evidence of Judaism from archaeology. We know that Palestinians treated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem with great disrespect, using bibles as toilet paper.

We also know that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is under the watch and guard of Christians, not Muslims, and has been for centuries. Sure, Muslims in 638 were okay with it, but the ones of 976 and 1009 attacked it with pickaxes, and was one of the acts that led to the Crusades, to restore access to Christian holy sites for Christians.

You mention the 'moroccan quarter' - you had better read http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/a...f?OpenDocument

which discusses what had happened where the morrocan quarter was- Your vaunted moroccan quarter was a slum, which used the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, as a toilet and stables.

"
The Western Wall holds a unique place in the history and faith of the Jewish people. For nineteen centuries Jews flocked to the Western Wall from all parts of the world to pray and worship before it. It would not cross the mind of Jews to impair in any way the sanctity of the Western Wall.
The interest now evinced by the Jordanian Government in the Wall is surprising against the background of the vandalism perpetrated there by that Government when it was in occupation of the area. The Jordanian Government deliberately profaned the sacred character of the Wall by erecting adjacent to it structures of secular services, warehouses and toilets, and converting its immediate precincts into a slum. It accordingly became essential to remove these installations and restore the dignity and the sanctity of the Holy Place as a very first step after the battles in Jerusalem had ceased. Moreover, archaeological excavations are being conducted in order to remove part of the earth and refuse that have accumulated at the Western Wall in the course of time and which cover its lower layers. This is a proper archaeological operation, and it is being conducted in a way that assures that nothing will damage the Wall or jeopardize its character as a Holy Place or impair in any way the Haram esh-Sharif area situated beyond the Wall."

[AKcrab]

Thread must almost be done, cause we're at 638 A.D.

Screw the last 2000 years, what about NEXT WEEK AND NEXT MONTH!

I swear, every thread here on the subject shows exactly why there will never be peace in the region.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Thread must almost be done, cause we're at 638 A.D.

Screw the last 2000 years, what about NEXT WEEK AND NEXT MONTH!

I swear, every thread here on the subject shows exactly why there will never be peace in the region.

Crabby,

In the Israel versus Palestine thread you expressed a similar disgust the how both sides were stuck in the past re-gurgitating old slights as reason to hate today. And my reply was to the effect that this is how they want it, that both sides want the fighting, want the animosity, want the hatred as they know nothing else.

Well, I think you have yet another example from vmarks and Logic that making peace today is less important than making war yesterday. I mean come on, they are playing the "we-were-here-first" game now in regards to territorial rights over Jerusalem. They have all this energy to re-fight the battles of the past but not enough energy to re-imagine the peace of the future.

NOTHING will change with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as long as both sides let their past determine their future. I am not one much for Christian doctrine but the "forgive us our sins as they have sinned against us" passage from the Lord's Prayer (wait for MacNNstein to call it the Nicean Creed) seems appropriate in this situation. Both sides need to forgive the other and move on.

[vmarks]

you know, you guys with your equivalence nonsense.

Logic wants to bring up the past, and I'm happy to show him time and time again how his understand of history is as flawed as his understanding of the present.

Harp on me showing him where he was wrong about what happened in 976 and he's wrong in 1968 (UN Document I cited showing the desecration of the Western Wall) and he's wrong today.

I'm all for peace. That doesn't mean giving up, rolling over and ceasing to exist. Of course, it does to Hamas and the PA, as evidenced by their calls to for "today gaza, tomorrow the west bank, jerusalem" - propaganda funded by the UN. Or as the Hamas leader says, "this is the first step in eliminating the Zionist Project" because he can't bring himself to legitimize Israel by even saying its name.

If we want peace, if we want a two state solution, the terrorists have to lose. They have to lose hope that their methods will succeed. This leaving Gaza handed them a victory, and they're celebrating it on the UN's dollar. If they win, Israel ceases to exist, and there will be a genocide of Israelis in the process, Jew and Christian alike. If Israel wins, the terrorists give up their terror, give up their hope of success through terror, and a two state solution can come into being. Negotiating before the Palestinians lose hope of success through terror prolongs the suffering and death because they have no investment in negotiations working. They will continue to use them as they always have- a means to extract concessions from Israel and the world without following through on their end of the commitment.

[dcmacdaddy]

What "equivalence nonsense" are you referring to, vmarks?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What "equivalence nonsense" are you referring to, vmarks?

The one that equates my correcting logic's revisionist history as being stuck in the past.

I'm busy talking about today, he brings up the past, I correct his past and refocus the discussion on the desecration by the Muslim Waqf of today.

Or should we not address today's wrongdoings either? Forgive and forget even as our religious sites are desecrated in the present time? Ignore the UN funding the propaganda of those who want to enact the "phased plan" by which all Israel would be destroyed?

Any solution you want to put forth is going to have to be grounded in reality. The reality is that the Palestinians still believe eradicating evidence of Jewish history and violence are a means to delegitimizing and destroying Israel. Until they disavow that belief, negotiations will accomplish nothing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The one that equates my correcting logic's revisionist history as being stuck in the past.

