Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on November 04, 2004, 11:04:29 AM
-
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041104/wl_nm/mideast_arafat_dc)
Whats the scoop, have you guys heard?
-
not dead ... yet : http://fr.news.yahoo.com/041104/85/44mqr.html
-
He's just pining for the fjords.
-
During Bush's speech to the press corp this morning, a reporter announced that he was dead, and Bush expressed best wishes for him, etc.
I wonder if this is one of those situations where he's dead, but they're stalling until they can put together a certain response?
-
I, too, have heard reports of his demise. All of which will lead to interesting times.
Arrafat was a terrorist bomb-tosser of the highest order. However, over the years he'd developed the ability to both not keep the hot-heads in check while being just enough of a calming influence to appeal to Europe. He'd sold them on the fact that only he could keep any semblance of peace.
What scares me is that he might be right. Because of his past, the Palestinian people respected him enough to keep him in power. The radicals were never able to get rid of him and completely go on the attack they way they wanted. Arafat was smart enough to realize that while many sympathized with him, too many pictures of blown up buses and kids were bad PR.
Or did he figure out a balance between terror and good PR? Letting the radicals commit attacks without killing too many Jews. And of couse not using his "influence" to stop the attacks the way he could have. Or using his power to find a peace agreement with Israel?
If it's the former, then there's every possiblity that the next leader will be either a figurehead who rules at the whim of the radicals and they'll start bombing and killing as many Jews as they can. And if anyone in the PA tries to stop them they'll just have that person replaced with someone who will cooperate.
If it's the latter, then perhaps a true moderate will be able to take over and, with the will of the average Palestinian, finally come to some type of agreement with Israel and we'll see peace. Along with using the will of the people to withdraw support from the radicals.
But, if I were going to be forced to bet, I would say it really doesn't matter how much Arrafat was helping or hindering the process. My bet is the radicals will gain control of the PA (they are the ones with the guns after all) and things are going to take a severe turn for the worse.
-
Crap, Skuzzy, I though the A** in the title would get starred, I am sorry about that.
So you guys think this is going to be a turn for the worse? Having thought a little about it, I think it may, but I still can not bring myself to feel sorry for that ultra melon.
-
I just hope when he opens the 'virgin' door it turns out to be ten half starved Wolverines.
-
Israeli media: Arafat dead (47 min ago)
Israeli television has reported that Yasser Arafat has died after slipping into a coma on Wednesday at a French military hospital. However, a French hospital official has denied the report.
Yasser Arafat, the 75 year-old Palestinian leader, was determined to be clinically dead in a French military hospital. Arafat was being treated there for an unknown illness.
The frail head of the Palestinian Authority arrived in Paris last week after losing consciousness briefly at his West Bank headquarters. Arafat was at first said to have been suffering from a severe case of influenza, but was later diagnosed as having blood abnormalities and trouble with digestion.
Palestinian officials then ran tests for leukemia but the cancer was ruled out, and doctors remained uncertain what was causing his illness. Arafat's condition worsened three days ago and he slipped into a coma on Wednesday.
-
PARIS, France (CNN) -- A spokesman for the French military hospital housing Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has told reporters the ailing leader is not dead.
He added though on Thursday that the 75-year-old leader had been moved to another department within the hospital for treatment more appropriate for his condition.
been moved to another department within the hospital for treatment more appropriate for his condition????
Okay Boys and Girls can you say "MORGUE"...?
That's right Boy and Girls that's where they keep the DEAD BODIES in the FRIKKEN HOSPITAL...:eek:
:rofl
-
He dying of AIDS from boinking the Allah School boys.
12 doctors can't figure out whats wrong with him, yeah right. Can't have a martyr dying of AIDS in the eyes of Allah, now can we?
-
GWB will have his day come too...What is interesting is who will go down in history as the greater killer of innocents.
-
I'll ignore the obvious flame-bait in that and just say...history is written by the winner.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
GWB will have his day come too...What is interesting is who will go down in history as the greater killer of innocents.
Interesting yes. Open for debate? Nah, not really.
-
That was some stinky stuff!
-
How many is Arafat acused of killing?
-
How many is Arafat acused of killing?
That sweet old man kill anyone? Really now....:rolleyes:
-
Was just asking, but nobody seems to know.
-
Everything points to cancer, but who knows?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Exactly how could he contract HIV from school boys? How many school boys run around with HIV?
If you're going to demonize someone, make up more credible lies.
Lies? you mean assumptions. Lets see, 12 of the BEST doctors in Europe, none can figure out why he's sick. Yeah, right.
Think about it. How would Yassir look in the eyes of a young Palestian if he found out his hero died of AIDS? Not very good PR is it...and the fact that he's been known to have homosexual encounters in the past.
What do I mean? I mean Arafat is a homosexual. There are also persistent rumors that he is a pedophile. I mean, in his private life, he is everything the Islamic culture detests – a closet pervert.
http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1064312492.php
Also, John Loftus has reported that there are rumors that Arafat has AIDS due to his sexual preference.
He also said that President Ilyas al- Harawi of Lebanon is tired of being a Syrian puppet.
-
Rip you would better not use Betar as a source :D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Everything points to cancer, but who knows?
I vote AIDS. They "Dont know whats wrong with him."
If he had cancer it'd be obvious... if he had HIV/AIDS then they'd keep it under raps as long as they could for obvious reasons.
-
I find the aids angle hard to believe, someone would have leaked it. Or some reporter would have dug the info out.
Hell wouldn't isreal leap on this to discredit him?
-
>>If he had cancer it'd be obvious... if he had HIV/AIDS then they'd keep it under raps as long as they could for obvious reasons.<<
Well I take it you've never seen a late stage AIDS patient. If you did you would realize that remark is ridiculous. It would be easier to hide cancer than AIDS.
-
Rip that was dumb, I mean so dumb I never thought you would say something like that...
surprise surprise
Arafat kills or has others kill about what, say 10 000 people in 15 to 20 years...
Bush has 10 000 in 2 years...
guess Bush is more effective in dealing death:aok
-
This just in...
Arafat... has passed away
A.P.
-
If Arafat is a scumbag ex terrorist ( to quote one post )
Does that mean Gerry Adams is too?
Maybe Golda Meyer was?
Or Violet Zabo?
Or for that matter maybe George Washington was too?
-
"I'm not dead yet....."
