[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Also, do you have something to substantiate the above? It seems to me this remains the most fertile territory throughout the ME and still has Israel enjoying the least of it.

Here's the first link I found.

Ancient Fertile Crescent Almost Gone, Satellite Images Show

There's also an issue with the inevitable buildup of saline from being farmed for millennia.


Note, I'm not saying the place is barren, I'm saying what's on a map from when Mesopotamia still existed isn't going to reflect the current environment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It was Jews that actually cultivated the land and invited Arabs in to help develop it. Times were good and more Arabs continued into the territory until the tail began to wag the dog. Imagine, a union of employees eventually saying; "hey, let's take over the company". That's basically how it ran its course as I understand it and yes, I'm sure this pissed people off on both sides of the equation.

What period of time are you discussing?

[Chongo]

Most likely when the Zionist movement began. This is when Jews were buying land at overinflated prices because the land was barren.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

What period of time are you discussing?

Late 19th into early 20th century. Essentially every historian who had been through the region, shared the same account.

In 1865, H. B. Tristram noted in his journal:
“The north and south [of the Sharon plain] land is going out of cultivation and whole villages are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. Since the year 1838, no less than 20 villages there have been thus erased from the map [by the Bedouin] and the stationary population extirpated.”

Some population figures to show how Arab returns were to occur and illustrate how Jewish agriculture development drew them in;

Changes in towns: The Arab population in predominantly Arab towns rose only slightly (if at all) between the two World Wars: in Hebron—from 16,650 in 1922 to 22,800 in 1943; Nablus—from 15,931 to 23,300; Jenin—from 2,737 to 3,900; Bethlehem—from 6,658 to 8,800. Gaza's population actually decreased from 17,426 in 1922 to 17,045 in 1931.

On the other hand, in the three major Jewish cities the Arab population shot up during this period, far beyond the rate of natural increase: Jerusalem—from 28,571 in 1922 to 56,400 (97 per cent); Jaffa—from 27,437 to 62,600 (134 per cent); Haifa— from 18,404 to 58,200 (216 per cent).

Changes in rural areas: The population of the predominantly Arab Beersheba district dropped between 1922 and 1939 from 71,000 to 49,000 (the rate of natural increase should bave resulted in a rise to 89,000). In the Bethlehem district the figure increased from 24,613 to about 26,000 (after falling to 23,725 in 1929). In the Hebron area it went up from 51,345 to 59,000 (the natural increase rate dictated a rise to 72,000).

Here is a relatively exhaustive account of land ownership in Palestine from 1880 to 1948.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

More than 2/3rds of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution. Per polling, nearly 70% of Palestinians see the restoration of all of historic Palestine to Arab control as the only legitimate national goal for their people. Israel has talked #1 and in fact walked #1, but that's not what Palestinians want. Doesn't it matter what they want? Does that not play a role in the conflict?

Why is this so impossible for people to understand? You nor I and certainly not Israel can wish enough for the Palestinians a solution they do not want.

Well as you and I both know, poll numbers depend on what question was asked. The % you get when asking Palestinians if they want to see the restoration of ALL of Palestine to their control can be very different than the % you get if you ask them would they rather have a Two State solution on SOME of Palestine vs continued Occupation in SOME of Palestine. The first is a question based on PRINCIPLE. The latter is a question based on PRACTICALITY. I surmise if you asked Native Americans similar questions you might get very similar results.

Now it's no secret that on the matter of PRINCIPLE I think the creation of the State of Israel was fundamentally unjust. It wasn't the Palestinians' fault that European Christians and European Jews couldn't get along. From everyday religious discrimination and societal marginalization, to the Spanish Inquisition, culminating in the Holocaust. Forgive my bluntness ... but that was some white people sh*t! So this fundamentally European problem shouldn't have been solved by colonizing the land of Palestinians who had nothing to do with it. It's just that simple! And make no mistake about it ... Israel is essentially a European colony in the Middle East.

That being said, on the matter of PRACTICALITY I certainly recognize that the State of Israel is a fait d'accompli. Much like a Native American would about the U.S. And I expect most Palestinians recognize this about Israel. I just find it hard to believe that the vast majority of Palestinians don't realize that Israel isn't going anywhere! People just aren't that stupid IMO. So with that in mind, perhaps the Palestinian opposition to a Two-State solution is rooted in the fact that the so-called "peace process" is not only bearing little fruit for them ... but the fruit is actually getting smaller. As part of the Oslo Accords in 1993 the PLO recognized the right of Israel to exist and renounced armed resistance ... and Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and negotiation partner. The Palestinian National Authority was created as an interim government for the West Bank and Gaza. And a 5 year timeframe was set for "permanent status negotiations" which would resolve the thorniest issues such as Israeli settlements, Security, Borders, Jerusalem, and the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. So here it is 21 years later and what do Palestinians have to show for it? Israeli settlements continue to encroach upon the West Bank and East Jerusalem in violation of international law, Gaza has been under constant blockade and periodic siege since 2007, Israel won't even discuss Palestinian refugees returning to their homes (many of which are occupied today by Israeli settlers) lest the "Jewish Majority" be threatened, and final borders can't be negotiated because Israel is too busy encroaching upon the remaining Palestinian land thereby creating de facto borders outside the the so-called "peace process".

So is it any wonder that Palestinians are feeling a tad bit salty about a "Two State Solution" when they see the land available for a Palestinian state SHRINK DAILY as each new Israeli settlement is built?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words ....



So I strongly disagree my friend. Israel most definitely does not WALK #1. It's WALK is clearly with #3. How else would you explain not only CONTINUED Occupation ... but also EXPANDED Occupation ... steadily and continuously throughout the entire 21+ years of the so-called "peace process"? Even if you factor in the withdrawal from Gaza into the equation it's true that the area is no longer "technically" under occupation, but it remains the world's largest open-air prison under blockade and siege ... so that's a distinction without a difference at the end of the day.

I think these famous words summarize the situation quite nicely ....

Originally Posted by Malcolm X

If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.

OAW

[Chongo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jordan makes up most of the original "Palestine" If you want to blame anyone, blame the Brits. It was the UK that carved up Palestine and gave most of it to the Hashemite minority as Transjordan.
History of Israel and Palestine in VERY Easy To Understand Maps

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jordan makes up most of the original "Palestine" If you want to blame anyone, blame the Brits. It was the UK that carved up Palestine and gave most of it to the Hashemite minority as Transjordan.
History of Israel and Palestine in VERY Easy To Understand Maps

You continue to argue a point that is not in dispute. The Arabs who live EAST of the River Jordan in what was once the British Mandate of Palestine aren't upset because their land isn't occupied and controlled by foreigners. Whereas the Arabs who live WEST of the River Jordan are in a very different situation. You are right, the British bear the lion's share of the culpability for this mess. As was so often the case around the world, in its colonial arrogance it drew national boundaries that served its interests with little to no regard for the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic bonds of the people who actually lived there. The bottom line is that Palestine didn't belong to Britain and so it had no right to partition it to solve Europe's "Jewish Problem" without the consent of the local indigenous population. Even if that partition was done under the auspices of the U. N. General Assembly. If the native population refuses to take being dispossessed of their land lying down then there will be hell to pay. Period. It's what I call an entirely foreseeable situation.

OAW

[Chongo]

Jordan bears blame as well for not resettling the refugees. (which led to the Black September uprising)

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I know what you're saying, you just don't understand how ****ed up it is.

Said the genocidal maniac.

[Waragainstsleep]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_m98GAdqKM#t=707

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the first link I found.

Ancient Fertile Crescent Almost Gone, Satellite Images Show

There's also an issue with the inevitable buildup of saline from being farmed for millennia.


Note, I'm not saying the place is barren, I'm saying what's on a map from when Mesopotamia still existed isn't going to reflect the current environment.

Israel may have fertile land, but everyone else got the oil. Watch all hell really break loose when oil is discovered in Israel.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Said the genocidal maniac.

Troll

[turtle777]

OAW, seriously ?