I'm busy talking about today, he brings up the past, I correct his past and refocus the discussion on the desecration by the Muslim Waqf of today.

Or should we not address today's wrongdoings either? Forgive and forget even as our religious sites are desecrated in the present time? Ignore the UN funding the propaganda of those who want to enact the "phased plan" by which all Israel would be destroyed?

Any solution you want to put forth is going to have to be grounded in reality. The reality is that the Palestinians still believe eradicating evidence of Jewish history and violence are a means to delegitimizing and destroying Israel. Until they disavow that belief, negotiations will accomplish nothing.

Ahh, this is where we differ then. In talking about legitimacy you assume the existence of the state of Israel as it now stands makes it a legitimate sovereign nation. I do not see it that way. I see Israel as having no more right to exist as a sovereign nation than Palestine does. Note I did not say it does not have a right to exist, I said it has no more right to existence than a Palestinian state.

It seems to me that you are working from the assumption that the existence of Israel in its current form is "normative" and changes being made to achieve peace with the Palestinians is modifying, for the worse, what that normative state of existence is.

[vmarks]

It's not what you think that really matters here- it's the phased plan of destruction that is held by the Palestinians that does- where modifying the state of Israel in its current form is not to establish a two state solution, but to eradicate Israel and put Palestine in its place.

Where does that 'modification' end for you? How much is enough to give up? Everything?

[Kerrigan]

If they win, Israel ceases to exist, and there will be a genocide of Israelis in the process, Jew and Christian alike.

Do you really think that would happen, considering that Israel's close ties to the US?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks

It's not what you think that really matters here- it's the phased plan of destruction that is held by the Palestinians that does- where modifying the state of Israel in its current form is not to establish a two state solution, but to eradicate Israel and put Palestine in its place.

Where does that 'modification' end for you? How much is enough to give up? Everything?

No, Israel should not be forced to give up everything. But with your claims of "eradicating Israel" you are brandishing all Palestinian's with the brush of Hamas and Hezbollah and not all Palestinian's feel the way those groups do. Or do you really believe that all Palestinian's want to see the destruction of Israel and the Israeli people?

I think Israel should keep the West Bank, Gaza, all of the Dead Sea, and maybe the Golan Heights. But, Jerusalem must made an international city-state under UN protection and the Palestinian's get their homeland in Jordan. Along with this comes a major transfer in funding for the US. A large percentage of the funding we provide to Israel every year should be transferred to Jordan to aid in re-settling and establishing the Palestinian people in that country. The beneficial side-effect of this is that Israel cannot be nearly as aggressive towards its Arab neighbors if it doesn't have the US funds nor US war machine to back it up. In the end Israel gets the land it wants but it might not necessarily get the sense of security it wants. Plus, this just might alleviate some of the anti-US sentiment felt in Arabnations of the Middle East. If we start giving $Billions of dollars a year to Jordan to help re-settle the Palestinian's they can't really say we are playing favorites.

[vmarks]

I have long been an advocate of Israel freeing itself from dependence on foreign aid. It's absolutely achievable, if the country is willing to accept paring back social programs. I think it is laughable that you believe Israel is aggressive towards its Arab neighbors: the reverse is true. I have to question if you're sacrificing Israel's right to security for some hoped-for-US-popularity? I promise you, what little popularity garnered would be short lived. America gives money to the Palestinians, even as they murder Americans. The g8 promised 3 billion USD. The UN pays for propaganda. The HizbAllah are paying for missiles. Egyptians are providing weapons via tunnels into Gaza. Where is all that money the US has given gone? Certainly not to improve the lot of Palestinians. But then, I'm sure Abbas asks himself, 'why mess with a good income stream?'


Sadly, it is not to broad a brush to paint Palestinians as desiring the phased plan to eradicate Israel. Fatah was elected to the PA government with a majority. Hamas is the strong competitor to Fatah, and the PA wants to prevent Hamas from running for local elections. Hamas and HizbAllah run summer camps of indoctrination and hatred for children, and Palestinian TV runs incitement and hatred by the hour.

Meanwhile, your plan for Jerusalem is intriguing, but when has the UN been able to protect anything? They are the umbrella that folds up in the rain, as they were when Egypt attacked in 67. Jordan, take in Palestinians? Jordan massacred Palestinians in 70-71 , see Black September.

[vmarks]

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/267...=12&htv=12

A documentary in three parts made on the disengagement, with interviews and segments from Palestinian media. It talks about what will happen post disengagement. It isn't pretty.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Thread must almost be done, cause we're at 638 A.D.

Screw the last 2000 years, what about NEXT WEEK AND NEXT MONTH!

I swear, every thread here on the subject shows exactly why there will never be peace in the region.

I have already just as the Palestinians stated what is needed for peace. About 40% of their original land. But that's too much for Israel to accept.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Logic wants to bring up the past, and I'm happy to show him time and time again how his understand of history is as flawed as his understanding of the present.

