NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you support more? Theres been alot of discussion about this so Im more interested in the poll result, but do feel free to discuss.

Niether. Why couldn't they just share the land?

Niether. Why couldn't they just share the land?
that makes too much sense

Neither. Nationalist/fundamentalist reaction does no good for either people, and neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian leadership is decent.

Niether. Why couldn't they just share the land?

Complicated. ;)

Why, that's an excellent idea! Go ahead and try to "share the land" with someone whose idea of "sharing" it is to blow you up while you're waiting on line at a falafel restaurant.

Why, that's an excellent idea! Go ahead and try to "share the land" with someone whose idea of "sharing" it is to blow you up while you're waiting on line at a falafel restaurant.
Erm... what?

No, I meant to have them ALL use this "holy land" or whatever. That isn't their idea of sharing.

Israel, just barely, because most of the land originally in the State of Israel was purchased legally by absentee Arab landlords. They really have as much a right to exist as Syria or Iraq or Jordan or any of the other nations created after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians have a legitimate gripe, but really, other Arabs sold them out.

Why, that's an excellent idea! Go ahead and try to "share the land" with someone whose idea of "sharing" it is to blow you up while you're waiting on line at a falafel restaurant.
hey, heres an even better idea! Try sharing land with people whos idea of 'sharing' is to steal your land to begin with and now keep you under unnecessary occupation.

hey, heres an even better idea! Try sharing land with people whos idea of 'sharing' is to steal your land to begin with and now keep you under unnecessary occupation.

I say this:

Forget Isreal. Forget Palestine. Make it one state, under one govrernment.

I say this:

Forget Isreal. Forget Palestine. Make it one state, under one govrernment.So intead of war between two nations, you'll have civil war.

There's too much bitterness there. Just because you give them one government, doens't mean they'll get along. Haven't we had enough of a lesson from other artficially created multi-ethnic states?

I say this:

Forget Isreal. Forget Palestine. Make it one state, under one govrernment.

and that would work as well as communism was supposed to work:headbang:

Israel, just barely, because most of the land originally in the State of Israel was purchased legally by absentee Arab landlords. They really have as much a right to exist as Syria or Iraq or Jordan or any of the other nations created after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians have a legitimate gripe, but really, other Arabs sold them out.
Just the same here.

I say this:

Forget Isreal. Forget Palestine. Make it one state, under one govrernment.
actually thats not a bad idea at all. The arab population will soon outnumber the jews and so it will basically be an Arab state, as it should be.

I say this:

Forget Isreal. Forget Palestine. Make it one state, under one govrernment.
And watch the majority Palestinians create another Jewish holocaust. Brilliant.

actually thats not a bad idea at all. The arab population will soon outnumber the jews and so it will basically be an Arab state, as it should be.I adise you to forget that particular pipe-dream. Jews will never sign themselves up for assured persecution (can you imagine Israelis being led by a hamas or some such government?). They've been outnumbered and pushed around enough times in their history.

actually thats not a bad idea at all. The arab population will soon outnumber the jews and so it will basically be an Arab state, as it should be.
Why should it be an arab state? There are plenty of Arab states already, and only one little Jewish state. We need another Arab state like we need another chernobyl. On second thought, I'll take another chernobyl.

whether or not you believe in the bible or the end time predictions.

when there is war in the holy land (Isreal), and i mean all out warfare of the arabs and the jews both trying to claim/keep it. It will be the end of the world. there will be nothing left especially in the proximity of isreal palestine areas.

[QUOTE=The UN abassadorship]The arab population will soon outnumber the jews[QUOTE]

No it wont.

Move them both out and move the Kurds in.

Two (three?) problems solved!


....or not. Well, at least it'd be one better than it is now.

To be honest, i'm a bit surprised with the poll results. A while back there was a poll asking if you think Israel should have ever been created, and the majority answered no.

I adise you to forget that particular pipe-dream. Jews will never sign themselves up for assured persecution (can you imagine Israelis being led by a hamas or some such government?). They've been outnumbered and pushed around enough times in their history.
Oh thats right, I forgot how the jews were most hated group of people ever and no one else has been hated against, therefore jews are special. I almost forgot about the holocuast:rolleyes: btw, Israelis under Hamas rule is almost too good to imagine.

No it wont.

Yes, it will, counting the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. This "demographic problem" is a primary reason behind the increased willingness of the Israeli government to permit a Palestinian puppet state in Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

To be honest, i'm a bit surprised with the poll results. A while back there was a poll asking if you think Israel should have ever been created, and the majority answered no.
*cough* puppet nations *cough*

I'm a big Isreali supporter.

However, if I were to throw out my own personal pro-Jew and anti-Islamic biases, I would probably just say let them fight it out and whoever wins gets the land. That's fair.

btw, Israelis under Hamas rule is almost too good to imagine.

I really hope you are not serious. That would be a horrendous situation, one that would very swiftly result in the mass murder of both Jews and non-Jews as Hamas solidifies its rule and Israeli militants retaliate.

Why should it be an arab state? There are plenty of Arab states already, and only one little Jewish state. We need another Arab state like we need another chernobyl. On second thought, I'll take another chernobyl.
Other than that its their land, none really, I suppose

I'm a big Isreali supporter.

However, if I were to throw out my own personal pro-Jew and anti-Islamic biases, I would probably just say let them fight it out and whoever wins gets the land. That's fair.

Oh, what a brilliant idea. :rolleyes:

Oh thats right, I forgot how the jews were most hated group of people ever and no one else has been hated against, therefore jews are special. I almost forgot about the holocuast:rolleyes: btw, Israelis under Hamas rule is almost too good to imagine.Whoa, anger.












you're weird.

Why should it be an arab state? There are plenty of Arab states already, and only one little Jewish state.

Why should Europe retain its sovereignty? There are plenty of Christian states already. Let's give it to the Muslim immigrants.

No it wont.
Anyone who doesnt blindly support Israel knows that that is the truth

Whoa, anger.
you're weird.
weird, how exactly? and yes, I am looking for an answer

If it came off as angry its only because it pisses me off when people use the "poor jews" excuse. It gets old after awhile

Anyone who doesnt blindly support Israel knows that that is the truthIn fact, no. The birthrate among israeli Arabs is decreasing, and the palestinians will soon have a state of their own. So yes, Israel should expect to have a larger percentage of Arab inhabitants just from the Israeli Arabs, but no ultra-dramatic shift will take place. Many of the Israeli Arabs choose not to vote, so they in fact have little political power (at this time). "the right of return" will never be excecuted, and land trades/evacuation for and of Jewish settlements will consolidate the jewish population.

By far the smartest thing the Palestinians could do would be to abandon the whole idea of having an independent state or eliminating Israel.

Palestinians suffer under a brutal occupation – Isralies live with the fear of bombings.

A single state solution would be the best stratagem. Were they to give up the idea of independence and make a few speeches to the effect that many years of suffering under occupation has finally ground them down to nothing – blockades crippling their economy and starving them – roadblocks keeping them from getting to hospital when tank fire hits apartment buildings, curfews lasting several days and lethally enforced when someone dares to get so thirsty as to leave their apartment to try to get some water, etc.- and accepting the inevitable domination by Israel.

This would put further pressure on Israel to either leave them alone or fully accept the territory as under Israeli control. Since they have been working hard to destroy the Palestinian government from the beginning, finally succumbing to this would force Israel to either pull out leaving anarchy (which they will not do) or to have to setup some sort of administration in their new territory. This will either consist of a UN peacekeeping force and administration (which will stop Israel’s occupation) or to administer the territory itself.

If the UN takes over, it’s a pretty good win on their part, as the Palestinians will quickly be able, with international help and support, create a government to manage the territory.

If Israel takes over, they will effectively enforce an apartheid system. Once that term has been used – Israel is doomed. Though they may hold off for a while, eventually they will have to give the Palestinians the right to vote. Instantly Israel is turned from a Jewish state into a Palestinian one (with a substantial Jewish minority – but a Palestinian state nonetheless).

Thus, total surrender by the Palestinians would be the best stratagem in this conflict.

weird, how exactly? and yes, I am looking for an answer

If it came off as angry its only because it pisses me off when people use the "poor jews" excuse. It gets old after awhileI did not use the "poor jews" excuse. I simply pointed out that Israelis will not sign themselves up for the persecution and murder that a bilateral state would lead to.

*cough* puppet nations *cough*

You should get that cough looked at. It doesn't sound good. Makes you seem insane.

Other than that its their land, none really, I suppose

Was their land before it was legally acquired from other Arabs. Istanbul sold out the Palestinians before there were Palestinians.

I believe that it's the U.S. best interest to support and protect Israel. Israel and the U.S. have a strong cultural bond and we should perserve that. The Bible also states that God will give his blessings to any nation that supports Israel. With our conflict with Islamic terrorism Israel should be our friend now more than ever.

Was their land before it was legally acquired from other Arabs. Istanbul sold out the Palestinians before there were Palestinians.I think this is acurate. the Jewish pioneers and zionists in the 20s-50s never hid their intentions regarding the creation of a jewish state. Any cooperation they encountered regarding buisness, or administration was knowingly given.

I did not use the "poor jews" excuse.
"They've been outnumbered and pushed around enough times in their history."-Kreitzmoorland

That sounds like the poor jews excuse to me

Other than that its their land, none really, I suppose
That's certainly debatable. Israel's existence was threatened by numerous Arab invasions. They managed to defend their little sliver of land and I say they're welcome to keep it.

I believe that it's the U.S. best interest to support and protect Israel. Israel and the U.S. have a strong cultural bond and we should perserve that. The Bible also states that God will give his blessings to any nation that supports Israel. With our conflict with Islamic terrorism Israel should be our friend now more than ever.

Apart from the bible being claptrap...it doesn't say "the State of Israel" does it? It means Israel in an ideological sense.

Why should Europe retain its sovereignty? There are plenty of Christian states already. Let's give it to the Muslim immigrants.
Other than the Vatican, Europe is pretty secular.


Let's not forget that Jews lived in Israel before Muslims. The zionist movement brought Jews in and bought land for them. Emir Feisal designated the land west of the Jordan river for the Jews, and one can view the Jews taking part of the land as punishment for the Mufti of Jerusalem and his followers helping out with the Nazi holocaust.

"They've been outnumbered and pushed around enough times in their history."-Kreitzmoorland

That sounds like the poor jews excuse to meNot at all. I said that to highlight the fact that in light of their very recent, and very old history, Jews are even less likly to back down and accept a raw deal. Don't underestimate the collective memory of persecution as a very real motivating facor in a nations' actions. This has nothing to do with pity. It has to do with what Jews will guarantee for themselves.

Was their land before it was legally acquired from other Arabs. Istanbul sold out the Palestinians before there were Palestinians.
yeah, well the Palestinians tend to get screwed over from all sides. Even today, arab nations should be doing more to help them. They talk alot about their support for Palestine, but it doesnt seem as if they do a lot

That's certainly debatable. Israel's existence was threatened by numerous Arab invasions. They managed to defend their little sliver of land and I say they're welcome to keep it.
That is certainly an issue of debate, whether winning a war gives a right to land/independence

yeah, well the Palestinians tend to get screwed over from all sides. Even today, arab nations should be doing more to help them. They talk alot about their support for Palestine, but it doesnt seem as if they do a lot

It's hardly the Jews fault. Yes, they have since kept the Palestinians subjected. But Palestinians would not even be in that position were it not for the complicity of their Arab neighbors. Everything the Zionist movement did to get a State of Israel created was quite legitimate according to international law at the time. State of Israel has just as much a right to exist as all the other nations carved out of the former Ottoman Empire.

yeah, well the Palestinians tend to get screwed over from all sides. Even today, arab nations should be doing more to help them. They talk alot about their support for Palestine, but it doesnt seem as if they do a lot
Well, what do the Palestinians do for themselves. Oh, right, they blow themselves up.

