[PacHead]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Here's another vote for walling off Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Let em all go at it tooth and nail until no-one is left alive or both sides decide they have had enough and lay down their arms.

Sounds good to me. The palestinians would be wiped out in 3 days if that happened, and that's a conservative estimate. The restraint Israel is showing is ridiculous.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I don't understand your post. It's very unclear as to what you're talking about re: my post, since you don't actually seem to address it. How does a liberal "get smart"?? Do you mean educated? One is usually bequeathed "smartness" before they become a liberal, in my experience. Most bastions of higher learning have traditionally been known as liberal enclaves, no? Following that logic, one would think liberals would be MORE educated. Either way, it's my bet that you don't actually have any higher education, since they teach you how to present clear, concise and orderly arguments there – a skill that you're notorious for lacking, as this post clearly shows.

But, on a similar note, why do I so frequently find Conservatives to be so old?? Have you ever thought about that – most of the hardcore Conservatives on here tend to be the older people? Maybe it's the same reason why many liberal activists often tend to "go soft" as they age? More investment in society, more to lose, less interest in seeing the years of hard work go up in smoke and a soft and easy retirement life potentially disappear along with a radical shift in society?

greg

As Winston Churchill said, "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Read my post again. I didn't say that you "called anyone a dog". Notice how I word it. I also didn't say that you "called anyone subhuman or untermänchen". Again, notice how I word it.

I acknowledge that the "untermänchen" part of my post was not clear enough though so I'll fix it.

I'd never say that you called anyone that. You are wise enough politically to never do it in public.

You make the accusation that I'm a bigot. That's really what you're doing, and you're not able to back it up with evidence because it is untrue. It's still a violation of the rules, and you still owe me an apology.

Then tell me. What rosy definition of Zionist do you use? And what should I call those who still want to create Eretz Israel? What's the difference between a "Zionist" (your definition) and a person wanting to create Eretz Israel?

In case you aren't aware, Eretz Israel (The land of Israel) was founded as a state more than half a century ago. Anyone who "still wants to create" it is a little late to the party. It's been done. A zionist is simply one who supports the notion of a state of Israel.

What's outrageous about it is that you needed it pointed out. It's pretty clear from the definition of the word that no negotiations can follow a surrender.

Nonsense. How else is the peace that follows surrender determined?

But it also shows pretty well what you truly want the Palestinians to do. The following part of the definition especially:

to give up completely or agree to forgo especially in favor of another

The sooner they do, the sooner their lives will improve. That is, if they care about life: a willingness to detonate seems to indicate life isn't really that important to them.

It didn't surrender Gaza. It still controls the borders (except one crossing to Egypt), the airspace and IIRC the sea around it. That's no surrender. That's just creating a one big jail.

The Palestinians may not like the limitations that have been maintained on Gaza airspace or territorial waters. But even Egypt has limitations on its sovereignty in Sinai that are the result of security arrangements created by the 1979 Treaty of Peace. No one would argue that limitations on Egyptian authority constitute a form of "occupation." In the tight airspace of Europe, many mini-states cannot fully control their airspace alone, but must coordinate their air traffic with larger neighbors to prevent air collisions. Their sovereignty is hardly compromised by this cooperation.

Sharon is no moderate. Don't kid yourself.

Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes? He got elected on his past, and then did an about face and said publicly "The solutions of 20 years ago are not the solutions of today" and proceeded to give up territory. A more moderate you won't find, unless you find someone ready to wipe Israel off the map for you.

A more non-zionist move, there isn't.

Yes, that same international community. The problem in "finding the words to condemn terrorism" is from both sides. Both sides want to create a definition that will suite them but hurt the other. Israel does it, the US does it, Saudi Arabia does it, Iran does it. Until all these sides decide to treat all terrorism the same little will be done. But that means both sides have to give in a bit. Not just "the other side".

And "anti-Jew" fest. Could you elaborate on that a bit? Or are you confusing anti-semitism with anti-Zionism?

At the conference’s NGO forum, the Arab Lawyer’s Union freely distributed books containing cartoons of swastika-festooned Israelis and fanged, hooked-nosed Jews, blood dripping from their hands. Another best-selling title was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hundreds of flyers were distributed with a picture of Hitler and the words, "What if I had won? The good thing—there would be no Israel." Appeals to the conference’s secretary-general, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, to demand the removal of this anti-Semitic literature went unheeded.

The NGO forum at Durban did sponsor a single event on anti-Semitism, but it was disrupted by an angry mob of protesters, shouting, "You are killers! You are killers!" A news conference the following day, called by a broad range of national and international Jewish organizations, was similarly interrupted, this time for the benefit of the TV cameras, and was finally called off.

As the NGO forum drew to a close, the Jewish caucus, like all the other caucuses, submitted provisions for the conference’s final document. The group’s contribution stated that anti-Semitism could take many forms, including the equation of Zionism with racism, the attempt to de-legitimize the self-determination of the Jewish people, and the targeting of Jews throughout the world for violence because of their support of Israel. When the time finally came for a vote, a representative of the World Council of Churches called for the deletion of this language; the Jewish caucus was alone in voting against the motion. Jewish NGO’s from all over the world walked out in protest, even as representatives of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights stood by in silence. No statement proposed by any other caucus was deleted.[/quote]

That's pretty anti-Jew, not just anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist.

How will I defend them? I won't. Just like I won't defend them using terrorism in Israel, just like I won't defend them using terrorism in Palestine, just like I won't defend terrorism anywhere. But you just had to insinuate that I support terrorism didn't you? Where's my apology for that Mr. Moderator?

And lastly, please don't belittle yourself by "threatening" me with you moderator status. It's quite obvious what I said and if you can't keep your opinions on me and my kind away from your moderating then perhaps you should give up your moderator status.

Threatening you? I have never threatened you. I have defended you when people violate the rules by attacking your character.

And you continue to disparage me, and make oblique statements about some supposed prejudice against 'your kind,' whatever that may be. The only thing I hold against you is your nasty prejudices and your threats you've made in these forums both direct and vague. The most recent vague one that really was a beauty was where you told me

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

"you'll get what you deserve, and I for one can't wait for it to happen."

[Big Mac]

I frankly do not understand why the Jew-haters bother posting here. Their claims are ridiculous and their cause is untenable; they are simply wasting their time.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I've heard it put that Hell is the absense of all reason.

When surrounded by enemies who exhibit such a total lack of reason as the Isrealis have to deal with, it's got to be something like facing off against a hell on earth. I honestly don't know how they manage to be even as restrained as they are in the face of it all.