The best you can do is some trollish graph from a website called muslimsarenotterrorists.com ?

Why bother ? We get that you are biased.

-t

[Shaddim]

Alright, everyone knows that 3 main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) are connected, right?
Okay. Now, how many think their doctrine and teachings are fundamentally the same and all indoctrinate their followers in the same fashion and to the same end(s)?
Next question, do you think that coercive persuasion (aka. "brainwashing") is real?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

OAW, seriously ?

The best you can do is some trollish graph from a website called muslimsarenotterrorists.com ?

Why bother ? We get that you are biased.

-t

Except for the fact the "Palestinians" weren't living there until Israel invested the time, money, and effort into making it attractive. Of course they wanted it then.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Alright, everyone knows that 3 main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) are connected, right?

Right.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay. Now, how many think their doctrine and teachings are fundamentally the same and all indoctrinate their followers in the same fashion and to the same end(s)?

I'm going to split this question up.

Doctrine & teachings fundamentally the same?

I'd say there are fundamentalists and extremely liberal/moderate/casual versions of all three and everything in between as well.
I do think its worth pointing out that at both ends of the scale, they probably have more in common with the same segment of the other religions than they do with the other end of the scale in their own religion. The specifics vary according to the religion but a lot of the things that determine where you lie on the scale are the same regardless of which religion.
Here is perhaps where we truly differ: One religion might be interested in killing infidels while the another is more about killing gays, but they are both keener than they should be to kill people just for not agreeing with them. At the other end it might be a case of focussing on peace, enlightenment, forgiveness, charity or any other number of positive or harmless words or ideas. The specifics are less important because they are all good things so few people should ever try to argue with any of these people. It is my opinion that lumping together the moderates with the fundamentalists of the same religion is a far worse idea than then lumping in the fundamentalists from the different religions together. While its true of all three that there are clear mechanisms for a moderate to become a fundamentalist and then an extremist, lumping them in together before they have done that is just going to trigger it happening more.

Anyway no, the answer is that the doctrine and teachings are not the same but its important that they are not the same across the spectrum of a single religion, let alone across all three.

Indoctrinate their followers?...

Yes, absolutely. They would all have a fraction of the followers they have if they didn't.

...in the same fashion?...

Yes, but the scale applies again. There will be some techniques and tactics they all use, probably the gentler ones. The more extreme tactics will be used by the more fundamentalist believers.

...to the same ends?

This is the one with gradients running in more directions. To the end of propagating their religion, their particular version or interpretation of that religion, yes, of course.
But as the goals of each different type and 'severity' of religion vary, so will the intended ends of their indoctrination. Some of course will indoctrinate certain people to accomplish certain ends in the case of suicide attackers but this practice as far as I know is almost entirely confined to Islam, but its not like the others haven't indoctrinated more conventional soldiers.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Next question, do you think that coercive persuasion (aka. "brainwashing") is real?

100%.

So many religions are full of, if not based on ideas that range from obviously demonstrably wrong to completely retarded to unforgivably, shamefully despicable. The only way to propagate these ideas is through indoctrination. It should be pointed out that their is a fine line between indoctrination and education if you listen to some people (mostly indoctrinators). I would offer that one encourages inclusion of ideas while the other excludes all opposing views but this distinction is easily blurred by simply including an opposing viewpoint and then including all the reasons why its wrong and dismissing it out of hand.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a great example. They sit somewhere between a church and a cult IMO. I'm not trying to be mean, they are lovely people, I've known quite a few and all were kind and generous. I noticed one thing about them: Every single one I've known was either born into the religion, or was rescued by members from being some kind of addict, drink or drugs. I think some were homeless but also addicts. The point is they were all brought in while they were vulnerable. Either children in a captive audience, or down and desperate in need of food, shelter and kindness. I have met or known zero exceptions to this rule out of maybe 30 people. Not a big sample size but only a handful of those were born into it. All the rest were addicts. Compare this to your own congregation. If 25 out of 30 are recovered addicts, you may be in a cult too.

They don't socialise much outside of their religion;
If you leave, you don't really get to go back and say hi, or keep seeing many of them socially. They don't cut you off altogether like the WBC, but don't expect to spend every holiday with your family, and expect some awkwardness if you do;
The ones I knew eschewed TV and the media. This keeps out unwanted ideas and different perspectives;
I dated one when I was at school. She was forbidden to attend a University. I believe this was because they thought they would lose her if she did;

Some days her attitude to her religion seemed to be quite casual. Like she wasn't that invested, though we never discussed it in depth (we were both 15) I never heard her express specific doubts, but there were things she would talk about that she wasn't supposed to, things would talk about doing that she wasn't allowed to etc. Then now and then, sometimes overnight her adherence to the rules would shoot back up again. It was as if they had strapped her into a machine and topped up the brainwashing.

So yes, I absolutely believe in brainwashing, I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't.

[Chongo]

Jesus V Muhammad

Fighting is inconsistent with Jesus’ example but not Muhammad’s, as the Sirat Rasul Allah records Muhammad personally led 27 raids.

Jesus’ teaching on how to treat enemies:

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you (Matthew 5:44).
Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39).
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other (Matthew 5:39).
If someone takes your coat, give them your shirt (Matthew 5:40).
If someone make you carry something one mile, carry it two (Matthew 5:41).
Forgive and you shall be forgiven (Matthew 6:14).
Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1).
Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not kill, but I say who ever is angry with his brother is in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:21-22).
Treat others the same way you want them to treat you (Luke 6:27-36).
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, whatever you do to the very least you have done unto me (Matthew 25:40).
Muhammad’s teaching on how to treat enemies:

Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

What motivates fundamental Muslims to violence? Where Jesus was a religious leader, Muhammad was a religious leader and a military leader, thus the effort to separate the militant aspect of Islam from the religious aspect is an attempt to split Muhammad.

The closer one follows the example of Jesus, the more peaceful is one’s motivation.

The closer one follows example of Muhammad, the more militant is one’s motivation.


Read more at Jesus and Muhammad compared

[subego]

@ebuddy

I don't see the evidence you lay out as necessarily invalidating my claims.

My primary claim is prime real estate.

In biblical times it was green. Just like it shows on your map. It wasn't as prime as the Nile or the Fertile Crescent, but it was still very good compared to the surrounding desert, has multiple sea ports, and is not only a land passage avoiding the mountains, it's also one of the key choke points for overland travel. This is the primary reason you've had so many major battles take place here. It has vast strategic value.

From reading what you wrote, being desert in the 19th century had to do with the nomadic Bedouin population seeing farming communities as ripe for the pillage. If agricultural endeavors get burnt to the ground by raiders, you're going to have desolation. That doesn't mean the land is bad for growing, or that there's no access to water. In fact, I'd posit the opposite. The Bedouins wouldn't have had anyone to raid unless there was a decent place for peasants to set up shop. IOW, what I said: Israel is, and always has been, prime real estate.

The second point is the Jewish immigration into the region, which led to that agricultural land being reclaimed.

Does that population deserve something for having done that? No question. As you pointed out, it created an environment the non-nomadic residents were attracted to and allowed to flourish.

If what they get 75 years after they immigrate is the right to run the country, that's going to piss the "natives" off, regardless of the benefits they may have provided.

We've done far better with Manhattan island than the natives ever could. Should they be happy with that and overlook the lack of representation? Note, this isn't supposed to be exactly analogous, but being extreme, puts the point I'm getting at in sharper relief.

[subego]

As an aside, the Spanish and Portuguese figured out the solution to the "native" problem.

Bang the shit out of them until you can't tell who's who anymore.

Jews suck at this.

[subego]

With the exception of the Lost Tribes. Pretty sure that's where they got themselves lost.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

OAW, seriously ?

The best you can do is some trollish graph from a website called muslimsarenotterrorists.com ?

Why bother ? We get that you are biased.