That is certainly an issue of debate, whether winning a war gives a right to land/independence
It has throughout the history of mankind.

Well, what do the Palestinians do for themselves. Oh, right, they blow themselves up.That's a bit harsh. Some of them get fancy educations, and then convince other people to blow themsleves up.

That's a bit harsh. Some of them get fancy educations, and then convince other people to blow themsleves up.
You're right. Silly me.

State of Israel has just as much a right to exist as all the other nations carved out of the former Ottoman Empire.

That is to say, none.

It has throughout the history of mankind.
It doesnt make it moral or just. throughout history people have done horrible things to each other, however we advance.

I used to be pro-Palestinian in my younger days. I've become disillusioned with them since. Electing Hamas into power hasn't done anything to change my opinion and neither has Hamas' leadership calling killing civilians "self defence". Israel is little better. A state shouldn't lower itself to the level of the criminals its fighting, and sadly Israel does sometimes.

To anyone who says they should fight it out -

Alright, if the USA vast amounts of weapons and training to the Palestinians, to make it a fair fight. And some nukes, naturally.

Well, what do the Palestinians do for themselves. Oh, right, they blow themselves up.
If you had to live like a palestinian wouldnt it be better to die than to live in that kinda of existence?

That is to say, none.You know, this whole "right to exist" buisness is retroactive, hypothetical and silly. Name me 5 nations on earth that were created by completely moral, justified, clean, and legal means.

I would prefer to accept that certain things *do* exist, and deal with them.

It doesnt make it moral or just. throughout history people have done horrible things to each other, however we advance.
I find it quite moral and just. Particularly since Palestinians in general and the Mufti of Jerusalem in particular tried to help hitler exterminate the Jews.

To anyone who says they should fight it out -

Alright, if the USA vast amounts of weapons and training to the Palestinians, to make it a fair fight. And some nukes, naturally.

ok sounds like a deal, as long as all geneva convention rules are voided and the united states can also participate. that would set the isreali side equal to them

You know, this whole "right to exist" buisness is retroactive, hypothetical and silly. Name me 5 nations on earth that were created by completely moral, justified, clean, and legal means.

I would prefer to accept that certain things *do* exist, and deal with them.

Agreed. Israel is there, it is there to stay, and the conflict must be resolved, if there is to be a resolution, with that in mind.

If you had to live like a palestinian wouldnt it be better to die than to live in that kinda of existence?
It would be even better to learn to behave yourself and forge an amicable relationship with Israel for mutual benefit, but I suppose making friends with the Jews is beyond the Palestinians. They'd rather wage a fruitless war of attrocities against civilians in order to make their situation progressively worse.

weird, how exactly? and yes, I am looking for an answer

If it came off as angry its only because it pisses me off when people use the "poor jews" excuse. It gets old after awhile


why get angry when people state facts? sure, you can point to other marginalised/persecuted people groups (though i would argue none have hated with the intensity over their entire history that the Jews were...though i'll leave that for the now) but does that mean that we should ignore the repeated persecution of a particular nation? just because we know abuses take place over and over, have we a right to turn a blind eye to individuals pointing them out? should we do nothing about Darfur because the "poor Africans" excuse gets old after a while? i mean, since we went through the whole Rwandan genocide, and troubles in the Congo, and Cote D'ivoir, can't we just ignore the rest? it certainly gets old...No, your "it gets old after a while" excuse is irrational and avoids the issue of veracity versus agenda. give some valid criticism.

I find it quite moral and just. Particularly since Palestinians in general and the Mufti of Jerusalem in particular tried to help hitler exterminate the Jews.

Hamas uses precisely the same logic. The Israelis expelled and oppressed us, so we must strike back, and kill as many as we can. Innocent? They are all guilty, those with the blood of al-Naqba on their hands, guilty of all the atrocities that have been inflicted upon us by the Zionist regime.

It is wrong when they do it, and it is wrong when it is reversed.

why get angry when people state facts? sure, you can point to other marginalised/persecuted people groups (though i would argue none have hated with the intensity over their entire history that the Jews were...though i'll leave that for the now) but does that mean that we should ignore the repeated persecution of a particular nation? just because we know abuses take place over and over, have we a right to turn a blind eye to individuals pointing them out? should we do nothing about Darfur because the "poor Africans" excuse gets old after a while? i mean, since we went through the whole Rwandan genocide, and troubles in the Congo, and Cote D'ivoir, can't we just ignore the rest? it certainly gets old...No, your "it gets old after a while" excuse is irrational and avoids the issue of veracity versus agenda. give some valid criticism.Do not expect a reply to this sensible post. TUNA rarely seems to notice replies of the the detailed and clear variety that are supplied to him/her.

Hamas uses precisely the same logic. The Israelis expelled and oppressed us, so we must strike back, and kill as many as we can. Innocent? They are all guilty, those with the blood of al-Naqba on their hands, guilty of all the atrocities that have been inflicted upon us by the Zionist regime.

It is wrong when they do it, and it is wrong when it is reversed.
Yeah, but Israel is doing the right thing and unilaterally withdrawing into a smaller area. It remains to be seen what parts of the West Bank will be abandoned, but the fact is that Israel is going to draw it's borders and stay inside them. The rest of the land belongs to the Palestinians and they can sink or swim on their own. They won't have the occupation to blame anymore for when they fail.

I used to be pro-Palestinian in my younger days. I've become disillusioned with them since. Electing Hamas into power hasn't done anything to change my opinion and neither has Hamas' leadership calling killing civilians "self defence". Israel is little better. A state shouldn't lower itself to the level of the criminals its fighting, and sadly Israel does sometimes.

I agree that Israel "shouldnt" fight dirty...because its below them, but look where they are located....they sort of have to fight hard and dirty..just to ensure their survival from the countless millions of people sorounding them that would love to see Israel cease to exist.

Hamas uses precisely the same logic. The Israelis expelled and oppressed us, so we must strike back, and kill as many as we can. Innocent? They are all guilty, those with the blood of al-Naqba on their hands, guilty of all the atrocities that have been inflicted upon us by the Zionist regime.

It is wrong when they do it, and it is wrong when it is reversed.It is incredibly hard for people to let go of the back-and-forth claims of justification, and accusations of guilt. These are limitless, and mostly justified, on both sides. We will never be able to comprise a list of each wrong done, and weigh them to see what is worse, and who deserves what.

Both sides need to abandon this attitude altogether.

It would be even better to learn to behave yourself and forge an amicable relationship with Israel for mutual benefit, but I suppose making friends with the Jews is beyond the Palestinians. They'd rather wage a fruitless war of attrocities against civilians in order to make their situation progressively worse.
"behave yourself" and "make friends" with the people that slaughter you? So they should just surrender to the Israelis and let them do as wish right? Lets say they do stop all martyr operations and the like and the occupation and other Israeli abuses still continue. Would you still support Israel?

Do not expect a reply to this sensible post. TUNA rarely seems to notice replies of the the detailed and clear variety that are supplied to him/her.
:rolleyes: your weird, and bothersome

"behave yourself" and "make friends" with the people that slaughter you? So they should just surrender to the Israelis and let them do as wish right? Lets say they do stop all martyr operations and the like and the occupation and other Israeli abuses still continue. Would you still support Israel?
How about behave yourself and make friends so you won't be slaughtered. Israel doesn't kill Palestinians for fun. It does so because they're a constant source of suicide bombings, mortar attacks and rocket attacks.

The wise thing to do when confronted with a militarily superior force that is willing to draw a line and let you stay on your side while they stay on theirs is to peacefully negotiate where that line will be drawn and then focus on building an economy that can feed your people. Of course nobody can accuse the Palestinians of being wise.

"behave yourself" and "make friends" with the people that slaughter you? So they should just surrender to the Israelis and let them do as wish right? Lets say they do stop all martyr operations and the like and the occupation and other Israeli abuses still continue. Would you still support Israel?"behave yourself" and "make friends" with the people that slaughter you? So they should just surrender to the Palestinians and let them do as wish right? Lets say they do stop all targeted killings and the like and the suicide bombs and other Palestinian abuses still continue. Would you still support palestine?


oh the irony, mr-i-want-a-bilateral-state.

why get angry when people state facts? sure, you can point to other marginalised/persecuted people groups (though i would argue none have hated with the intensity over their entire history that the Jews were...though i'll leave that for the now) but does that mean that we should ignore the repeated persecution of a particular nation? just because we know abuses take place over and over, have we a right to turn a blind eye to individuals pointing them out? should we do nothing about Darfur because the "poor Africans" excuse gets old after a while? i mean, since we went through the whole Rwandan genocide, and troubles in the Congo, and Cote D'ivoir, can't we just ignore the rest? it certainly gets old...No, your "it gets old after a while" excuse is irrational and avoids the issue of veracity versus agenda. give some valid criticism.
My point is that the "jews are the persecuted people" cant be an excuse for Israel to persecute others.

Tibetians, Kurds, Native Americans, non-Christians, Christians, communists, non-communists, muslims, arabs, Tutsi, Hutu, blacks in US and south africa, gays, facists, hindus, amony many,many others have been persecuted. The jews dont hold special rights to persecution, sorry.

How about behave yourself and make friends so you won't be slaughtered. Israel doesn't kill Palestinians for fun. It does so because they're a constant source of suicide bombings, mortar attacks and rocket attacks.

The wise thing to do when confronted with a militarily superior force that is willing to draw a line and let you stay on your side while they stay on theirs is to peacefully negotiate where that line will be drawn and then focus on building an economy that can feed your people. Of course nobody can accuse the Palestinians of being wise.
you didnt answer the question

"behave yourself" and "make friends" with the people that slaughter you? So they should just surrender to the Palestinians and let them do as wish right? Lets say they do stop all targeted killings and the like and the suicide bombs and other Palestinian abuses still continue. Would you still support palestine?


oh the irony, mr-i-want-a-bilateral-state.
If the Israeli occupation ended, and dismantled the illegal settlements and Palestine was a free and independant state where it had the right to decide their government and live peace. If those things happened and they continued with their violent actions against Israel, then no, I wouldnt support them.

My point is that the "jews are the persecuted people" cant be an excuse for Israel to persecute others.

Tibetians, Kurds, Native Americans, non-Christians, Christians, communists, non-communists, muslims, arabs, Tutsi, Hutu, blacks in US and south africa, gays, facists, hindus, amony many,many others have been persecuted. The jews dont hold special rights to persecution, sorry.

I have one problem with that, "facists [sic]".

If the Israeli occupation ended, and dismantled the illegal settlements and Palestine was a free and independant state where it had the right to decide their government and live peace. If those things happened and they continued with their violent actions against Israel, then no, I wouldnt support them.that's nice, but my point was that though you find it preposterous that the palestinians would surrender their agression, (though they are the clear losers by them) yet willingly embrace the practical surrender of Israel to a joined bilateral state.