[abe]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I've heard it put that Hell is the absense of all reason.

When surrounded by enemies who exhibit such a total lack of reason as the Isrealis have to deal with, it's got to be something like facing off against a hell on earth. I honestly don't know how they manage to be even as restrained as they are in the face of it all.

I feel the same way, except that I DO see the reason behind their choice of suicide bombings as a weapon.

And I think many of the Palestinians have been fed a line of propaganda about how Israel has 'done them wrong' and they (and maybe even some of our posters here) have never ONCE given any real thought to the prospect that they might have been lied to...

...That the Palestinian protest is really nothing more than a scheme to get rid of the jews and take the land they were given by God and which they re-claimed from the desert and made arable.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by abe

...That the Palestinian protest is really nothing more than a scheme to get rid of the jews and take the land they were given by God and which they re-claimed from the desert and made arable.

And that's the funny part. Those "Palestinians" aka Jordanians wanted nothing to do with that land till the Israelis made it livable.

I honestly believe they think their God is going to punish them if they don't get the evil j00z off "their land"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by abe

As Winston Churchill said, "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

In a shocking turn of events, abe yet again fails to clarify whatever he meant in another inscrutable and/or incoherent post.

greg


Now Playing: Black Rebel Motorcycle Club – Restless Sinner

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Sounds good to me. The palestinians would be wiped out in 3 days if that happened, and that's a conservative estimate. The restraint Israel is showing is ridiculous.

If Israel wanted to have their own Holocaust, sure, that would be a great option.

It would probably also enter them into war with every other middle eastern nation which kind of lowers their odds a bit.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And that's the funny part. Those "Palestinians" aka Jordanians wanted nothing to do with that land till the Israelis made it livable.

I honestly believe they think their God is going to punish them if they don't get the evil j00z off "their land"

So do I.

[abe]

Originally Posted by goMac

If Israel wanted to have their own Holocaust, sure, that would be a great option.

It would probably also enter them into war with every other middle eastern nation which kind of lowers their odds a bit.

And THAT would help explain Israel's (non-existent) nuclear weapons arsenal. If all their neighbors tried once again to push them into the sea and Israel was close to going down for the count and no one else was there to help them they could make good on their post Holocaust vow...

Never Again.

[swrate]

Predictable, scheme in.

Palestinians have the right to a decent life and to the water wells that used to belong to them and to the land they had been using for centuries, millenaries. imo

Those prisoners, didn’t Israel promise to free them a while back? (one year, or more?)

y another ghastly story.
Trapped as in a zoo, he evaded reality with fanatic interpretations, suicide for fame, brainwashed education, conceived purposely

Are the prisoners quoted above being freed....? not too sure.



addost 666
splitting Red sea.
The problem, geshem.

Splitting…. borders,
“for their sake do not withhold water!"

[abe]

Originally Posted by swrate

Predictable, scheme in.

Palestinians have the right to a decent life and to the water wells that used to belong to them and to the land they had been using for centuries, millenaries. imo

Those prisoners, didn’t Israel promise to free them a while back? (one year, or more?)

y another ghastly story.
Trapped as in a zoo, he evaded reality with fanatic interpretations, suicide for fame, brainwashed education, conceived purposely

Are the prisoners quoted above being freed....? not too sure.



addost 666
splitting Red sea.
The problem, geshem.

Splitting…. borders,
“for their sake do not withhold water!"

The Palestinians could have their OWN NATION if they wanted it. And you know how this can happen. So stop pretending.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by swrate

centuries, millenaries

Israel has bent over backward to try to satisfy the Arabs living on the land - it even turned over political autonomy to a terrorist entity, the PLO, in order to attempt to placate them. But for the record, only a small portion of those who refer to themselves as "Palestinian" could legitimately claim their families lived on the land any earlier than the 20th Century. And what the hell are "millenaries"? You do not know the plural of the word you're looking for, so it's likely you do not know its meaning, either.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

But for the record, only a small portion of those who refer to themselves as "Palestinian" could legitimately claim their families lived on the land any earlier than the 20th Century.

Pro-Zionist using this argument always makes me smile.

Firstly because it's wrong.
And secondly because there are a lot less "Israelis" that can say that than Palestinians.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Pro-Zionist using this argument always makes me smile.

Firstly because it's wrong.
And secondly because there are a lot less "Israelis" that can say that than Palestinians.

Did you ever read From Time Immemorial? If facts are important to you, you may want to give it a chance. Remember, Joan Peters was initially sympathetic to the Arab cause, until she did the research and realized the truth.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And what the hell are "millenaries"? You do not know the plural of the word you're looking for, so it's likely you do not know its meaning, either.

There is no need for you to be rude to the lady.

She meant as "thousands of years" or, from French: "millénaires".

Being condescending is not necessary to argue a point. Less you feel insecure in your own position, that is.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Did you ever read From Time Immemorial? If facts are important to you, you may want to give it a chance. Remember, Joan Peters was initially sympathetic to the Arab cause, until she did the research and realized the truth.

From your link re: Joan Peters the author of, "From Time Immemorial."

201 of 282 people found the following review helpful:

Hired to write propaganda, wrote the truth, September 25, 2001
Reviewer: J. A Magill (Sacramento, CA USA) - See all my reviews

Joan Peters, a professional writer and researchers, received a grant from an Arab Foundation to write a history of the ancient roots of the Arab population in historic Palestine. The problem was that, when she actually began doing her research, she found that most of the common beliefs about the long history of that population are just inaccurate. In fact, she found that the majority of the current population descended from waves of migration beginning in the 19th century and peaking in the early 20th.

Peter's uses considerable primary source data, including the ottoman and British censuses and the travel journals of western visitors like Mark Twain, all of which prove that the area compromising modern day Israel and the West Bank were largely unpopulated in the 19th century and experienced waves of immigration from people looking for work.

Even more controversial, she documents the existence of ancient Jewish communities on both sides of the Jordan River, in places like Jerusalem, Gaza, Hebron, Safed, Nablus, and others. Sadly, many of these communities were forced to flee Arab violence at the turn of the century. Thus Hebron, which has boasted a continual Jewish community for over 2,500 years, had no community between 1930-67 because the Jews had to flee for their lives.

Arieh Avneri's Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs 1878-1948 adds considerable documentary evidence to this thesis and is also worth examination.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

There is no need for you to be rude to the lady.

She meant as "thousands of years" or, from French: "millénaires".