-t

Indeed I have a point of view on the conflict. I've never represented myself otherwise. As I said earlier, my position on the topic is no secret. The point of the graph is self-evident. If you choose to dismiss the point as "trollish" merely because of its source that's on you. But the point stands. That is effectively what happened to Palestinian land. But I get it ... it's pretty difficult to credibly claim otherwise so dismissal is all you have left.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Except for the fact the "Palestinians" weren't living there until Israel invested the time, money, and effort into making it attractive. Of course they wanted it then.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the Arab population of Palestine didn't exist until Ashkenazi Jews from Europe showed up? Or are you hanging your hat on semantic games about "Palestinian" as a distinct identity?

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'd say there are fundamentalists and extremely liberal/moderate/casual versions of all three and everything in between as well.

There is no significant, as in not even a recognizable percentage of a percent, of Christians and Jews who behave like Jihadists. There simply aren't, because if there were we'd see their actions on a more regular basis, instead of the random nutter doing something crazy. Every day some Jihadist is blowing shit up or making threats (that usually ends in someone being blown up).

Anyway no, the answer is that the doctrine and teachings are not the same but its important that they are not the same across the spectrum of a single religion, let alone across all three.

Of course not, what makes Islamic extremism so prevalent is because it's so widely embraced across that section of the world. When the news says, "Religious militants blew up a plane in Istanbul", the first thought is, "Was it Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Some new Muslim faction?", not, "Uh oh, those crazy Methodists are up to shit again!"

Indoctrinate their followers?...

Yes, absolutely. They would all have a fraction of the followers they have if they didn't.

Of course, but not all indoctrination is bad, the word simply means someone accepts a religion's doctrine. What matters is, what's in that doctrine. If they're taught, from birth, "killing this group of people is a great thing and is pleasing to Allah", then that's twisted and evil, and quite a contrast to, "I command you to love your neighbor as yourself", "thou shalt not murder", or "don't trim the corners of your beard".

...in the same fashion?...

Yes, but the scale applies again. There will be some techniques and tactics they all use, probably the gentler ones. The more extreme tactics will be used by the more fundamentalist believers.

No, it isn't, at all. I can tell you didn't grow up in a religious home, but it's a very rare thing for hate doctrine to be constantly drilled into an infant's mind, unless they're Jihadists.

...to the same ends?

This is the one with gradients running in more directions. To the end of propagating their religion, their particular version or interpretation of that religion, yes, of course.

See above. The "end" for Jihadists, and most within militant Islam, is to eliminate all non-Islamic peoples. That includes you, too, though you're much further down their list of enemies.

So many religions are full of, if not based on ideas that range from obviously demonstrably wrong to completely retarded to unforgivably, shamefully despicable. The only way to propagate these ideas is through indoctrination. It should be pointed out that their is a fine line between indoctrination and education if you listen to some people (mostly indoctrinators). I would offer that one encourages inclusion of ideas while the other excludes all opposing views but this distinction is easily blurred by simply including an opposing viewpoint and then including all the reasons why its wrong and dismissing it out of hand.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a great example. They sit somewhere between a church and a cult IMO. I'm not trying to be mean, they are lovely people, I've known quite a few and all were kind and generous. I noticed one thing about them: Every single one I've known was either born into the religion, or was rescued by members from being some kind of addict, drink or drugs. I think some were homeless but also addicts. The point is they were all brought in while they were vulnerable. Either children in a captive audience, or down and desperate in need of food, shelter and kindness. I have met or known zero exceptions to this rule out of maybe 30 people. Not a big sample size but only a handful of those were born into it. All the rest were addicts. Compare this to your own congregation. If 25 out of 30 are recovered addicts, you may be in a cult too.

They don't socialise much outside of their religion;
If you leave, you don't really get to go back and say hi, or keep seeing many of them socially. They don't cut you off altogether like the WBC, but don't expect to spend every holiday with your family, and expect some awkwardness if you do;
The ones I knew eschewed TV and the media. This keeps out unwanted ideas and different perspectives;
I dated one when I was at school. She was forbidden to attend a University. I believe this was because they thought they would lose her if she did;

Some days her attitude to her religion seemed to be quite casual. Like she wasn't that invested, though we never discussed it in depth (we were both 15) I never heard her express specific doubts, but there were things she would talk about that she wasn't supposed to, things would talk about doing that she wasn't allowed to etc. Then now and then, sometimes overnight her adherence to the rules would shoot back up again. It was as if they had strapped her into a machine and topped up the brainwashing.

So yes, I absolutely believe in brainwashing, I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't.

I don't like most organized religions, because a good deal of what they're about is control. But the real question is, control to do what? Force another race of people "into the sea"? Bad. Murder people of other religions so that you can have riches and orgies in heaven? Bad. Give them money so they can build a new gymnasium? Meh, neutral, at worst. Yes, there are a lot of restrictions to certain behaviors and rules to keep the faithful in line, but that's a far, far cry from telling your people to murder and maim in the name of God.

[Chongo]

Intresting article from Crisis Magazine
If It Looks Like a Duck: The Islamist-Nazi Connection - Crisis Magazine

Qaradawi is a relative latecomer to the Hitler fan club, and not even the most prominent. While the Sheik is limited to reaching across the years to congratulate the Führer, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, had only to reach across the table. There is a photo of Hitler and Husseini seated knee-to-knee in Hitler’s private office in the Reich Chancellery in November, 1941. The probable topic of conversation?—the quickest way to eliminate the Jews. Speeding up the “Final Solution” was an obsession with Husseini, and he spent hours discussing the matter with the likes of Joachin von Ribbentrop, Heinrich Himmler, and Adolf Eichmann.

The Mufti was no maverick Muslim. According to historians David Dalin and John Rothmann, “With the possible exception of King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, al-Husseini was the most eminent and influential Islamic leader in the Middle East.” (Icon of Evil, p. 5) And he was treated as such by the Nazis, who provided him with five residences and a monthly stipend of over $10,000. In return, al-Husseini recruited more than 100,000 Muslims to fight in the European division of the Waffen-SS.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course not, what makes Islamic extremism so prevalent is because it's so widely embraced across that section of the world. When the news says, "Religious militants blew up a plane in Istanbul", the first thought is, "Was it Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Some new Muslim faction?", not, "Uh oh, those crazy Methodists are up to shit again!"

You are correct in that globally, the percentage of the muslim population with extremist tendencies, or susceptible to develop them is far higher than the Christian equivalent.

I would point out that in the UK when the news reported a bomb or explosion within the UK for the first 20 or so years of my life, there was that same kind of reaction: "Oh, what have the Irish blown up this time?" Hasn't been the case for 10 years now but hardly ancient history.

I would also ask as to your first thought when you hear your news report a bombing or shooting at or outside an abortion practitioner.


Its true that there are Islamic countries where these messages of hate are the government/national religion's agenda. Its also true that 60 years ago in England a big percentage of our population would have happily done unspeakable things to anyone German. This sentiment was reduced to mockery and overly intense football rivalry by about 30 years ago, now its pretty much gone altogether. It takes a generation or two for the fallout to fade.

Those messages of hate are a part of the self preservative control of religious and political leaders. Binding the people together against a common enemy stops them fighting amongst themselves and distracts them from anything untoward their leaders might be doing. In principle its not unlike Fox News (!) Fear and hate are interchangeable, except when you have successfully taught everyone that they have nothing to fear from death, then you only have hate as an option.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well as you and I both know, poll numbers depend on what question was asked. The % you get when asking Palestinians if they want to see the restoration of ALL of Palestine to their control can be very different than the % you get if you ask them would they rather have a Two State solution on SOME of Palestine vs continued Occupation in SOME of Palestine. The first is a question based on PRINCIPLE. The latter is a question based on PRACTICALITY. I surmise if you asked Native Americans similar questions you might get very similar results.

Not convincing. The bottom line is, they want the entire region once referred to as "Palestine" even though "Palestine" referred to many different sects of people. In fact, per the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911; "Palestine’s population was composed of so widely differing a group of inhabitants whose ethnological affinities create early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages." However, it was sparse and undeveloped as noted by multiple historians. Jews immigrated to the region, paid exorbitant amounts of money for land, and began developing it which in turn would draw Arabs to share in the opportunity created by the Jewish settlers. Over time, Arab populations began to multiply and tensions began to grow. While there had been no particular Arab ties to the region, they soon were no longer satisfied sharing in the prosperity developed by Jewish settlers.