On anther note, the goals you outlined in your above post are eminantly achievable, and i expect to see it happen in my lifetime.

you didnt answer the question
Why would I answer a question that presupposes the idea that the Jews are just vicious, bloodthirsty animals who would kill Palestinians even if the Palestinians renounce violence?

I'm a big Isreali supporter.

However, if I were to throw out my own personal pro-Jew and anti-Islamic biases, I would probably just say let them fight it out and whoever wins gets the land. That's fair.
Sooo, israel then.

that's nice, but my point was that though you find it preposterous that the palestinians would surrender their agression, (though they are the clear losers by them) yet willingly embrace the practical surrender of Israel to a joined bilateral state.
So, admitly I have a Palestinian bias

On anther note, the goals you outlined in your above post are eminantly achievable, and i expect to see it happen in my lifetime.
I can hope as much

Palestinians cause harm due to their unjust hatred towards the jews. Jews cause harm trying to defend them selves from the unjust hatred but occasianly go to far. However i support the Jews as they have no bad intentions.

Why would I answer a question that presupposes the idea that the Jews are just vicious, bloodthirsty animals who would kill Palestinians even if the Palestinians renounce violence?
So you would still support Israel even if the Palestinians stopped the very things you claim force the Israelis to do what they do.

Why would I answer a question that presupposes the idea that the Jews are just vicious, bloodthirsty animals who would kill Palestinians even if the Palestinians renounce violence?

Are the Palestinians "vicious, bloodthirsty animals"?

So you would still support Israel even if the Palestinians stopped the very things you claim force the Israelis to do what they do.
Yeah, as long as the Israelis behave themselves as well.

Are the Palestinians "vicious, bloodthirsty animals"?
No, they're members of a stupid culture that is incapable of compromising with those they see as inferior because they're not Muslim.

Why, that's an excellent idea! Go ahead and try to "share the land" with someone whose idea of "sharing" it is to blow you up while you're waiting on line at a falafel restaurant.

I agree with Moshiachia, but I do think both sides have a legitimate claim to the land (the Palestinians less so). However, the Palestinians want to blow Israel off the map and kill innocent civilians while they're at it, so I believe a small, uninhabited part of some nation that supports these 'poor, bleeding Palestinians oppressed by the evil Israeli forces' :( aw, poor things :rolleyes: should be given to all the Palestinians who wish to go. The other ones can stay in Israel, as long as they don't kill people. The Israeli military (and people) wish to live in peace, but they have the right to defend themselves.

Okay lets consider some facts.

Fact A: The Israelis were in the area before the Muslims were.....they just were kinda driven off the land a very long time ago. It seems to me that if any group has claim to the land originally it could be said that the Jews have more of a claim.

Fact B: Who started the attacks first? It seems that the Muslims starting attacking first. So what does this indicate about thier temperament?

Fact C: i could go on and on about this issue showing why the Israelites have more of a right to be there than the Muslims but I think Ill stop and just say WHO DO YOU WANT IN POWER THERE? THE MUSLIMS:mp5: or the JEWS?:cool:

No, they're members of a stupid culture that is incapable of compromising with those they see as inferior because they're not Muslim.

Amen Brotha...PREACH ON!

:cool:

Okay, let's consider some facts.

Fact A: The Israelis were in the area before the Muslims were.....they just were kinda driven off the land a very long time ago. It seems to me that if any group has claim to the land originally, it could be said that the Jews have more of a claim.

Fact B: Who started the attacks first? It seems that the Muslims started attacking first. So what does this indicate about their temperament?

Fact C: I could go on and on about this issue, showing why the Israelites have more of a right to be there than the Muslims, but I think I'll stop and just say WHO DO YOU WANT IN POWER THERE? THE MUSLIMS :mp5: or the JEWS? :cool:

The JEWS :cool:

Oh yeah...the Israelis never use force. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah...the Israelis never use force. :rolleyes:
Who said that? The Israelis use force, and they do so mainly against Palestinian militants. The Palestinians use it almost exclusively against Israeli civilians.

Amen Brotha...PREACH ON!

:cool:
yay! for preaching hate of Arabs and muslims:rolleyes:

THERE? THE MUSLIMS:mp5: or the JEWS?:cool:
It was implied by the above idiot.

yay! for preaching hate of Arabs and muslims:rolleyes:
Actually I was preaching the truth about Hamas and other Palestinian organizations. Nice try at playing the "race card" though.

yay! for preaching hate of Arabs and muslims:rolleyes:I don't think identifying a very sick culture as sick is preaching hatred. There's a common theme among muslim (arab) nations that's a bit hard to deny. that said, back-slapping can get a bit tedious.

yay! for preaching hate of Arabs and muslims:rolleyes:

Thats just classic political correctness ruining a debate.

When it comes right down to it, the American government has always claimed that they are completely against any form of terror, and both the American media and government has condemned Palestine for its terrorist tactics. I have always had a problem with this because it seems hypocritical. I don't understand how strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up bus is any more of an act of terror than sending F14 jet fighters and Apache helicopters to level neighborhoods (a common Israeli tactic). Or even better, how when the Palestinians throw rocks at the Israeli occupants, the common response is to open fire with a tank.

I think the real problem is that Israel still feels that it is a victim of the holocaust and yet it has the 5th most powerful military in the world (thanks to US backing).

Claiming that the Palestinians are the cause of civil unrest in a country in which they have no economic, political, or military power is both ignorant and asinine.

:upyours: :sniper:

hey, heres an even better idea! Try sharing land with people whos idea of 'sharing' is to steal your land to begin with and now keep you under unnecessary occupation.

Who stole Israel from Israel? It was theirs 5000 years ago (approximately)

Thats just classic political correctness ruining a debate.
yeah, I criticize Israel on anything and Im a jew hating nazi, but when they criticize Arabs or muslims is all good because to stop that would be "caving in to the terrorists" or too "pc" :upyours: you fmha

Who stole Israel from Israel? It was theirs 5000 years ago (approximately)

Under this line of thinking, let me ask you a question:

How many native American friends do you have?

This is the same issue.

Who stole Israel from Israel? It was theirs 5000 years ago (approximately)
and 5000 years native americans were only ones in America and modern medicine wasnt invented, whats your point

<snip>You used a gun smiley in your first post on NS. You lose.

I don't think identifying a very sick culture as sick is preaching hatred. There's a common theme among muslim (arab) nations that's a bit hard to deny. that said, back-slapping can get a bit tedious.
"sick culture" you cant really believe that bullshit. Israel has a sick culture. common theme? whats that, that over the years they have been oppressed by there own western-supported governments or by foreign governments?

You used a gun smiley in your first post on NS. You lose.
so basically your saying he wrote a concise post that you cant logically argue against, so you take the most childish route possible and discredit it based on a damn smilie? yeah, thats mature just like all the rest of your posts:rolleyes:

"sick culture" you cant really believe that bullshit. Israel has a sick culture. common theme? whats that, that over the years they have been oppressed by there own western-supported governments or by foreign governments?
Yeah, the Palestinians have a sick culture. It's based on trying to exterminate Jews. Goes at least as far back as WWII.

Actually I was preaching the truth about Hamas and other Palestinian organizations. Nice try at playing the "race card" though.
Are you actually going to pretend you dont have anything against Arabs/muslims? or what is it that you call them A-rabs, 'rabs, animals? something along those lines?

Both sides have fucked up, and the only way that this situation will get any better is if BOTH sides realize that they can't keep beating the crap out of each other and expect to make any progress. Only when Isreal and Palestine deside to work together to reach a goal that will benefit both of them without it involving either party being hurt will there be any progress.

Yeah, the Palestinians have a sick culture. It's based on trying to exterminate Jews. Goes at least as far back as WWII.
yeah, that was the nazis but good try

"sick culture" you cant really believe that bullshit. Israel has a sick culture. common theme? whats that, that over the years they have been oppressed by there own western-supported governments or by foreign governments?What bullshit? to me any culture that sends its children out to murder and die is sick. Ay culture that glorifies and fetishizes death is sick. Any culture that exist only to oppose another is sick.
Arabs have been variously ill-used. Their countries have been controlled by dictators and puppets. However, their problems are their own. Why project that onto Israel? I sense (thouGh I do not know) that this is simply a sophisticated form of scapegoatism.


so basically your saying he wrote a concise post that you cant logically argue against, so you take the most childish route possible and discredit it based on a damn smilie? yeah, thats mature just like all the rest of your posts
I was just trying to let him/her know that using snipers is frowned upon here, especially if you are an extreme noob. It had nothing to do with the content of the post.

Are you actually going to pretend you dont have anything against Arabs/muslims? or what is it that you call them A-rabs, 'rabs, animals? something along those lines?
Yeah, I've got something against their politics and culture. I usually just refer to them as barbarians or savages due to the repressive religious-inspired laws in places like Saudi Arabia.

I don't call them animals, A-rabs or 'rabs. Do you call Jews Yids or Kikes?

to me any culture that sends its children out to murder and die is sick.
many cultures have done this throughout history, including even day, such as some tribal groups.

Any culture that glorifies and fetishizes death is sick.
Really, because between living in palestine under Israeli occupation and death, death seems like a nice option.

Arabs have been variously ill-used. Their countries have been controlled by dictators and puppets. However, their problems are their own. Why project that onto Israel? I sense (thouGh I do not know) that this is simply a sophisticated form of scapegoatism.
maybe they project it on to Israel because Israel is the cause of their problems. the crumbling and failed infrastructure and economy, a result of Israel. death, destruction, unstability, Israel again

I was just trying to let him/her know that using snipers is frowned upon here, especially if you are an extreme noob. It had nothing to do with the content of the post.
isnt that nice of you. so are you going to try to refute his post now, or will you just ignore as you have accused me of doing?

I don't really support either side. But if I had to live somewhere in the Middle-East. And I got to pick where in the Middle-East. It would be Israel.

Maybe I just like my religious freedoms too much. Or maybe I like being able to have a voice in my government. Or maybe a thirty minute trial followed by an execution seems a little too barbaric to me. Or maybe I like the idea of meeting a woman who has been college educated and can work at any job a man can.

I'm not sure. Maybe it's something else. Either way, I'd rather live in Israel. So Israel it is.

yeah, that was the nazis but good try
Wow, you really know nothing about Palestinian history do you? You're defending Nazi sympathizers. Those fuckers, especially the Mufti of Jerusalem worked with Hitler to kill Jews.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-08-05/NaziRootsOfPalestinianNationalism.htm

maybe they project it on to Israel because Israel is the cause of their problems. the crumbling and failed infrastructure and economy, a result of Israel. death, destruction, unstability, Israel again

Shows how much you know. The Arab world was in the gutter long before Israel was created. The creation of Israel has nothing to do with the state of existence the Arab world is in.

Yeah, I've got something against their politics and culture. I usually just refer to them as barbarians or savages due to the repressive religious-inspired laws in places like Saudi Arabia.
So you basically view them as lesser beings, as do many Israelis. Given the chance Israel and jews would try to kill off all Arabs.

I don't call them animals, A-rabs or 'rabs. Do you call Jews Yids or Kikes?
no I dont
sorry, I got you mixed up with Tropical sands, IDF, drunk commies deleted, and all the other blind Israel supporters who have used such terms. and yet the arabs are the ones with something against jews, not the other way around. Go figure.