Being condescending is not necessary to argue a point. Less you feel insecure in your own position, that is.

If she's going to enter a hot political topic, make factual misstatements and misspell English words while doing so, such a response should be expected.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If she's going to enter a hot political topic, make factual misstatements and misspell English words while doing so, such a response should be expected.

You really are full of yourself: "Big" is probably an understatement though.

Thanks for making "discussion" an uninteresting activity in your presence.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

You really are full of yourself: "Big" is probably an understatement though.

Thanks for making "discussion" an uninteresting activity in your presence.

Since you have added nothing of merit, I'll take your word of thanks as a compliment and hope you've learned to stay out of substantive discourses.

[abe]

After yesterday's terrorist attack in Israel, the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority expressed approval and declared that the continued slaughter of Israeli innocents was justified as a matter of "self-defense". Today, Hamas has gone even further, demanding an apology from PA President Abbas because he condemned the act as "despicable" (via LGF). Somehow I doubt even this will change the minds of those who think Hamas can be reformed.

More from FoxNews: Israelis Blame Hamas for Bombing.

Israel said Tuesday that it holds the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority responsible for the deadliest homocide bombing in nearly two years and debated whether to target it directly as an "enemy entity" -- even though the attack was carried out by a different militant group.
Monday's blast outside a packed Tel Aviv fast-food restaurant killed nine civilians and wounded dozens during the Jewish Passover holiday, and troop reinforcements were deployed across Israel for fear of more attacks. The 21-year-old bomber, a West Bank university dropout, was sent by the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad group.

Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, warned that the Hamas government's verbal support for the bombing, as well as recent statements by Iran and Syria, "are clear declarations of war, and I urge each and every one of you to listen carefully and take them at face value." Gillerman said a new "axis of terror" -- Iran, Syria and the Hamas government -- was sowing the seeds of the first world war of the 21st century. ...

Hamas officials have defended the blast as a justified response to Israeli military strikes against the Palestinians. Hamas, which has carried out scores of homicide bombings in Israel since the early 1990s, has largely observed a truce since last year, but refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel. Hamas officials also have said they would not try to stop or arrest members of other militant groups trying to carry out attacks. ...

The bomb, laced with nails and other projectiles, shattered car windshields, smashed windows of nearby buildings and blew away the restaurant's sign. Glass shards and blood splattered the ground. Police said the guard was torn in half by the blast.

Six Israelis and two Romanian workers were among those killed. One woman was killed while standing near her husband and children who were wounded, witnesses said.

In Gaza, Islamic Jihad militants handed out pastries on the streets in celebration.

Meanwhile, Qatar joins, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates in providing financial support to the Hamas terrorist government of the Palestinians. (via Michelle Malkin)

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000824.html

[Taliesin]

This last suicide-bombing shows that the palestinian government is not willing to protect Israel, and Israel is not willing to leave the westbank (and Gaza's airspace), so why does Israel, which is obviously the stronger party here, not just stop all the hypocrisis and abolishs the palestinian government and annexes all of the Westbank and Gaza, and gives the palestinians the same rights as they give to the rest of the israelis?

"Oh, but then there would be just as many arabs as there are jews in Israel and in the future maybe even more, and then it's possible that Israel ceases to be a jewish state..."

Big deal, get over it, turn the israeli state into a strictly secular state, prohibit on constitution-level the establishment of anything but a representative democracy and fortify the rights of jews, christians and muslims to their private religion, freedom of expression, building of synagogues, churches and mosques, and prohibit the founding of political parties on religious or ethnic grounds, and define these parts of the constitution as unchangeable... and become a modern, secular, liberal and constitutional democracy.

Taliesin

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

This last suicide-bombing shows that the palestinian government is not willing to protect Israel, and Israel is not willing to leave the westbank (and Gaza's airspace), so why does Israel, which is obviously the stronger party here, not just stop all the hypocrisis and abolishs the palestinian government and annexes all of the Westbank and Gaza, and gives the palestinians the same rights as they give to the rest of the israelis?

"Oh, but then there would be just as many arabs as there are jews in Israel and in the future maybe even more, and then it's possible that Israel ceases to be a jewish state..."

Big deal, get over it, turn the israeli state into a strictly secular state, prohibit on constitution-level the establishment of anything but a representative democracy and fortify the rights of jews, christians and muslims to their private religion, freedom of expression, building of synagogues, churches and mosques, and prohibit the founding of political parties on religious or ethnic grounds, and define these parts of the constitution as unchangeable... and become a modern, secular, liberal and constitutional democracy.

Taliesin

Maybe being the "chosen" people somehow does not help that process...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Big deal, get over it, turn the israeli state into a strictly secular state, prohibit on constitution-level the establishment of anything but a representative democracy and fortify the rights of jews, christians and muslims. . .

I respect you, Taliesin, so I would like to get your opinion on the following response to your utopian conception:

1. Israel falsely legitimized Arafat and his murderous cause in 1993. The PA was granted autonomous rule over the territories not long thereafter. As a result, more Israelis have been wounded and killed since those accords than in the previous forty plus years of Israel's existence. So what makes you think giving that population full political power would help stabilize the situation?

2. Fatah, the poorly veiled covert terrorist entity, was voted out decisively in favor of Hamas, an overt terrorist entity. That exercise in democracy represented a mandate in favor of genocidal initiatives against Israel. So what makes you think granting that population full political power would make it suddenly not hate the Jewish population?

3. The Arabs under the PA have no tradition of liberal governance and consequently no understanding or appreciation of the rights, liberties and political culture of civil government. So what makes you think that it would be possible to integrate that population into a civil state?

4. Moreover, what makes you think the second the Arabs were to achieve demographic superiority they would not change the name of the country to Palestine, institute Sharia and usher in a period of persecution to rival the Holocaust?

5. Fifty-two countries on the planet are Islamic ones, of which twenty-two are ethnically Arab. There is one Jewish country, and the impetus for its creation was the world's inaction over marching us into ovens. Now, if the Jewish people ever attempted to assert an Islamic/Arab country belonged to us, we all know essentially what the Islamic response would be. So can you possibly claim it is fair to insist that the people of Israel give up the land of Israel to become subjected yet again to the will of those who wish to see us perish?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I respect you, Taliesin, so I would like to get your opinion on the following response to your utopian conception:

1. Israel falsely legitimized Arafat and his murderous cause in 1993. The PA was granted autonomous rule over the territories not long thereafter. As a result, more Israelis have been wounded and killed since those accords than in the previous forty plus years of Israel's existence. So what makes you think giving that population full political power would help stabilize the situation?

