NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do you think? Does he have a point?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/075AC594-DD63-4258-AF8D-B36E32B60645.htm

Given his inflamatory statements in the past he is not someone I would listen to. He is trying to get his name in the world press and for some reason seems to get a kick out of pissing people off. What he is suggesting is ridiculous but not surprising for one who wanted to destroy the country. "Wipe Israel off the map" wasn't it?

It wouldn't even be so bothersome except for the fact that Iran doesn't even share a land border with Isreal.

Jordan seems cool with it, so does Egypt to a lesser extent. I suppose Syria is not thrilled, but they seem reconciled to the status quo. So I have to wonder, why is this idiot sticking his oar in?

So what do you think? Does he have a point?

No.

Will they be air-lifting it out, using cranes, or just a huge-ass pulley anchored in Italy?

I don't think any of those nations are thrilled to have Israel as a neighbor. They know Israel could whip their collective asses at whim, as it has done before, and so now they are more polite.

I don't think any of those nations are thrilled to have Israel as a neighbor. They know Israel could whip their collective asses at whim, as it has done before, and so now they are more polite.

I am sure they are not delighted. But they seem mostly okay with it. At least they aren't talking about wiping it off the map.

It should have been placed somewhere else from day one, but things are what they are, and Israel can't be moved after so many decades. Suck it up and live with it, Iran.

So what do you think? Does he have a point?
Well, why not.

It'd be okay if we can fit in in somewhere around South Eastern Germany, South Poland, Northern Czech Republic. They're not that many people, so they'll probably fit.
Problem is of course what'll happen to the people who live there now.

I'd prefer Israel to be more of a country like any other, but this whole "Jewish State" thing is obviously fairly important to them, which will always make its location tricky.

So I personally would be okay with it, I'm not a person who'll look at a map and complain, as long as the people are treated okay.

That being said, Israelis probably won't be interested anyways...even though the weather is much better in Europe. :p

Well, he does have a point when he mentions "You believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price?"

Of course... It's all downhill from there on.

It'd certainly be a good solution for the arabs, if it wasn't for a minor detail. Bush'd rather have them there than in Europe. And besides, they'd likely cause an uproar in Europe... No one appreciates a bunch of trouble-making foreigners taking territory in your lands. At least I wouldn't, and I'm European.

Well, why not.

It'd be okay if we can fit in in somewhere around South Eastern Germany, South Poland, Northern Czech Republic. They're not that many people, so they'll probably fit.
Problem is of course what'll happen to the people who live there now.

I'd prefer Israel to be more of a country like any other, but this whole "Jewish State" thing is obviously fairly important to them, which will always make its location tricky.

So I personally would be okay with it, I'm not a person who'll look at a map and complain, as long as the people are treated okay.

That being said, Israelis probably won't be interested anyways...even though the weather is much better in Europe. :p


You are joking aren't you?

Iran's f*ckwitt President is an ignorant peasant.

You are joking aren't you?
The weather really is better. I hate the heat, and apparently growing stuff in Israel can be a bitch in places.

Of course I am. But remember that there was a sizable section of Zionists who initially wanted land in Argentina.

Will they be air-lifting it out, using cranes, or just a huge-ass pulley anchored in Italy?
I would go with a trebuchet myself.
*Puts Ahmadinejad on my IGNORE list*

It wouldn't even be so bothersome except for the fact that Iran doesn't even share a land border with Isreal.

Jordan seems cool with it, so does Egypt to a lesser extent. I suppose Syria is not thrilled, but they seem reconciled to the status quo. So I have to wonder, why is this idiot sticking his oar in?
Apparently because he wants to play at brinkmanship with the Israelis, which is a really fucking stupid idea because in the end, the israelis will definitely pull the trigger.

Apparently because he want's to play at brinkmanship with the Israelis, which is a really fucking stupid idea because in the end, the israelis will definitely pull the trigger.
He reminds me of a story (by Hemingway, I think) about a guy in a besieged city of Madrid in the middle of the civil war, who runs around with a toy gun and "shoots" people- until someone pulls out a real Colt and shoots him.

But I suppose for someone like Ahmadinejad this comment is something of a moderation. After all, Europe does exist on the map... for now anyway.

(In case you're wondering, I was The Holy Womble. Now mourning the mysterious, unexplained and unprovoked deletion of my nation).

I wish somebody would kick Mr. Ahmedinejad up his presidential arse...

I wish somebody would kick Mr. Ahmedinejad up his presidential arse...

:D

I wish somebody would kick Mr. Ahmedinejad up his presidential arse...
Well, it might be good to wait for him to address whatever passes for the Iranian Parliament, with the hardliners in attendance, and turn the building into a crater 600 meters wide and 150 meters deep, glowing with suffused radioactivity.

1. The number of Palistians displaced by the creation of the state of Israel is far less than the number displaced by the creation of the Aswan dam

2. The area that is now called Israel was bought by various Jews who moved to Palistine as a result of Pogroms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was bought from absentee landlords in Egypt and Syria

Well, it does raise the question...jewish 'homeland' aside, why did the Allies, in all their guilt over the holocaust (because that played a damn large part of this actually ever becoming reality) decide to create a Jewish state in the middle east? Ok, scratch that, we know why, but really, were they feeling so bad about it, they should've created a Jewish state out of their own lands. Somewhere in Europe...or in a very sparsely populated area like, oh, say...Canada. What they did instead, was akin to introducing red ants into a black ant hill. And now they act surprised that the whole region is a mess?

Well, it does raise the question...jewish 'homeland' aside,
Why aside, actually?

Why aside, actually?
Because, though I like to believe that politicians truly care about things like a people's ancestral tie to a particular area, I understand through personal experience being a First Nations person, that this is only true in terms of political expediency. If it is not politically damaging to ignore it, it SHALL be ignored. Meaning, I don't actually believe that the only consideration was the idea of an ancestral homeland. Else the the movement to 'reclaim' it would've been supported long before.

Because, though I like to believe that politicians truly care about things like a people's ancestral tie to a particular area, I understand through personal experience being a First Nations person, that this is only true in terms of political expediency. If it is not politically damaging to ignore it, it SHALL be ignored. Meaning, I don't actually believe that the only consideration was the idea of an ancestral homeland. Else the the movement to 'reclaim' it would've been supported long before.
It WAS supported long before. Do you really think that the state of Israel has appeared on the land overnight the moment the UN passed a resolution?

You know, perhaps being a First Nation person, you should have actually understood it better than most. If someone was to suggest an independent Native American state on a randomly chosen location on the other end of the world, one that never had any connection to the history and traditions of the nation- say, in the jungles of Sumatra or in an Australian desert- how would you view such an idea?

It WAS supported long before. Do you really think that the state of Israel has appeared on the land overnight the moment the UN passed a resolution? I realise that the movement was not a flash in the pan...but the political will to actually implement it did not gain the necessary momentum until after the horrors of the Holocaust.