How about you try telling the truth for once? It wasn't me who brought up the history of the area in this thread. Shocking isn't it? You making a baseless claim against me.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

We also know that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is under the watch and guard of Christians, not Muslims, and has been for centuries. Sure, Muslims in 638 were okay with it, but the ones of 976 and 1009 attacked it with pickaxes, and was one of the acts that led to the Crusades, to restore access to Christian holy sites for Christians.

Since when did that happen? (I'm guessing after Israel took over)

You mention the 'moroccan quarter' - you had better read http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/a...f?OpenDocument

which discusses what had happened where the morrocan quarter was- Your vaunted moroccan quarter was a slum, which used the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, as a toilet and stables.

There's just way too much in that link that can be used to highlight the hypocrisy of the Israeli government. Thanks for sharing. It's now bookmarked. Amongs the best of that letter is this:

A clear distinction exists between the Haram esh-Sharif and the Western Wall, which were recognized as two separate Holy Places. This distinction was followed by the United Nations and is clearly marked in the United Nations map of the Holy Places in Jerusalem (map number 229, November 1949). Consequently, the contention in the letter of the Permanent Representative of Jordan that "the Wailing Wall and the entire adjacent area are an integral part of Al-Haram esh-Sharif" is a wilful attempt to confuse the issue.

"
The Western Wall holds a unique place in the history and faith of the Jewish people. For nineteen centuries Jews flocked to the Western Wall from all parts of the world to pray and worship before it. It would not cross the mind of Jews to impair in any way the sanctity of the Western Wall.
The interest now evinced by the Jordanian Government in the Wall is surprising against the background of the vandalism perpetrated there by that Government when it was in occupation of the area. The Jordanian Government deliberately profaned the sacred character of the Wall by erecting adjacent to it structures of secular services, warehouses and toilets, and converting its immediate precincts into a slum. It accordingly became essential to remove these installations and restore the dignity and the sanctity of the Holy Place as a very first step after the battles in Jerusalem had ceased. Moreover, archaeological excavations are being conducted in order to remove part of the earth and refuse that have accumulated at the Western Wall in the course of time and which cover its lower layers. This is a proper archaeological operation, and it is being conducted in a way that assures that nothing will damage the Wall or jeopardize its character as a Holy Place or impair in any way the Haram esh-Sharif area situated beyond the Wall."

That doesn't fit in with what you said earlier. You said they used the Wall as toilets. Your own links shows that you tell half-truths.

So because it was a "slum" you destroyed buildings that many originated from the 14th century amongst them two mosques, 135 houses and two zawiyahs. And the justification used in '67 might have made it justifiable for Israel to take over that quarter but not destroy it completely and amongst them two Mosques. But the truth of the matter is that already the year 1918 Zionists wanted it destroyed. Due to the small alley through the quarter that was the access and because it has gotten "too close to the Wall". I guess the Zionists just didn't want any dirty gentiles near their Holy Places.

And just one more thing. I've noticed you just love to bring up how Evil(tm) the Muslims are in the area but why do you never bring up why the Western Wall(notice that I have always used this term) is often called "The Wailing Wall"?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I think Israel should keep the West Bank, Gaza, all of the Dead Sea, and maybe the Golan Heights. But, Jerusalem must made an international city-state under UN protection and the Palestinian's get their homeland in Jordan. Along with this comes a major transfer in funding for the US. A large percentage of the funding we provide to Israel every year should be transferred to Jordan to aid in re-settling and establishing the Palestinian people in that country. The beneficial side-effect of this is that Israel cannot be nearly as aggressive towards its Arab neighbors if it doesn't have the US funds nor US war machine to back it up. In the end Israel gets the land it wants but it might not necessarily get the sense of security it wants. Plus, this just might alleviate some of the anti-US sentiment felt in Arabnations of the Middle East. If we start giving $Billions of dollars a year to Jordan to help re-settle the Palestinian's they can't really say we are playing favorites.

So you want to displace already displaced people. All 4.4 million of them. And to make place for them you want to carve out yet another area and by that displacing yet another group of people. Am I understanding you correctly? If so this is the most ridiculous and bigoted proposal I've ever heard. And just to remind you, "unwanted" people have already been "transferred" into a new area the controlling party selects before. That you are ready to repeat that history shows how little we as humans have learned.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by vmarks

If they win, Israel ceases to exist, and there will be a genocide of Israelis in the process, Jew and Christian alike. If Israel wins, the terrorists give up their terror, give up their hope of success through terror, and a two state solution can come into being.

I agree witht he first sentence....the other Muslim countries are doing a fine job of supporting Palestine and their treatment of christians and jews is shocking (when compared to the way, Europe, Israel and the U.S....take trouble to try and ensure freedom of religion). They hate Israelis, just because they are Israelis and Jewish/Christian. I dont think genocide would begin to describe what would happen tothat area if the Israeli armed forces just roled over.