Shows how much you know. The Arab world was in the gutter long before Israel was created. The creation of Israel has nothing to do with the state of existence the Arab world is in.
I was talking about Palestine, certainly the state of the whole Arab world can not be blamed on Israel

Move both sides out of Jurasalem, Put UN forces in. IT not JUST the Jews and Muslims who want Christians want it to.

So you basically view them as lesser beings, as do many Israelis. Given the chance Israel and jews would try to kill off all Arabs.

no I dont
sorry, I got you mixed up with Tropical sands, IDF, drunk commies deleted, and all the other blind Israel supporters who have used such terms. and yet the arabs are the ones with something against jews, not the other way around. Go figure.
No. I don't view them as lesser beings. I view them as human beings who have had the misfortune of being raised in a sickening culture that stifles their potential and leaves them with nothing but hate.

You're defending Nazi sympathizers. Those fuckers, especially the Mufti of Jerusalem worked with Hitler to kill Jews.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-08-05/NaziRootsOfPalestinianNationalism.htm
So what? I dont care anymore, call me anti-semitic, a nazi, hilter, whatever. It seems to be becoming a more and more tiresome, common response. So yeah, Im a nazi, I want all jews to die. happy now?

My point is that the "jews are the persecuted people" cant be an excuse for Israel to persecute others.

Tibetians, Kurds, Native Americans, non-Christians, Christians, communists, non-communists, muslims, arabs, Tutsi, Hutu, blacks in US and south africa, gays, facists, hindus, amony many,many others have been persecuted. The jews dont hold special rights to persecution, sorry.

ok, i've been away for a while...time, i think, to reply. firstly, let's veer away from vague unsubstantiated opinions like that Israel persecutes others. i'll agree that the manner in which Israel is opposing the forces arrayed against them is slightly different than the civil disobedience method espoused by, for instance, Gandhi. still, they are in a different position than Indian nationalists, South African blacks under apartheid, non-Christians, Christians, and most of those other groups listed by you...though similar to the Tutsi-Hutu position; i.e., their opponents are trying to exterminate them. passive resistance is not, in my opinion, a viable response to attempted removal. secondly, from someone who has traveled through and stayed in the West Bank and elsewhere in Israel, i would say that the plight of the Jews (and yes, the word "plight" is precisely what i mean) as well as their response is quite rare, if not unique. they are a nation of soldiers who hate fighting; they fight because that is how, over the past three thousand years, they have stayed alive. but to equate Israelis' "persecution" of Palistinians to terrorists killing schoolchildren is obscene; it is the Israeli willingly sacrificing his life for his people, not the bomb-laden killer trying to get his message across, who is the true martyr.

I was talking about Palestine, certainly the state of the whole Arab world can not be blamed on Israel

And you never stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, if the Palestinians didn't have an extremely vocal population dedicated to the eradication of Israel that things wouldn't be as they are? That maybe, just maybe, if the Palestinians didn't send suicide bombers to blow up innocent people on buses, in malls, fast food restaurants, and night clubs that maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as the Israelis? That maybe, just maybe, if the Palestinians weren't giving the Israelis so many good reasons to enact martial law against them, that if the Palestinians had, somewhere in Israel's 60 year history, decided to live peacibly with the Israelis, that things would not be as they are?

Blaming Israel for its actions against Palestine is like criticizing a woman who has protected herself from rape by shooting the man who tried to rape her.

So what? I dont care anymore, call me anti-semitic, a nazi, hilter, whatever. It seems to be becoming a more and more tiresome, common response. So yeah, Im a nazi, I want all jews to die. happy now?
Ecstatic.

Niether. Why couldn't they just share the land?

From the palestinian point of view, why should they? Their lans was stolen from them by their most hated enemies. If 2 thirds of the US was given to communists or islamic fundamentalists would you say okay then lets share?

Palestine must accept the existence of Israel because they have no choice, but Israel should pull out of Gaza and the other "settled" parts. (apparently if you send in civilians to build houses after you invade its called settling. good thing Hitler never cottoned on). Palestine should also stop their terrorist acts within israel and confine their freedom fighting to their own borders.

many cultures have done this throughout history, including even day, such as some tribal groups.then many cultures have been sick
Really, because between living in palestine under Israeli occupation and death, death seems like a nice option.
Just curious, but have you lived there? I'm not disputing that it can be very bad, but I am disputing that murder and suicide is the best solution. I'm also disputing that it is hell on earth - have you seen the movie Paradise Now? Their lives were frustrating, lacking in opportunity, and rather restricted, but not desperately poor or horrifyingly opressed. There are many, many, people across africa and the world that have no-where near the internationally supplied resources the Palestinians have, yet you do not see them resorting to murder. You must hold human life in low esteem if you think death is preferable to difficulty, and even injustice.
maybe they project it on to Israel because Israel is the cause of their problems. the crumbling and failed infrastructure and economy, a result of Israel. death, destruction, unstability, Israel again actually, i was reffering to YOU. I KNOW that arabs use Israel and Jews as a scapegoat for just about any problem they care to get their knickers in a twist about.

The destruction (or non-existence) of palestinian economy and infrastructure is terrible - much could have been done to prevent it by Israel, but neither side is free of guilt for that.

The Arab world as a whole, however, has no legitimate complaint against Israel other that the fact that they got their asses kicked by her on various occasions, all of their own misguided initiative. And that is not an excuse for scapegoating.

From the palestinian point of view, why should they? Their lans was stolen from them by their most hated enemies. If 2 thirds of the US was given to communists or islamic fundamentalists would you say okay then lets share?

Palestine must accept the existence of Israel because they have no choice, but Israel should pull out of Gaza and the other "settled" parts. (apparently if you send in civilians to build houses after you invade its called settling. good thing Hitler never cottoned on). Palestine should also stop their terrorist acts within israel and confine their freedom fighting to their own borders.
Israel has already pulled out of Gaza and Olmert has pledged to pull out of much of the West Bank.

If the Israeli occupation ended, and dismantled the illegal settlements and Palestine was a free and independant state where it had the right to decide their government and live peace. If those things happened and they continued with their violent actions against Israel, then no, I wouldnt support them.

yet again i must offer my opinion: A) "illegal settlements"? come now man...the setting up of the Israeli nations is as legitimate as many of the other post WWII middle eastern states. the palestinians have no claim to the land greater than that of the israelis, they never possessed sovereignty over the real estate. if a "free and independant" Palestinian state were set up arbitrarily, how would that be legal? if the Israeli gov't yielded to force, would that make the users of force legitimate property holders? i don't see how... and B) if the "Israeli occupation" ended, then where would the Israelis' live--or more likely, die? the Palestinians (or at least their leadership) don't want just the West Bank, just the Gaza Strip, or even just Jerusalem (inarguably the Jews' right, unless you find for me some Jebusites who possessed it first, and good luck with that); they want the land from the River to the Sea. they (as well as some other Islamic nations) want Israel wiped off the face of the map...it's not only political, it's religious as well. Muslims think that Israel was given to them through Ishmael, and Jews that it was given to them through Isaac. it's an either/or choice. C) Israel has, in my opinion, already given them too much freedom in choosing their gov't, evidenced by the election of a terrorist organization at a time when negotion looked to be quite likely. they are given relative autonomy within the Palestinian Authority, and do they choose peace? no, they put assassins in charge.

The Arab world as a whole, however, has no legitimate complaint against Israel other that the fact that they got their asses kicked by her on various occasions, all of their own misguided initiative. And that is not an excuse for scapegoating.

...i like you...

Israel has already pulled out of Gaza and Olmert has pledged to pull out of much of the West Bank.

Whilst arming the Isreali "settlers" there and fortifying their villages. That really sounds like they're putting a lot of effort into pulling out.

I don't think identifying a very sick culture as sick is preaching hatred. There's a common theme among muslim (arab) nations that's a bit hard to deny. that said, back-slapping can get a bit tedious.

bravo...anyone want to bring up the reaction to the recent muhammed cartoons?

Whilst arming the Isreali "settlers" there and fortifying their villages. That really sounds like they're putting a lot of effort into pulling out.

i've stayed at the largest settlement in the West Bank (Ariel) and the settlers weren't armed. yes, there was a israeli army base in the vicinity, but that was a response to actual and ongoing attacks on the settlers. but anyway, say that the army maintains a forceful presence in the West Bank, but don't portray the settlers as some violent fringe group. because, categorically, they aren't

bravo...anyone want to bring up the reaction to the recent muhammed cartoons?

If you tease a dog, you shouldn't be surprised if the dog bites you....

I think the real problem is that Israel still feels that it is a victim of the holocaust and yet it has the 5th most powerful military in the world (thanks to US backing).

Claiming that the Palestinians are the cause of civil unrest in a country in which they have no economic, political, or military power is both ignorant and asinine.

:upyours: :sniper:

hmm...Israel "feels"? well, it IS the victim of the holocaust, and it DOES have the 5th most powerful military in the world. so, you mislabeled your contention. you should say "I think the real problem is that Israel is a victim of the holocaust and yet it has the 5th most powerful military in the world". feelings sometimes get in the way. also, claiming the Palestinians are a cause of civil unrest in a country where some (not the majority) of them strap bombs to themselves and take out civilians is not unreasonable. nice use of a rather esoteric word like "asinine"...next time, couple it with solid logic and your case might improve.

hmm...Israel "feels"? well, it IS the victim of the holocaust, and it DOES have the 5th most powerful military in the world. so, you mislabeled your contention. you should say "I think the real problem is that Israel is a victim of the holocaust and yet it has the 5th most powerful military in the world". feelings sometimes get in the way. also, claiming the Palestinians are a cause of civil unrest in a country where some (not the majority) of them strap bombs to themselves and take out civilians is not unreasonable. nice use of a rather esoteric word like "asinine"...next time, couple it with solid logic and your case might improve.

How are you measuring the 'power' of the IDF?

If you tease a dog, you shouldn't be surprised if the dog bites you....

if the dog is a bad-tempered Doberman, certainly...i know that if i teased my Golden Retriever, it would whimper, but never bite (not that i tease my dog...). the temperment of the focus of teasing (granting you, for the sake of argument, the portrayal of truth within a newspaper is "teasing") is largely responsible for the response

How are you measuring the 'power' of the IDF?

i wasn't aware that i mentioned the power of the IDF...is this a random question? if pressed, i'd measure it by two components, access to force and stability/integration within the defense force itself. on both accounts, i suppose they are rather powerful.

i wasn't aware that i mentioned the power of the IDF...is this a random question? if pressed, i'd measure it by two components, access to force and stability/integration within the defense force itself. on both accounts, i suppose they are rather powerful.

No, it's not random.

hmm...Israel "feels"? well, it IS the victim of the holocaust, and it DOES have the 5th most powerful military in the world. so, you mislabeled your contention. you should say "I think the real problem is that Israel is a victim of the holocaust and yet it has the 5th most powerful military in the world". feelings sometimes get in the way. also, claiming the Palestinians are a cause of civil unrest in a country where some (not the majority) of them strap bombs to themselves and take out civilians is not unreasonable. nice use of a rather esoteric word like "asinine"...next time, couple it with solid logic and your case might improve.

Whilst arming the Isreali "settlers" there and fortifying their villages. That really sounds like they're putting a lot of effort into pulling out.
Yeah, well it's kind of a pain in the ass moving tens of thousands of people who don't want to move. Remember how hard it was to get settlers out of Gaza? Anyway, the fact remains that the Israelis are giving up much of the west bank. The Palestinians have never made such a gesture for peace.