You know, perhaps being a First Nation person, you should have actually understood it better than most. If someone was to suggest an independent Native American state on a randomly chosen location on the other end of the world, one that never had any connection to the history and traditions of the nation- say, in the jungles of Sumatra or in an Australian desert- how would you view such an idea?
Had we already been separated from our homeland for centuries, frankly, I would still have a tie to that homeland, but I would not expect to suddenly reclaim it, and move the current occupants out. Then again, our people are more willing to live WITH the people who have moved to our shores, and we do not try to force them out.

Our claim to this land is strong because we were never separated from it. Of COURSE that claim would be weakened by prolonged absence...just as it is weakened by any group separated from their homeland, rightly or wrongly. Africans brought to the Americas lived generations away from their African nations...could they go back? Once they were freed, of course...but would their tie to that land be as strong? It is one thing to carve an independent state out of an area you still live in...I'm absolutely for self-rule for people like the Basque, or the Kurds...but it is another to hearken back to a homeland you've haven't lived in for centuries.

But those are my opinions on the existance of Isreal...which was not actually my point. My point was, believe all you like that politicans at the time really and truly cared about the Jews and did this for them. They didn't. They did it for themselves...but they didn't actually want to inconvenience THEMSELVES at all. It was a win-win situation for Europe...it made them look good, and it was a chance to get the remaining Jews to leave.

Well, it does raise the question...jewish 'homeland' aside, why did the Allies, in all their guilt over the holocaust (because that played a damn large part of this actually ever becoming reality) decide to create a Jewish state in the middle east? Ok, scratch that, we know why, but really, were they feeling so bad about it, they should've created a Jewish state out of their own lands. Somewhere in Europe...or in a very sparsely populated area like, oh, say...Canada. What they did instead, was akin to introducing red ants into a black ant hill. And now they act surprised that the whole region is a mess?

Do you really think that there were many Jews after WW2 who wanted to stay in Europe?

Do you really think that there were many Jews after WW2 who wanted to stay in Europe?
I had this horrible thought that they should have been given part of Germany...but that just would've been cruel beyond anything. But creating nations...hell, even PARTITIONING them (India and Pakistan) has such terrible side effects. Of course people wonder...could it have been done differently? Could we have avoided the current trouble? I don't know if we could...but I can't help speculating. Really...no matter where they created a Jewish state, there would have been some problems...it seems to me that this particular spot was the MOST problematic.

Too late to change it now, though.

I realise that the movement was not a flash in the pan...but the political will to actually implement it did not gain the necessary momentum until after the horrors of the Holocaust.
:rolleyes:

Zionism as an organized political movement began in the late 19 century, well before the Holocaust, and the first truly Zionist group to begin settling in the Land of Israel were the Hovevei Zion in the early 1880-s. However, sporadic Jewish return movements emerged frequently throughout history ever since the expulsion. By the time of the Holocaust, the Jewish Zionist community in the Land of Israel numbered over half a million people, founded dozens upon dozens of cities and agricultural communities and was pretty much its own de-facto state.


Had we already been separated from our homeland for centuries, frankly, I would still have a tie to that homeland, but I would not expect to suddenly reclaim it, and move the current occupants out. Then again, our people are more willing to live WITH the people who have moved to our shores, and we do not try to force them out.
The Jews had lived WITH the people who persecuted them for 2000 years too, doing the same routine- come to a place, live for a hundred years or so, get massacred, move elsewhere, start over. The founder of Zionism, Theodor Hertzl, was originally an ardent proponent of assimilation with the host nations through mass conversion of Jews to Christianity- until one day reality bit him in the butt and he saw (during the Dreifus trial) that the harder the Jews try to be like everybody else, the more they were hated. And so it became obvious that the persecution of Jews will not end until the Jews rise up and end it by reclaiming their original home, fortifying it and telling the rest of the world to bugger off and mind their own business.


Our claim to this land is strong because we were never separated from it. Of COURSE that claim would be weakened by prolonged absence...just as it is weakened by any group separated from their homeland, rightly or wrongly. Africans brought to the Americas lived generations away from their African nations...could they go back? Once they were freed, of course...but would their tie to that land be as strong? It is one thing to carve an independent state out of an area you still live in...I'm absolutely for self-rule for people like the Basque, or the Kurds...but it is another to hearken back to a homeland you've been long separated from.
Why, exactly, should one's right for his land be weakened because of conquest? Does might make right?


But those are my opinions on the existance of Isreal...which was not actually my point. My point was, believe all you like that politicans at the time really and truly cared about the Jews and did this for them. They didn't. They did it for themselves...but they didn't actually want to inconvenience THEMSELVES at all. It was a win-win situation for Europe...a chance to get the remaining Jews to leave.
You still don't get it. EUROPE DID NOT CREATE ISRAEL. In fact, they did everything they could to OBSTRUCT the creation of Israel, to the point of fighting against Israel in the 1948 Independence war (both by proxy and directly. There actually were clashes between the the newborn Israeli air force and the British warplanes that came to support the Egyptian troops). Israel was created not with the European help, but despite their treacherous sabotage. They did vote for recognizing Israel in the UN, yes, because the Jewish blood on their hands was still fresh. It would have been far too transparent if they began preaching co-existence: "Oh come on, be reasonable, why do you need your own state? You can live with us. Well yes, we've just slaughtered millions of you, but it's the first and the last time! Oh sorry, not the first, we've slaughtered you back in the 18th century... and in the 17th... and in the 15th... and as far back as we can remember Europe... but you can trust us this time! We PROMISE!".

Every time someone talks about how Europe "supported" the creation of Israel it reminds me of an episode when Jean Paul Sartre signed a petition in support of recognizing Israel in 1947. Two years later, when the Independence war was over, he phoned the Jewish Agency office and accused them of cheating, yelling angrily: "But you promised they would lose!!!"

So what do you think? Does he have a point?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/075AC594-DD63-4258-AF8D-B36E32B60645.htm

That seems a bit impractical. And how would they transport all the Israelis, by train car?

He does have a point....he's a great man Ahmedinejad...I know him personally a warm and compassionate soul.


He does have a point a tell you!:mp5:

:rolleyes:

Zionism as an organized political movement began in the late 19 century, well before the Holocaust, and the first truly Zionist group to begin settling in the Land of Israel were the Hovevei Zion in the early 1880-s. However, sporadic Jewish return movements emerged frequently throughout history ever since the expulsion. By the time of the Holocaust, the Jewish Zionist community in the Land of Israel numbered over half a million people, founded dozens upon dozens of cities and agricultural communities and was pretty much its own de-facto state. Yes, yes, all very nice. You seem to miss the point that this doesn't change the fact that the actual creation of the Jewish state did not happen until after the Holocaust. Regardless of whether Jews moved there anyway, Israel would not have been recognised unless the political leaders of the time decided it would be. De-facto state does not a state make.