But that's the point, exclusion made things worse for Israel, so why not try inclusion? Obviously both people, palestinians and israelis want to have access to the same land and water, so why not working towards the goal of making that possible in a peaceful way.

Israel thought it could keep the palestinians in a state of pseudo-autonomy while Israel remained in control of the water, checkpoints, airspace and the best parts of the arable land. Obviously it didn't work without provoking resistance and terrorism from the encircled palestinians.

There are two contrary ideologies at work here, zionism and islamism. Both ideoligies need a ckeck and moderation with reality.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

2. Fatah, the poorly veiled covert terrorist entity, was voted out decisively in favor of Hamas, an overt terrorist entity. That exercise in democracy represented a mandate in favor of genocidal initiatives against Israel. So what makes you think granting that population full political power would make it suddenly not hate the Jewish population?

That's to be expected from a territory under occupation, where militancy goes hand in hand with political parties. In my socalled utopic solution, there has to be first a complete demilitarisation-process going on among the civilian population, and political parties have to ground their manifests on political, social and/or economic foundations, and explicitly not on ethnic or religious ones, in order to be granted access to the election-process.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

3. The Arabs under the PA have no tradition of liberal governance and consequently no understanding or appreciation of the rights, liberties and political culture of civil government. So what makes you think that it would be possible to integrate that population into a civil state?

Time, experience, adaption and education will do it. They will have to do it, in order to be even able to found a political party not grounded on ethnic and/or religious foundations, as will the jews in Israel have to do.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

4. Moreover, what makes you think the second the Arabs were to achieve demographic superiority they would not change the name of the country to Palestine, institute Sharia and usher in a period of persecution to rival the Holocaust?

How should they do that, if every political organization is enforced to be per definition secular and non-ethnical, and if every religious organization that might be founded in mosques, churches or synagogues are strictly controlled and banned, and eventually dismanteled if they start to eye political fields?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

5. Fifty-two countries on the planet are Islamic ones, of which twenty-two are ethnically Arab. There is one Jewish country, and the impetus for its creation was the world's inaction over marching us into ovens. Now, if the Jewish people ever attempted to assert an Islamic/Arab country belonged to us, we all know essentially what the Islamic response would be. So can you possibly claim it is fair to insist that the people of Israel give up the land of Israel to become subjected yet again to the will of those who wish to see us perish?

It's not fair, just as it's not fair to measure up palestinians against other muslims or arabs, and to expect them simply to leave their homeland.

It was actually Britain, a christian country, that had control of Palestine and that allowed zionistic organizations to operate in Palestine in order to create a jewish homeland.

I don't know how many christian countries there are in the world, but wouldn't it have been just as much to expect from all britains to leave the UK and to let instead zionists create their jewish home there?

Hey, that's actually a great idea, let all Britains leave the islands and relocate Israel to Britain. That would have the nice side-effect of solving the british-irish-conflict, too. There would be no conflict anymore, all would have to leave anyway for new homes among the, I don't know how many, christian countries.

But beware to take a mackintosh (no misspelling, and no pun intended) with you.

No, seriously, my utopic solution is definitely a dream, but it would have many benifits, Jerusalem could remain undivided, muslims and jews would learn to solve their problems politically and peacefully, and learn (rather forced) to keep apart religion from politics..

Taliesin

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Israel has bent over backward to try to satisfy the Arabs living on the land - it even turned over political autonomy to a terrorist entity, the PLO, in order to attempt to placate them. But for the record, only a small portion of those who refer to themselves as "Palestinian" could legitimately claim their families lived on the land any earlier than the 20th Century. And what the hell are "millenaries"? You do not know the plural of the word you're looking for, so it's likely you do not know its meaning, either.

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?Se...rd=millenaries
non, bien sûr, ça ne vaut pas la peine, millenia, milleniums....

Millenaries, exactly what I meant, 3? 4? more then a millenary.
since the time of Seti 18th century, and before, the Gazza strip, has been under different dominations, as Hebron, Canaan …
Amarna letters and other sources describe how the kings of the cities used to fight (Ascalon, Sichem, Megiddo, Akko, their problems with the shasus & habirus, in neutral zones.
To find out what sort of populations lived there, archaeologists examine potteries, the burial customs, etc…. Israel Finkelstein has done interesting studies with descriptions and datations.
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2001/2001-7.html

[http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2001-7.pdf11]
.

Polemics aside, the scientific basis for the Low Chronology begins an earlier study by Finkelstein (1995) which concludes that Philistine Monochrome pottery, conventionally dated to ca. 1175-1150 BCE, was introduced into southern Canaan only after the withdrawal of Twentieth Dynasty Egypt, not during the waning years of the Egyptian presence which the generally accepted Albright-Alt model holds. Pointing to the absence of Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome sherds at Lachish Stratum VI and Tel Sera Stratum IX, both of which attest to a Twentieth Dynasty Egyptian occupation, Finkelstein asserts that Philistine occupation in the region must have occurred only after the Egyptian presence had withdrawn. Thus, he says, the date for Philistine Monochrome pottery should be revised to ca. 1135-1100 BCE or later. Consequently, the presence of later developing Bichrome Philistine pottery in southern Canaan should be lowered from late-twelfth, early-eleventh centuries BCE to late-eleventh, early-tenth centuries BCE (1995: 224; 1996: 179-80; 1999b: 38-39). This revision in the dating of Philistine pottery produces a kind of domino effect that pushes the traditional relative chronology of Iron Age stratigraphy - including, of course, the tenth century BCE - ahead some 50 to 100 years. It challenges recent socio-archaeological studies which support a Philistine settlement concentrated in the coastal cities of the Pentapolis contemporaneous with an active Egyptian presence surrounding it (see, for example, Stager). As a supporting argument, Finkelstein adds that revising the date of Philistine Bichrome pottery to near the turn of the tenth century BCE effectively fills the ninth-century gap apparent in the stratigraphy of a number of southern sites including Tel Mor, Tell Beit Mirsim, Ashdod, and Tel Haror (1995: 224; 1996: 182)..