If you tease a dog, you shouldn't be surprised if the dog bites you....
You mean to say if I exercise my right to free speech and criticize a barbaric savage I shouldn't be surprised if he burns down an embassy.

So you basically view them as lesser beings, as do many Israelis. Given the chance Israel and jews would try to kill off all Arabs.

ok, seriously man, enough with the random claims. where do you get the view that Israel and the Jews would try to kill off the Arabs? is this some roleplay game you've been playing? there is no evidence for it. if you extrapolate from a desire to have one's own, considerably small nation a desire to kill off the inhabitants of a fairly large peninsula, i can't quite follow the logic. can you explain? i think someone is projecting...

if the dog is a bad-tempered Doberman, certainly...i know that if i teased my Golden Retriever, it would whimper, but never bite (not that i tease my dog...). the temperment of the focus of teasing (granting you, for the sake of argument, the portrayal of truth within a newspaper is "teasing") is largely responsible for the response

The first time the cartoons were published, it can be said that it was freedom of speech. They published them. They made their point.

The second time was purposefully malicious. It served no point other than to 'tease' the giant, ill-mannered Dobberman that is the Muslim Religious Right. After the reaction the first printings got, it can hardly be said that the second printing was anything but a purposeful attempt to get the hackles of the Arab world up, so that they could laugh at the response of the Arab world. They didn't count on them biting, though.

The first time the cartoons were published, it can be said that it was freedom of speech. They published them. They made their point.

The second time was purposefully malicious. It served no point other than to 'tease' the giant, ill-mannered Dobberman that is the Muslim Religious Right. After the reaction the first printings got, it can hardly be said that the second printing was anything but a purposeful attempt to get the hackles of the Arab world up, so that they could laugh at the response of the Arab world. They didn't count on them biting, though.
So you're saying that the embassy-burners were justified?

You mean to say if I exercise my right to free speech and criticize a barbaric savage I shouldn't be surprised if he burns down an embassy.

That's certainly one part of it, yes.

Especially if they react with, "Me angry! Me hurt you!" And generally fume.

And then you do it again. And then they proceed to hurt you.

So you're saying that the embassy-burners were justified?

No. But I'm saying that their reaction would have been forseen and that the papers willingly ignored the warning signs (or worse, sought to exacerbate the results).

No, it's not random.

"Originally Posted by Archaic Virtue (emphasis added by Jerusalas)
hmm...Israel "feels"? well, it IS the victim of the holocaust, and it DOES have the 5th most powerful military in the world. so, you mislabeled your contention. you should say "I think the real problem is that Israel is a victim of the holocaust and yet it has the 5th most powerful military in the world". feelings sometimes get in the way. also, claiming the Palestinians are a cause of civil unrest in a country where some (not the majority) of them strap bombs to themselves and take out civilians is not unreasonable."

i was quoting word for word something UN Ambassadorship said. i gave him the benefit of the doubt and let his claim to Israel's military power stand. the relative strength of it's military was not central to my argument

sorry, i mispoke. looking back, i was quoting Smurthwaite not UN. my bad

i was quoting word for word something UN Ambassadorship said. i gave him the benefit of the doubt and let his claim to Israel's military power stand. the relative strength of it's military was not central to my argument

I believe that they don't have the fifth most powerful, at least in terms of spending.

-USA
-PRC
-UK
-Russia
-France
-Japan

Are the top six, if memory serves....

I believe that they don't have the fifth most powerful, at least in terms of spending.

-USA
-PRC
-UK
-Russia
-France
-Japan

Are the top six, if memory serves....

is how much you spend on military a crystal clear representation of how well that military will do in a war? i'd wager that at the time of the six-days war, egypt and syria together spent more on their military than israel, yet who won? also, i have a feeling that israel could take out france...i think training has to be factored in somewhere, and the Israeli airforce, at least, is one of the most highly trained and sophisticated airforces in the world. and anyway, the stat of 5th most powerful was the stat of the person i was quoting, so give me a break

is how much you spend on military a crystal clear representation of how well that military will do in a war? i'd wager that at the time of the six-days war, egypt and syria together spent more on their military than israel, yet who won? also, i have a feeling that israel could take out france...i think training has to be factored in somewhere, and the Israeli airforce, at least, is one of the most highly trained and sophisticated airforces in the world. and anyway, the stat of 5th most powerful was the stat of the person i was quoting, so give me a break

There is no accurate way of gauging how powerful a military is.

Do you count troop numbers?

Spending?

Expirience?

What?

Also, I was merely stating those nations for the record. It was not an attack on you or anything like that.

But I feel obliged to point out that, while Israel might be able to defeat the regular French army, they'd have a hard time of it with the French Foreign Legion!

The first time the cartoons were published, it can be said that it was freedom of speech. They published them. They made their point.

The second time was purposefully malicious. It served no point other than to 'tease' the giant, ill-mannered Dobberman that is the Muslim Religious Right. After the reaction the first printings got, it can hardly be said that the second printing was anything but a purposeful attempt to get the hackles of the Arab world up, so that they could laugh at the response of the Arab world. They didn't count on them biting, though.

so we can agree on some inherent ill-tempered quality to the Muslim Religious element. that's good. also, i'd say that burning our embassies (sorry, i'll expand my allegiance to the entire West for the moment and call the embassies ours) got our hackles up more than a couple of insightful cartoons did the Muslims. however, we the West do not surrender to insane wrath in such cases. we try to negotiate, which as Palestine shows is a concept lost on the Muslim Religious. this is the same religion that kills hundreds, sometimes thousands, every year as part of a "spiritual" journey to stone some pillars. there is a fundamentally different spirit behind Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But I feel obliged to point out that, while Israel might be able to defeat the regular French army, they'd have a hard time of it with the French Foreign Legion!

ok this isn't an attack on you either...i'd just like to say that i think it would be a fight worth watching. the FFL is well trained and determined. but the Israelis fight a bit more passionately/dedicatedly. yes, i know this is a random post. sorry. just musing

so we can agree on some inherent ill-tempered quality to the Muslim Religious element.

Just as there are Westerners who do the same thing. I'm thinking of a certain chain of events following 9/11 that included such joyous things as stonings of Muslims and people demanding to know 'What are they even doing here!?' (Answer: Probably the same thing you are, woman. Except for the stoning people of other religions thing.)

also, i'd say that burning our embassies (sorry, i'll expand my allegiance to the entire West for the moment and call the embassies ours) got our hackles up more than a couple of insightful cartoons did the Muslims.

Speak for yourself. It didn't get my heckles up. I kinda figured it would happen.

And those cartoons were about as insightful as depicting a massive, smiling Christ on the Cross painted on the belly of a B-52 as bombs are released from it.

however, we the West do not surrender to insane wrath in such cases.

Again, that's not always true. (Just as a large majority of the Muslim community didn't burn embassies, a large majority of Americans didn't stone Muslims.)

we try to negotiate, which as Palestine shows is a concept lost on the Muslim Religious.

It's not lost on them. It's politcally inconvenient for them. Don't act like the West doesn't refuse to negotiate when it's politically inconvenient for us.

this is the same religion that kills hundreds, sometimes thousands, every year as part of a "spiritual" journey to stone some pillars.

They aren't consciously killed. They aren't murdered. They get trampled to death. Which speaks more of the stupidity of man than it does of the alleged evil of Islam.

there is a fundamentally different spirit behind Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Yes. Because race is not and has never been a major part of Islam. Because Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as being merely misguided, while in Christianity, Jews and Muslims are teh ebol, and in Judaism, Christians and Muslims are teh ebol.

Islam may not be, in theory, as accepting as Buddhism or Hinduism of people who are not 'of the faith', but it is a helluvalot more accepting than Christianity and Judaism (in theory). And it's not like Judaism and Christianity don't have blood-stained pasts.

Islam may not be, in theory, as accepting as Buddhism or Hinduism of people who are not 'of the faith', but it is a helluvalot more accepting than Christianity and Judaism (in theory). And it's not like Judaism and Christianity don't have blood-stained pasts.
please forgive my knowledge based mostly on Western propaganda, but where in the Quran does it say love thine enemy?
EDIT: I genuinely ask because I have never seen that referenced.

ok this isn't an attack on you either...i'd just like to say that i think it would be a fight worth watching. the FFL is well trained and determined. but the Israelis fight a bit more passionately/dedicatedly. yes, i know this is a random post. sorry. just musing

Actually, morale is (last I heard) at an all-time low in the IDF.

And the espirit de corps of the FFL, which kept them fighting against the Nazis after France fell (and their bad-assery which gave them, and the French Colonial armies, the highest success rates against the Germans of any French forces), is probably still there. Not to mention the fact that few non-special forces operations personnel probably have the same amount of expirience as the FFL (as a whole).

please forgive my knowledge based mostly on Western propaganda, but where in the Quran does it say love thine enemy?

It says to pity the infidel, that they have been misled. To try to show them the True Path. (It's been a while since I read my English interpretation of the Q'uran, so that's probably more than a little rusty.)

Oh, and it doesn't say, "Love thine enemy" in the Torah, AFAIK.

It says to pity the infidel, that they have been misled. To try to show them the True Path. (It's been a while since I read my English interpretation of the Q'uran, so that's probably more than a little rusty.)

Oh, and it doesn't say, "Love thine enemy" in the Torah, AFAIK.
no, but it does say to welcome the stranger into your home, for we were strangers in Egypt, if only on pesach.

no, but it does say to welcome the stranger into your home, for we were strangers in Egypt, if only on pesach.

If you go to Turkey, walk the back-country, and come across a village, you'll be welcomed and treated as an honored guest by the resident Muslims. How many Jews do you know who will do that for a complete stranger? How many Christians?

Israel, just barely, because most of the land originally in the State of Israel was purchased legally by absentee Arab landlords. .

Jesus christ not another one....whoever made that crap up was on a winner, I'll give him that much. 94% of the Land was Arab owned - not absentee landlords. Theres poor bastards sitting in some shithole in syria or lebanon now with deeds Israel refuses to recognise.


Forget Isreal. Forget Palestine. Make it one state, under one govrernment..

Tie one hand to anothers and then give them knives, you mean...it'd never work..too much bitterness there now.


However, if I were to throw out my own personal pro-Jew and anti-Islamic biases, I would probably just say let them fight it out and whoever wins gets the land. That's fair...

No need. Israel stays Israel and the Palestinians get the West Bank and Arab east jerusalem.

I believe that it's the U.S. best interest to support and protect Israel. Israel and the U.S. have a strong cultural bond and we should perserve that. The Bible also states that God will give his blessings to any nation that supports Israel. With our conflict with Islamic terrorism Israel should be our friend now more than ever.

You are here to take the piss, arent you?

Everything the Zionist movement did to get a State of Israel created was quite legitimate according to international law at the time...

The occupation, which prevents the creation of a palestinian state, is most certainly not. Not in 1967 and not now.


It would be even better to learn to behave yourself and forge an amicable relationship with Israel for mutual benefit, but I suppose making friends with the Jews is beyond the Palestinians. They'd rather wage a fruitless war of attrocities against civilians in order to make their situation progressively worse....

A statement of monumental ignorance, which perhaps best exemplifies how America can justify its stance to its population.