The Jews had lived WITH the people who persecuted them for 2000 years too, doing the same routine- come to a place, live for a hundred years or so, get massacred, move elsewhere, start over. The founder of Zionism, Theodor Hertzl, was originally an ardent proponent of assimilation with the host nations through mass conversion of Jews to Christianity- until one day reality bit him in the butt and he saw (during the Dreifus trial) that the harder the Jews try to be like everybody else, the more they were hated. And so it became obvious that the persecution of Jews will not end until the Jews rise up and end it by reclaiming their original home, fortifying it and telling the rest of the world to bugger off and mind their own business. Again, very nice. Not remotely what I was referring to, but perhaps I was unclear. I'm talking about Israel, not the long history of Jews being persecuted in other lands. I said my people are willing to live with those that have come to make their homes here. And regular Israelis are likely willing to live with Palestinians in Israel...but the political leaders of Israel will not allow this.



Why, exactly, should one's right for his land be weakened because of conquest? Does might make right? Because you lose connection with it. I only bring this up within the context of my own people, who you brought in as a way of telling me I should be sympathetic to the creation of Israel...but your comparison is false. My people are tied to their land...remove us, and we lose our culture. Had we been forced to leave our homes, we would have had to create a new culture based on our new land...our ties to our old land would have been severed completely the day the last person raised there died. Moving us back, or creating a state for us back in our ancestral homeland after such a separation wouldn't work.




You still don't get it. EUROPE DID NOT CREATE ISRAEL. In fact, they did everything they could to OBSTRUCT the creation of Israel, to the point of fighting against Israel in the 1948 Independence war (both by proxy and directly. There actually were clashes between the the newborn Israeli air force and the British warplanes that came to support the Egyptian troops). Israel was created not with the European help, but despite their treacherous sabotage. They did vote for recognizing Israel in the UN, yes, because the Jewish blood on their hands was still fresh. It would have been far too transparent if they began preaching co-existence: "Oh come on, be reasonable, why do you need your own state? You can live with us. Well yes, we've just slaughtered millions of you, but it's the first and the last time! Oh sorry, not the first, we've slaughtered you back in the 18th century... and in the 17th... and in the 15th... and as far back as we can remember Europe... but you can trust us this time! We PROMISE!". Nonetheless, it was that vote of acceptance that allowed Israel to solidify itself as a nation state. And you've made the point I was getting at...it was a political ploy they were rather forced into by the atrocities of the Holocaust. My point all along has not been that they carved out Israel single-handedly and said, "Here, that absolves us", but rather that despite the Holocaust, they didn't actually give a shit about the Jews, and were willing to support any move that did not inconvenience them...which certainly co-existence would have, much more so (at the time) than sanctioning a movement to the middle east. If Europe had actually given a shit about the Jews, they could have done much, much more than they did. In essence, all you've done is back up my previous statement:

Because, though I like to believe that politicians truly care about things like a people's ancestral tie to a particular area, I understand through personal experience being a First Nations person, that this is only true in terms of political expediency. If it is not politically damaging to ignore it, it SHALL be ignored. Meaning, I don't actually believe that the only consideration was the idea of an ancestral homeland. Else the the movement to 'reclaim' it would've been supported long before.
I will admit the point that 'create' is not the word I should be using, because it implies that Europe was the one actually responsible (alone) for the creation of Israel. But their involvement was absolutely key.

But if you really want to make more of that than I've actually intended, feel free. You seem to be looking for something to argue with.

Again, very nice. Not remotely what I was referring to, but perhaps I was unclear. I'm talking about Israel, not the long history of Jews being persecuted in other lands. I said my people are willing to live with those that have come to make their homes here. And regular Israelis are likely willing to live with Palestinians in Israel...but the political leaders of Israel will not allow this.
Actually, there are plenty of non-jewish arab israelis living in Israel. What the political leaders will not allow is organizations like Hamas and various factions of Fatah into israel. It'd be like a bunch of white yuppies inviting a bunch of Crips, Bloods, and MS-13 members to live right next to them. Not gonna happen, and neither should it. Another example would be a gay commune inviting a bunch of Neo-nazis and Klanners to come live with them, again, not gonna happen.

Actually, there are plenty of non-jewish arab israelis living in Israel. What the political leaders will not allow is organizations like Hamas and various factions of Fatah into israel. It'd be like a bunch of white yuppies inviting a bunch of Crips, Bloods, and MS-13 members to live right next to them. Not gonna happen, and neither should it. Another example would be a gay commune inviting a bunch of Neo-nazis and Klanners to come live with them, again, not gonna happen.
Except in your example, the terrorism isn't going both ways.

Except in your example, the terrorism isn't going both ways.
Um no, even in israel the terrorism isn't going both ways, contrary to what the MSM would have you believe. If it was terrorism than there should be a much much much higher body count of women and children under 14 by the israeilis. There isn't. The vast majority of the people they kill are males 14 and older. Coincidentally, the most likely ages for a kid in the US to be involved in a gang are 14-26. Wow, what an interesting coincidence.

Um no, even in israel the terrorism isn't going both ways, contrary to what the MSM would have you believe. If it was terrorism than there should be a much much much higher body count of women and children under 14 by the israeilis. There isn't. The vast majority of the people they kill are males 14 and older. Coincidentally, the most likely ages for a kid in the US to be involved in a gang are 14-26. Wow, what an interesting coincidence.
14 and over? That's still children.
(MSM?)
I think both sides are at fault...can I say who is MORE at fault? God I wouldn't even try. It's too messy. But it's not the regular people causing the trouble, it's the fanatics and the politicians using the situation to their gain. As it always is.

So what do you think? Does he have a point?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/075AC594-DD63-4258-AF8D-B36E32B60645.htm

no

That land was Israel (or Israel and Judah) thousands of years ago, since Jacob (Jacob was Israel)... Jews should be able to claim their homeland.

Are today's Palestinians descended from the ancient Phillistines?

The main reason (as far as I can remember) for putting the Jews in the Middle East was to get them away from the Europeans. Of course, that just put them in the middle of another bunch of people who wanted to kill them, but at least they had a nation and military to back themselves up.
Of course, the Roma suffered a lot more, and they never got their hunk of India, so whatever . . .

Well, it does raise the question...jewish 'homeland' aside, why did the Allies, in all their guilt over the holocaust (because that played a damn large part of this actually ever becoming reality) decide to create a Jewish state in the middle east? Ok, scratch that, we know why, but really, were they feeling so bad about it, they should've created a Jewish state out of their own lands. Somewhere in Europe...or in a very sparsely populated area like, oh, say...Canada. What they did instead, was akin to introducing red ants into a black ant hill. And now they act surprised that the whole region is a mess?

Yeah, I would be totally fine if Israel was moved to Canada. We've got room to spare.

Yeah, I would be totally fine if Israel was moved to Canada. We've got room to spare.
But the Jews would be ostracized from Canada for never partaking of the funny bacon that is your primary food product and export.