Now it's no secret that on the matter of PRINCIPLE I think the creation of the State of Israel was fundamentally unjust. It wasn't the Palestinians' fault that European Christians and European Jews couldn't get along.

By your logic, there is no such thing as a fundamentally just nation creation. First - there was no "Palestinian". This is the fundamental point people seem to be missing. The entire notion is about 70 years old, fabricated from thin air. "Palestinians" were all manner of ethnicities and languages. The only historic tie to the region is Jewish -- dig deep enough into the soil and you'll find Davidian artifacts. They were run out, the region left to ruin, and they returned, bringing opportunity with them.

From everyday religious discrimination and societal marginalization, to the Spanish Inquisition, culminating in the Holocaust. Forgive my bluntness ... but that was some white people sh*t! So this fundamentally European problem shouldn't have been solved by colonizing the land of Palestinians who had nothing to do with it. It's just that simple! And make no mistake about it ... Israel is essentially a European colony in the Middle East.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I mean, I see your racist blathering as if black people aren't actively enslaving black people to this day or that the most egregious players on the globe today are decidedly non-white or that blacks had no role in bolstering their own lucrative trade throughout history, but I don't really see how you connect the holocaust with Zionism. They had cultivated the land into something other than a desolate wasteland of swamps and malaria, yes. For that the British originally favored them as the most effective stewards of the region, and it followed logically -- because they were.

That being said, on the matter of PRACTICALITY I certainly recognize that the State of Israel is a fait d'accompli.

I've never asked this before, OAW, but are you religious? i.e. Christian, Buddhist, Muslim?

Much like a Native American would about the U.S. And I expect most Palestinians recognize this about Israel. I just find it hard to believe that the vast majority of Palestinians don't realize that Israel isn't going anywhere! People just aren't that stupid IMO. So with that in mind, perhaps the Palestinian opposition to a Two-State solution is rooted in the fact that the so-called "peace process" is not only bearing little fruit for them ... but the fruit is actually getting smaller. As part of the Oslo Accords in 1993 the PLO recognized the right of Israel to exist and renounced armed resistance ... and Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and negotiation partner. The Palestinian National Authority was created as an interim government for the West Bank and Gaza. And a 5 year timeframe was set for "permanent status negotiations" which would resolve the thorniest issues such as Israeli settlements, Security, Borders, Jerusalem, and the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. So here it is 21 years later and what do Palestinians have to show for it? Israeli settlements continue to encroach upon the West Bank and East Jerusalem in violation of international law, Gaza has been under constant blockade and periodic siege since 2007, Israel won't even discuss Palestinian refugees returning to their homes (many of which are occupied today by Israeli settlers) lest the "Jewish Majority" be threatened, and final borders can't be negotiated because Israel is too busy encroaching upon the remaining Palestinian land thereby creating de facto borders outside the the so-called "peace process".

Since much of the above appears to be an ad hoc copy-paste out of Wikipedia, you no doubt happened across the PLO's Ten Point Program seeking to return all of the area of Palestine to Arab authority. In our revisionist history, let's of course forget that within 10 days of the signing of the Oslo Accords, the first victim of terrorism would occur and attacks against Israel escalated. Why? The PLO never intended on following through with the Accords.

Originally Posted by Yasser Arafat, Johannesburg mosque, May 10th, 1994

When asked how he could sign an agreement with Israel;

“In the name of Allah…believe me, there is a lot to be done. The Jihad will continue…Our main battle is Jerusalem. Jerusalem…And here we are, I can’t- and I have to speak frankly- I can’t do it alone…No, you have to come and fight and to start the Jihad to liberate Jerusalem…No, it’s not their (Jews) capital.. It is our capital. It is your capital… "This agreement, [The Oslo Agreement] I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Koreish, and you remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce ...But the same way Mohammed had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort." …From my heart, and I am telling you frankly from brother to brother, we are in need of you. We are in need of you as Moslems, as warriors of Jihad. Again I have to say…onward to victory, onward to Jerusalem! They will enter the mosque as they entered it before.’”

Yup -- deceit.

So is it any wonder that Palestinians are feeling a tad bit salty about a "Two State Solution" when they see the land available for a Palestinian state SHRINK DAILY as each new Israeli settlement is built?

I have no doubt that both sides of this issue feel salty, but that does not justify the use of deceit in agreements as a rallying call for jihad.

So I strongly disagree my friend. Israel most definitely does not WALK #1. It's WALK is clearly with #3. How else would you explain not only CONTINUED Occupation ... but also EXPANDED Occupation ... steadily and continuously throughout the entire 21+ years of the so-called "peace process"? Even if you factor in the withdrawal from Gaza into the equation it's true that the area is no longer "technically" under occupation, but it remains the world's largest open-air prison under blockade and siege ... so that's a distinction without a difference at the end of the day.

When a child stretches the lines that his parents have drawn, those lines will tighten until trust is reestablished.

I think these famous words summarize the situation quite nicely ....


OAW

I thought Arafat did a much better job of expressing the Muslim position on Israel. As for your pictures, we're talking about a plot of land the size of New Jersey, 1/3rd the size of a single Native American reservation, flanked by Arabs and Muslim hostility. Your US analog is senseless unless you want to include how we might respond to rocket-fire into our population centers. Think "Waco" and the white people shit committed by Democrats on that compound.

I think the Arab muslims in the region could be at least half as generous as the European colonists in America in allowing them this meager amount of territory.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You are correct in that globally, the percentage of the muslim population with extremist tendencies, or susceptible to develop them is far higher than the Christian equivalent.

I would point out that in the UK when the news reported a bomb or explosion within the UK for the first 20 or so years of my life, there was that same kind of reaction: "Oh, what have the Irish blown up this time?" Hasn't been the case for 10 years now but hardly ancient history.

I would also ask as to your first thought when you hear your news report a bombing or shooting at or outside an abortion practitioner.


Its true that there are Islamic countries where these messages of hate are the government/national religion's agenda. Its also true that 60 years ago in England a big percentage of our population would have happily done unspeakable things to anyone German. This sentiment was reduced to mockery and overly intense football rivalry by about 30 years ago, now its pretty much gone altogether. It takes a generation or two for the fallout to fade.

Those messages of hate are a part of the self preservative control of religious and political leaders. Binding the people together against a common enemy stops them fighting amongst themselves and distracts them from anything untoward their leaders might be doing. In principle its not unlike Fox News (!) Fear and hate are interchangeable, except when you have successfully taught everyone that they have nothing to fear from death, then you only have hate as an option.

Now you're simply making excuses, there's no way you can, with any intellectual honesty, compare the volume and severity of actions between Islamic extremists and any other religious faction in the world, within the last decade (or even two). Hell, if you add up all the incidents within the last 50 years it's still well over 100 to 1. What's worse, as technology advances, so does the potency of their bombs and other weapons. If we don't react in a unified manner soon, it won't matter. When a small nuke levels half of London (or NYC, or Berlin, or Paris), will that be enough to convince most of you? I guarantee whichever country they hit first will be ready, it's only a matter of time.

[subego]

The one thing we have going for us in that department is unexploded nukes "broadcast" their location radioactively,

[Shaddim]

It only take 300kgs of lead to sufficiently shield enough weapons grade material to blow up a city the size of Toledo.

[subego]

True, but that right there makes it harder to move into position.

Nobody cares about Toledo, anyways.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Now you're simply making excuses, there's no way you can, with any intellectual honesty, compare the volume and severity of actions between Islamic extremists and any other religious faction in the world, within the last decade (or even two). Hell, if you add up all the incidents within the last 50 years it's still well over 100 to 1.

This is like saying I can't compare a biplane to a space shuttle. Clearly these things are worlds apart but they both have wings and cockpits and engines and they both fly. And one wouldn't exist if the other hadn't existed first.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What's worse, as technology advances, so does the potency of their bombs and other weapons. If we don't react in a unified manner soon, it won't matter.