-
Originally posted by Blue2
If Arafat is a scumbag ex terrorist ( to quote one post )
Does that mean Gerry Adams is too? Yes
Maybe Golda Meyer was? No
Or Violet Zabo? Who ?
Or for that matter maybe George Washington was too? No
-
Some of these posts from overseas are getting beyond good taste.
-
Originally posted by SLO
Rip that was dumb, I mean so dumb I never thought you would say something like that...
You can't be serious.
-
If Arafat dies, would Palestine be out of control (i.e. more bombings, Jihad)?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
If Arafat dies, would Palestine be out of control (i.e. more bombings, Jihad)?
Hard to say, they riot if a bus is late.
-
Arafat is dead. But it won't be official until the organise a successor and get ready for the trouble. Then they switch off the machine and declare him dead.
PS FYI Gerry Adams was always political. He was never a bomb thrower or a gunman.
-
I hope Arafat is dead and is currently residing in hell.
-
If there is a just God, he is in hell. or wil be.
-
If he's in hell for being a patriot, for defending his people, for starting wars and sending men to their deaths. Then he's in good company and will be joined by one or two others in due course. Hell must be pretty full indeed.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
If he's in hell for being a patriot, for defending his people, for starting wars and sending men to their deaths. Then he's in good company and will be joined by one or two others in due course. Hell must be pretty full indeed.
wow.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
If he's in hell for being a patriot, for defending his people, for starting wars and sending men to their deaths. Then he's in good company and will be joined by one or two others in due course. Hell must be pretty full indeed.
What country is Arafat a patriot of? Egypt where he was born?
What people has he defended?
He started wars? Like the one against Jordan? Anyone who starts a war should go to hell.
-
CPXXX
Yeah cause terror is just a tool anyone can use to bring around change and nothing is wrong with that right, like man you know George Washington was like sending kids and stuff with bomb belts out and killed the brits, like you know?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Anyone who starts a war should go to hell.
Really?
Who started the 2003 Iraq war? Bush? Saddam?
Who started the revolutinary war? USA? Brits?
Who started the US civil war? Lincoln? Davis?
How about the Spanish American war?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I hope Arafat is dead and is currently residing in hell.
naa, he's in "heaven" with 72 Virginians:D
-
The Arab people Nuke, his people. He is/was Arab.
Anyone who starts a war should go to hell.
Do you want to rephrase that?
Look, if he was true to himself and his religion and he did what he did for the good of his countrymen. Then how can he go to hell? The methods used are hardly relevant when you believe God is on your side.
I'm not defending his actions, merely pointing out the reality. He felt his cause was just and acted accordingly. If he could go to hell for that then many will be joining him, friends and enemys alike.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Really?
Who started the 2003 Iraq war? Bush? Saddam?
Who started the revolutinary war? USA? Brits?
Who started the US civil war? Lincoln? Davis?
How about the Spanish American war?
The 2003 Iraq war was a continuation of the orginal Iraq war. Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreements.
The Civil war?
Spanish American war? The Spanish sank a US ship in Havanna. Why were the Spanish in Cuba again?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The Arab people Nuke, his people. He is/was Arab.
Do you want to rephrase that?
Look, if he was true to himself and his religion and he did what he did for the good of his countrymen. Then how can he go to hell? The methods used are hardly relevant when you believe God is on your side.
I'm not defending his actions, merely pointing out the reality. He felt his cause was just and acted accordingly. If he could go to hell for that then many will be joining him, friends and enemys alike.
Arafat is an Egyption and there is no such race as a "Palastinian"
Arafat murdered inocent people for no reason other than greed. He tried to overthrow the King of Jordan first, then got his bellybutton thrown out of the area.....so he then tried to get a "Palestinian" homeland elsewhere.
He defends Arabs? from what? Arabs control 99.7 % of the middle east. What do they need to be defended from?
And anyone who starts a war should go to hell.
-
Spanish American war? The Spanish sank a US ship in Havanna. Why were the Spanish in Cuba again?
There is still quite a lot of controversy as to who or what sank the USS Maine. But the war was inevitable anyway at that point. Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident it was just a spark to start the explosion.
You have an interesting version of the Palestinian question. I'm sure the Palestinians will be disappointed to hear they don't exist.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
There is still quite a lot of controversy as to who or what sank the USS Maine. But the war was inevitable anyway at that point. Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident it was just a spark to start the explosion.
You have an interesting version of the Palestinian question. I'm sure the Palestinians will be disappointed to hear they don't exist.
The Palestinians are not a race, they are just plane old Arabs. Arabs exist all over the regeon. Arafat is an Egyption......why does he need a homeland? His homeland is Egypt.
There is no such thing as a Palestinian. There has never been a country of "Palestine"
Only Isreal has ever had a nation in that area. Israel and the Jews have a legitimate claim to the area, Arafat does not.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The 2003 Iraq war was a continuation of the orginal Iraq war. Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreements.
The Civil war?
Spanish American war? The Spanish sank a US ship in Havanna. Why were the Spanish in Cuba again?
Bush started the 2003 war. It was a pre-emptive war and I support it but we sure as hell started it - which is OK. But I guess you are saying he will go to hell.
The Civil war? Why no smart answer Nuke? Why just the dodge? Lincoln started the civil war by refusing to let the south secede. Or maybe the southerners started the war by wanting to secede. Hmm...
The revolutionary war? Did the US colonists start it by wanting independance? Or did the brits by opposing it. Wait a second thats kinda like the US civil war..
The spanish american war? The spanish sure as hell did not blow up the maine. Reseachs has showed that its coal bunkers blew up accidentaly. Guess that means president mckinley is going to hell...
What do you say about why the spanish were in cuba? Are you suggesting they started the war with the US because spain was the mean ole colonial opressor of the cuban people? Thats ridiculous and reaching... But OK, Lets go that way. Then one could say that the USA was responsible for the colinial war in the phillipines after we took over the colinial opressor role there from Spain... Or are you now aginst the argument of evil colonial opressors?
What about Grenada? Reagan going to hell?
What about Panama? Is Bush 1 going to hell?
And dont give me any crap that either Grenada or Panama "started" the war. Sure they did things we didnt like but we chose to start those full out wars against those nations!
The USA has started a whole bunch of wars, which is OK, wars are neccesary even useful and right sometimes, but that just means that your argument is crap..