But the Jews would be ostracized from Canada for never partaking of the funny bacon that is your primary food product and export.
:eek: LMAO! well, they wouldn't be welcome in Alberta, which is sad. The majority of ALbertans are ignorant rednecks, with the possible exception of Edmonton, which at least has some culture.

:eek: LMAO! well, they wouldn't be welcome in Alberta, which is sad. The majority of ALbertans are ignorant rednecks, with the possible exception of Edmonton, which at least has some culture.
Yeah, but Alberta is very sparsely populated. Once you go north of Edmonton, there really isn't much there...and we all know ignorant rednecks don't like to quad for more that two hours to find people to beat up:) Create a Jewish state in Northern Alberta, but leave the Metis and First Nation communities alone.....

:eek: LMAO! well, they wouldn't be welcome in Alberta, which is sad. The majority of ALbertans are ignorant rednecks, with the possible exception of Edmonton, which at least has some culture.
Which is another reason that (the cycnical part of me inisists) the Jews landed in the Middle East. Everyone got up and said, "Well, yes, the I whole-heartedly support the idea of a Jewish state, and, in prinicipal, feel it would be a brilliant idea. However, we really can't put them in my homeland because of the large amount of pork we consume."
And then another guy stood up and said: "Yes, and while I too support the principal of resitution, it wouldn't work in my country because my people are allergic to banks."
So the whole matter went around the table, and then it was decided that the Jews would go to the Middle East because the Egyptian and Jordanian diplomats skipped that meeting to get drunk and debauched.

Which is another reason that (the cycnical part of me inisists) the Jews landed in the Middle East. Everyone got up and said, "Well, yes, the I whole-heartedly support the idea of a Jewish state, and, in prinicipal, feel it would be a brilliant idea. However, we really can't put them in my homeland because of the large amount of pork we consume."
And then another guy stood up and said: "Yes, and while I too support the principal of resitution, it wouldn't work in my country because my people are allergic to banks."
So the whole matter went around the table, and then it was decided that the Jews would go to the Middle East because the Egyptian and Jordanian diplomats skipped that meeting to get drunk and debauched.
LMAO! that's pretty funny :)

Yeah, but Alberta is very sparsely populated. Once you go north of Edmonton, there really isn't much there...and we all know ignorant rednecks don't like to quad for more that two hours to find people to beat up:) Create a Jewish state in Northern Alberta, but leave the Metis and First Nation communities alone.....

Yeah, I'm constantly suprised at how fuckin' big Alberta is! we could fit Israel in Alberta 31 times, and we're bigger than FRANCE for God's sake!

EDIT: and twice the size of Germany, and bigger than Spain....

EDIT2: and bigger than Poland, just squeak past the Ukraine, Turkey goes past us by 100,000ish sq km...

Yeah, I'm constantly suprised at how fuckin' big Alberta is! we could fit Israel in Alberta 31 times, and we're bigger than FRANCE for God's sake!
How do you know that there isn't already a Shadow Israel in Alberta? The US could have hidden it there while Canada wasn't looking.

How do you know that there isn't already a Shadow Israel in Alberta? The US could have hidden it there while Canada wasn't looking.
I know, because Google Earth told me so.

I know, because Google Earth told me so.
And that's all that matters....

But it's not the regular people causing the trouble, it's the fanatics and the politicians using the situation to their gain. As it always is.That would be comforting maybe, if it were true. in actuality, there is a systemic cutural hatred that is very prevalent in the palestinian population, and promotes racism and violence at every turn. It isn't a simple situation of evil leaders and a pure-of-heart populace.

no

That land was Israel (or Israel and Judah) thousands of years ago, since Jacob (Jacob was Israel)... Jews should be able to claim their homeland.

Are today's Palestinians descended from the ancient Phillistines?

Do you also think American Indians should be able to claim their homeland? Or is that different because Jews are worth more than Arabs, and American settlers are worth more than natives?

I know, because Google Earth told me so.
Google has become part of the conspiracy. It was part of the deal for them to try and get into banking. After all, guess who controls the Banks?
Harold C. Banck, that's right, but who controls him? The J3W5.

Do you also think American Indians should be able to claim their homeland? Or is that different because Jews are worth more than Arabs, and American settlers are worth more than natives?

...knew that was coming...

look, the united states is huge... plenty of room for hundreds of millions of people. Whites wanted to settle and when they tried to, they (some of the more warlike native americans) tortured and killed some white settlers, so the US fought back. The US exiled some tribes away from their native lands, but many were able to stay in their homelands. (US Army took things too far in many cases, of course... I'll condone their protection of settlers, but not their wholesale destruction of some tribes. Much more should have been done to secure peace more expeditiously)

Israel is not a huge place. In ancient times, it was Israel and Judah... then from about, what, 500 AD to about 1950, Jews were persecuted and kept out of their homeland altogether (or at least were forced to call it Palestine, knowing that it's really Israel)... they're still persecuted/hated by the Arabs that surround them, but imo Israel should remain right where it is... it was and is Israel.

Yes, yes, all very nice. You seem to miss the point that this doesn't change the fact that the actual creation of the Jewish state did not happen until after the Holocaust. Regardless of whether Jews moved there anyway, Israel would not have been recognised unless the political leaders of the time decided it would be. De-facto state does not a state make.
And having been born does not a child make until the birth certificate is signed? Some logic. Sorry, but that calls for another :rolleyes:

It is the formal recognition that "does not a state make".

State exist quite fine without recognition, including UN recognition. Taiwan is one example. Erithrea is another.



Again, very nice. Not remotely what I was referring to, but perhaps I was unclear. I'm talking about Israel, not the long history of Jews being persecuted in other lands. I said my people are willing to live with those that have come to make their homes here. And regular Israelis are likely willing to live with Palestinians in Israel...but the political leaders of Israel will not allow this.
You have completely lost me here. Regular Israelis actually do live with Arabs in Israel- 20% of Israel's population are Arabs (approx. 1.5 million). But going back to being a minority in someone else's state- whether Arab or European- without having a place of our own is no longer an option. No nation that attained self-rule had ever willingly given it up.


Because you lose connection with it. I only bring this up within the context of my own people, who you brought in as a way of telling me I should be sympathetic to the creation of Israel...but your comparison is false. My people are tied to their land...remove us, and we lose our culture. Had we been forced to leave our homes, we would have had to create a new culture based on our new land...our ties to our old land would have been severed completely the day the last person raised there died. Moving us back, or creating a state for us back in our ancestral homeland after such a separation wouldn't work.
Well it isn't the case with us, obviously. We have managed to preserve the ties to the land where we came from, and the return to it remained the central aspiration of the Jewish culture. There were attempts, by the Reformist Jews in the 19th century, to erase the mentions of the Land of Israel from our prayer books- but they did not survive the test of time. And nobody "moved" us back to our ancestral land forcefully, we CAME there, we OVERCAME the obstacles that others tried to erect in our path, we wrestled our land back by hard work and we defended it with our blood. You don't do it for a piece of land to which you have no connection.