The wise thing to do when confronted with a militarily superior force that is willing to draw a line and let you stay on your side while they stay on theirs is to peacefully negotiate where that line will be drawn and then focus on building an economy that can feed your people. Of course nobody can accuse the Palestinians of being wise.....

O kettle....

How do you "draw a line" when you've been occupied for 40 years by a state thats buildling colonies of civillians in your midst and expelling your people off the land...precisely.


No, they're members of a stupid culture that is incapable of compromising with those they see as inferior because they're not Muslim......

Or maybe after being thrown of their country they're just a tad pissed off at being occupied by the same bunch 20 years later who send the next four decades building settlements full of civillians on their land....fancy fucking that.


Who said that? The Israelis use force, and they do so mainly against Palestinian militants. The Palestinians use it almost exclusively against Israeli civilians.......

Yet hit civillians far more...far more than the "evil target civillians Arabs" do, in fact, by a ratio of 4 to 1. And they're the proffessional full time army. Thatd make some people think. Not you though.


No. I don't view them as lesser beings. I view them as human beings who have had the misfortune of being raised in a sickening culture that stifles their potential and leaves them with nothing but hate........

Whats the American midwest got to do with this?


? That maybe, just maybe, if the Palestinians didn't send suicide bombers to blow up innocent people on buses, in malls, fast food restaurants, and night clubs that maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians would enjoy the same rights as the Israelis?........

Palestinians in the occupied territories cannot have the same rights because they are not Israeli citizens and those lands are not part of Israel. Total annexation of the area has never been attempted because of the political problems of expelling the Arab population, and the fact that leaving them there would end the Jewish Majority. Israeli-Arabs are discriminated against and have been long before the suicide bombing phenomena, as are Sephardic Jews.


) "illegal settlements"? come now man...the setting up of the Israeli nations ?........

All settlements outside the borders as recognised in 1967 are illegal under international law. Those are the ones to which hes referring.

And those cartoons were about as insightful as depicting a massive, smiling Christ on the Cross painted on the belly of a B-52 as bombs are released from it.

i'll have to disagree there, at least. Christ preached peace, Muhammed, well, at best waivered on the issue. a picture of a "prophet" with a bomb as a turban, when his disciples DO strap bombs to themselves regularly and currently (no talk here of the Crusades, let's stick with relatively current affairs, or those rare fringe "christians" who might be terrorists) is insightful, though so obvious as to fall short of clever. a man suffering from capital punishment on a bomber...simply hypocritical or fictitious

If you go to Turkey, walk the back-country, and come across a village, you'll be welcomed and treated as an honored guest by the resident Muslims. How many Jews do you know who will do that for a complete stranger? How many Christians?
Greece (Orthodox Christians) used to be famous for its hospitality, that it was a great place for students to go backpacking because of it. Then they found out about the money that comes with tourism. The same will happen in turkey, it has nothing to do with religion. But if it did, in the jews' defense, it has been a long time since Ashkenazi (Northern) jews lived in small villages. I know nothing about Sephardic (Southern) jews.

It's not lost on them. It's politcally inconvenient for them. Don't act like the West doesn't refuse to negotiate when it's politically inconvenient for us.

it IS politically convenient for them. what better way to gain the trust of the Israelis than to stop sending suicide bombers at them?

They aren't consciously killed. They aren't murdered. They get trampled to death. Which speaks more of the stupidity of man than it does of the alleged evil of Islam.

i know they aren't consciously killed. i'm refering to a temperment, not a philosophy, of Islam. thought has little (or at least it doesn't deserve primacy of place) to do with the undertones of the hajj stampedes, the suicide bombing, the reaction to the muhammed cartoons, the persecutions and human rights violations rampant in many muslim countries...there is an underlying spirit of hostility in fundamentalist Islam, as well as a refusal to negotiate, see another's perspective, or let the Jews possess Jerusalem, among other things

i'll have to disagree there, at least. Christ preached peace, Muhammed, well, at best waivered on the issue. a picture of a "prophet" with a bomb as a turban, when his disciples DO strap bombs to themselves regularly and currently (no talk here of the Crusades, let's stick with relatively current affairs, or those rare fringe "christians" who might be terrorists) is insightful, though so obvious as to fall short of clever. a man suffering from capital punishment on a bomber...simply hypocritical or fictitious

Mohammad only waged war to preserve his life and the lives of his followers. And when he won, he showed unprecedented mercy to the defeated. He never waged war over faith, only for survival (his enemies made it a fight over faith). He would not have supported suicide bombing ('Suicide bombing is nothing but self-gratification') nor the targetting of civilians.

Islam may not have the 'peaceful' preachy part of Christianity, but, then, let's be frank. In Christianity, we got: Men canonized for wholesale slaughter of pagans (ie: Saint Olaf), the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Ku Klux Klan, abortion clinic bombers, Timothy McVeigh, the Freemen, the Branch-Dividians, George W. "Dubya" Bush, and Pope Benedict XVI. Not to mention all the myriad "family" groups that are nothing but fronts for waging war on the rights of homosexuals and the First Amendment. Oh, Christianity also gave us that steaming pile of shit known as the Left Behind series.

it IS politically convenient for them. what better way to gain the trust of the Israelis than to stop sending suicide bombers at them?

Because it makes them look weak. The illusion of manliness is a staple of all diplomatic relationships. And, above all things, it is important to maintain that illusion of manliness before both your own people and those who you are negotiating with. Otherwise, you will be removed from office, because your own people think you'll be likely to roll over.

i know they aren't consciously killed. i'm refering to a temperment, not a philosophy, of Islam. thought has little (or at least it doesn't deserve primacy of place) to do with the undertones of the hajj stampedes, the suicide bombing, the reaction to the muhammed cartoons, the persecutions and human rights violations rampant in many muslim countries...there is an underlying spirit of hostility in fundamentalist Islam, as well as a refusal to negotiate, see another's perspective, or let the Jews possess Jerusalem, among other things

All of which are common problems with fundamentalists everywhere.

Yes. Because race is not and has never been a major part of Islam. Because Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as being merely misguided, while in Christianity, Jews and Muslims are teh ebol, and in Judaism, Christians and Muslims are teh ebol.

Islam may not be, in theory, as accepting as Buddhism or Hinduism of people who are not 'of the faith', but it is a helluvalot more accepting than Christianity and Judaism (in theory). And it's not like Judaism and Christianity don't have blood-stained pasts.

eh, A) Christianity is accepting of Jews. if a Christian does what he/she should and reads the Bible, (like Jeremiah 31, Romans 11-12, et al) he/she will see that the Jews still have a special place in God's plan. a Christian who is anti-Jewish is a Christian who is missing out on the message of Christianity. B) there is a racial distinction in Judaism, i'll give you that; because, traditionally, the religion was about God's covenant with a people. however, they do not turn down hopeful proselytites, they do not refuse non-Hebraic people into Judaism. more pertinently, they do not spread their message to other races at swordpoint/bombstrap. jihad is not a message within Christianity or Judaism. if that makes them racist, then fine, i'll be a racist. C) certainly Christianity and Judaism have bloodstained pasts (though the Jewish violence is way back in the past indeed) but it is the past. more importantly, neither were founded by a violent man who led warriors across the desert (yes Abraham, if we call him the founder of Judaism, did fight battles; but they were in response to aggression, not because of a personal desire for glory or power)

All of which are common problems with fundamentalists everywhere.

depends on your definition of fundamentalist. i know loads of Christians who call themselves fundamentalists who still hold true to the peace-centered message within Christianity. there is a difference between passive intolerance (i.e. not compromising what one believes is truth) and aggressive intolerance (i.e. blowing up or decapitating those who disagree with you).

Yeah, well it's kind of a pain in the ass moving tens of thousands of people who don't want to move. Remember how hard it was to get settlers out of Gaza? Anyway, the fact remains that the Israelis are giving up much of the west bank. The Palestinians have never made such a gesture for peace.
image how hard it must have been for the Palestinians who were uprooted when Israel was formed....
and they had to flee or be massacred, something the illegal Israeli settlers dont have to deal with

Yes. Because race is not and has never been a major part of Islam. Because Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as being merely misguided, while in Christianity, Jews and Muslims are teh ebol, and in Judaism, Christians and Muslims are teh ebol.

Islam may not be, in theory, as accepting as Buddhism or Hinduism of people who are not 'of the faith', but it is a helluvalot more accepting than Christianity and Judaism (in theory). And it's not like Judaism and Christianity don't have blood-stained pasts.

Islam has the join or die edict.

The Christians gave that up hundreds of years ago.

The Hebrews haven't had it for thousands of years.

A-And those Christians who believe that Jews have a purpose in God's plan because of what they're read in the Bible are the Christians least liked by Jews. I don't blame them. I wouldn't exactly be comfortable with people who think that it's OK for me to live only because a third (or two-thirds, forget which, exactly) of my people have to be wiped out for their apocalypse to come true.

B-Jihad was, traditionally, more along the lines of an internal struggle for self-discipline. Not too dissimilar to the Buddhist struggle for nirvana or the pursuits of Christian Monks and Nuns. The idea of jihad as a struggle to oust invaders did not become popular until the Crusaders invaded the Holy Land. And, once the Crusaders were gone, it faded. Ironically, the idea of jihad to expell foreigners from Muslim land, as well as the myth of Saladin, as an Arab nationalist figure, did not re-occur in the Middle-East until 1917 when the British Army stylized themselves as Crusaders re-entering the Holy Land when they push the Turks back from Jerusalem.

C-Again, Mohammad only fought to keep himself and his followers alive. Once his foes were defeated, he put away the sword. He showed them mercy. Mohammad was no more violent than Mannheim was. And in both cases they were only violent because it was nessesary for their survival.

Islam may not have the 'peaceful' preachy part of Christianity, but, then, let's be frank. In Christianity, we got: Men canonized for wholesale slaughter of pagans (ie: Saint Olaf), the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Ku Klux Klan, abortion clinic bombers, Timothy McVeigh, the Freemen, the Branch-Dividians, George W. "Dubya" Bush, and Pope Benedict XVI. Not to mention all the myriad "family" groups that are nothing but fronts for waging war on the rights of homosexuals and the First Amendment.

however, the vast majority of educated individuals would agree that slaughter is directly opposed to the message of Christianity. the message of Islam is not as clearly pacific. also, waging war on rights is different than blowing people up. also, what's with the 1st amendment reference? too vague for me. also, i wouldn't but G W Bush up with ahmadinejad as far as extreme temperment/ideology goes. entering into war/intervention is not always wrong (not saying invading Iraq wasn't wrong...too intense an issue to get into in this thread) for instance, entering into WWII, WWI for that matter, Mogadishu (Sp.?) and i'd say military intervention in Rwanda/Sudan wouldn't have been amiss. it's a bit extreme to put Pope Benny 16 up there with suicide bombers, too. not saying he was a particularly rosy guy or anything. wow it's getting late here in the UK, so i'm off. my thoughts are growing ever more vague anyway. shalom (no i'm not Jewish, btw)

I believe that it's the U.S. best interest to support and protect Israel. Israel and the U.S. have a strong cultural bond and we should perserve that. The Bible also states that God will give his blessings to any nation that supports Israel. With our conflict with Islamic terrorism Israel should be our friend now more than ever.

Dude. We have problems with Islamic terrorism BECAUSE the US has been shielding the State of Israel from the military and political consequences of their treatment of the Arabs living there. If we end our alliance with Israel, the terrorist threat will end, and Israel can suffer the penalty for murdering Arabs by itself, or learn to get along with them.