Finally lets say we pre-emptivly invade Syria next year. Will Bush go to hell then or will you come up with another weak excuse to support your even weaker argument?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The Palestinians are not a race, they are just plane old Arabs. Arabs exist all over the regeon. Arafat is an Egyption......why does he need a homeland? His homeland is Egypt.
There is no such thing as a Palestinian. There has never been a country of "Palestine"
Only Isreal has ever had a nation in that area. Israel and the Jews have a legitimate claim to the area, Arafat does not.
You are unbelivably ignorant.
Its amazing how Nuke thinks that area was all ewmpty uninhabited desert from the time of the old roman empire until 1947 when the UN created isreal...
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bush started the 2003 war. It was a pre-emptive war and I support it but we sure as hell started it - which is OK. But I guess you are saying he will go to hell.
The Civil war? Why no smart answer Nuke? Why just the dodge? Lincoln started the civil war by refusing to let the south secede. Or maybe the southerners started the war by wanting to secede. Hmm...
The revolutionary war? Did the US colonists start it by wanting independance? Or did the brits by opposing it. Wait a second thats kinda like the US civil war..
The spanish american war? The spanish sure as hell did not blow up the maine. Reseachs has showed that its coal bunkers blew up accidentaly. Guess that means president mckinley is going to hell...
What do you say about why the spanish were in cuba? Are you suggesting they started the war with the US because spain was the mean ole colonial opressor of the cuban people? Thats ridiculous and reaching... But OK, Lets go that way. Then one could say that the USA was responsible for the colinial war in the phillipines after we took over the colinial opressor role there from Spain... Or are you now aginst the argument of evil colonial opressors?
What about Grenada? Reagan going to hell?
What about Panama? Is Bush 1 going to hell?
And dont give me any crap that either Grenada or Panama "started" the war. Sure they did things we didnt like but we chose to start those full out wars against those nations!
The USA has started a whole bunch of wars, which is OK, wars are neccesary even useful and right sometimes, but that just means that your argument is crap..
Finally lets say we pre-emptivly invade Syria next year. Will Bush go to hell then or will you come up with another weak excuse to support your even weaker argument?
The civil war? The South started it.
Grenada was a war? Panama was a war?
Anyone who starts a war should go to hell.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You are unbelivably ignorant.
Its amazing how Nuke thinks that area was all ewmpty uninhabited desert from the time of the old roman empire until 1947 when the UN created isreal...
:rofl :rofl
Hey Bozo, I never said I thought the area was unihabited.
I said that Palestinians are not a race and that Israel was the only nation in history that ever was established there.
-
You dont think invading two soverign nations is starting a war??
Thats just crazy...
So yoiu say the south started the war? If the south started the civil war, their war of independance, and its leaders then went to hell then surely you must say that the leaders of the American revolution started their war and thus also went to hell.. Because if you dont say that even yiu have to admit yoiur argument is BS...
So NUKE are this nations founding fathers in hell?
-
Hey Grun, where do you think the Jews came from? Israel maybe? :lol
Maybe you advocate that the Jews have never had a homeland and just popped into existance in Arab lands from thin air?
The UN created Israel? I never saw a word about the UN in the bible, but hell....it's a really old book based on fiction.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You dont think invading two soverign nations is starting a war??
We invaded Germany and Japan, among others in WWII, yet did we start the war?
You big dummy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hey Grun, where do you think the Jews came from? Israel maybe? :lol
Maybe you advocate that the Jews have never had a homeland and just popped into existance in Arab lands from thin air?
The UN created Israel? I never saw a word about the UN in the bible, but hell....it's a really old book based on fiction.
Jews and arabs are the same race - you may know the term - Semites.
Yet most modern jews are ethinic europeans.
Ahh the bible.. The bible is neat. Who really ruled Israel in the new testament? Oh, it was ruled by italians and was a part of Italy... I guess the italians can claim a state there too...
Plus all that was 2,000 years ago. In the intervening years that area was a part of many nations and empires and the same people lived there, arabs.
Where do you live NUKE? Arizona?
Maybe yoiu should pack up and move your arse back to France because I bet some other people lived in arizona 2000 years ago - they prolly had a nation there too and of course they reallly own it. Thiat claim superceded all others and all reason.
The palestenians are there. And very soon there will be many more palestenians than "jews." They have more kids lots more kids on average.. At that point Israel will have 4 choices.
1) Continue as is, with no real solution and endless deaths
2) Accept Palestenians as full voting Israeli citizens and the majority polulation (bye bye jewish state)
3) A seperate Palerstenian state
4) One Israeli state where palestenians dont have equal voting and civil rights (basically israel becomes 1930s nazi germany)
Neato! Give them a seperate state.
-
Nuke you are unbelivaly stupid.
The USA started the Grenada and Panama wars. We decidec to attack and take those countries because they were doing something we did not like. we invaded, we started those wars to protect our national interst.
Suggesting othersise is like saying that thev soviet union did not start the afghan war when they invaded to protect their national intersts.
-
Grun, you are being a dumb arse.
Israel nation documented thousands of years ago. They deserve thier land.
Arafat is a plain old Arab from Egypt and "Palestinians" nor "Palestine" ever existed in history.
Grun, why are you anti Israel?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke you are unbelivaly stupid.
The USA started the Grenada and Panama wars. We decidec to attack and take those countries because they were doing something we did not like. we invaded, we started those wars to protect our national interst.
Suggesting othersise is like saying that thev soviet union did not start the afghan war when they invaded to protect their national intersts.
Hey moron, Grenada and Panama were not wars.
-
What on earth do you call attacking, invading, occupying, taking over and replacing the goverment of another state by the use of military force but war.
What were they not big enough to classifly as a real manly man war to you? How big of a country do we need to invade for it to be a war?
You are trully retarded abd ignorant nuke. You made an ignorant statement and now you have to make more and more ignoranmt statements to support it...
And answer the damn question is george washington and the other founding farhers in hell for staring the revolutinary civil war against england? Because the civil war and the revolutinary war are NO different expet fpor the outcome, not one bit. In both cases a population feely decided to break away from a central goverment they felt was not meeting their needs and rights adequetly and revolted.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And answer the damn question is george washington and the other founding farhers in hell for staring the revolutinary civil war against england?
dont freak out imigrant.
Washington started the war? America simply declared independence, Britain decided to go to war.
-
He and the other founding fathers definitely stated the war. Without thaeir ideological and military leadership the revolution would not have happened as it did or would have likely peterd out to nothing -meaning no war.