Hell, it's not like the world out there didn't actually KNOW that this land was ours. They always knew. The Christians knew. The Muslims knew as well, it is only in the recent times that they began claiming otherwise.

The resources of the country [Western Palestine] are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1,000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had the gift of a deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons [abna'ihi-l-asliyin], for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland.

This was written by the Sharif of Mecca, no less, in 1918. He knew.


Nonetheless, it was that vote of acceptance that allowed Israel to solidify itself as a nation state.
Not really. The vote was but a formality, a recognition of what was already on the ground. What, pray tell, would Israel lose if they weren't recognized by the UN? UN assistance? There was never any. How, pray tell, did it do anything to "allowed Israel to solidify itself as a nation state"?


And you've made the point I was getting at...it was a political ploy they were rather forced into by the atrocities of the Holocaust. My point all along has not been that they carved out Israel single-handedly and said, "Here, that absolves us", but rather that despite the Holocaust, they didn't actually give a shit about the Jews, and were willing to support any move that did not inconvenience them...which certainly co-existence would have, much more so (at the time) than sanctioning a movement to the middle east. If Europe had actually given a shit about the Jews, they could have done much, much more than they did. In essence, all you've done is back up my previous statement:.
If by "they" you mean Europeans- perhaps so. But the thing is, nobody asked the Europeans where the Jewish state was to be established. They couldn't "move" Israel elsewhere, as many a moron think they "should have done". As it wasn't theirs to build, neither was it theirs to place.


I will admit the point that 'create' is not the word I should be using, because it implies that Europe was the one actually responsible (alone) for the creation of Israel. But their involvement was absolutely key.
Was it? Like how? By a post-factum recognition?


But if you really want to make more of that than I've actually intended, feel free. You seem to be looking for something to argue with.
You know exactly what I am arguing with here- with your musings about how the Europeans "should've created a Jewish state out of their own lands. Somewhere in Europe...or in a very sparsely populated area like, oh, say...Canada."

I am fed up with this rubbish, you know. All these oh-so-nice-and-peaceful people who refuse to face the fact that Israel is a fait accompli and nobody bloody asks them what they think about it. Those who see the creation of Israel as some kind of an undeserved free gift to the Jews by the oh-so-generous Europe, who felt sooooo guilty and made this oh-so-regrettable mistake of " introducing red ants into a black ant hill", as you put it. And of course, it would have been nice if this regrettable mistake was somehow rectified and Israel was wiped off the map- if only their oh-so-kind souls wouldn't ache at the thought of the only way through which this could be accomplished.

The funny part is that these people usually take offense if someone points out that they are basically repeating the Hamas charter- even though the only real difference is that the Hamas is somewhat less squeamish about the means of rectifying the mistake.

Apparently because he wants to play at brinkmanship with the Israelis, which is a really fucking stupid idea because in the end, the israelis will definitely pull the trigger.


Thats what he wants..To provoke Israel into a war and thus justify his need for nuclear weapons. His reasoning would be that he needs them to scare of his enemy which also has them, or something to that extent. Hopefully the IAF can get succesful bombing raids in..maybe with help from the US carriers in the persian gulf..to stop the creation of a nuclear device

Do you also think American Indians should be able to claim their homeland? Or is that different because Jews are worth more than Arabs, and American settlers are worth more than natives?
Actually, if the Native Americans today organized a national movement and demanded their own independent state, their claim could only be countered by appealing to the states' right for territorial integrity. In other words, only because there already exists a recognized state on the territory they want to claim. Which wasn't at all a case with Israel, where no recognized independent state existed.

What happened to The Holy Womble?

What happened to The Holy Womble?
My previous nation was mysteriously deleted, with no warning or explanation.

Do you also think American Indians should be able to claim their homeland? Or is that different because Jews are worth more than Arabs, and American settlers are worth more than natives?
And there went your argument for the Palestinian "right of return." And, for that matter, of making Israel leave the Middle East.

My previous nation was mysteriously deleted, with no warning or explanation.
I believe Ahmadinejad had something to do with it...

My previous nation was mysteriously deleted, with no warning or explanation.That's irregular - my condolences. *points direction to moderation*

I believe Ahmadinejad had something to do with it...
I wouldn't rule that out:D

That would be comforting maybe, if it were true. in actuality, there is a systemic cutural hatred that is very prevalent in the palestinian population, and promotes racism and violence at every turn. It isn't a simple situation of evil leaders and a pure-of-heart populace.
Ah. And the Israelis are completely blameless in all of this?

Do you also think American Indians should be able to claim their homeland? Or is that different because Jews are worth more than Arabs, and American settlers are worth more than natives?
It's not really the same situation...we haven't been separated from our homelands for centuries. If we now turned around and said, "Hey, all evidence suggests we crossed over from Siberia, and now we claim Siberia as our true ancestral homeland" I would expect people to laugh, point, and dismiss our claims.

The funny part is that these people usually take offense if someone points out that they are basically repeating the Hamas charter- even though the only real difference is that the Hamas is somewhat less squeamish about the means of rectifying the mistake.
Yeah yeah. Well, I'm a little tired of the fact that you can't possibly even discuss Israel without being accused of full-out supporting Hamas. Yes, I have sympathy for the Palestinians...and yes, like many, many people I wonder how a group that has been so persecute throughout history can decide to behave so cruelly towards others...but I don't support their use of violence, nor do I support the use of violence against them. I'm going to be blunt here, and state my opinion...my OPINION. I don't think Israel ever should have been recognised as a state. I believe they were gone long enough to nullify any claim they had to that area. Do I have to live with the fact that the state exists, and is not going to disappear? Sure. But there you have it. That's my opinion.

And we're done now...because I'm really not interested in pursuing this with you.

Ah. And the Israelis are completely blameless in all of this?I didn't say that. I was just pointing out the naivite of your pretty little fantasy. It applies to both sides, in varying degrees- you'll find hatefull and wrong-headed "regular' people on both sides, but its clearly deeper and more dangerous on the palestinian side. This is a different debate, but all you need is to look at their schools and children's camps to see how fundamentally scary it is.

I didn't say that. I was just pointing out the naivite of your pretty little fantasy. It applies to both sides, in varying degrees- you'll find hatefull and wrong-headed "regular' people on both sides, but its clearly deeper and more dangerous on the palestinian side. This is a different debate, but all you need is to look at their schools and children's camps to see how fundamentally scary it is.Mmmmm, but I did specify fanatics, not just political leaders. But my conception of fanatic might be a bit loose...I consider someone who could kill a stranger because they hold an opposing philosophy/religion/whatever to be a fanatic...

Why is it worse on the Palestinian side? I think for the same reason violence is worse in ghettos than in suburbs, no matter where you are in the world. If the living condition of the palestians were to improve, I doubt their neighbourhoods would be such the breeding ground for 'fanatic' recruitment that they currently are.