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/arch...ess/ta22b.html
Link to a discussion:
http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/enfilpo.html



EM Laperrousaz wrote also a book with studies of different historians, archaeologists, Egyptologists, “La protohistoire d’Israel”

merci, chat content

[swrate]

Originally Posted by abe

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000824.html

abe, you are the great pretender, pas moi.
scorpio, most houses in scorpio, for what it's worth.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by swrate

Since the time of Seti 18th century, and before, the Gazza strip, has been under different dominations, as Hebron, Canaan…

And your point is? And could you tell us how any of what you have cited is pertinent to this discussion? Btw, Finkelstein is an intellectually dishonest hack who will write anything he can get away with to attack biblical accounts.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Did you ever read From Time Immemorial? If facts are important to you, you may want to give it a chance. Remember, Joan Peters was initially sympathetic to the Arab cause, until she did the research and realized the truth.

The more extreme you were in your Zionist beliefs the more thoroughly you propagated the Jewish mythology. What is surprising is that Joan Peters still writes as if the Zionist myths were wholly true and relevant, notwithstanding all the historical work that modifies or discredits them. The surprise is even greater when one considers her claim to have done original research in the historical archives and even to have discovered "overlooked 'secret' (British) correspondence files" in the Public Record Office in London, among other sources of "neglected" information. Indeed, by looking for the "right" evidence and by reading documents selectively one can "prove" virtually anything. But substituting Jewish-Zionist myths for Arab ones will not do. Neither historiography nor the Zionist cause itself gains anything from mythologizing history.

...............

I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters's highly tendentious use—or neglect—of the available source material. Much more important is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements. Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And your point is? And could you tell us how any of what you have cited is pertinent to this discussion? Btw, Finkelstein is an intellectually dishonest hack who will write anything he can get away with to attack biblical accounts.

Since you have added nothing of merit, we'll take your word of thanks as a compliment and hope you've learned to stay out of substantive discourses.

Love that answer. I'll use it more often. Thanks!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

But that's the point, exclusion made things worse for Israel, so why not try inclusion? Obviously both people, palestinians and israelis want to have access to the same land and water, so why not working towards the goal of making that possible in a peaceful way.

Israel thought it could keep the palestinians in a state of pseudo-autonomy while Israel remained in control of the water, checkpoints, airspace and the best parts of the arable land. Obviously it didn't work without provoking resistance and terrorism from the encircled palestinians.

Actually, you're incorrect. Allow me to enlighten you.

Israel began with inclusion. Which is why there are muslim arabs and christian arab Israeli citizens today. Those who didn't leave, became Israeli citizens and vote and are elected to the highest body of government.

In fact, Israel is such a good home to them that it doesn't even object to their exercise of free speech, like the elected representatives who speak in favor of the destruction of Israel, or hosting massive protests by the Islamic Movement.

http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/20...reality-check/

"It is illegal to be Jewish (or Christian, or anything but Muslim) in Saudi Arabia. It is deadly to be a Muslim apostate in Afghanistan. It’s fatal to be Christian in Indonesia. With scattered exceptions, Jews were long ago evicted from Iraq. I won’t belabor my point: Jews (and other non-Muslims) have no freedom or safety in the Islamic world. Of course, with all the world’s press (or, should I say, the world’s Leftist press) concentrated in Israel, the message that’s getting out is that Israel has completely destroyed any freedom or safety for Muslims within Israel’s borders. Certainly, the 30,000 Muslims who freely gathered at a soccer stadium in Israel seem to think so:

More than 30,000 Arab-Israeli Muslims participated in a massive protest Saturday night at the Kfar Kana soccer stadium marking the anniversary of the prophet Muhammad’s birth.
The event was organized by the Islamic Movement, headed by Sheikh Sheikh Raed Salah. A huge stage in the shape of a heart was set up at the center of the site, and the words “Prophet Muhammad” were written across the center of it, Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.

The event was broadcast live on television throughout the Middle East and elsewhere by Al-Jazeera, and Sheikh Salah addressed the Arab world, calling on them to “save Jerusalem from the hands of the Jews,” who, he said, were collecting millions of dollars to reinforce their grip on the city.

“Jerusalem will soon be the capital of the world Islamic nation, and it will be governed by a caliph,” Salah said. “The Six Days War hasn’t ended since 1967, and it continues in Jerusalem,” he added.

According to the Muslim leader, the millions of dollars invested by Israel in Jerusalem will be for naught.“They want to build a temple instead of the al-Aqsa mosque, and that will never happen,” he said, and appealed to the Arab world to establish a fund to “save Jerusalem” from the Jews and restore it as an exclusively Arab, Palestinian and Muslim city.

Regarding the Palestinian situation, Salah expounded at length about the Israeli siege of the Palestinian territories, especially since Hamas’ victory in the parliamentary elections.“They want to starve our people. Will you let them?” Salah demanded of his audience.

I checked where Kfar Kana is. Although it is an Arab village, it is within Israel proper and is, in fact, a major archeological site. That is, it’s under Israel’s mandate, and it was Israel that allowed this perfect example of freedom of speech to take case.

I hope I’m not the only one struck by the irony of Israel playing host to a major rally calling for her destruction."

There are two contrary ideologies at work here, zionism and islamism. Both ideoligies need a ckeck and moderation with reality.

Incorrect.

All zionism is, is the longing for a state where Jews can be protected from the oppression suffered at the hands of European and Arab nations. That's it. Israel protects Jews, Christians, Muslims, Ba'hai, atheists, Druze, Bedouin, and other. That's what zionism did.

Islamism is the oppression and destruction of any non-Muslim, with the aim to make the whole world fall under Sharia law. Submit or die, says the Islamist.

It's not fair, just as it's not fair to measure up palestinians against other muslims or arabs, and to expect them simply to leave their homeland.

What about those who claim it but it never was their home? The refugee numbers are inflated and perpetuated. And the UNRWA perpetuates this.

What about the fairness or unfairness involved in having to repeatedly defend people at pizza parlors and cafés from other exploding humans. What about the fairness in having the UN employ and fund those who make the bombs?

What about the fairness in winning the wars and having the nations of the world insist you give up on defending yourselves?

What about the fairness in rewarding those who sided with the Nazis, the Palestinians starting with Hajj Amin al-Husseini, and the PLO that became the PA?

Or the fairness in being told that it is up to you to make peace, when the elected Hamas terrorists publicly aspire to murder you?

Take your 'fairness' elsewhere. Life is full of unfairness, and while we strive to achieve equality and humanity (yes. really. look at the example I quoted above of freedom of speech for those who would eradicate us.) expecting or longing for a fairness at the expense of my family's lives is unacceptable.