You conifently say "The South" started the civil war. As such the americans started the revolutinary war and their leaders of the time must surely be in hell by your idiotic standard...
Or maybe you want to blame that guy at concord who fired the fist shot.. Was he a brit or an american... Is he in hell?
And dont even start this immigrant crap, I'm just as american as you and had the same primary american schooling as you did and probaly from abettrer school. That kind of ridiculkous cheap shot just means you are getting desperate....
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/204_1099100867_thread_direction.gif)
-
Beutiful!
Lets move on. Nuke you are still an ignorant jerk tonite, but lets move on... :)
-
Grun, lets summarise...
You think American started a war against GB.
You think Lincoln started the Civil war.
You think America started a war against Spain.
You think America started a war against Panama and Grenada.
You think America started a war against Iraq.
Correct?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Grun, you are being a dumb arse.
Israel nation documented thousands of years ago. They deserve thier land.
Arafat is a plain old Arab from Egypt and "Palestinians" nor "Palestine" ever existed in history.
Grun, why are you anti Israel?
The kingdom of Isreal existed for barely 200 hundred years before they were conquered by the Assyrians in 721 BC . The kingdom of Isreal having of course conquered the existing holders, the Canaanites.
Now if thats the requirement for original owners to take possesion, "previous history", I'd be ready to make the move to a reservation if I were you cause the original owners now deservedly own your house
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Grun, lets summarise...
You think American started a war against GB.
You think Lincoln started the Civil war.
You think America started a war against Spain.
You think America started a war against Panama and Grenada.
You think America started a war against Iraq.
Correct?
You cant assign guilt for the civil war on the south and then not assign guilt for starting the revolutionary war on the americans. So Lincoln was a rhetorical question.
The spanish american war was satrted by the USA. No question about it. The Maine was NOT blown up by a mine. Reseach shows it to have suffered a coal dust explosion. The american press drummed up the public and the govermnet obliged. This one was clearly a rush to war by the USA. Still it went well and America was differnt back then and the public supported the war.
Panama and Grenada are obvious, and I agree with those wars in defense of us intersts.
Iraq is also obvious, president Bush started that war based on his pre-emptive war doctorine. I support this war.
The probkem with your arghument is its obsurd absoluteness. "everyone who starts a war goes to hell." What if you start a war to defend your national interst like we did in Panama and Iraq?
You can try your legal technicalities about the Iraq war cease fire but it doesnt hold. That cease fire was an agreement between the UN and Iraq, and we know how the UN felt about that war. So when we went without UN approval all those legal technicalities of the UN/Iraq cease fire were void.
However IMO we had a greater justification than legal technicalities and that made our start of the Iraq war justifed. But yiu say that those who astrt wars go to hell so I imagine you disagree.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
The kingdom of Isreal existed for barely 200 hundred years before they were conquered by the Assyrians in 721 BC . The kingdom of Isreal having of course conquered the existing holders, the Canaanites.
Now if thats the requirement for original owners to take possesion, "previous history", I'd be ready to make the move to a reservation if I were you cause the original owners now deservedly own your house
Tronsky
Yep. This idea that Israel was some permanent fixture in all infinty is one of the most ignorant bible thumping fallacies I have ever encountered. Jews are just another group of people who have had tyheir ups and downs and movements just like everyone..
Nuke lives in arizona.. Maybe he should give up his home to a full blooded native indian and move back to france...
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
The kingdom of Isreal existed for barely 200 hundred years before they were conquered by the Assyrians in 721 BC . The kingdom of Isreal having of course conquered the existing holders, the Canaanites.
Now if thats the requirement for original owners to take possesion, "previous history", I'd be ready to make the move to a reservation if I were you cause the original owners now deservedly own your house
Tronsky
What does any of that have to do with the Jews and thier right to a homeland?
The Arabs have plenty of homeland. The Palestinians are just plain old Arabs, nothing more.
Why do people cry for a Palestinian homeland?
T
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nuke lives in arizona.. Maybe he should give up his home to a full blooded native indian and move back to france...
And you live in California I (I was born there) so maybe you should give up your home to the Spanish, who took the land from the natives.
Maybe you should move back to your home country and I will stay in mine.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Jews are just another group of people who have had tyheir ups and downs and movements just like everyone..
LOL
So all of your arguments about the "Palestinians" mean what?
And the Jews have a tiny speck of land. where do you propose the Jews establish thier homeland?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What does any of that have to do with the Jews and thier right to a homeland?
The Arabs have plenty of homeland. The Palestinians are just plain old Arabs, nothing more.
Why do people cry for a Palestinian homeland?
I agree. There should be be no seperate Palestenian state. All should be one big Israel, west bank gaza and all.
Every palestenian should then be made a full Israeli ciotizen with all due rights and privelages. That way in 10 years when the palestians outnumber the jews in the full borders of Israel they can take the country over from the jews by dominating every election.
l
NUKe are sure you you are not secretly a palestian strategist plotting their ultimate victory?
Or Israel can just become like good old apartheit South Africa where a minority polulation holds all power and limits the
voting and civil rights of the majorirty to maintain that power structure.
Of course the other option for israel is having a sepewrate palestian homeland state.
Which of the three looks best to you?
A palestenian majority dominated fully democratic one israel. (do you think the muslim palestian goverment will keep the star of david flag?)
A permantely apartheit Israel where the palestians dont have full rights? (do yoiu think they will be upset?)
A viable seperate and fair Palestenian state...
Hmmm.. Tough choices there...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
And you live in California I (I was born there) so maybe you should give up your home to the Spanish, who took the land from the natives.
Maybe you should move back to your home country and I will stay in mine.
I'm not making the idiotic argument like yours that because they lived there 2,000 years ago so they automatically have rights to it over the modern polulation.
Thats your argument, not mine. I am simply mocking you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
LOL
So all of your arguments about the "Palestinians" mean what?
And the Jews have a tiny speck of land. where do you propose the Jews establish thier homeland?
Wherever they can get and maintain one, same for jews and palestians. Of course their standard of living and security depends on how they treat their neighbors and the strenght of their friends.
In a few years the palestians will outnumber the jews in the borders of the greater israel. If Israel doesnt give them full rights or a free state israel will become the new south africa. That staus should be great fun for a tiny state like israel. Both economically and of courss ironically... Oh the Irony, do you think the Jews will make all the palestians wear green crescent moon armbands?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I agree. There should be be no seperate Palestenian state. All should be one big Israel, west bank gaza and all.