Mmmmm, but I did specify fanatics, not just political leaders. But my conception of fanatic might be a bit loose...I consider someone who could kill a stranger because they hold an opposing philosophy/religion/whatever to be a fanatic...If you define fanticism that way, or expand it to include those who would support such killings (my inclination) you'll find that huge chunks of people are indeed fanatics.

Why is it worse on the Palestinian side? I think for the same reason violence is worse in ghettos than in suburbs, no matter where you are in the world. If the living condition of the palestians were to improve, I doubt their neighbourhoods would be such the breeding ground for 'fanatic' recruitment that they currently are.No doubt whatsoever. There are always causes, and things that must be improved (and will be improved, with time). That doesn't render the people who participate in fanticism blameless. I don't think of violent masses as mindless pawns of leaders - they also make decisions, though no doubt their capacity to make the right ones is probably restricted through circomstance. You ignore a deeper problem when you relegate blame to distant "leadership", or "fanaticism", and fail to realize that it prevades an entire society.

If you define fanticism that way, or expand it to include those who would support such killings (my inclination) you'll find that huge chunks of people are indeed fanatics.Hmmm...I suppose that's true...though I prefer to think of people who support such killings as merely moronic, and not having the capacity to truly understand what it is they are supporting. I'll keep the fanatic label for those who actually commit the violence.
No doubt whatsoever. There are always causes, and things that must be improved (and will be improved, with time). That doesn't render the people who participate in fanticism blameless. I don't think of violent masses as mindless pawns of leaders - they also make decisions, though no doubt their capacity to make the right ones is probably restricted through circomstance. You ignore a deeper problem when you relegate blame to distant "leadership", or "fanaticism", and fail to realize that it prevades an entire society.I guess what bothers me the most is that many people who support Israel, make claims about the Palestinans as having some sort of inherent cultural flaw that predisposes them to violence...which is as obscene as saying that any group has some inherent cultural flaw that predisposes them to *x*. I think Palestinian society has been warped by circumstance, and that the violence can not cease until that has been dealt with...but it won't be dealt with if people just think of them as a bunch of mindless, hateful terrorists. If I grew up in that situation, I might be the one with a bomb...who's to say? But I do believe that political manipulation confuses the issue, and cements the us versus them policies BOTH sides have taken.

Yeah yeah. Well, I'm a little tired of the fact that you can't possibly even discuss Israel without being accused of full-out supporting Hamas.
Oh I am not saying that you are "full-out" supporting them. You're not supporting their means, they are too bloody and gruesome and they don't agree with the nice and fluffy moralism that is so trendy this season- but you do support their ends. Which, frankly speaking, is bad enough.


Yes, I have sympathy for the Palestinians...and yes, like many, many people I wonder how a group that has been so persecute throughout history can decide to behave so cruelly towards others but I don't support their use of violence, nor do I support the use of violence against them.
How dares the victim of bullying go out, learn boxing and beat the bullies into leaving them alone? Didn't their experience teach them that violence is bad?


I'm going to be blunt here, and state my opinion...my OPINION. I don't think Israel ever should have been recognised as a state. I believe they were gone long enough to nullify any claim they had to that area.
And this is pretty much where the rational discussion ends.


And we're done now...because I'm really not interested in pursuing this with you.
As you wish.

Why doesn't he just give a few provinces of Iran to the Palestinians? Iran is big enough.

Help establish a new, slightly-further-East Palestine today.

Why doesn't he just give a few provinces of Iran to the Palestinians? Iran is big enough.

Help establish a new, slightly-further-East Palestine today.
Apparently because the Palestians were wanderers, they don't deserve any land.

Sinuhue, I would just be wary of defining your problem out of existance. you can define a fanatic however you want, but then you either have to be okay with negotiating with said fanatics, or you have to risk discounting larger problems because of your particular diefinitions. people that support violence are definately not 'merely moronic' - tehy have rationale, plans, and means; they are dangerous.I guess what bothers me the most is that many people who support Israel, make claims about the Palestinans as having some sort of inherent cultural flaw that predisposes them to violence...which is as obscene as saying that any group has some inherent cultural flaw that predisposes them to *x*. I think Palestinian society has been warped by circumstance, and that the violence can not cease until that has been dealt with...but it won't be dealt with if people just think of them as a bunch of mindless, hateful terrorists. If I grew up in that situation, I might be the one with a bomb...who's to say? But I do believe that political manipulation confuses the issue, and cements the us versus them policies BOTH sides have taken.I am talking about a reality, not a theoretical propesity of palestinians to behave violently - clearly that's a ridiculous, racist, claim and it doesn't enter into this discussion. I have no idea why it has been brought up by you.
Apparently because the Palestians were wanderers, they don't deserve any land.Please, this is getting ridiculous. No-one is claiming that. We can talk about the history and anthropology of the people who now comprise the palestinians till the cows come home, but most people will recognize that Palestinians are tied to the land just as other nations are. Establishing their state somewhere else is just as out of the question as establishing a Jewish state in Europe would have been.

The problem with moving Palestine is that it would be about the same as moving Israel to Europe. Palestine and Iran are in the middle-east like Spain and Poland are in Europe. Do you think people would want to leave the place that they regard as a homeland (not necessarily is, but they FEEL that way).
EDIT: Sorry, about the same response above^.

Sinuhue, I would just be wary of defining your problem out of existance. you can define a fanatic however you want, but then you either have to be okay with negotiating with said fanatics, or you have to risk discounting larger problems because of your particular diefinitions. people that support violence are definately not 'merely moronic' - tehy have rationale, plans, and means; they are dangerous. I'm not defining a problem out of existance...I am just incapable at this point of describing every single issue I think has led to the current issue of violence in that region...just because I have not done so, doesn't mean I'm ignoring the fact that the situation is complex. My comment about people being 'moronic' was flippant. I don't actually think they are mentally incompetent.



I am talking about a reality, not a theoretical propesity of palestinians to behave violently - clearly that's a ridiculous, racist, claim and it doesn't enter into this discussion. I have no idea why it has been brought up by you. Nor did I attribute you with this statement. Normally I keep out of the Israel/Palestine threads...but today I thought I'd get my jollies. Nonetheless, the idea that the Palestinians are inherently violent is much like the idea that all Muslims are terrorists...its a stereotype that a shocking number of people hold, and I was simply pointing out why I generally avoid this topic altogher.

Please, this is getting ridiculous. No-one is claiming that.

Really?

"The resources of the country [Western Palestine] are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1,000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had the gift of a deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons [abna'ihi-l-asliyin], for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland."

This was written by the Sharif of Mecca, no less, in 1918. He knew.
Because that's how I see this above quote, not just as 'proof' Israel belongs to the Israelis, but also that the Palestinians, being nomadic, should have no claim to the area.

We can talk about the history and anthropology of the people who now comprise the palestinians till the cows come home, but most people will recognize that Palestinians are tied to the land just as other nations are. Establishing their state somewhere else is just as out of the question as establishing a Jewish state in Europe would have been.
As for this point, I agree, what's done is done.