That was one of my points though. If the crusaders or the inquisition had that sort of tech, you really think they wouldn't have used it?
If there was an entire sprawling 'Abortion City' (not that there would ever be a need for such a thing) and one of those people who likes to blow up clinics had a nuke, you think they wouldn't use it today?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

When a small nuke levels half of London (or NYC, or Berlin, or Paris), will that be enough to convince most of you? I guarantee whichever country they hit first will be ready, it's only a matter of time.

I don't think anyone is saying that there aren't such people in the world, I'm certainly not. If anything I'm saying there is more of them than you realise. But you can't wipe out a population because you assert that some of them would nuke a city if they had a nuke to do it with. Thats outrageous.

[Chongo]

Interesting article on CNN
This time, Gaza fighting is 'proxy war' for the Mideast - CNN.com

(CNN) -- The conflict raging in Gaza is different this time.

While Hamas' rocket attacks and Israel's military actions may look familiar, they're taking place against a whole new backdrop.

"This is unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict," says CNN's Ali Younes, an analyst who has covered the region for decades. "Most Arab states are actively supporting Israel against the Palestinians -- and not even shy about it or doing it discreetly."

It's a "joint Arab-Israeli war consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia against other Arabs -- the Palestinians as represented by Hamas."

As the New York Times put it, "Arab leaders, viewing Hamas as worse than Israel, stay silent."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is like saying I can't compare a biplane to a space shuttle. Clearly these things are worlds apart but they both have wings and cockpits and engines and they both fly. And one wouldn't exist if the other hadn't existed first.

Again, there with the dishonesty. A shuttle, or even just a Boeing 777, has evolved far beyond the reach and capabilities of the biplane to the point that the latter is an entirely different machine. If you crash a biplane into a huge, let's say skyscraper, you'll break a lot of glass, do some slight structural damage, maybe kill a few people at the point of impact, but mostly just create a headache for the insurance adjuster. A 777, OTOH... well, we saw what happens when one of those... umm, yeah...

That was one of my points though. If the crusaders or the inquisition had that sort of tech, you really think they wouldn't have used it?
If there was an entire sprawling 'Abortion City' (not that there would ever be a need for such a thing) and one of those people who likes to blow up clinics had a nuke, you think they wouldn't use it today?

The Crusades ended centuries ago, maybe they would have used those things, we really don't know. The holy sites were important to them, however, so it makes sense that they likely wouldn't have just blown them to bits. Same for today, there is no "Abortion City" and the "What Ifs" are simply even more misdirection, because they don't address the problems we actually have, today. It's speculation vs reality, conjecture vs fact.

I don't think anyone is saying that there aren't such people in the world, I'm certainly not. If anything I'm saying there is more of them than you realise. But you can't wipe out a population because you assert that some of them would nuke a city if they had a nuke to do it with. Thats outrageous.

The 1,000s of bombings in the last decade, the murders in the streets (some even targeting others of their own faith), the open and verified daily threats (that are all too often carried out), are only symptoms of the problem, or disease, and that's blind religious fanaticism. If a Christian or Jewish group were behaving like this, indoctrinating their people with hate and war, vowing to kill all non-believers, I'd feel the same way. I love Native Americans, I'm 1/8th NA, but if any tribe in the USA were doing this shit (suicide bombs, lobbing mortars into major cities, spouting volumes of hate speech), do you think for a moment it would be tolerated, that we'd reach out and try to appease them, let alone give them 1/3rd of the country back? Hell no, they'd be on the receiving end of Hellfire missiles, carpet-bombed to oblivion, and pushing up daisies by the end of the year. Any other sovereign nation with the capability would do the same, England's own record in dealing with such matters in the 20th century is brutal, but you scream when Israel dares to even put up a fraction of the resistance. Such hypocrisy.

This isn't about ideological differences, or cultural misunderstandings, it's about a large rogue sect (Jihadists), to which a vast majority of a people in a region belong (Palestinians), that decided long ago that they're going to eradicate another race/culture (Jews), at any cost, with no quarter granted. Why? Because their holy men brainwashed them into believing that God said so, and if they don't wipe out all traces of Infidels from the entire region (and ultimately the whole Earth), they won't go to heaven. "But, but, the old testament has nasty things too!" Yeah, but they aren't the primary focus of what's taught about the religion. That IS, it's constantly being drilled into their brains from the moment they're born.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Intersting artice on CNN
This time, Gaza fighting is 'proxy war' for the Mideast - CNN.com

They're over it too. What a coincidence, it's funny how Palestinian supporters here were just saying how, "the mood in Europe is different now! Israel is losing support here. The winds are shifting!" Is that so? Well, it's different in the M.E. too, they've had enough of Hamas and the Palestinians and want them gone, even if it means silently supporting Israel (except for Egypt, who isn't being silent at all). "Hamas makes us sick! We cannot tolerate them anymore!" Geez, it's about time.

[subego]

I have to echo what Shaddim said. There is no way the Crusaders would have used nukes.

One of the more ironic, and hence poorly understood aspects of war is that if it's okay for you to destroy something, then it's not worth fighting over.

[Chongo]

The Romans did not have modern tech yet the managed to eliminate entire populations. "Carthaginian Peace"

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Again, there with the dishonesty. A shuttle, or even just a Boeing 777, has evolved far beyond the reach and capabilities of the biplane to the point that the latter is an entirely different machine. If you crash a biplane into a huge, let's say skyscraper, you'll break a lot of glass, do some slight structural damage, maybe kill a few people at the point of impact, but mostly just create a headache for the insurance adjuster. A 777, OTOH... well, we saw what happens when one of those... umm, yeah...

First off, I'm not being dishonest just because you don't agree with me. That isn't what dishonest means. I actually stated that the two items I compared were worlds apart. Doesn't mean they don't have anything in common. Or that one isn't a stepping stone to the other.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The Crusades ended centuries ago, maybe they would have used those things, we really don't know. The holy sites were important to them, however, so it makes sense that they likely wouldn't have just blown them to bits. Same for today, there is no "Abortion City" and the "What Ifs" are simply even more misdirection, because they don't address the problems we actually have, today. It's speculation vs reality, conjecture vs fact.

Conjecture vs opinion but point taken. You however are conjecturing that an entire population of people would happily fire nuclear weapons at other groups of people. And you are still advocating their complete annihilation on the strength of this conjecture.
Building nukes isn't as hard as you might think. The only tricky part is getting enough fissile material together and that is only really a case of time. They've had more than enough time and people and expertise if they really wanted to do it so badly. Again I'm not stating that none of them would, but if it were really that many, I think they would have managed it by now.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The 1,000s of bombings in the last decade, the murders in the streets (some even targeting others of their own faith), the open and verified daily threats (that are all too often carried out), are only symptoms of the problem, or disease, and that's blind religious fanaticism. If a Christian or Jewish group were behaving like this, indoctrinating their people with hate and war, vowing to kill all non-believers, I'd feel the same way. I love Native Americans, I'm 1/8th NA, but if any tribe in the USA were doing this shit (suicide bombs, lobbing mortars into major cities, spouting volumes of hate speech), do you think for a moment it would be tolerated, that we'd reach out and try to appease them, let alone give them 1/3rd of the country back? Hell no, they'd be on the receiving end of Hellfire missiles, carpet-bombed to oblivion, and pushing up daisies by the end of the year. Any other sovereign nation with the capability would do the same,

And I think you'd find that plenty of Americans among many others would have something to say about trying to eradicate an entire race on American soil due to the actions of a few members of that race. I think you'd be incredibly dishonest if you didn't think so too.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

England's own record in dealing with such matters in the 20th century is brutal, but you scream when Israel dares to even put up a fraction of the resistance. Such hypocrisy.