[abe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Time_Immemorial


The neoconservative American Middle East author Daniel Pipes expressed a more favorable opinion, stating:

"From Time Immemorial quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to Miss Peters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarly abilities are open to question. Excessive use of quotation marks, eccentric footnotes, and a polemical, somewhat hysterical undertone mar the book. In short, From Time Immemorial stands out as an appallingly crafted book."

"Granting all this, the fact remains that the book presents a thesis that neither Professor Porath nor any other reviewer has so far succeeded in refuting. Miss Peters's central thesis is that a substantial immigration of Arabs to Palestine took place during the first half of the twentieth century. She supports this argument with an array of demographic statistics and contemporary accounts, the bulk of which have not been questioned by any reviewer, including Professor Porath."

[Big Mac]

While I still find it to be an important work, that's an interesting take on the book by Pipes. He suggests this article as a more concise and cogent alternative.

[abe]

Originally Posted by vmarks

At the conference’s NGO forum, the Arab Lawyer’s Union freely distributed books containing cartoons of swastika-festooned Israelis and fanged, hooked-nosed Jews, blood dripping from their hands. Another best-selling title was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hundreds of flyers were distributed with a picture of Hitler and the words, "What if I had won? The good thing—there would be no Israel." Appeals to the conference’s secretary-general, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, to demand the removal of this anti-Semitic literature went unheeded.

The NGO forum at Durban did sponsor a single event on anti-Semitism, but it was disrupted by an angry mob of protesters, shouting, "You are killers! You are killers!" A news conference the following day, called by a broad range of national and international Jewish organizations, was similarly interrupted, this time for the benefit of the TV cameras, and was finally called off.

As the NGO forum drew to a close, the Jewish caucus, like all the other caucuses, submitted provisions for the conference’s final document. The group’s contribution stated that anti-Semitism could take many forms, including the equation of Zionism with racism, the attempt to de-legitimize the self-determination of the Jewish people, and the targeting of Jews throughout the world for violence because of their support of Israel. When the time finally came for a vote, a representative of the World Council of Churches called for the deletion of this language; the Jewish caucus was alone in voting against the motion. Jewish NGO’s from all over the world walked out in protest, even as representatives of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights stood by in silence. No statement proposed by any other caucus was deleted.

That's pretty anti-Jew, not just anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist.
[/QUOTE]

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Actually, you're incorrect. Allow me to enlighten you.

Israel began with inclusion. Which is why there are muslim arabs and christian arab Israeli citizens today. Those who didn't leave, became Israeli citizens and vote and are elected to the highest body of government.

Israel began with exclusion of palestinians, of which 15% remained in Israel for whatever reasons.

Originally Posted by vmarks

In fact, Israel is such a good home to them that it doesn't even object to their exercise of free speech, like the elected representatives who speak in favor of the destruction of Israel, or hosting massive protests by the Islamic Movement.

So, you are stating the fact that part of the descendants of the 15% remaining palestinians, which became israelis, enjoy their home in Israel so much that they use the free speech to call for the liberation of Jerusalem from israeli control, as proof for what argument?

Originally Posted by vmarks

"It is illegal to be Jewish (or Christian, or anything but Muslim) in Saudi Arabia. It is deadly to be a Muslim apostate in Afghanistan. It’s fatal to be Christian in Indonesia. With scattered exceptions, Jews were long ago evicted from Iraq. I won’t belabor my point: Jews (and other non-Muslims) have no freedom or safety in the Islamic world. Of course, with all the world’s press (or, should I say, the world’s Leftist press) concentrated in Israel, the message that’s getting out is that Israel has completely destroyed any freedom or safety for Muslims within Israel’s borders. Certainly, the 30,000 Muslims who freely gathered at a soccer stadium in Israel seem to think so:

More than 30,000 Arab-Israeli Muslims participated in a massive protest Saturday night at the Kfar Kana soccer stadium marking the anniversary of the prophet Muhammad’s birth.
The event was organized by the Islamic Movement, headed by Sheikh Sheikh Raed Salah. A huge stage in the shape of a heart was set up at the center of the site, and the words “Prophet Muhammad” were written across the center of it, Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.

The event was broadcast live on television throughout the Middle East and elsewhere by Al-Jazeera, and Sheikh Salah addressed the Arab world, calling on them to “save Jerusalem from the hands of the Jews,” who, he said, were collecting millions of dollars to reinforce their grip on the city.

“Jerusalem will soon be the capital of the world Islamic nation, and it will be governed by a caliph,” Salah said. “The Six Days War hasn’t ended since 1967, and it continues in Jerusalem,” he added.

According to the Muslim leader, the millions of dollars invested by Israel in Jerusalem will be for naught.“They want to build a temple instead of the al-Aqsa mosque, and that will never happen,” he said, and appealed to the Arab world to establish a fund to “save Jerusalem” from the Jews and restore it as an exclusively Arab, Palestinian and Muslim city.

Regarding the Palestinian situation, Salah expounded at length about the Israeli siege of the Palestinian territories, especially since Hamas’ victory in the parliamentary elections.“They want to starve our people. Will you let them?” Salah demanded of his audience.

I checked where Kfar Kana is. Although it is an Arab village, it is within Israel proper and is, in fact, a major archeological site. That is, it’s under Israel’s mandate, and it was Israel that allowed this perfect example of freedom of speech to take case.

I hope I’m not the only one struck by the irony of Israel playing host to a major rally calling for her destruction."

A major rally calling for the turning of Jerusalem from israeli/jewish control to palestinian/islamic control, organized by an islamic group is proof for what argument?

As far as I know, Jerusalem is like the Westbank, Gaza and Golan still internationally regarded as disputed territories.

To equate Jerusalem's final status with the destruction of Israel is pretty hyperbolic, don't you think?

Besides, in my utopic idea, that rally would have been impossible, because a religious organization called for a rally to express its ideas for a political problem.

So, what you really want to say is that the system of inclusion in Israel and according to israeli laws and system works, right?

Originally Posted by vmarks

Incorrect.

All zionism is, is the longing for a state where Jews can be protected from the oppression suffered at the hands of European and Arab nations. That's it. Israel protects Jews, Christians, Muslims, Ba'hai, atheists, Druze, Bedouin, and other. That's what zionism did.

Islamism is the oppression and destruction of any non-Muslim, with the aim to make the whole world fall under Sharia law. Submit or die, says the Islamist.