Then we agree, no Palestinian state.
It only makes sense, since there never has been a state of Palestine.
There should be an Israeli state. I'm glad we agree.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Then we agree, no Palestinian state.
It only makes sense, since there never has been a state of Palestine.
There should be an Israeli state. I'm glad we agree.
Great!
In 10 years there will be more Plaestenians than Jews and the Jewish State of israel will shortly be voted away into history when masses of very very muslim palestian voters take over the government at the polls!!! Majority rule is wonderful and Israel should be applauded for its true commitment to democracy.
Right? Unless Israel goes nazi/south africa/jim crow and denies more than half its population the right to vote as a full citizen the muslim palestians will inevitablt take over because of their very high birthrates..
Awesome!! Thats clearly the best outcome for the historical jewish state of israel. I just love the sound of Israel Prime Minster Yasser Arafat Jr leading a Fatah Party/Hamas coalition goverment into yet another great electoral victory in the Knesset (if its still called that).. Has a great ring to it, no?
So to put it quite simply for one as dense as you, unless there is a seperate plaestenian state Isreal will invetably become like south africa. The only choice is whether it will be the isolated racist opressive south africa of apartheid or the democratic black majority ruled south africa of the 1990s...
Your choice bud...
-
Nuke's got a point, non isreali palistinians are in fact from, egypt, jordan and syria. The borders of their countries were moved by isreal, and instead of chosing to move with their respective countries borders they chose to stay there in the land that Isreal annexed. Palistine is just a geographic region, not a nation. The great majority of palistine is on the other side of the river in Jordan, yet we don't see the "palistinians" waging war agains the Jordanian occupation. Isrealis are palistinians too, be they jews or arabs.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Nuke's got a point, non isreali palistinians are in fact from, egypt, jordan and syria. The borders of their countries were moved by isreal, and instead of chosing to move with their respective countries borders they chose to stay there in the land that Isreal annexed. Palistine is just a geographic region, not a nation. The great majority of palistine is on the other side of the river in Jordan, yet we don't see the "palistinians" waging war agains the Jordanian occupation. Isrealis are palistinians too, be they jews or arabs.
In other words:
And istead of accepting to be ethincally cleansed by the Israelis they foolioshly stayed in their homes.
Oh Nuke definitely has a point....
Also Suave your whole premise is pointless, the big issue is the land Israel annexed in 1967 namely gaza and the west bank which are the areas that should be the new plaestian state.
But I know some dont want this free palestenian state instead favoring a single isreal.
So I have question for you freedom loving people, do all the palestians get the full right to vote in the greater jewish state?
-
Don't play dumb. The point being that isrealis are palestinians. And palestinian isn't a nationality, or an ethnicity. So the term ethnic cleansing isn't apt. The "palestinians" are making a choice not to be Isrealis, and chosing not to be Jordanian, egyptian or syrian. They want to start a new nation that has never existed before. That is the source of their problems.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
...PS FYI Gerry Adams was always political. He was never a bomb thrower or a gunman.
So was Hitler during WWII (and don't stretch the point to his fighting in the WWI trenches...)
And....WOW :eek: I agree with Grunherz! There should be one separate and fair Palestinian state, with no imposed jewish colonies.
Originally posted by NUKE
The Palestinians are not a race, they are just plane old Arabs. Arabs exist all over the regeon. Arafat is an Egyption......why does he need a homeland? His homeland is Egypt.
There is no such thing as a Palestinian. There has never been a country of "Palestine"
This doesn't justifiy kicking people out of their homes/lands to build 'colonies'.
I'm pro Israel. Those people have earned the hardest way the right to have their own land. But this 'lebensraum' tactic of building colonies and putting people in ghettos is plain wrong. Right wing zionists don't have long term memory.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Also Suave your whole premise is pointless, the big issue is the land Israel annexed in 1967 namely gaza and the west bank which are the areas that should be the new plaestian state.
Why "should" it be a new palestinian state? Aren't 5 palestinian countries enough?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Don't play dumb. The point being that isrealis are palestinians. And palestinian isn't a nationality, or an ethnicity. So the term ethnic cleansing isn't apt. The "palestinians" are making a choice not to be Isrealis, and chosing not to be Jordanian, egyptian or syrian. They want to start a new nation that has never existed before. That is the source of their problems.
Its you who shouldnt play dumb.
Do you realkly think that Israel will give palesteinans a full right to vote, one person one vote, when its clear to everyoner that very soon there will be many more palestians than jews? Israel as a jewish state would be over if the majority of the poulation was muslim and allowed to vote and govern democratically.
Thats why a single state solution is impossible. The jews will not give the main power over their jewish state, thats just the way it is.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Why "should" it be a new palestinian state? Aren't 5 palestinian countries enough?
I Agree. Make it one Israel, give all the palestenians full citizenship and a full right to vote and soon there will be a sixth muslim arab governed palestinan country - Israel..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its you who shouldnt play dumb.
Do you realkly think that Israel will give palesteinans a full right to vote,
They allready have. very soon there will be many more palestians than jews?
That doesn't even make sense, if by "jews" you mean isrealis, isrealis ARE palestinian.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I Agree. Make it one Israel, give all the palestenians full citizenship and a full right to vote and soon there will be a sixth muslim arab governed palestinan country - Israel..
Palestinians allready can have full citizenship and the right to vote, be they jewish or arab isrealis. The problem is the Jordanian, egyptian, syrian refugees, chose not to be Isreali .
-
Ahh semantics, the sign of desperation.
In this context the difference between palestinan and jewis is perfectly clear.
In any legitimate, free and democratic single state Israel solution every single palestian muslim arab in the borders of geater Israel (west bank gaza etc included) will have to have thje right to vote. Due to overwhelming population trends this will invetibaly lead to a majority of palestenian arab muslim voters in the "jewish" state of isreal. The jews will not let this happend becuase then isreal will no longer be a jewish state. Just for a fun example of the consequences do you really think that a majority musilim arab palestian Isreal would vote top keep the very jewish star of david flag?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Palestinians allready can have full citizenship and the right to vote, be they jewish or arab isrealis. The problem is the Jordanian, egyptian, syrian refugees, chose not to be Isreali .
Is it naivete? Or stupidity?
Are you seriouisly suggesting that jewish Isreal is eager to have masses of arab muslim paslestinans take over their country by all of them becoming full citizens with full right?