The second point is a bit....well unrealistic. if israel wins ? whats that scenario ? i dont think these terrorists will ever stop, or settle for anything less than all the Israeli lands. Sometimes i wonder if it's religion motivating them(since they target ppl of other religious beleifs) or if their 'interpretation' or their religion leads them to beleive that blood lust of civilians and the amount of territory they occupy will get them into heaven. it always seems that any conflict with Muslims around the world involves a territorial dispute....just a strange observation. And th disput is always with someone of a different religion. Maybe they need to spend more time intrepreting the Quran, or maybe updating it so ppl dont get these crazy ideas in the first place.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I have long been an advocate of Israel freeing itself from dependence on foreign aid. It's absolutely achievable, if the country is willing to accept paring back social programs. I think it is laughable that you believe Israel is aggressive towards its Arab neighbors: the reverse is true. I have to question if you're sacrificing Israel's right to security for some hoped-for-US-popularity? I promise you, what little popularity garnered would be short lived. America gives money to the Palestinians, even as they murder Americans. The g8 promised 3 billion USD. The UN pays for propaganda. The HizbAllah are paying for missiles. Egyptians are providing weapons via tunnels into Gaza. Where is all that money the US has given gone? Certainly not to improve the lot of Palestinians. But then, I'm sure Abbas asks himself, 'why mess with a good income stream?'

I thinks thats the tip of the iceberg. Im confident that every other Muslim nation pledges it's support to palestine in the form of weapons and finance. There are charities all over the middle east to 'aid the palestinean struggle'. The amount of money flowinf into Palestine is huge....especially given the fact that most of the support comes from sheikhs/monarchs/unelected officials.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you want to displace already displaced people. All 4.4 million of them. And to make place for them you want to carve out yet another area and by that displacing yet another group of people. Am I understanding you correctly? If so this is the most ridiculous and bigoted proposal I've ever heard. And just to remind you, "unwanted" people have already been "transferred" into a new area the controlling party selects before. That you are ready to repeat that history shows how little we as humans have learned.

Yes, and hatred towards the jewish Zionist and Christian infidel has changed a lot over the centuries in the Muslim world.Attitude of Muslims towards ppl of other faith has changed so well with the times. I wonder then how come so many Muslims CHOOSE to live, raise families and claim citizenship in this 'evil' west...that hasnt learned anything from history.

Jeeze buddy....have a look...the middle east is stuck in a midset thats outdated, and many within it refuce to change. Those who do wish for a better life, leave and get along fine with westerners and others. The west gets along fine with everyone as long as they respect the rights of others(something that isnt there in the middle east).

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

it always seems that any conflict with Muslims around the world involves a territorial dispute....just a strange observation. And th disput is always with someone of a different religion. Maybe they need to spend more time intrepreting the Quran, or maybe updating it so ppl dont get these crazy ideas in the first place.

Bosnia - Christians slaughtered Muslims for being Muslims.
Côte d'Ivoire - "began targeting civilians solely and explicitly on the basis of their religion, ethnic group, or national origin. The overwhelming majority of victims come from the largely Muslim north of the country, or are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants..." From the HRW report.
Kosovo - Christians slaughtered Muslims.
Northern Ireland - About 3600 dead in a war between Catholics and Protestants.
Chechnya - Christian Russia been trying to control the formerly independent Muslim nation since the 17th century.
Uganda - Christians slaughtering Muslims and Animists in the north. LRA tries to establish a Christian theocracy based on the Ten Commandments.

I could list a lot more but then you would debate about who was responsible for starting it. All the above started with Christians attacking Muslims. Not the other way around.

"Maybe you need to spend more time intrepreting the Bible, or maybe updating it so ppl dont get these crazy ideas in the first place"

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Yes, and hatred towards the jewish Zionist and Christian infidel has changed a lot over the centuries in the Muslim world.Attitude of Muslims towards ppl of other faith has changed so well with the times. I wonder then how come so many Muslims CHOOSE to live, raise families and claim citizenship in this 'evil' west...that hasnt learned anything from history.

Of course it has changed. Colonialism and invasions tend to do that to people. And why do Muslims live here? Many are born here, many have fled the wars in the ME, many do not fit into your twisted stereotype of Muslims and the list goes on.

Jeeze buddy....have a look...the middle east is stuck in a midset thats outdated, and many within it refuce to change. Those who do wish for a better life, leave and get along fine with westerners and others. The west gets along fine with everyone as long as they respect the rights of others(something that isnt there in the middle east).

Ahhh, the typical Western racism showing. What you think is a better life people around the world consider better. The pornography, the sexual exploitation of women, the rapes, the STD's, the materialistic competition and the list goes on many view as a worse life.

So please, explain to me what "a better life" is.

[red rocket]

Stop Your Sobbing

Personal Thanks

Friday night I had a visit. I came home and saw a man running to the back door. With, as I later realized, my laptop, my watch, and some cash. I called a friend, but she had little time for me: her sister in Ramat Gan had just enjoyed a similar visit; they even took her car. Another friend took my case as an alarm, in vain: a week later their house in Hod HaSharon was broken into while they were sleeping. My blacksmith in Netanya wasn't surprised: "I've been in this business for 30 years, and never seen a flood like this week. I now take orders exclusively from clients who had a burglary."