Zionism and Islamism are very related, have similar origins..., you would be surprised:

Both ideologies stem from european ideas of political activism, both aimed at the changing of the mindset of the religious masses, that adhered to a "God predestined fate for humans which we have to accept and endure", to a "we humans must take active part in forming our fate and God will help those that are active", both ideologies were born at a time of weakness for the religious masses, both were developed by folks that were educated in the european, modern way. While the jews' weakness was to not have a homeland where they can govern over themselves, and being persecuted by parts of Europe and Russia, the muslim's weakness was to not have a state through which they could govern themselves and instead being governed by european colonists..

The goal of zionism was to establish a jewish homeland. Britain was sympathetic to that goal and offered Palestine for that project.

The goal of islamism was the liberation from european and russian colonism, the establishment of self-determination.

The problem for the islamists was that most of the european colonists retreated voluntarily, due to economic and ideological problems after the two devastating worldwars, they retreated before they could convince the masses of their ideology and achieve liberty through a direct faceoff with the colonists.

So for them the new granted independence had a sour taste, espescially after they concluded in best conspiracy-style (like always conspiracies are half truth, half lies) , that the new independence is only a half one, since the islamic regimes were installed by the leaving colonists.

That's why they defined new enemies, the secular regimes and the western influence...

Originally Posted by vmarks

What about those who claim it but it never was their home? The refugee numbers are inflated and perpetuated. And the UNRWA perpetuates this.

Who cares? Wasn't that the same justification zionists used in order to gather jews from around the world?

Originally Posted by vmarks

What about the fairness or unfairness involved in having to repeatedly defend people at pizza parlors and cafés from other exploding humans. What about the fairness in having the UN employ and fund those who make the bombs?

Guerillia-warfare and even terrorism seems to be the result of one people obstructing the rights of another people, espescially if one side is a full-fledged-state with a full-fledged army and economy, and the other not.

Personally I know and think that suicide-bombings are religiously prohibited, because they target innocents, and I don't think that the argument, that because Israel kills innocents, too, (even much more than the terrorists) it's ok to retaliate in order to come to an even. but I'm also realistic enough to know that terroristic groups will find sympathy and recruitment as long as the oppression lasts.

Originally Posted by vmarks

What about the fairness in winning the wars and having the nations of the world insist you give up on defending yourselves?

Things have changed from ancient times, espescially due to modern weapons and warfare. In ancient times, it was ok to lead a war, to win and to ban or enslave the losers and to take the conquered land.

But things changed with the development of artillery, grenades, tanks, mines, machineguns, chemical weapons...

The reality of the new industrialised warfare set in during worldwar 1, the first total war. After that it was clear that warfare was something, that was not desirable anymore, since it drew the whole of society onto the battlefield, and with the invention of aireal bombings, the battlefield was everywhere.

Where, in pre-industrialised times, a state could arm 10-100 thousand warriors, the industrialised states were able to arm millions upon millions with arms, that could each kill dozens if not hundreds.

That's why the international community was founded, in order to prevent further wars at all costs. In order to do that effectively, it was declared as prohibited that any state should be able to expand its borders through war, ie. to conquer areas or territories, and to keep them, and instead to solve disputes in international fora using diplomacy.

It obviously didn't work, ww2 eventually happened, and on top of that a genocide was committed against jews, which led to the development of the human right-charters, that basically curtailed the souvereignity of states, in cases where the basic rights of humans were obstructed.
...

In short, the international community is not insisting that Israel should give up defending itself, but that it should do so in such a way as not to take any selfish gains from its greater economical, political and military power, at the expense of its neighbours.

Originally Posted by vmarks

What about the fairness in rewarding those who sided with the Nazis, the Palestinians starting with Hajj Amin al-Husseini, and the PLO that became the PA?

What about Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria (March 1941), Finland, Croatia, Italy or Japan? Should they also be punished for their siding with Germany during ww2.

Besides the partial alliance of some palestinians with Germany was not surprising considering the fact that Britain and Germany were enemies. Even some jewish rebel groups sided with Germany because of that old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"-method.

But much more important how do you link the fanatical Al-Husseini with the PLO, and how do you link the early PLO with the PA, and how do you link the PA with the palestinians in general?

Originally Posted by vmarks

Or the fairness in being told that it is up to you to make peace, when the elected Hamas terrorists publicly aspire to murder you?

Then do something, dethrone Hamas, demilitarise the palestinians and the israelis, annex the occupied territories and reinstitute Israel as a democratic, strictly secular state with a strong constitution, that allows only the representative democracy as a stateform, and that prohibits parties founded on ethnic and/or religious grounds...

Originally Posted by vmarks

Take your 'fairness' elsewhere. Life is full of unfairness, and while we strive to achieve equality and humanity (yes. really. look at the example I quoted above of freedom of speech for those who would eradicate us.) expecting or longing for a fairness at the expense of my family's lives is unacceptable.

I agree, so if Israel is capable to achieve equality and humanity, then let Israel do it regarding the palestinians in the occupied territories, too.

It's a difficult process, but doable..

Taliesin

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by vmarks

All zionism is, is the longing for a state where Jews can be protected from the oppression suffered at the hands of European and Arab nations. That's it. Israel protects Jews, Christians, Muslims, Ba'hai, atheists, Druze, Bedouin, and other. That's what zionism did.

Woaw! Sounds like Zionists are über-pacifists!

Then what is stopping all the people in Israel to turn Zionists?

Or are they?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Woaw! Sounds like Zionists are über-pacifists!

Then what is stopping all the people in Israel to turn Zionists?

Or are they?

For the sake of argument I'll assume you were serious with that response. Look at vmarks' definition again. We're talking about a country with the mandate to protect Jewish lives, rights and property (which invariably means Jews need authority over the government of such a country). You've asked why all of Israel's population does not fit the Zionist label. Did Arafat, a father of modern terrorism, respect Jewish lives, rights and property? What about the type of Arabs who murder their brothers due to accusations that they have collaborated with Jews - do they respect Jewish lives, rights and property? What about those who hate Jews so much they go into crowded Israeli civilian centers to blow themselves up with explosives containing nails and shrapnel in order to inflict the greatest suffering - do they respect Jewish lives, rights and property? And what about that majority who decisively elected Hamas, a terrorist entity that states overtly its goal to destroy Israel - do they respect Jewish lives, rights and property? This is elementary logic here, and you do nothing to further your leftist agenda when you post inanities.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What about those who kill their own Prime Minister because he's cooperating with the hated Palestinians?

Fanatics: they crazy.

greg


Now Playing: Duke Ellington & John Coltrane – Stevie

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

For the sake of argument I'll assume you were serious with that response.