Islam has the join or die edict.

The Christians gave that up hundreds of years ago.

The Hebrews haven't had it for thousands of years.

Look at how old Islam is.

Look at what Christianity was doing at this age.

There are not a lot of differences. Islam is simply going through the same growing pains that Christianity went through with the Reformation, the witch-hunts, and the Holy Inquisition. All that we can do is hang on for our lives and hope that Enlightenment-type thinking takes root in Islam before too long.

Yes. Because race is not and has never been a major part of Islam. Because Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as being merely misguided, while in Christianity, Jews and Muslims are teh ebol, and in Judaism, Christians and Muslims are teh ebol.

Islam may not be, in theory, as accepting as Buddhism or Hinduism of people who are not 'of the faith', but it is a helluvalot more accepting than Christianity and Judaism (in theory). And it's not like Judaism and Christianity don't have blood-stained pasts.

Ok..where to start...where to start.

Wrong. Islam accepts Judaims and Christianity as being heathen infidels who need to be slaughtered or converted.

In modern Christianity, Jews and Muslims are seen as merely followers of another religion.

In Judaism, Christians and Muslims are just followers of other religions, although Jews (religious ones anyway) usually regard muslims as their enemy due to the conflict in the middle east.

Wrong...Islam isnt accepting at all.

Christianity and Judaism are WAY more excepting.

Judaism's blood stained past happend thousands of years ago.

Christianity's blood stained past happend hundreds of years ago.

Islam's blood stained "past" is happening as we speak.

A-And those Christians who believe that Jews have a purpose in God's plan because of what they're read in the Bible are the Christians least liked by Jews. I don't blame them. I wouldn't exactly be comfortable with people who think that it's OK for me to live only because a third (or two-thirds, forget which, exactly) of my people have to be wiped out for their apocalypse to come true.

ok never mind, one more post. gotta respond; those Christians who respect the Jews on account of Biblical knowledge don't do so because they are looking forward to Jewish deaths. (on a sidenote, the 1/3 wiped out prophecy you refer to is not particular to Jews, it is a general mankind amount of death). the Biblical reason to respect and bless the Jews is because, like i've said before, they still possess God's blessings upon them. in Jeremiah 31, God says that when the sun and stars cease to be in the sky, then Israel will cease to be a nation before Him. any Christian who simply seeks to use the Jews is seeking to use God's chosen people. the Bible teaches that Christians have been grafted into the Israel blessings, not that the Jews are completely refused their traditional promises. which is why Christians should stand for the Jewish right to Israel; not for any "end-times" convenience, but b/c the Judeo-Christian God gave that land to them and says that after they return from the lands of the north after their most recent exile (i.e. coming back after the 1900 years of diaspora from, largly, the former Soviet Union, Poland, and the other lands of the North) they will not be uprooted again. (Biblical) Christians think it's more than OK for the Jews to live; they seek to bless the Jews because they highly esteem them

We should divide Israel into 3,000 seperate states with their own government. Only then will the problem be solved.

Wrong...Islam isnt accepting at all.

Christianity and Judaism are WAY more excepting.


Actually, during the dark ages in europe, Islam was a far more accepting religion than Christianity or Judaism. At that time they were in control and let other groups practice as they wish. Christianity on the other hand was feeling threaten so they lashed out doing things like killing and torturing non-christians. Now christianity is more or less in control and Islam is under attack, thus we see much of what christians would do in the situation, only this time by muslims.

This whole thing of which religion is better is bull anyway because its only fighting over who has the better imaginary friend. All religions are nothing but murderous nonsense( depending on how one reads into it) that is responsible for unnecessary death

Jesus christ not another one....whoever made that crap up was on a winner, I'll give him that much. 94% of the Land was Arab owned - not absentee landlords. Theres poor bastards sitting in some shithole in syria or lebanon now with deeds Israel refuses to recognise.

94%, eh? Well, with an exact figure like that, how could I ever doubt you? It's not like you could have just made up that figure just now. No, no, that's certainly not completely out of your own ass. No, no way that they could have legally purchased the land from Ottoman and Arab owners. They did it illegally. Because an empire like the one the Ottomans had certainly wouldn't have ever stopped a group of foreigners from what amounts to annexation of a piece of their territory. That's how empires get more powerful; just look at China or the Ottoman Empire.


The occupation, which prevents the creation of a palestinian state, is most certainly not. Not in 1967 and not now.

You mean the occupation of the land set aside for the proposed Arab state? The land siezed by Israel after it was invaded by all of its neighbors in 1948? Or the West Bank and Gaza Strip; land seized by Israel from Jordan and Egypt, respectively, after those nations invaded Israel? No, I suppose that would be against international law.

All religions are nothing but murderous nonsense( depending on how one reads into it) that is responsible for unnecessary death

Not to mention necessary laws and the civil codes we base our societies off of...:rolleyes:

My doctor goes to Palestine 2-3 times a year. Stays for a few days, doctoring. What pisses him off is when he needs to pluck bullets from ten-year-olds, and younger. They say there is a captain who hands out prizes for 'legged' kids.

Upside, they get many days of playstation time. When there is power.

Not to mention necessary laws and the civil codes we base our societies off of...:rolleyes:
oh yeah, how many of the 10 commandants are laws.( I'll you a hint, we could have figured out they were decent laws without the bible). In fact how many things that the bible says not to do are against the law?

oh yeah, how many of the 10 commandants are laws.( I'll you a hint, we could have figured out they were decent laws without the bible). In fact how many things that the bible says not to do are against the law?

Oh yeah...religion hasnt influenced our society's laws at all...:rolleyes:

Look at black Africa, where our religions/morals/values havnt reached...They're about one step above canibalism...and in some places I'm not even sure if they're THAT advanced.

Great society and values. :rolleyes:

image how hard it must have been for the Palestinians who were uprooted when Israel was formed....
and they had to flee or be massacred, something the illegal Israeli settlers dont have to deal with

No Palestinians were uprooted during the first and second aliyahs. The vast majority left of their own free will, and the minority that were expelled was the result of the War of Independence. You know, when the Arabs turned around and attacked the Jews first, and the outnumbered Jews fought back and held their ground. The Arabs expelled in this war was due to military operations.

There are no "massacres" in Israeli history. More people have been killed since Bush's little stint in Iraq than in all Israeli-Palestinian conflicts combined.

A-And those Christians who believe that Jews have a purpose in God's plan because of what they're read in the Bible are the Christians least liked by Jews. I don't blame them. I wouldn't exactly be comfortable with people who think that it's OK for me to live only because a third (or two-thirds, forget which, exactly) of my people have to be wiped out for their apocalypse to come true.

You're absolutely right. Those are the Christians I like the least. I find Christian religious Zionism to be antithetical to what real Zionism is all about. They aren't interested in our welfare, or in a safe homeland for Jews. They support Israel because they think it will bring about armageddon, Jesus, the end of the world, etc. Essentially, its Christians using Jews to achieve their religious ends. Plus, any religion that seeks to convert by force or threat is dangerous to other cultures.

Of course, some Christians do generally care about Jews and Israel, so they are exceptions. I'm just referring to the driving motive behind "Christian Zionism" in general.

Dude. We have problems with Islamic terrorism BECAUSE the US has been shielding the State of Israel from the military and political consequences of their treatment of the Arabs living there. If we end our alliance with Israel, the terrorist threat will end, and Israel can suffer the penalty for murdering Arabs by itself, or learn to get along with them.

When has the US been shielding Israel from military and political consequencecs? Israel has never had a US soldier on its field, and when Bush senior offered, the PM of Israel refused and stated that Israel would never have the blood of foreign soliders on its hands. There has never been any military shielding of Israel from any country. In fact, most US legislators support Israel because they believe Israel is an asset in the Middle East. That it is a curb to terror, that its close proximity makes it much easier to obtain intelligence on Middle East affairs (and it sure does), that Israel serves as a proxy to fight US battles, etc.

The idea that if you end the alliance with Israel then a terrorist threat will end really has no basis in the terrorist threat of the US so far. Al-Qaeda is generally seen as being the largest terrorist threat to the US, although the vast majority of Al-Qaeda's attacks on the US aren't a result of US support of Israel. In fact, Al-Qaeda attacks other nations that do not support Israel, so the whole "its a result of Israel" hypothesis is rather flawed.

Since more Arabs have been killed as a result of US soldiers in the Iraq war rather than as a result of Israeli soldiers in the entire history of Israel, it might be more reasonable to conclude that the US is doing a fine job of making terrorist enemies all by itself.

The poll question is not clear. I do not give a carte blanche to either Israelis or the Pals. I give issue based support and I support independant sovereign states of Israel and Palestine based on the original partition plan with the exact modalities worked out between Israelis and Pals and repatriation of Pals evicted from their ancestral places (where applicable) and a joint ownership of Jerusalem and overall peace between the two states.

Learn your history and stop crying about how the Arabs kept trying to invade Israel.

The Arabs attacked in 48 because they resented Europeans (remember that whole colonial occupation thing? Not exactly something the Arabs would have warm fuzzies about) carving out a territory to shove Arabs out of and institute Jewish rule.

The Suez crisis (the 1956 war) – Israel invaded Egypt in a blatant land grab attempting to get control of the canal. Only the intervention of the Soviets (and through fear of the Soviets starting war over it the US came in too) kept them from occupying it.

After a decade, Egypt finally got the UN troops (English and French troops – who were in alliance with Israel in the 56 invasion) to leave, the Israelis were bullying Egypt and Egypt replied by bullying Israel. Because Egypt had troops near the border (considering they just got out of the mess caused by having been invaded by Israel I don’t think this unreasonable). Egypt was in consultation with the Soviets and US, who both said to back off a bit and cool down – so they did. A few days later, after realizing that Egypt wouldn’t be goaded into attacking, they attacked Egypt.

The war of attrition in 68 to 70 was an attempt to get back the territory Israel stole in the 67 invasion. This was not successful, so they (with the help of Syria) tried again in 73 to regain what Israel stole from them in 67.

In 82 Israel used a pretense of an assassination attempt against an ambassador to invade Lebanon and commenced heavy shelling of the general population.

Since then the Palestinians have been suffering under horrendous conditions of occupation. While I in no way support terrorist activities, it is certainly understandable that when you have no prospects and no future, you don’t have much to loose. The quickest way to stop it would be to allow people some basic standard of living.

It is a horrible distortion to paint Israel as a complete victim here – they are just as guilty for the violence as the Arabs are.

Crudely, I support Palestine, but have no support for the terrorists. If Israel didn't have US support there would be an independent Palestine long ago, and we wouldn't be in this mess now.

If anything, the continued military occupation and colonialism has hardened the Palestinian population, and made it more likely to turn to terrorism. It's unfortunate that it is Israel, and not Palestine, has to make the first move, since they have all the keys to the Palestinian State.

There are no "massacres" in Israeli history.

Deir Yassin, for one example of many.

Oh yeah...religion hasnt influenced our society's laws at all...:rolleyes:

Look at black Africa, where our religions/morals/values havnt reached...They're about one step above canibalism...and in some places I'm not even sure if they're THAT advanced.

Great society and values. :rolleyes:
"look at black africa", what is "white africa" better? Religion hasnt reached? you do know much of the continent is Christian, right? and Ethopia has a good number of jews. There problems are a result of failing economic and political systems, not their religion.