I think you'll have to give me some specifics to back that statement up. I don't recall us carpet bombing any part of Ireland in retaliation against the IRA. Also if you look back through the thread you'll see that screaming is nowhere close to what I said about Israel. I said they were being heavy-handed and disproportionate and that public opinion outside the US was starting to turn against them as a result. I hardly call that screaming. You on the other hand seem to be far more murderous towards the Palestinians than Israel is.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This isn't about ideological differences, or cultural misunderstandings, it's about a large rogue sect (Jihadists), to which a vast majority of a people in a region belong (Palestinians), that decided long ago that they're going to eradicate another race/culture (Jews), at any cost, with no quarter granted. Why? Because their holy men brainwashed them into believing that God said so, and if they don't wipe out all traces of Infidels from the entire region (and ultimately the whole Earth), they won't go to heaven.

It seems the real root of our disagreement is that we have different ideas about what proportion of Palestinians has truly murderous/genocidal tendencies towards Israel and the Jews.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"But, but, the old testament has nasty things too!" Yeah, but they aren't the primary focus of what's taught about the religion.

Not any more, no. And when they were more prominent there wasn't another power around who could have chosen to wipe Christianity out wholesale. Nowadays, most of them have moved on to a state where that isn't a focus of the religion any more. Don't other people deserve the chance to evolve beyond their primitive beliefs?

Now if you were to advocate the use of Snipers, assassins and the occasional drone to take out these religious leaders responsible for the brainwashing, I'd have no complaints about that.

[Chongo]

WTF?

Speaker David Horowitz was speaking at UC San Diego when he was confronted by a Muslim student from the crowd. In her opening statement, the student mentions an ‘Annual Hitler Youth Week” where they parade around campus in Muslim outfits with a God Bless Hitler sign. When asked if she would condemn Hamas, an organization denounced by the United States, Canada, and the UK, as a terrorist organization, she is unable to condemn it. Finally when asked the same thing regarding Hezbollah, which is also condemned in the same way, by the same countries… her reaction is exactly as expected.

Radical Muslim UCSD student - YouTube

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

@ebuddy

I don't see the evidence you lay out as necessarily invalidating my claims.

My primary claim is prime real estate.

In biblical times it was green. Just like it shows on your map. It wasn't as prime as the Nile or the Fertile Crescent, but it was still very good compared to the surrounding desert, has multiple sea ports, and is not only a land passage avoiding the mountains, it's also one of the key choke points for overland travel. This is the primary reason you've had so many major battles take place here. It has vast strategic value.

From reading what you wrote, being desert in the 19th century had to do with the nomadic Bedouin population seeing farming communities as ripe for the pillage. If agricultural endeavors get burnt to the ground by raiders, you're going to have desolation. That doesn't mean the land is bad for growing, or that there's no access to water. In fact, I'd posit the opposite. The Bedouins wouldn't have had anyone to raid unless there was a decent place for peasants to set up shop. IOW, what I said: Israel is, and always has been, prime real estate.

The second point is the Jewish immigration into the region, which led to that agricultural land being reclaimed.

Does that population deserve something for having done that? No question. As you pointed out, it created an environment the non-nomadic residents were attracted to and allowed to flourish.

If what they get 75 years after they immigrate is the right to run the country, that's going to piss the "natives" off, regardless of the benefits they may have provided.

We've done far better with Manhattan island than the natives ever could. Should they be happy with that and overlook the lack of representation? Note, this isn't supposed to be exactly analogous, but being extreme, puts the point I'm getting at in sharper relief.

I generally agree with your analysis above. IMO, it follows that a people are pissed off about the follies of their failures, but at some point they will simply have to relent. While you'll rarely if ever hear about this -- the good news is we already have a control, a model for peace.

For the Arabs stuck in the prisons of their own making hinged on perpetuating the "Palestinian" fallacy, I'd recommend for them the Arab model of peace with Israel that comprises some 20+% of the Israeli population. These Arabs have equal voting rights, (including their women), seats on the Israeli Knesset including an ambassador to Finland and Deputy-Mayor of Tel Aviv in having an actual role in the governance of the region. They do not generally have the food and water shortages or overall poverty and other complications cited by their brethren a mere couple of miles away and in fact comprise some of the most prosperous of Arabs throughout the entire Middle East. Amazingly, during the 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars -- literally none took up arms against Israel and in fact took over civilian responsibilities for reservists called away to fight. While challenges remain, not unlike tensions even in the US from time to time -- this is a much more effective model than the one the global community insists on foisting upon both parties throughout Israel.

[subego]

Let me add in how the Druzes not only integrate themselves, they do it to the point the Israelis really like them.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not convincing. The bottom line is, they want the entire region once referred to as "Palestine" even though "Palestine" referred to many different sects of people. In fact, per the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911; "Palestine’s population was composed of so widely differing a group of inhabitants whose ethnological affinities create early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages."

A quote that is often bandied about that conveniently omits a critical bit of context. Of the various ethnic groups living in Palestine which comprised the overwhelming majority? The historical record is clear that Arabs were the clear and undisputed majority in the region for approximately 1300 years prior to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

However, it was sparse and undeveloped as noted by multiple historians. Jews immigrated to the region, paid exorbitant amounts of money for land, and began developing it which in turn would draw Arabs to share in the opportunity created by the Jewish settlers. Over time, Arab populations began to multiply and tensions began to grow. While there had been no particular Arab ties to the region, they soon were no longer satisfied sharing in the prosperity developed by Jewish settlers.

This has about a much credibility of the Boer claim that South Africa was "sparse and largely unpopulated".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By your logic, there is no such thing as a fundamentally just nation creation. First - there was no "Palestinian". This is the fundamental point people seem to be missing. The entire notion is about 70 years old, fabricated from thin air. "Palestinians" were all manner of ethnicities and languages. The only historic tie to the region is Jewish -- dig deep enough into the soil and you'll find Davidian artifacts. They were run out, the region left to ruin, and they returned, bringing opportunity with them.

Ok. First of all I'm not going to play this semantic game over the term "Palestinian" where Israeli apologists attempt to muddy the waters by claiming (somewhat validly) that a "Palestinian" national identity in the Western sense of the term is a relatively recent development. Because, quite frankly, that is utterly beside the point. The issue is about the dispossession of land of the local indigenous population. Call them whatever you want but that simply isn't going to change the fact that there was a native population that lived there ... and a foreign population that immigrated there.. As for your "the only historic tie to the region is Jewish" ... that is such a preposterous position to take that I'm actually quite astonished that you would say something so demonstrably false.

The diaspora began with the 6th century B.C. conquest of the ancient Kingdom of Judah by Babylon, the destruction of the First Temple (c. 586 B.C.), and the expulsion of the population, as stated in the Bible. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, allowed the Jews to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Another group of Jews fled to Egypt, where they settled in the Nile delta. From 597 B.C. onwards, there were three distinct groups of Hebrews: a group in Babylon and other parts of the Middle East, a group in Judaea, and another group in Egypt. While Cyrus the Persian allowed the Jews to return to their homeland in 538 B.C., most chose to remain in Babylon. A large number of Jews in Egypt became mercenaries in Upper Egypt on an island called the Elephantine. Most of these Jews retained their religion, identity, and social customs; both under the Persians and the Greeks, they were allowed to conduct their lives according to their own laws.[3]

In 63 B.C., Judah/Judaea became a 'protectorate' of Rome, and in 6 B.C. was organized as a Roman province. The Jews began to revolt against the Roman Empire in 66 AD during the period known as the First Jewish–Roman War which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. During the siege, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem.[4] In 132 A.D., the Jews rebelled against Hadrian. In 135 A.D., Hadrian's army defeated the Jewish armies and Jewish independence was lost. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there, and Hadrian changed the country's name from Judea to Syria Palaestina.[5]

Jewish diaspora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So right there we see that it was a wrap on the Jewish control of the area at the hands of the Romans early in the second century AD. Oh and did I mention that the recorded history of Palestine began in approximately 3000 BC when the area was called Canaan? And the Jews didn't conquer the Canaanites until 1125 BC? That the Jews have only ever controlled a land with over 5000 years of recorded history approximately 400-500 years prior to the creation of the modern day State of Israel? That the freaking Romans controlled Palestine for 700 years which was longer than Jewish control? So considering the fact that Muslim Arab armies conquered Palestine and Jerusalem in 638 BC ... how exactly do the Arabs which have been the majority population in Palestine in the approximately 1300 years since manage to have no historical ties to the region ... yet the Jews who only controlled the region for approximately 30-40% of that timeframe have the only historical ties that matter in your estimation? Because IMO that's a pretty neat trick.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I have no clue what you're talking about. I mean, I see your racist blathering as if black people aren't actively enslaving black people to this day or that the most egregious players on the globe today are decidedly non-white or that blacks had no role in bolstering their own lucrative trade throughout history, but I don't really see how you connect the holocaust with Zionism. They had cultivated the land into something other than a desolate wasteland of swamps and malaria, yes. For that the British originally favored them as the most effective stewards of the region, and it followed logically -- because they were.