OK.

Look at vmarks' definition again. We're talking about a country with the mandate to protect Jewish lives, rights and property (which invariably means Jews need authority over the government of such a country). You've asked why all of Israel's population does not fit the Zionist label.

Nope. All I'm sayin is that if Zionist are such exemplary citizens of the World, why is it that not everyone turns Zionist?

Did Arafat, a father of modern terrorism, respect Jewish lives, rights and property? What about the type of Arabs who murder their brothers due to accusations that they have collaborated with Jews - do they respect Jewish lives, rights and property? What about those who hate Jews so much they go into crowded Israeli civilian centers to blow themselves up with explosives containing nails and shrapnel in order to inflict the greatest suffering - do they respect Jewish lives, rights and property? And what about that majority who decisively elected Hamas, a terrorist entity that states overtly its goal to destroy Israel - do they respect Jewish lives, rights and property?

Totally off topic. Clearly, the government of Israel did some really good stuff for some of their citizens, and also put others in camps, like Gaza, the most densest population of the world. SO you can feel all great about Israel and compare with Arafat, but comparing a terrrible thing with a less terrible thing does not make the lesser terrible not terrible.

This is elementary logic here, and you do nothing to further your leftist agenda when you post inanities.

Well, "inanities" is a nice word, but I call myself a humanist. You can call me "leftist" with all your might, but I asked an honest question and you can't answer it, except with your rehashed pro-Israelian propaganda. I never said anything against Israel, as I understand they are struggling, but Palestinians are in a worse position, partly because of Israel, and Arafat combined. So stop giving lessons and get plugged with reality.

[Big Mac]

I am glad you recognize Arafat's perfidy, but Israel has no moral obligation to reduce the suffering of a population that has declared war against it, especially when doing so violates Israel's core interests such as the well being of its citizenry. And you can call my posts whatever you wish, but I have confidence in my arguments and in the ability of rational people to distinguish fact from falsehood.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

OK.

Nope. All I'm sayin is that if Zionist are such exemplary citizens of the World, why is it that not everyone turns Zionist?

Well there is excellent propaganda such as the videos produced by Palestinian TV, Al-Manar TV (hezbollah), The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Stephen Walt-John Mearsheimer paper The Israel Lobby, that smears zionism with falsehoods.

Totally off topic. Clearly, the government of Israel did some really good stuff for some of their citizens, and also put others in camps, like Gaza, the most densest population of the world. SO you can feel all great about Israel and compare with Arafat, but comparing a terrrible thing with a less terrible thing does not make the lesser terrible not terrible.

Israel didn't -put- Gazans into camps. Israel offered to build modern apartment buildings with modern plumbing and electricity, and larger living spaces. They refused. Israel abandoned Gaza leaving behind high-tech greenhouses. High-tech greenhouses built by Jewish settlers in Gaza were purchased for the Palestinians by none other than Bill Gates of Microsoft—and the Palestinians repaid this generosity by stripping and looting the greenhouses. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49710

Yes, the Palestinians have to be held at least partially responsible for their situation, by refusing to accept Israel's help or sabotaging themselves when they do receive it. But look through these forums and you'll find people saying things like "Israel is more powerful therefore only they can be responsible." Nonsense.

Well, "inanities" is a nice word, but I call myself a humanist. You can call me "leftist" with all your might, but I asked an honest question and you can't answer it, except with your rehashed pro-Israelian propaganda. I never said anything against Israel, as I understand they are struggling, but Palestinians are in a worse position, partly because of Israel, and Arafat combined. So stop giving lessons and get plugged with reality.

Getting plugged in with reality would mean acknowledging that the Palestinians have a large responsibility for the situation they are in today, and that putting all the burden on Israel means giving the Palestinians a pass on their accountability and helps perpetuate the situation.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Well there is excellent propaganda such as the videos produced by Palestinian TV, Al-Manar TV (hezbollah), The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Stephen Walt-John Mearsheimer paper The Israel Lobby, that smears zionism with falsehoods.

Never heard of those guys: I actually know next to nothing about Zionism, which explains my question following your presentation that appeared a bit idealistic to me.

Israel didn't -put- Gazans into camps. Israel offered to build modern apartment buildings with modern plumbing and electricity, and larger living spaces. They refused. Israel abandoned Gaza leaving behind high-tech greenhouses. High-tech greenhouses built by Jewish settlers in Gaza were purchased for the Palestinians by none other than Bill Gates of Microsoft—and the Palestinians repaid this generosity by stripping and looting the greenhouses. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49710

You can't blame people to want to own their stuff, right? Kudos for Israel for offering the goodies; that is quite generous. Nevertheless, people need to own their stuff. And this is nothing new and monopolised by Palestinians. Go around the world and you will see many instances where people are offered stuff like buildings and furniture but they put it al down and make teepees or huts with them.

I blame the fear of tomorrow for them acting that way. It's natural for people living through their conditions of living, and appreciably frustrating for the generous donators, but that is life.

Yes, the Palestinians have to be held at least partially responsible for their situation, by refusing to accept Israel's help or sabotaging themselves when they do receive it. But look through these forums and you'll find people saying things like "Israel is more powerful therefore only they can be responsible." Nonsense.

Palestinians certainly share some responsabilities for what is happening to them. Terrorism did not help either for certain. However, ownership cannot be given; it is something people need to take for themselves. I am pretty certain that propaganda flies big time on both sides of the fence, and many are quick to interpret the messages in ways that suit them. The whole area appears to me as an immense mess, and I am not clear that anyone really worked to solve the whole thing. I believe many see advantages in keeping this area chaotic, on both sides of the fence.

But it would be unfair to paint everyone on either side of the fence as dishonest, but I am ready to bet that neither leadership is clean.

Getting plugged in with reality would mean acknowledging that the Palestinians have a large responsibility for the situation they are in today, and that putting all the burden on Israel means giving the Palestinians a pass on their accountability and helps perpetuate the situation.

Agreed.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

What about those who kill their own Prime Minister because he's cooperating with the hated Palestinians?

Fanatics: they crazy.

greg


Now Playing: Duke Ellington & John Coltrane – Stevie

Not to mention those who kill their own President because he made peace with the hated Israelis.

And those SAME guys want to kill YOU and you and you and you and you, too!

So, go ahead and do whatever you can to weaken our resolve or our defenses. You won't be singled out for blame or anything. It'll be attributed to the liberals and you'll remain anonymous when the bodies start piling up in North America.

Chhers!