Apparently because the Palestians were wanderers, they don't deserve any land.
Well, you don't seem to have a problem applying this argument to the Jews...

Of course, Sharif Hussein did not imply what you think he implied. And of course, he didn't talk about "Palestinians" in the sense you and I are talking about them. It was a purely geographical name back then and not a designation of an ethnicity.

Really?
<quote snipped>

Because that's how I see this above quote, not just as 'proof' Israel belongs to the Israelis, but also that the Palestinians, being nomadic, should have no claim to the area.Luckily, it isn't muslim clerics from 1918 that make policy descisions in Israel. the fact that Jewish settlers (settlers in the wider sense, not settlers in the current occupied territories) cultivated and developed land that was formerly fallow is udeniable. the fact that settling, farming, and developeing land gives the people that do it a connection to that area, and perhaps a moral right to it is debatable, but accepted in western society. [The concept of land "ownership" in general is problematic, as you probably recognize, being from Native descent. in any case, it is something we have to work with. ] In any event, the palestinian populations that existed in Israel before, and during the zionist movement in the 1910s to the 40s were also farming communities - though not modern or particularly dense. I think Wombles' quote was emphasizing the developement of land that Jews undertook througout the 19th centurey in Israel, and the reality of ownership and belonging that results from such settlement. The nomads were merely there as a contrast, and aren't an accurate description of prior 'palestinian' settlements. It is the Druze populations that are nomadic - and you don't hear them complaining about being displaced.

Luckily, it isn't muslim clerics from 1918 that make policy descisions in Israel.
Actually, the Sharif of Mecca wasn't a cleric, he was a king. And it is the Beduins, not the Druze, who are nomadic :P

And it is the Beduins, not the Druze, who are nomadic :P
You're right. man, how embarrassing. This is important too - major differances betwen the two. I've always found it wacky that only a few of the elders actually know anyting about the Druze religion, and most people are comparatively ignorant of it. Some very pretty Druze towns in Israel though.

You know what...this issue is impossible to see clearly. I support the Palestinians over the Israelis because they were THERE (albeit in smallish numbers) since about the 10th century. The Israeli claim precedes theirs...but I believe it should be invalid because of the amount of time they were separated from that land. That's my own opinion, based on my cultural tie to my land...a separation from which would not be possible to 'fix', even if we retained spiritual ties to it from afar. Clearly others would disagree...but it's like trying to say when a fetus becomes a human...there is never going to be agreement, so the arguments will continue.

But the other problem is that BOTH groups actually seem to have legitimate claim, and yet both are portrayed as wanting nothing more than the other GONE. And because so much supports both opinions, what the hell is the truth? How can you tell? I am supicious of every speck of information coming out of that region, or about that region, because I don't know how it's been spun, and I don't know who is right. But for some reason, my gut goes with the Palestinians...because I just can't fathom how you could slowly move in, and then suddenly create your own state, and have others support that. Will this happen in the US, as more and more Latinos move in? NEVER. Even though they have prior claim to much of the southern US, it will NEVER happen. Even if they start creating farms in the desert it won't happen. So why the Israelis? I just don't understand it.

You're right. man, how embarrassing. This is important too - major differances betwen the two. I've always found it wacky that only a few of the elders actually know anyting about the Druze religion, and most people are comparatively ignorant of it.
Well, it's about as "wacky" as the traditional Kabbalah study requirements- until the recent times when even Madonna can give it a try, it was restricted to married men over 40.


Some very pretty Druze towns in Israel though.
Oh yes. And lovely people, too. Although as far as cooking goes, no one can beat the Negev Beduins, they would so put the French to shame:)

Even if they start creating farms in the desert it won't happen. So why the Israelis? I just don't understand it.No, you don't. The movement that settled Israel with Jews, revived the Hebrew languge, and created a Hebrew culture, and a centre for world Jewry is probably a unique one, and not easy to "get" from th outside. What you see as a source of discord and interruption, we know was the thing that modernized, centralized, and saved our people after centuries of torment.

You're still living in the past - the important issues are those that face us now. I doubt that two people like you and I differ much in terms of practical policies that should be carried out. It is the past that divides us. But really, it is only the now that matters.

No, you don't. The movement that settled Israel with Jews, revived the Hebrew languge, and created a Hebrew culture, and a centre for world Jewry is probably a unique one, and not easy to "get" from th outside. What you see as a source of discord and interruption, we know was the thing that modernized, centralized, and saved our people after centuries of torment. You know...I'd actually forgotten about the revitilisation of the Hebrew language...and another thing I don't really 'get' is how you can be united as a relgion and an ethnic group, and as one or the other...anyway:

You're still living in the past - the important issues are those that face us now. I doubt that two people like you and I differ much in terms of practical policies that should be carried out. It is the past that divides us. But really, it is only the now that matters.
I'm not living in the past, I'm trying to figure it out. I realise, and have stated a number of times that Israel is there, and it's not going anywhere. It's not only the now that matters, but it's only the now that we can deal with...how? Beats the hell out of me.

Oh yes. And lovely people, too. Although as far as cooking goes, no one can beat the Negev Beduins, they would so put the French to shame:)okay, there's this druze town on Har Meron, which I forget the name of, which contains a family that has some cabins near their house people can stay at for short vacations. This family's food is freaking amazing - find Ziyad (if I remember right). Gorgeous views, really nice family, great food.

Will they be air-lifting it out, using cranes, or just a huge-ass pulley anchored in Italy?

This just in: UN proposes tax on air travel to fund the purchase of spades. I challenge anyone to write a paragraph about Ahmadinejad without using the word 'nutcase'.

I challenge anyone to write a paragraph about Ahmadinejad without using the word 'nutcase'.
Controversial Iranian President Ahmadinejad was born to a large family in Tehran, Iran in 19-Goddamit it's impossible!

You know...I'd actually forgotten about the revitilisation of the Hebrew language...and another thing I don't really 'get' is how you can be united as a relgion and an ethnic group, and as one or the other...anyway:
"United' is a relative term. If you know anything about Israeli politicsm they are as vicious and divisive as it gets, really. Of course there was an ideological goal that brought Jews from Europe to Israel in the early years of Zionism, but mostly, the people living in Israel now (demographically, mostly of middle eastern background - Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, etc) are there for practical reasons. Jewish peoples from different ethnic backgrounds have been united by necessity in Israel - basically, it was a better future than the discrimination and/or horrific past in their various countires of origin. And Israel is, for the most part, a good place to be at.

There were early plans for Israel to be located in Argentina and Kenya, plus the Soviets apparently made a Soviet Israel somewhere in the cold.

So you could argue that there were Zionists who didn't feel the connection with any ancestral home was important enough to deal with all the crap that's been happening since. That being said, I think that train left the station.