Thats laughable...
-
Population statistics of Israel
Ethnic
Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est.)
Religion
Jewish 80.1%, Muslim 14.6% (mostly Sunni Muslim), Christian 2.1%, other 3.2% (1996 est.)
-
... hmm, I am starting to like Grun (again)!
Nice debating!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Population statistics of Israel
Ethnic
Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est.)
Religion
Jewish 80.1%, Muslim 14.6% (mostly Sunni Muslim), Christian 2.1%, other 3.2% (1996 est.)
Yep those 14% are the palestinas arab muslims who are citizens of isreal proper. They can vote freely.
If a single state solution were enacted and the west bank and gaza became proper parts of a single Isreali state population forecsats show a muslim majority within a decade or so. If its democratic then it means the end of a majority jewish state, and I have no doubth that the jews do not remotely want to see this happend ever.
Do we have two states, one jewish and one muslim arab or a single state? In the latter case, does isreal become a majority muslim democracy or does it become south africa?
I think two states is the best solution fr everyone. And frankly thats reason enough to have it be that way.
-
Originally posted by Kirin
... hmm, I am starting to like Grun (again)!
Nice debating!
Thanks, but you shouldnt base you opinion of me or not on whether or not we agree on a politica viewpoint at any given time. I hold many perhaps contradictorty views and others may offend you. :)
Personally I dont think I dislike anyone on this board so far. Sure I get pissed at some characters from time to time and we have heated arguments but in the end its a dumb internet chat board. :)
-
If by semantics you mean refuting the lie which you are aserting, that is palistine is a nationality or ethnicity. Isreal unlike it's antisemetic neighbors is not an authoritarian theocracy as you would have people believe.
Why do you continue to chose to ignore the stated goal of the PLA, which is echoed by all Isreal's non democratic neighbors, which is the destruction and removal of Isreal and jewish Isrealis. These countries who teach their children in public schools that it is better to kill a jew than a fly. That the destruction of the WTC was perpetrated by Isreal.
These are the people you expect the only free country in palestine to embrace? You think these same people will embrace the secular tolerance that exists in Isreal today? That's exactly what they DON'T want. I honestly wonder what your motivation is.
I notice that you use the word Jew and Isreali interchangably. Of course this is semantic desparation speaking. How many palestinians do you know in real life? When's the list time you've been to palestine? You should pay your friends a visit, wear a cross and an american flag Tshirt when you go. Idealism increases proportionally to the distance from the problem.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Population statistics of Israel
Ethnic
Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est.)
Religion
Jewish 80.1%, Muslim 14.6% (mostly Sunni Muslim), Christian 2.1%, other 3.2% (1996 est.)
That's more religiously diverse than the US, and definitely more diverse than any other country in palestine. I wonder what horros those Muslim Isreali citizens are subjected to by the zionists :rolleyes: I'm betting they fear their neighbors a lot more than they fear their own countrymen.
-
I have met a guy that considered itself a palestinian.
He is from Nazareth, of Arab race (if it exist, since arabs are semitic), and (ear ear) Christian.
In the same time is a israelian citizen.
A good person with moderate views.
The thing that amazed me more was the fact (and I hope some of the IL friends we have here can confirm or discard the info), that ha said that he had a passport, id card, and car plate in different color from the other Israelians of judaic religion, dunno why.
Last contact just after the tanks retired from Nazareth, he survived.
-
Back on topic, the Ita news are pushing the theory that Arafat it's already dead, but the autority are holding the news because, since a muslim MUST be buried in 24 hours from the death, and the place for Arafat have yet to be decided, they cannot disclose the info to avoid riots.
Arafat expressed the will to be buried on the "temple/mosque explanade" that IL government dont want to happen.
Maybe there are secret discussions about a solution with a low level of tension.
-
On a final note,
Nuke, I suggest you strongly to read a good book of History of the middle east area, not modern history, you mind, but about ancient pre-roman history.
You will discover how many empires and movements have happened there, of wich the David's Israel reign, and the subsequent separate Israel and Giudas reigns have been only a little part.
In this way you may be set free from the political biased and partial historical visions that all the parts use to further their peculiar agendas.
A big load of BS from all sides.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Anyone who starts a war should go to hell.
Lol!..That is rich.:rofl
-
Indeed it is
-
Originally posted by Naso
I have met a guy that considered itself a palestinian.
He is from Nazareth, of Arab race (if it exist, since arabs are semitic), and (ear ear) Christian.
In the same time is a israelian citizen.
A good person with moderate views.
The thing that amazed me more was the fact (and I hope some of the IL friends we have here can confirm or discard the info), that ha said that he had a passport, id card, and car plate in different color from the other Israelians of judaic religion, dunno why.
Last contact just after the tanks retired from Nazareth, he survived.
Naso, I think you have some things confused here.
Nazarath is inside 1948 borders. Definitly no tanks there. The different plates ID cards and passports are palestinians resident of the occupied territories and not Israeli citizens.
Almost all residents of Nazarath are Israelis.
The two states solution is almost beyond debate, except by vocal minorities. The only other viable option is giving Gaza back to Egypt and the west bank back to Jordan. Both will not agree to this since the last thing they want is the palestinians on their hands. Especially Jordan which is already rulled by a Hashemic minority and put a lot of pressure that the future Palestinian state will not have a border with Jordan.
Just for the record, Zionism has a very weak historical claim to this land. The early zionists were willing to consider other territories for the future state. Israel turned out to be the best option (?).
Bozon
-
The area in question was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for an eternity. The Ottoman Empire sided with the Kaiser in World War I, and was defeated along with him. There was no Palestine, and there never had been. There was also no Israel at the time, although there had been. The area was called Trans Jordan. The British had "stewardship" over the area after World War I. They did call part of the area "Palestine".
The people who occupied that area were from any number of tribes and nations. They were for the most part Arabs of Muslim religious faith.
Even before World War II there were Jews immigrating back to the area and Israel was the territory they went to, which had been a Jewish area for centuries, and was before the British and before the Ottoman Empire.
At the time Israel was formally recognized as a sovereign nation, the Arabs of that region were also to have been given their own state to be recognized as a sovereign nation.
Unfortunately for them, and the rest of the world, the Arab nations immediately set upon Israel with the intent of destroying it and wiping out the Jews once and for all. Even more unfortunate for the Arabs living in the territory, they sided with the Arab nations, and the Arab nations lost.