The entire Israeli police force is in and around Gaza. Except for a few units left over to break the bones of the peaceful anti-wall demonstrators in Bil'in, the Israeli forces are all in the South. The Masters of the State are struggling with the Masters of the Land, and we, common Israelis, have to live with rising criminality. Thank you, dear settlers.

Our Poor Settlers

You won't find a word about the wave of crime in the Israeli media. The media in now in "empathy mode": we are celebrating the terrible suffering of our brothers the settlers.

Oh, how they suffer. It breaks one's heart. "People are thrown to the street," said Rabbi Shlomo Aviner from Bet-El, who infiltrated Gaza to incite his disciples. "Our life was stopped, and it will never resume," mourns one settler. "My mother was taken out of her home and put on a bus in Poland," cries another victim, "and now they're going to do the same to me." The same, sure thing. "They're going to destroy 20 synagogues, almost like in Kristallnacht," complains a third idiot. Some of them say it out loud: "it's a Holocaust." Perhaps even worse? "If Gentiles had done this to me, it would have been better; but Jews…" one settler said on television. Ha'aretz journalist Ari Shavit – once the hope of Israel's peace camp, now a sickening right-winger – draws an analogy between a bereaved settler's lost son and her house: "Just as her son is no longer with her, so her home will not be hers." Losing a son, leaving a house – it's all the same. It seems that the more the settlers defy and despise democracy, morality, rationality, history, even the Holocaust, the stronger the media embraces them. Not to portray them as lunatics, but as traumatized victims whose deranged behavior is the ultimate evidence for their suffering.

The "poor settlers" image dominates the Israeli media not because it is in love with the settlers, but because it is obedient. Prime Minister Sharon wants the eviction to be portrayed as a huge national trauma – as a means against any future withdrawals – so that's what the media is doing. The narrative adopted is the settlers' narrative. The tears dripping from my television set day and night are shed by both the settlers and the evicting forces, and it's the same tears: both sides share a narrative that portrays the removal of the illegal settlements, or the decolonization of occupied Palestinian land, as an historic tragedy, "uprooting," "deportation." Neither the government nor the media offers an alternative – neither a narrative of decolonization as a step toward peace (the very last narrative Sharon would ever adopt) nor any other. All that the soldiers and policemen cling to is the formal argumentation of obeying legitimate orders following a democratically taken decision. And at any rate, they have been ordered not to argue with the settlers, so that the latter's narrative dominates the entire stage. The settlers, observes Ehud Asheri, are "Losing on the ground, winning on TV."

Our Spoiled Settlers

This representation may seem inevitable to Israeli media consumers, but it's definitely not the only possible one. There is a lot of antagonism toward the settlers; none of it reaches the media, except for rare scoops like the police officer unknowingly recorded telling his men to "f*ck these damned settlers" (he was dismissed immediately, of course).

Why hate the settlers? Look: last week the worst-ever Poverty Report was published, giving Israel a Western-world-record in child poverty: 33 percent of Israeli children now live in poverty, compared to 22 percent in the United States, 15 percent in Canada, 10 percent in Germany, and 4 percent in Sweden. On this background, take a close look at the pictures from the settlements: a great villa for every family, beautiful gardens, well-paved streets, luxurious community facilities. Nothing to compare with the slums of nearby Sderot, the poor, unemployment-struck town inside Israel, not even with the common apartment blocks of the Israeli middle class within the Green Line. In a rare interview, an elderly man from Sderot told Israeli television that if all the money hadn't gone to the settlements, it could have made his home town prosperous. Meanwhile, rows of slums in Sderot, often bombed by Palestinian homemade missiles, are offered for sale. Unlike the settlements, here there are no generous public facilities, no bulletproof windows, and definitely no compensation for those wishing to leave.

The settlers have been spoiled by the state to such an extent that the real question is not why they are resented, but how come they are not resented even more. The answer lies in the openness of the settlements' project: Israeli lower-middle-class families have the option to pack their belongings, leave their slums behind, and "uproot" themselves the other way around, to high-quality, highly subsidized housing within a generously supportive community in the Occupied Territories. In fact, many of them did so, especially to the bigger settlements next to the Green Line, like Maale Adumim. That's the power of Israel's colonization policy, but that's its Achilles heel as well: it's these settlers, motivated by economic benefits rather than by ultra-nationalist fanaticism, who now "betray" and readily return to Israel for very generous compensations. In fact, the real pain in the neck facing the evicting forces is not the Gaza settlers, most of whom have left, but thousands of young rabble from the West Bank who infiltrated Gaza, practically occupying the emptying settlements to resist the "uprooting" of the homes of others.