What I'm connecting is centuries of European anti-Semitism (which ultimately culminated in the Holocaust) which significantly influenced the development of Zionism as an ideology. This certainly isn't some novel concept coming way out of left field.

Zionism is a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel. A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority in their own nation, and to be liberated from antisemitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that had historically occurred in the diaspora. Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement, and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired state in Palestine, then an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire.

Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Follow me? So now I'll reiterate my overall point about "white people sh*t" ... aka European anti-Semitism ... with a couple of excerpts written by King Abdullah of Jordan in 1947:

Originally Posted by King Abdullah

We are told that we are inhumane and heartless because do not accept with open arms the perhaps 200,000 Jews in Europe who suffered so frightfully under Nazi cruelty, and who even now—almost three years after war’s end—still languish in cold, depressing camps.

Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine—a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. "We have hurt these people terribly," cries the West to the East. "Won’t you please take care of them for us?"

We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore "cruel and heartless nationalists"?

We are a generous people: we are proud that "Arab hospitality" is a phrase famous throughout the world. We are a humane people: no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror. No one pities the present plight of the desperate European Jews more than we.

But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us—even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.

I will be entirely frank with you. There is one thing the Arab world simply cannot understand. Of all the nations of the earth, America is most insistent that something be done for these suffering Jews of Europe. This feeling does credit to the humanity for which America is famous, and to that glorious inscription on your Statue of Liberty.

And yet this same America—the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known—refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself!

I hope you will not think I am being bitter about this. I have tried hard to understand that mysterious paradox, and I confess I cannot. Nor can any other Arab.

Originally Posted by King Abdullah

In any event, Palestine can accept no more. The 65,000 Jews in Palestine in 1918 have jumped to 600,000 today. We Arabs have increased, too, but not by immigration. The Jews were then a mere 11 per cent of our population. Today they are one third of it.

The rate of increase has been terrifying. In a few more years—unless stopped now—it will overwhelm us, and we shall be an important minority in our own home.

Surely the rest of the wide world is rich enough and generous enough to find a place for 200,000 Jews—about one third the number that tiny, poor Palestine has already sheltered. For the rest of the world, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. For us it means national suicide.

We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?

The sorry story of the so-called "Balfour Declaration," which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the Arabs—promises made in cold print which admit no denying.

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a "national home" for an entirely foreign people.

Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.

I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.

In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered it—in 1927 almost twice as many.

But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.

In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger.

But the next year—the year of Hitler—it jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!

It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.

King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (1882-1951)

So you can see right there that from the Arab perspective a problem that was entirely European in origin was being dealt with at the expense of Palestinian control of their own land. I also find the parallels between the Arab argument against Zionist immigration in Palestine and the white conservative argument against Hispanic immigration in the USA quite striking. Just saying ... .

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've never asked this before, OAW, but are you religious? i.e. Christian, Buddhist, Muslim?

Born and raised Baptist. Catholic education in high school and college. So I am Christian ... but I am by no means a fundamentalist teeming with religiosity. My interest in religion is far more intellectual and academic in nature.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Since much of the above appears to be an ad hoc copy-paste out of Wikipedia, you no doubt happened across the PLO's Ten Point Program seeking to return all of the area of Palestine to Arab authority. In our revisionist history, let's of course forget that within 10 days of the signing of the Oslo Accords, the first victim of terrorism would occur and attacks against Israel escalated. Why? The PLO never intended on following through with the Accords.


Yup -- deceit.


I have no doubt that both sides of this issue feel salty, but that does not justify the use of deceit in agreements as a rallying call for jihad.

Again, the same can be said about Netanyahu. I'll simply reiterate my earlier post:

Three days after the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the current war in Gaza, he held a press conference in Tel Aviv during which he said, in Hebrew, according to the Times of Israel, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

So right there you have PM Netanyahu saying in Hebrew to his domestic audience that he can't envision any situation where Israel relinquishes control of Palestinian land. And that, my friend, is a recipe for continued bloodshed anyway you slice it.

OAW

[Chongo]

Map of the Ottoman Empire. No "Palestine"

[Chongo]

Nice animation of the empires of the area.
Imperial History of the Middle East - 5,000 years in 90 seconds - YouTube

[OAW]

^^^^

::::: sigh ::::::

I'm going to speak very slowly so that this very basic concept doesn't elude you ok? The region known as Palestine hasn't existed as an independent nation state outside of a larger political entity for millennia. But that certainly doesn't mean the existence of the indigenous population is akin to pink unicorns.

OAW

[Chongo]

It never existed as an independent state. The Romans called the region Palestine after the Philistines specifically to piss off the the Jews. The West Bank was part of Judea and Samaria. It is the parable of the ""Good Samaritan", not the "Good Palestinian" Any indigenous peoples were mostly Bedouin, Hashemite and nomadic

[OAW]

Under that particular NAME no. But the region itself has been an independent nation before. Just not in a very long time. In any event, these semantic games are quite tiresome. The issue is that one group of people have LIVED THERE for the last 1300 years. And another group of FOREIGN SETTLERS immigrated in the last century or so. It's not rocket science.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

First off, I'm not being dishonest just because you don't agree with me. That isn't what dishonest means. I actually stated that the two items I compared were worlds apart. Doesn't mean they don't have anything in common. Or that one isn't a stepping stone to the other.

You use intellectual dishonesty to try and further your agenda. What was isn't the same as what is, the world isn't the same anymore.

Conjecture vs opinion but point taken. You however are conjecturing that an entire population of people would happily fire nuclear weapons at other groups of people. And you are still advocating their complete annihilation on the strength of this conjecture.
Building nukes isn't as hard as you might think. The only tricky part is getting enough fissile material together and that is only really a case of time. They've had more than enough time and people and expertise if they really wanted to do it so badly. Again I'm not stating that none of them would, but if it were really that many, I think they would have managed it by now.

It is harder than you think, the CIA, IDF, and Interpol keep a lid on that. If they didn't, most of Israel would be glowing by now.

And I think you'd find that plenty of Americans among many others would have something to say about trying to eradicate an entire race on American soil due to the actions of a few members of that race. I think you'd be incredibly dishonest if you didn't think so too.

Not if they were blowing themselves up and lobbing missiles into the country. We almost destroyed 2 countries over the WTC, and then there was Pearl Harbor before that, and the Lusitania sinking before that. You really need to study your history.

I think you'll have to give me some specifics to back that statement up. I don't recall us carpet bombing any part of Ireland in retaliation against the IRA. Also if you look back through the thread you'll see that screaming is nowhere close to what I said about Israel. I said they were being heavy-handed and disproportionate and that public opinion outside the US was starting to turn against them as a result. I hardly call that screaming. You on the other hand seem to be far more murderous towards the Palestinians than Israel is.

You forgot the Boxer rebellion, the colonial rebellion(s) in India, and all the wars they fought to hold on to their empire from Malta, to S Africa, to Singapore, even at the expense of wiping out entire indigenous tribes. Why? To keep trade routes open.

It seems the real root of our disagreement is that we have different ideas about what proportion of Palestinians has truly murderous/genocidal tendencies towards Israel and the Jews.