The territory was controlled by Israel for the most part over the period of the next two decades.
The truth is, however, that those who call themsleves "Palestinians" and are occupying the territory known as "Palestine" are in fact refugees from any number of tribes and nations who had generally been sent to settle the territory by the Arab nations.
When that territory was lost to Israel in the next decades during the wars, those refugees originally stayed in Jordan. Again, an unfortunate situation occured. First, they were forced to live in what amounted to squalor by their Arab brethren in a part of Jordan as second class refugees, and they were not welcomed by ANY Arab nation. Second, those of Arafat's ilk created unrest, and threatened the ruler of Jordan, and Jordan violently expelled these refugees, who then, with no other place to go, returned to the territory known as "Palestine".
It was in fact their Arab brethren, and not Israel, who placed the "Palestinians" in the place and predicament in which they currently suffer.
Commonly ignored by many is the fact that Israel built homes for the refugees, but the Arab brethren of the refugees and those of Arafat's ilk prevented them from occupying the settlements, instead forcing them to live in the squalor of the refugee camps, to better foster hate and unrest, and also sympathy from the rest of the world.
As to the right of Israel to occupy and control the territory, oddly enough, that is actually guaranteed by international law. Because the territory was taken by Israel in a war in which they were attacked and they were acting in defense, they are allowed to hold that territory until such time as a formal peace treaty ends that war. With the possible exception of Egypt, under Sadat (who was assassinated for his efforts) no treaty was ever signed, so legally, the war still continues.
While far from being "lilly white", Israel has made far more efforts and more concessions than any of the Arab nations or the "Palestinians" and their "leaders", who are mostly comprised of the terrorist groups such as the PLA/PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and a few others.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The area in question was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for an eternity. The Ottoman Empire sided with the Kaiser in World War I, and was defeated along with him. There was no Palestine, and there never had been. There was also no Israel at the time, although there had been. The area was called Trans Jordan. The British had "stewardship" over the area after World War I. They did call part of the area "Palestine".
So what you are saying here is that it's all the Brits fault, right.
:p :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Great!
So to put it quite simply for one as dense as you, unless there is a seperate plaestenian state Isreal will invetably become like south africa. The only choice is whether it will be the isolated racist opressive south africa of apartheid or the democratic black majority ruled south africa of the 1990s...
Your choice bud...
You are calling me dense? Because I don't agree woth you? Nice.
I love how you so easily went to the personal insults by the way.... a sign of desperation.
Earlier this morning I was unable to get back to this website, so don't think I left the debate. I'm off to work now.
Basically you have agreed that Israel should have it's homeland "wherever " they are able to secure one. Kinda blows all of your arguments right down the chitter, don't you think?
And by the way, I believe the "Palestinians" should have their own state.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Naso, I think you have some things confused here.
This is a given. :)
Nazarath is inside 1948 borders. Definitly no tanks there.
In fact I dont remember perfectly if was Bethlem or Nazareth, it's the place where is the "Church of Nativity", where a group of Palestinians barricaded when the IL army started the assault on Arafat Palace and all the Palestinian cities.
The different plates ID cards and passports are palestinians resident of the occupied territories and not Israeli citizens.
Almost all residents of Nazarath are Israelis.
I got it, so there's no dinstinction between Israeli of Judaic religion and Muslim or Christian religion.
The two states solution is almost beyond debate, except by vocal minorities.
In my memory there's something about a try that was done just before or during the english leaving the area, a try of "2 states in one" that failed basicly for the twist toward violence that the Hagana and other pseudo-terroristics organizations put on the process.
Am I wrong?
The only other viable option is giving Gaza back to Egypt and the west bank back to Jordan. Both will not agree to this since the last thing they want is the palestinians on their hands. Especially Jordan which is already rulled by a Hashemic minority and put a lot of pressure that the future Palestinian state will not have a border with Jordan.
A no-win situation for the Pals, uh?
Just for the record, Zionism has a very weak historical claim to this land. The early zionists were willing to consider other territories for the future state. Israel turned out to be the best option (?).
Bozon
:confused:
Now I am lost, can you expand this one?
-
History is important but this is now and something has to be done.
Sort out The Israel issue and a hole lot of pissed off arabs might be less likely to want to be terrorists. DSurely the American Govt can see that? Every one else in the world can ( apart from the Israelis )
I'm sure most Arabs would rather just try and sell us stuff, show us their history and give us a nice holiday, and haggle a bit over oil prices whilst living a nice comfortable life.
-
So Nuke now you support a a seperate Palestenmian state???
You certainly didnt say that before...
The reason I called you dense is because you didnt seem to realize thsat your apparent fanatical devotion to a single Isarael would lead to the destrution of a Jewish Israel, either through severe international isolation of an apartheid style Israel that denied their majority population the right to vote or conversely the ednd of a jewish voting majority in a fully democratic state.
So once again I pose the question to those who insist on a single Israeli state solution to this problem, how do you guys propose to deal with the fact that within a decaded such a state would have a majority muslim arab palestian voting population? And why would staunchly pro israel pro jewish advocates of a single state solution want such a demographic shift in Israel?
-
Originally posted by Blue2
History is important but this is now and something has to be done.
Sort out The Israel issue and a hole lot of pissed off arabs might be less likely to want to be terrorists. DSurely the American Govt can see that? Every one else in the world can ( apart from the Israelis )
I'm sure most Arabs would rather just try and sell us stuff, show us their history and give us a nice holiday, and haggle a bit over oil prices whilst living a nice comfortable life.
No, all of them they are inhuman monsters fanatically bent on endless destruction as an end and not a means...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So Nuke now you support a a seperate Palestenmian state???
You certainly didnt say that before...
You never asked.
You were too preoccupied thinking I was being fanatic about Israel.
I was talking about the Arafat and his "Palestinian" homeland that never existed in history.
-
(http://img26.exs.cx/img26/7800/shark3.jpg)
-SW
-
Originally posted by Naso
I got it, so there's no dinstinction between Israeli of Judaic religion and Muslim or Christian religion.
well, not in ID papers, at least not anymore. The religion was used to be printed inside the ID cards, but a recent law prohibits it. A step in the right direction. Orthodox parties wanted this feature in to keep track of imigrants who are Jews by state laws but not by Jewish laws. It was not directed against the Muslim, although it was used sometimes at security inspections.