Alternatives

There are other stories, other perspectives the media could choose. Take the story of Dugit. The small settlement on the northern coast of Gaza is represented just as any other: "uprooting," tears and all. Nobody seems to remember that 10 years ago the settlers of Dugit went to demonstrate in front of PM Rabin's office in Jerusalem, demanding to get a piece of coast inside Israel and get out of Gaza. It's time for peace now, they said, let us out. The government refused. I'd love to hear their perspective: how many of them were killed or injured in Palestinian terror attacks since? What do they think of the dirty game played with them? Not a word of it in the media.

Extremely rare are also settlers' perspectives like the one brought by Akiva Eldar: "From the age of three to the age of 30 we licked honey," says a Gaza settler.

"We lived in a rented house with a view of the sea, and we paid maybe one-tenth of the rent and property tax for a similar house in Herzliya. There are those who didn't even pay that pittance and also got electricity and water for free. We made a decision not to accept compensation."

The media could have concentrated on such voices too: much more honest, much more authentic than the fanatics' endlessly recycled propaganda. "What broke me," says the same conscientious settler, "was the theft of land between Neveh Dekalim and Shirat Hayam. I saw a fellow, someone who looked like a perfectly normal citizen to me expelling a group of Arabs from the Muasi from their vegetable patch. … I was in shock. I realized that these people were enlisting the ideology in order to get control of lands."

Yes – the media could wonder on whose lands the Gaza settlements were located, from whom and how these lands were seized. Instead, the only context in which Palestinians are mentioned is in their fixed role: namely, "will there be more terrorism after the withdrawal?" A single different voice is that of Danny Rubinstein, who, while the entire media recycles the hypocritical clamors about the "uprooting" of 8,000 settlers, reminds us that

"During the course of the bloody conflicts of recent years, approximately 30,000 inhabitants of the Gaza Strip have been uprooted from their homes. Entire Palestinian neighborhoods along the Philadelphi route in Rafah, at the edges of the Khan Yunis refugee camp, along the route to Netzarim and in the north on the edges of Beit Hanun have been turned into heaps of ruins by the Israel Defense Forces."

*

The Israeli media could take such perspectives – points of view of the many victims of Israel's colonization, inside and outside, in past and present. It could remind the viewers that in this case, the end is also a new beginning, and that with an average $250,000 per family the settlers are welcome to start a new life in a more friendly place. Then, there could be some hope that the pullout is a first step toward true decolonization. However, the way it is represented right now seems to confirm that basically, nothing in Israel's colonialist ideology has changed.

http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=7007

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Bosnia - Christians slaughtered Muslims for being Muslims.
Côte d'Ivoire - "began targeting civilians solely and explicitly on the basis of their religion, ethnic group, or national origin. The overwhelming majority of victims come from the largely Muslim north of the country, or are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants..." From the HRW report.
Kosovo - Christians slaughtered Muslims.
Northern Ireland - About 3600 dead in a war between Catholics and Protestants.
Chechnya - Christian Russia been trying to control the formerly independent Muslim nation since the 17th century.
Uganda - Christians slaughtering Muslims and Animists in the north. LRA tries to establish a Christian theocracy based on the Ten Commandments.

I could list a lot more but then you would debate about who was responsible for starting it. All the above started with Christians attacking Muslims. Not the other way around.

"Maybe you need to spend more time intrepreting the Bible, or maybe updating it so ppl dont get these crazy ideas in the first place"

Israel, Bosnia, Chechnya, Serbia, Uganda, Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Kashmir, East Timor, Cyprus, Kurdishstan, London bombings, 9/11, Madrid, Iraq, etc....simple question. Whats the common element ? could it be that thats where the problem is ? or is it a conspiracy of the world religions and nations and non-muslim groups against Islam ?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I could list a lot more but then you would debate about who was responsible for starting it. All the above started with Christians attacking Muslims. Not the other way around.

Yeah and ill bet the Jews, Hindus, Greek orthodox also have it against Islam. the rest of the world is the bad guy that seems to have a common desire to fight Muslims. the probelm couldnt possibly be that the Muslims have anything to do with conflicts they are involved in all over the world with people of different ethnicities.

The solution to the problem(Where is the problem?), is probably the simplest one.

-Could the Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc have formed an alliance to fight Islam ?
-Could the problem be with the single common factor to all these disputes ?

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Ahhh, the typical Western racism showing. What you think is a better life people around the world consider better. The pornography, the sexual exploitation of women, the rapes, the STD's, the materialistic competition and the list goes on many view as a worse life.

Yeah and despite that you have Arabs and mUslims migrating to Europe, America, Canada and Australia. More than the number of westerners migrating to the middle east. what does that tell you ?