I believe that they don't have the fifth most powerful, at least in terms of spending.

-USA
-PRC
-UK
-Russia
-France
-Japan

Are the top six, if memory serves....

Israel doesn't spend nearly as much money on military matters as the above listed countries. Why should they when they are getting discounted weapons and technology from the US and its allies? The Israeli army is armed to the teeth with US surplus.

Now add the economic and political backing that the US and its allies have given to the state of Israel.

How does that compare the the Palestinians? :headbang:

When I claim that Israel is the 5th most powerful nation in the world, I am using Jim Walis as my source, in _God's Politics_.

94%, eh? Well, with an exact figure like that, how could I ever doubt you? It's not like you could have just made up that figure just now. No, no, that's certainly not completely out of your own ass..

Not unless my ass is a document called "A Survey of Palestine : Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry " which was the basis for the UN partition proposal etc.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/103-3033757-0335008?n=283155


You mean the occupation of the land set aside for the proposed Arab state? The land siezed by Israel after it was invaded by all of its neighbors in 1948? Or the West Bank and Gaza Strip; land seized by Israel from Jordan and Egypt, respectively, after those nations invaded Israel? No, I suppose that would be against international law.

The West Bank, Gaza strip, and Arab East Jerusalem.


Look at black Africa, where our religions/morals/values havnt reached...They're about one step above canibalism...and in some places I'm not even sure if they're THAT advanced.

Great society and values..

You've actually sunk lower in my estimation than before, which is suprising because I had you wayyyyyyyyy down there. Way way down.


The vast majority left of their own free will, and the minority that were expelled was the result of the War of Independence...

And the various statements from the Israeli participants about land seizures, expulsions etc before during and after were mere coincidence, I suppose.


When has the US been shielding Israel from military and political consequencecs? ...

The UN security council chamber, for starters.

Yeah, but Israel is doing the right thing and unilaterally withdrawing into a smaller area. It remains to be seen what parts of the West Bank will be abandoned, but the fact is that Israel is going to draw it's borders and stay inside them. The rest of the land belongs to the Palestinians and they can sink or swim on their own. They won't have the occupation to blame anymore for when they fail.

Currently, the Israeli 'security wall' is annexing territory seized from the Palestinian Authority. According to the United Nations this is an act of war. To put it bluntly, I think that both the Arabs and the Israelis are just as bad as each other. An Arab blows up an Israeli 'bus and an Israeli bulldozes an Arab housing estate. Both are counter-productive and merely perpetuate the unrest, they do not solve it!

Okay lets consider some facts.

Fact A: The Israelis were in the area before the Muslims were.....they just were kinda driven off the land a very long time ago. It seems to me that if any group has claim to the land originally it could be said that the Jews have more of a claim.

Fact B: Who started the attacks first? It seems that the Muslims starting attacking first. So what does this indicate about thier temperament?

Fact C: i could go on and on about this issue showing why the Israelites have more of a right to be there than the Muslims but I think Ill stop and just say WHO DO YOU WANT IN POWER THERE? THE MUSLIMS:mp5: or the JEWS?:cool:

I was under the impression that the grievances in the Holy Land were between the Israelis and the Arabs. One might as well say that everyone in England is Anglican even though they're not.

Mohammad only waged war to preserve his life and the lives of his followers. And when he won, he showed unprecedented mercy to the defeated. He never waged war over faith, only for survival (his enemies made it a fight over faith). He would not have supported suicide bombing ('Suicide bombing is nothing but self-gratification') nor the targetting of civilians.

Islam may not have the 'peaceful' preachy part of Christianity, but, then, let's be frank. In Christianity, we got: Men canonized for wholesale slaughter of pagans (ie: Saint Olaf), the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Ku Klux Klan, abortion clinic bombers, Timothy McVeigh, the Freemen, the Branch-Dividians, George W. "Dubya" Bush, and Pope Benedict XVI. Not to mention all the myriad "family" groups that are nothing but fronts for waging war on the rights of homosexuals and the First Amendment. Oh, Christianity also gave us that steaming pile of shit known as the Left Behind series.

Hahaha! I'm sorry but that reminds me of a satire I heard a little while ago. In it the satirist was talking about pointless questions and inquiries and gave an example as "Is the Pope Roman Catholic?".

I love how often people like to play the game where the US is a big bad bully that likes watching Palestinians get picked on by those mean, nasty Israelis.

Did you know that the United States provides more money per year than all the Arab countries combined to support the Palestinians?

Did you know that the Palestinians used to live in Jordan, but were expelled?

I used to believe that the two sides were equally guilty, both claiming to want peace and instead fighting a war. I used to buy into all that nonsense. The reality is that if the Palestinian Authority spent their money on infrastructure instead of buying black market weaponry, two things would happen: First, they would HAVE the power and fresh water and sewage that they lack, and blame Israel for. Second, the people woudl start living better and have less of an axe to grind against Israel/the west.

Why do I say the West? Because when September 11, 2001 came to pass, I saw Palestinians celebrating in the streets, and Israeli emergency response teams heading for New York.

When you think about it, did any other country send us help? Nope. Yeah I know all about Arafat and his blood donating, and I know all about the Arabian prince trying to offer a check to Gulianni, but I am talking about meaningful, genuine, sincere help. Did we need that help? Probably not really, but nevertheless Israel was there for us.

Israel, a country surrounded by bigger hostile nations who have OPENLY declared their intention to anhilate the Jewish state from the map.

Ok..where to start...where to start.

Wrong. Islam accepts Judaims and Christianity as being heathen infidels who need to be slaughtered or converted.

In modern Christianity, Jews and Muslims are seen as merely followers of another religion.

In Judaism, Christians and Muslims are just followers of other religions, although Jews (religious ones anyway) usually regard muslims as their enemy due to the conflict in the middle east.

Wrong...Islam isnt accepting at all.

Christianity and Judaism are WAY more excepting.

Judaism's blood stained past happend thousands of years ago.

Christianity's blood stained past happend hundreds of years ago.

Islam's blood stained "past" is happening as we speak.

By the highlighted argument, Christianity and Judaism would be accepting less people than Islam!

I love how often people like to play the game where the US is a big bad bully that likes watching Palestinians get picked on by those mean, nasty Israelis.

Did you know that the United States provides more money per year than all the Arab countries combined to support the Palestinians?

Did you know that the Palestinians used to live in Jordan, but were expelled?

I used to believe that the two sides were equally guilty, both claiming to want peace and instead fighting a war. I used to buy into all that nonsense. The reality is that if the Palestinian Authority spent their money on infrastructure instead of buying black market weaponry, two things would happen: First, they would HAVE the power and fresh water and sewage that they lack, and blame Israel for. Second, the people woudl start living better and have less of an axe to grind against Israel/the west.

Why do I say the West? Because when September 11, 2001 came to pass, I saw Palestinians celebrating in the streets, and Israeli emergency response teams heading for New York.

When you think about it, did any other country send us help? Nope. Yeah I know all about Arafat and his blood donating, and I know all about the Arabian prince trying to offer a check to Gulianni, but I am talking about meaningful, genuine, sincere help. Did we need that help? Probably not really, but nevertheless Israel was there for us.

Israel, a country surrounded by bigger hostile nations who have OPENLY declared their intention to anhilate the Jewish state from the map.

Unfortunately, there are serious talks of ceasing aid to the Palestinian Authority. It looks horribly like the sanctions imposed on Iraq.

Look at how old Islam is.

Look at what Christianity was doing at this age.

There are not a lot of differences. Islam is simply going through the same growing pains that Christianity went through with the Reformation, the witch-hunts, and the Holy Inquisition. All that we can do is hang on for our lives and hope that Enlightenment-type thinking takes root in Islam before too long.

That's a shallow excuse at best. Islamic sulture has been in retrograde for a thousand years. It's not getting better, it's getting WORSE. Duing the Middle Ages, the level of culture and technology was about equivalent between the two, and you could even argue it was a bit higher in Islamic nations. This, despite the fact that Islam was expanding across Africa and up into Europe and Asia by FORCE.

Since that time, Christian European culture has been on the rise, and Islamic culture has dwindled into the destitute and morally corrupt state it's in today. Even the most moderate Islamic nations still support Hamas under the table, and have virtually no religious freedom within their borders.

So now you want to paint the Palestinians as the innocent peace-loving victims of Jewish aggression? I think not. Israel was established under a United Nations charter in 1948. It was immediately invaded by its neighbors and during this war, gained some territory. Now the belligerent nations who attacked it cry because they want the land back.

And this is to be taken seriously? The only reason these Islamic nations get as much support as they do is because of rampant Anti-semitism, where it's easier to blame Jews than to think that they might actually BE the victims here.

Unfortunately, there are serious talks of ceasing aid to the Palestinian Authority. It looks horribly like the sanctions imposed on Iraq.

Good.

And watch the majority Palestinians create another Jewish holocaust. Brilliant.

The Nazi campaign of 'social cleansing' was not directed at Jews. In fact, Jews made up barely half of the total victims. The Nazi genocide was directed at, but not limited to, religions (Roman Catholicism, etc.), negroes, orientals, almost every other racial group that you can poke a stick at, homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. and so on and so forth. These groups were just as much victims of Nazi aggression as Judaism.

Besides, if the United Nations wanted to create a Jewish state and also punish Germany then why didn't it give the Israelis part of Germany itself during the post-war partitioning?

Good.

It is not "Good". That is a despicable thing to say! Why don't we stop giving aid to the survivors of the Boxing Day tsunami? Or the Palestinian earthquake? The sanctions imposed on Iraq led, quite frankly, directly to the destitution of many and expressing the same wish to abandon another people should not be tolerated. Please retract that statement.

Good.

Putting even more hardship and misery on people who are in an economic tailspin since the 'security fence' was built in the west bank will only help the terrorists and the populist politicians.

People both sides need to stop thinking about their own petty interests and, for a change, think about lives of people living in Palestine and, to an extent, Israel too. However, the Israeli government is the one that has to make the first move. No occupation, no terrorism.

Israel.

And this is to be taken seriously? The only reason these Islamic nations get as much support as they do is because of rampant Anti-semitism, where it's easier to blame Jews than to think that they might actually BE the victims here.

No, its about land that was seized in 1967 primarily. And those "Islamic" nations (neither of which are theocracies) have ceded all rights to the land to the Palestinians so they can have a state of their own. Once Israel returns to its Internationally recognised borders (those you mentioned yourself), the "heat" should fade from the current situation.

actually thats not a bad idea at all. The arab population will soon outnumber the jews and so it will basically be an Arab state, as it should be.

Ummmm, that may be true, but the Palestineans will never be able to take over Israel, Israel actually has a military, not just a bunch of brainwashed kids who thinks that blowing themselves up is going to get them into heaven or where ever they are trying to go. Plus the minute that any arab "nation" launched an attack on Israel, the US and probably Britain, plus the UN and NATO would back up Israel. :upyours:

not just a bunch of brainwashed kids who thinks that blowing themselves up is going to get them into heaven or where ever they are trying to go.:confused:


Here is an idea. Quit taking all of your information from mainstream American and Brittish media...

:confused:


Here is an idea. Quit taking all of your information from mainstream American and Brittish media...

Smurthwaite speaks the truth. Britain's media is bad, the US media is horribly biased on stuff like this.