Something that I wanted to find out for a while: Is there religious freedom in Israel? Would I be treated any different there because I'm not Jewish (I would be when trying to gain citizenship...I learnt that with John Safran, an Australian TV-Comedian who gave his Israeli citizenship to the Palestinian who could imitate him the best :D)?

I'm thinking that as a democratic society there would have to be equal treatment for all, but wouldn't there be rather explicit mention of the Jewish religion in the constitution?

and another thing I don't really 'get' is how you can be united as a relgion and an ethnic group, and as one or the other...

The position of the Jews is unique. For them race, religion and country are inter-related, as they are inter-related in the case of no other race, no other religion, and no other country on earth. In no other case are the believers in one of the greatest religions of the world to be found (speaking broadly) only among the members of a single small people; in the case of no other religion is its past development so intimately bound up with the long political history of a petty territory wedged in between States more powerful far than it could ever be; in the case of no other religion are its aspirations and hopes expressed in language and imagery so utterly dependent for their meaning on the conviction that only from this one land, only through this one history, only by this one people, is full religious knowledge to spread through all the world. By a strange and most unhappy fate it is this people of all others which, retaining the full its racial self-consciousness, has been severed from its home, has wandered into all lands, and has nowhere been able to create for itself an organized social commonwealth.

Arthur James Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, 1919.

*snip*
Interesting, thanks.

Totally irrelevant point...I just realised your location lists your gender as female, which totally changes the 'voice' I'd attributed to you. Which makes no difference to what you've been saying, but I was sure you were male:confused:

There were early plans for Israel to be located in Argentina and Kenya, plus the Soviets apparently made a Soviet Israel somewhere in the cold. I've never heard this...??

Something that I wanted to find out for a while: Is there religious freedom in Israel? Would I be treated any different there because I'm not Jewish (I would be when trying to gain citizenship
I'm thinking that as a democratic society there would have to be equal treatment for all, but wouldn't there be rather explicit mention of the Jewish religion in the constitution?
Israel is a DEMOCRACY, not a theocracy. They have free press, speech, religion and every other freedom enshrined in the constitution of most Western countries. I'll try to find a relavent quote.

EDIT:Here, read this! (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/freedom.html) They have freedom of religion, mostly. Synagouges sometimes get more state-support than churches and moques, and there are other issues as well... Complicated really. But, right to worship IS guaranteed

Interesting, thanks.

Totally irrelevant point...I just realised your location lists your gender as female, which totally changes the 'voice' I'd attributed to you. Which makes no difference to what you've been saying, but I was sure you were male:confused:Heheee....that happens quite often. I'll keep my other X chromasome, thanks. There's a picture in the profile thread, if I must prove it.

You know Womble, the Balfour declaration still gives me shivers. I was raised sort of revering it. It was on this forum that I found out that it is prevalently considered unjustified. I still haven't really decided on that one though - my gut feeling and my intelectual understanding of the situation differ at times.

I've never heard this...??Oh yes. there were some zionists that didn't mind the idea of a homeland somewhere other than Israel. This idea did not take hold.

14 and over? That's still children.
(MSM?)
I think both sides are at fault...can I say who is MORE at fault? God I wouldn't even try. It's too messy. But it's not the regular people causing the trouble, it's the fanatics and the politicians using the situation to their gain. As it always is.
Mainstream media. The people who published that piece of crap 'documentary' about Jenin that ended up being completely fake, among other things. True, they are children, but that's after puberty, and in many cultures would be considered adult. My point is that the kill count racked up by the israeilis is almost certainly 85-95% clean kills, by which I mean deaths of people actively working to kill or support the killing of israelis. The kill count on the palestinian side is in all probability reversed.

There were early plans for Israel to be located in Argentina and Kenya, plus the Soviets apparently made a Soviet Israel somewhere in the cold.

So you could argue that there were Zionists who didn't feel the connection with any ancestral home was important enough to deal with all the crap that's been happening since.

Uganda, not Kenya

Those projects were born out of desperation, Leonstein, as a quick-fix, because settlement of Palestine was back then believed by some to be impossible. We're talking about very turbulent times when anti-Semitism worldwide was hitting the roof (the Dreifus trial in France, the Beilis blood libel and the consequent pogroms in Russia, the Damascus blood libel and consequent pogroms in the Ottoman empire), and there was a small number of people who believed that the pragmatic thing to do would be grabbing the first offer that comes along. However, when put to the test of time and public support, all these ventures failed, and only the drive to go back home endured. Characteristically, the Uganda project, supported by Herzl himself, was failed in the vote by the delegates from the community of Kishinev- the one that was hit the hardest by the Beilis trial pogroms.


Something that I wanted to find out for a while: Is there religious freedom in Israel? Would I be treated any different there because I'm not Jewish (I would be when trying to gain citizenship...
Depends what you mean by "religious freedom". There are jobs that a non-Jew in Israel cannot have- a rabbi or a kosher food inspector ;)

Mainstream media. The people who published that piece of crap 'documentary' about Jenin that ended up being completely fake, among other things. True, they are children, but that's after puberty, and in many cultures would be considered adult. My point is that the kill count racked up by the israeilis is almost certainly 85-95% clean kills, by which I mean deaths of people actively working to kill or support the killing of israelis. The kill count on the palestinian side is in all probability reversed.This is right- but the phrase "clean kills" gave me a pretty bad turn. Eaugh.

You know Womble, the Balfour declaration still gives me shivers. I was raised sort of revering it. It was on this forum that I found out that it is prevalently considered unjustified. I still haven't really decided on that one though - my gut feeling and my intelectual understanding of the situation differ at times.
The Balfour declaration is a curious document, and I never quite understood why it is even talked about. If you read it carefully, it means precisely nothing, just a dodgy piece of text that doesn't really commit anyone to anything. It's remarkably hollow and does not even clarify what exactly is meant by the "national home". It was, simply put, a British trick aimed to secure a League of the Nation endorsement for British colonial presence in the Middle East.

I find the Weizmann-Feisal accord to be far more significant, and it is funny how afraid the historians seem to be of working with that document. The Balfour paper is easy to dismiss- but how do you handle an explicit Arab consent to a Jewish state in Palestine? It was the Weizmann-Feisal accord that gave the Balfour declaration any kind of concrete meaning.

Well, it might be good to wait for him to address whatever passes for the Iranian Parliament, with the hardliners in attendance, and turn the building into a crater 600 meters wide and 150 meters deep, glowing with suffused radioactivity.

Well you know I would support this type of action. The world would be shocked as hell. But I bet you other leaders would think twice before popping off. With the head of the snake cut off in Iran. Irans military would not strike out after such an incident. Most likely the military would sieze control of Iran. We could then possibly have a better chance of getting these guys under control. I would prefer a tomahawk attack followed up with a daisy cutter just to get the straglers.

This is right- but the phrase "clean kills" gave me a pretty bad turn. Eaugh.
*shrugs* The realities of any conflict tend to be pretty nasty, but that's the best way to describe a kill that doesn't involve a civvie.