Oh and...by the way...women are more equal in our society, we dont force culture on others...you are allowed to wear, eat, beleive, see, hear, speak, whatever you want. And people here seem to try and seperate religion and church, when was the last time someone in the middle eastern nations lobbied to remove religion from their government and administration ? And as far as prostution....dude...its evident you havent lived there. Have you been to the UAE ? i havent seen so many prostitutes from eastern europe and china in my entire life through my travels than when i went there. And im sure you'll deny the fact that people(men actually, since women arent allowed the same freedoms as men) go over to Bahrain and Dubai to gamble, prostution, and get wasted on alcohol hasheeses and other narcotics. I remember a certain book being banned in the middle east...it was about a Saudi Prince who paid a french super model for sex...and then she went public with it. How aboutthe fact that muslim men are allowed to keep more than one wife, and the same rule dosent apply in reverse ?While christianity and other major religion are dealing with things like abortions and genetic research and other ethical implications for society, Islam's main concern is still the dress code and diet, what you can and cannot wear, it still dictates what u can and cant eat or drink...no other major world religion enforces such antiquated and pointless laws, that adds nothing to the human experiment/experience. lol....every place has problems, and like i said, the main difference is...
We beleive in the same God, but where Jesus gives you a choice, Mohammed forces you to submit, and that makes all the diffeerence.

To me, if someone chooses to be controlled by their religion to the extent Muslims are, thats cool...do what you want with your lives, beleive what you want. But when they start dictating to others what their vision of a perfect world is, and forcing others to obey their religious laws....hehe. i have a problem...as does every other religion in the world.

You should live in the middle east dude, people there are just as currupt, lustful, greedy,etc...like anywhere else. the problem is they drag religion into it, and use that as a justification to look down on and hate others. you guys gotta figure that out for yourselves. Christianity, Hinduism, Jewdaism, Budhism,etc...have all grown past that. Islam is still stuck in the past millenium especially when the rubber meets the asphault. After all religion is a way of life....the rest of the world has changed, and Islam hasnt. Maybe thats the problem ?

PS>> Quit telling me im anti-muslim. im not !!! i have nothing against muslims, i get along just fine with them(the moderate and tolerant ones anway), like i said ive celebrated eids and christmasses with my muslim friends, broken fat with them during ramadan, etc.i cherish my friendships with all my friends, which includes pretty much people from all over the world(luckily). Just because im pointing out some observations ive made, and my general opinion of the mindset of the majority of ppl i nthe middle east dosent made me anti-Muslim. i have nothing against muslims who choose to live in the west and practice their religion and beleifs in the west and get along fine with other people. I have a problem when the general concensus in the middle east seems to be anti-non-muslim, cause i see that as not only a violation of civil rights of others, but also it siverely tarnished islam in the worlds eye.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Israel, Bosnia, Chechnya, Serbia, Uganda, Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Kashmir, East Timor, Cyprus, Kurdishstan, London bombings, 9/11, Madrid, Iraq, etc....simple question. Whats the common element ? could it be that thats where the problem is ? or is it a conspiracy of the world religions and nations and non-muslim groups against Islam ?

Or simply because Islam is the second largest religion in the world? And perhaps you should note that in almost every single one you list above you have Christians involved as well. Why don't you blame them as you blame Islam?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Or simply because Islam is the second largest religion in the world? And perhaps you should note that in almost every single one you list above you have Christians involved as well. Why don't you blame them as you blame Islam?

Ummm....Hindus are not Christians, and neither are Jews. But im sure ull find a way to make it seem like they are

Also in casue ur not aware....many Christians and Jews dont actually see eye to eye, what with the crucification of Jesus n all. But we dont seem to go around killing each other these days, do we ?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Yeah and ill bet the Jews, Hindus, Greek orthodox also have it against Islam. the rest of the world is the bad guy that seems to have a common desire to fight Muslims. the probelm couldnt possibly be that the Muslims have anything to do with conflicts they are involved in all over the world with people of different ethnicities.

The solution to the problem(Where is the problem?), is probably the simplest one.

-Could the Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc have formed an alliance to fight Islam ?
-Could the problem be with the single common factor to all these disputes ?

And how about it could have nothing to do with religion and just injustices and general assholes being in charge in various countries? Nah, must be Islam.......

Yeah and despite that you have Arabs and mUslims migrating to Europe, America, Canada and Australia. More than the number of westerners migrating to the middle east. what does that tell you ?

That things are f*cked up in the ME? That the West tends to support some of the worst regimes in the ME? That Muslims want to go elsewhere to be able to live truly as Muslims? Nah, couldn't be. Must be that the West is Good(tm).

Oh and...by the way...women are more equal in our society, we dont force culture on others...you are allowed to wear, eat, beleive, see, hear, speak, whatever you want.

You are? I seem to remember France banning headscarves in schools, and Muslim "leaders" around Europe and the US warning their people of looking too Muslim. Nah, must just be my imagination.

And people here seem to try and seperate religion and church, when was the last time someone in the middle eastern nations lobbied to remove religion from their government and administration ?

And maybe they don't want to separate state and religion? Ever thought of that? Or should they always follow the way of the West and just perhaps buy our laws as well?

And as far as prostution....dude...its evident you havent lived there. Have you been to the UAE ? i havent seen so many prostitutes from eastern europe and china in my entire life through my travels than when i went there. And im sure you'll deny the fact that people(men actually, since women arent allowed the same freedoms as men) go over to Bahrain and Dubai to gamble, prostution, and get wasted on alcohol hasheeses and other narcotics.