In my memory there's something about a try that was done just before or during the english leaving the area, a try of "2 states in one" that failed basicly for the twist toward violence that the Hagana and other pseudo-terroristics organizations put on the process.
Am I wrong?
Not sure what you mean by "2 states in one". There were 2 plans of dividing the country between the jews and the arabs. One also included an international neutral teritory around Jerusalem. The second plan was accepted by the Hagana, not without many internal disputes, but Ben-Gurion finally managed the decision and to enforce it on the other much smaller organizations. The plan was voted "yes" by the UN, the state of Israel was founded and immediatly attacked by the neighbouring countries that did not accept the division. The 1948 borders, set by this war are close to the division plan but actually the Jewish side gained some teritory.
A no-win situation for the Pals, uh?
Pretty much, that's why it's so difficult. Israel cannot accept them without destroying itself. The Jordanian Monarcy has a simillar problem. The territory left for them is too small for a proper state even if they get all 1967 occupied territories which they pretty much will get. Not to mention that they have two disconnected regions - Gaza and the west bank. Anyway you look at it, their state will have to keep very tight relations with the neighbours. Both they and Israel can benifit from this, but the current hostility prevent logical thinking by the people. We desperatly need a good "cooling" period.
Now I am lost, can you expand this one?
The central idea in Zionism is that Jews are a nation. This gives a Jew a secular meaning instead of a religious one and indeed most of the early zionists were not very religious up to completly secular. Their idea was that Jews will never be accepted in europe or anywhere else and must have a coutry of their own in order to be "a nation like all other nations". The obvious choise for them was the ottoman territory of Palestine - an insignificant backward piece of land plagued with marshes malaria along the coast, but is the original "homeland" of the Jews. But the important thing was a Jewish state - the state, not the land. Several other territories were offerd and considered, like todays Uganda, a region in Argentina and an island in the pacific. Zionism is a secular movement, it given little importance to "holy" places but gives some importance to "Jewish historical" places. This made them extremly unpopular with the religious Jews and the claim that a Jew is nationality made them very unpopular with the western european Jews who were trying to prove and be accepted as loyal citizens of their nations.
Eventually, Hittler pulled a number on both the latter groups and left the Zionists the only large idiology group around.
Bozon
-
Thank you very much Bozon.
I am really surprised by this infos, I always tought that Zionism was a fundamentalistic religious movement
What I like of this BBS is that, purged the political agendas BS, it's a place where you can learn a lot.
:)
-
With any luck, Arafat's "followers" will devour each other.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lies? you mean assumptions. Lets see, 12 of the BEST doctors in Europe, none can figure out why he's sick. Yeah, right.
lol 12 best doctors form Europe ?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes the Zionists are "nationalists" in a weird way. They're nationalists who determine nationality by religion, and consider the religion a "race". So a Zionist Israel would by definition be a racist state where religion/ethnicity is the qualifier for citizenship.
I trough, they are Theocrats. Im not sure if nationalists is proper word.
Since Theocratic goverment follow some kind of religion.
What do you think about this term ?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes the Zionists are "nationalists" in a weird way. They're nationalists who determine nationality by religion, and consider the religion a "race". So a Zionist Israel would by definition be a racist state where religion/ethnicity is the qualifier for citizenship.
Not quite, and here's the catch. One is considered a Jew not by his actual belief, but by his "official" religion. Most Zionists were secular and did not belive in god. They considered themselves Jews because the carried jewish tradition and culture - not faith. An more than that, they were made Jews by anti-semitic europeans who did not accept them as others even if they did not practice Judaism. If german Jews are not accepted as germans (even if they are not religious), polish jews are not accepted as polish, french Jews are not accepted as french, then what are they? That's what Zionism tried to answer.
The definition of a Jew used in Israel is, as absurd as it may sound, the same definition that the Nazis used - you are a Jew if your grandmother is a Jew. Which is of course a recursive definition...
The post WWII logic in that was that if you were Jewish enough to be sent to deathcamps, you were Jewish enough for Israel. The idea was to create Israel as a safe place for Jews and to seperate them from other nations, thus hopefully ending the old anti-semitism. This is what they meant by "Jewish state", not a religious state, but a safe house for those prosecuted as Jews.
That didn't come out exacly as they hoped and many still claim that putting all the Jews in one place just makes it easier to wipe them out. Also, 60 years past WWII, there is a desperate need of revision to the answer to "who is a Jew (for the state)" and "what is a Jewish state".
Bozon
-
Virgil, judging by your post, you learnt everything you know about Palestine from FLAME (http://www.factsandlogic.org/purpose.html) spin pieces and other such propoganda. If I'm wrong, maybe you could let me know which books you have read on the region and the conflict.
In particular I'd like to know the sources for some of your more outlandish claims, for example, the claim that Palestine was a jewish region "centuries" before WW2, and also;
those who call themsleves "Palestinians" and are occupying the territory known as "Palestine" are in fact refugees from any number of tribes and nations who had generally been sent to settle the territory by the Arab nations.
Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Virgil, judging by your post, you learnt everything you know about Palestine from FLAME (http://www.factsandlogic.org/purpose.html) spin pieces and other such propoganda. If I'm wrong, maybe you could let me know which books you have read on the region and the conflict.
In particular I'd like to know the sources for some of your more outlandish claims, for example, the claim that Palestine was a jewish region "centuries" before WW2, and also;
Thanks in advance.
I didn't know we were on a first name basis.
Judging from your arrogant assumptions, I'm not going to waste my time doing research FOR you, because you probably won't read it anyway. You want to read it, go look for it, because it is out there.
-
Spoken like a true moron Virgil. If the guy wants to know where to get some facts show him. Defend your arguments with references. If you can't then do some research.
Some people in here know nothing about the topic and are generally trying to see the truth.
-
Over here they are reporting he may have been poisoned.
-
..... as long as he dies it's all good.
Go to hell terrorist.
-
I thought he may have been as his illness is so strange. Doctors can pretty much tell what is wrong with a typical 70 year old in a few days after running tests. He has been sick for weeks and they still do not know.
Wonder if it is true and if so who did it?
-
http://www.conceptwizard.com/nutoo/nutshell3.html
-
This is all been hashed out here in the o'club already.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83402&perpage=50&pagenumber=2
Particularly GREAT history post from Arlo on page 2
-
Well I sincerely hope the cause of the illness is found. If it stays like its is, assasination conspiracy theories (chemical agents etc) are going to abound, and the middle east is going to explode.