Yep. You want to believe there's more good to them based on "feelings", whereas I'm looking at the facts, like how they keep re-electing (in landslide victories) one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world (Hamas), a group that has sworn to destroy Israel and kill every Jew in the world, by any means necessary, as their government leaders. You're right, they're such humanitarians.

Not any more, no. And when they were more prominent there wasn't another power around who could have chosen to wipe Christianity out wholesale. Nowadays, most of them have moved on to a state where that isn't a focus of the religion any more. Don't other people deserve the chance to evolve beyond their primitive beliefs?
Now if you were to advocate the use of Snipers, assassins and the occasional drone to take out these religious leaders responsible for the brainwashing, I'd have no complaints about that.

No, they don't have the chance, because it's far too risky now, never before has one person been able to kill so many. If they wait and hope that the Palestinians will grow a conscience, that they'll go against their ingrained teachings, eventually the CIA, et al. will make a big mistake, something major will slip by, and then millions of Israelis will die. It's inevitable if things are allowed to continue. The surrounding Arab states know this and that's why they're now backing up a longtime enemy, because they don't want to deal with the fallout (both figuratively and literally) of such an escalation. After that, the gloves come off and the whole M.E. will explode.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Under that particular NAME no. But the region itself has been an independent nation before. Just not in a very long time. In any event, these semantic games are quite tiresome. The issue is that one group of people have LIVED THERE for the last 1300 years. And another group of FOREIGN SETTLERS immigrated in the last century or so. It's not rocket science.

OAW

The last independent state was Judea ≈37 BC. Since then it was under Roman/Byzantine or Ottoman control. There has always been Jews (and Christians) in the Levant even after the Diaspora began.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

A quote that is often bandied about that conveniently omits a critical bit of context. Of the various ethnic groups living in Palestine which comprised the overwhelming majority? The historical record is clear that Arabs were the clear and undisputed majority in the region for approximately 1300 years prior to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

I think what you're missing here is that there is no natural claim to a region. Things work out the way they work out. If you choose never to relent and to live out a perpetual jihad, you will have eternal strife; as the Palestinian is experiencing today. If a Native American tribe for example, insisted on lobbing missiles into your community rendering you and your family in shelters much of each day, you'd see things differently.

This has about a much credibility of the Boer claim that South Africa was "sparse and largely unpopulated".

Really? Do you have a historian with some differing view of the region in the late 19th, early 20th century?

Ok. First of all I'm not going to play this semantic game over the term "Palestinian" where Israeli apologists attempt to muddy the waters by claiming (somewhat validly) that a "Palestinian" national identity in the Western sense of the term is a relatively recent development. Because, quite frankly, that is utterly beside the point. The issue is about the dispossession of land of the local indigenous population. Call them whatever you want but that simply isn't going to change the fact that there was a native population that lived there ... and a foreign population that immigrated there.. As for your "the only historic tie to the region is Jewish" ... that is such a preposterous position to take that I'm actually quite astonished that you would say something so demonstrably false.

So... at what ambiguous year does your compassion for the dispossession of indigenous peoples begin? Again, dig deep into that region and you'll find Davidian artifacts and other evidences of a dispossessed people. Surely you know this so you must have a very specific year at which your compassion begins and ends.

So right there we see that it was a wrap on the Jewish control of the area at the hands of the Romans early in the second century AD. Oh and did I mention that the recorded history of Palestine began in approximately 3000 BC when the area was called Canaan? And the Jews didn't conquer the Canaanites until 1125 BC? That the Jews have only ever controlled a land with over 5000 years of recorded history approximately 400-500 years prior to the creation of the modern day State of Israel? That the freaking Romans controlled Palestine for 700 years which was longer than Jewish control? So considering the fact that Muslim Arab armies conquered Palestine and Jerusalem in 638 BC ... how exactly do the Arabs which have been the majority population in Palestine in the approximately 1300 years since manage to have no historical ties to the region ... yet the Jews who only controlled the region for approximately 30-40% of that timeframe have the only historical ties that matter in your estimation? Because IMO that's a pretty neat trick.

Couple of problems with the above. First, I'm not sure you're giving proper regard for the fact that the region/Canaanites were primarily non-semitic people. Canaan was essentially divided in two regions; Phoenician-Canaan (coastal) and Israelite-Canaan (mountain). There was no "Arab". Canaan were otherwise, Israelites with the only "Arab" presence being tied to Lebanese. It should be noted, Lebanese generally do not consider themselves Arab. You're playing so fast and loose with this notion as to damn-near conclude that Arab = other people. This particular bloc stemming from a Mediterranean people.

The good news is, none of this matters. If you have a high regard for facts in searching out the truth, you'd be able to avoid the pitfall of trying to produce a specific year or era for your compassion. Israel was formed in part by all those human behaviors that create any enduring society and we are here, today. There are winners in this and losers. As it turns out, Arabs (by any definition you so choose) control the overwhelming majority not only of the entire region, but of its most fertile and lucrative elements. Israelis have landed their own tiny sliver of territory in the vast region and have the allies and resources to maintain it. The only route to peace is relent. That's the painful, unavoidable factor in all this. If the Native Americans were bent on perpetuating a sort of jihad, you can bet that life would be exponentially more difficult for them than even today. Had they been lobbing missiles into your community, you'd want it no other way.

What I'm connecting is centuries of European anti-Semitism (which ultimately culminated in the Holocaust) which significantly influenced the development of Zionism as an ideology. This certainly isn't some novel concept coming way out of left field.

It merely follows that a people seeking self-realization and safety in numbers would seek it among their geographical roots as soon as possible. That's exactly what happened. They've had ties to the region, in fact, more than 3700 years. When it was possible for them to do so, they did.

Follow me? So now I'll reiterate my overall point about "white people sh*t" ... aka European anti-Semitism ... with a couple of excerpts written by King Abdullah of Jordan in 1947:

No, I don't. A. Because none of it matters. and B. Because "white people shit" is nothing more than an indictment against human nature through a racist prism. White people, by virtue of their skin color, have been no more or less capable of influencing human folly than any other race. This is just racist bs. Seriously, man.

So you can see right there that from the Arab perspective a problem that was entirely European in origin was being dealt with at the expense of Palestinian control of their own land. I also find the parallels between the Arab argument against Zionist immigration in Palestine and the white conservative argument against Hispanic immigration in the USA quite striking. Just saying ... .

"Palestinians" never had control of their own region. Palestinians were ultimately comprised of semitic and non-semitic peoples of multiple ethnicities and languages. Also, what does conservatism have to do with this? Conservatives believe we have a very fundamental math problem and that someone has to be the adult in the room, even when it's not fashionable or doesn't make a bunch of fair-weather friends. Democrats are just buying votes the only way they've ever been able.

Born and raised Baptist. Catholic education in high school and college. So I am Christian ... but I am by no means a fundamentalist teeming with religiosity. My interest in religion is far more intellectual and academic in nature.

Got it.

Again, the same can be said about Netanyahu. I'll simply reiterate my earlier post:

No, actually you cannot say the same about Netanyahu. There is no Israeli jihad. No such thing. No jizya tax, no hanging of gays or dissenters, no suppression of the female vote, denials of freedom of speech or assembly, human shields...

It's fascinating to me how strong the anti-capitalist sentiment is among the left that it is willing to wholesale abandon literally all of the elements of social justice it supposedly holds most dear.

So right there you have PM Netanyahu saying in Hebrew to his domestic audience that he can't envision any situation where Israel relinquishes control of Palestinian land. And that, my friend, is a recipe for continued bloodshed anyway you slice it.

OAW

Wrong. 20+% of the Israeli population is Arab. They serve in the Israeli government, deputy-mayor of Tel Aviv, ambassador to Finland, and are among the most prosperous, freedom-loving, and peaceful Arabs throughout the entire ME.

That's your recipe for peace, should you choose to accept this over distaste for white people, the US specifically, or for capitalism in general.

[Chongo]

Sorry, the original website is in Hebrew.
‘Hand of God sent missile into sea’

‘Their God changes path of rockets in mid-air’