Of course there are people who do that in the ME. Especially when you have a part of the ME that is trying to westernize and be open to Western prejudices. You seem to have this strange idea of all Muslims being one homogenous entity that all act the same. How come?

I remember a certain book being banned in the middle east...it was about a Saudi Prince who paid a french super model for sex...and then she went public with it. How aboutthe fact that muslim men are allowed to keep more than one wife, and the same rule dosent apply in reverse ?

It's very obvious why men are allowed to have more wifes than one and women don't. I'll let you try to turn on your brain and figure that one out for yourself. If you can't figure it out feel free to ask.

And it comes as a surprise to you that the House of Saudi act that way? Who in the ME is our (the West) best friend? Just stop and think for a second. It won't hurt you.

While christianity and other major religion are dealing with things like abortions and genetic research and other ethical implications for society, Islam's main concern is still the dress code and diet, what you can and cannot wear, it still dictates what u can and cant eat or drink...no other major world religion enforces such antiquated and pointless laws, that adds nothing to the human experiment/experience. lol....every place has problems, and like i said, the main difference is...
We beleive in the same God, but where Jesus gives you a choice, Mohammed forces you to submit, and that makes all the diffeerence.

You show an appalling lack of knowledge about Islam. It's sickening in fact how you follow the line of OBL and take his heretic version of Islam as the true Islam. Sickening. Perhaps you should try to start studying Islam. Oh, and perhaps you should look better at your own Holy book. Just to check out what it says about what to eat and such. Or do you choose what you believe in it and what not?

To me, if someone chooses to be controlled by their religion to the extent Muslims are, thats cool...do what you want with your lives, beleive what you want. But when they start dictating to others what their vision of a perfect world is, and forcing others to obey their religious laws....hehe. i have a problem...as does every other religion in the world.

And what difference is it between your comment above and what the majority of Muslims have been saying towards the West? The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

You should live in the middle east dude, people there are just as currupt, lustful, greedy,etc...like anywhere else. the problem is they drag religion into it, and use that as a justification to look down on and hate others. you guys gotta figure that out for yourselves. Christianity, Hinduism, Jewdaism, Budhism,etc...have all grown past that. Islam is still stuck in the past millenium especially when the rubber meets the asphault. After all religion is a way of life....the rest of the world has changed, and Islam hasnt. Maybe thats the problem ?

"you guys" <- the trademark of a bigot/racist.

You are just an ignorant bigoted who hasn't taken just a short moment from your life to actually study Islam with an open mind. I've been to the ME. And your description sounds more like the propaganda you hear on Kill-all-Muslims.com rather than the version I saw with my own eyes. Perhaps you should have gone out of your "Westernized" area and tried to learn to know the people. Or were you too afraid that the Evil Muslims(tm) would kill you?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Quit telling me im anti-muslim. im not !!! i have nothing against muslims, i get along just fine with them(the moderate and tolerant ones anway), like i said ive celebrated eids and christmasses with my muslim friends, broken fat with them during ramadan, etc.i cherish my friendships with all my friends, which includes pretty much people from all over the world(luckily). Just because im pointing out some observations ive made, and my general opinion of the mindset of the majority of ppl i nthe middle east dosent made me anti-Muslim. i have nothing against muslims who choose to live in the west and practice their religion and beleifs in the west and get along fine with other people. I have a problem when the general concensus in the middle east seems to be anti-non-muslim, cause i see that as not only a violation of civil rights of others, but also it siverely tarnished islam in the worlds eye.

Then perhaps you should stop talking about Islam and start talking about the ME? Perhaps you should learn the difference between people and religion? Perhaps you should stop saying "you guys". And the list goes on.

Either you are just terribly inept at getting your point across or you are a bigot like I've said before. You tell me.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Ummm....Hindus are not Christians, and neither are Jews. But im sure ull find a way to make it seem like they are

Also in casue ur not aware....many Christians and Jews dont actually see eye to eye, what with the crucification of Jesus n all. But we dont seem to go around killing each other these days, do we ?

You can't read can you? I said "in almost every one". <- means not in every one. Too difficult for you?

And you were quite busy killing each other up until 60 years ago. And perhaps you need to study the Palestine-Israel issue a bit better to understand the role of Christians in it?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Israel, Bosnia, Chechnya, Serbia, Uganda, Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Kashmir, East Timor, Cyprus, Kurdishstan, London bombings, 9/11, Madrid, Iraq, etc....simple question. Whats the common element ? could it be that thats where the problem is ? or is it a conspiracy of the world religions and nations and non-muslim groups against Islam ?

You may want to revise your list a bit. In several of your cases, such as Serbia and Bosnia, Muslims didn't play the role you claim they did: they were instead victims of attempted genocide. There have certainly been many wars in which the aggressor happened to be Muslim, but if you intended to make a list of such conflicts then it needs a little pruning.