|
Arafat's dead (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
BLAH BLAH BLAH.. Terrorists are in the school.. lets burn a house to kill a few cockroaches |
Hmmmmm okay...
By the way you said ministry of education...i said school...my bad, you were right...what were kids doing in the ministry of education anyway? :p |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Escuse me?????? WHO BOMBED THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION?>????? terrorists are in the MINISTRY OF EDUCATION>?????
and yes.. they have targetted schools... and several children have even been shot inside their class rooms. Go read some articles on the zionist murder of these people.
WHY ARE THEY LEARNING IT??? What is nurturing this hate? Doyou think palesitnians are naturally and inevitably evil? Why should they sympathize with israel when their uncle, cousin, or brother have been killed by those IDF soldiers??? Im sure you would be skipping and singing and laughing in your uprooted olive orchard that your family tended for generations. Get real man.. you just look at things in black and white.
Since you think all schools should be bulldozed becuase hatred is taught.. then i guess all of the west bank and gaza should be demolished becuase its happening everywhere... oh wait... it is hapening! |
Most of this isn't worth addressing. You really just like to incite, don't you? It's funny that about a page ago, before you entered into the debate and it was between me and Malek and Epicurus and a few others, the debate was fairly level-headed and peaceful, and now it's suddenly overflowing with emotion.
It's because of people like you, who aren't interested in solving the problem and only want to incite anger and hatred by throwing all the blame onto someone else - it's precisely because of this attitude that the problem is so rampant and uncontrollable. If it wasn't for the -stirrers, if it wasn't for the hate addicts, people might actually start to think for themselves instead of turning to easy answers.
You don't have proof that Israel's military policy is directly responsible for Palestinian living conditions. I, on the other hand, have ample evidence of irrational anti-semitism in the middle east dating back to when Israel was nothing more than a silly little kibbutz community. I don't know about you, but I'll take sound logic over unfounded allegations any day of the week.
Even if Israel is 50% responsible, that doesn't mean that Palestinians can't take responsibility for the other 50%. I have no interest in playing the blame game - even if Israel is 100% responsible for the ideological sickness in Palestine, does not mean that Palestinians cannot be the ones to fix it. Are they really so helpless? Can they not think for themselves?
There is a sickness of mind in the middle east, and there cannot be any sort of peace until it is cured. OBVIOUSLY Palestinians aren't "born" with it. OBVIOUSLY there's nothing biological about Palestinians that makes them intellectually deficient. They're perfectly normal human beings like you and I, but hate is bred into them at an early age, and no matter who "caused" it, Palestinians have the power to fix it.
Fortunately, there is a growing emergence of people in the middle east who take slightly more responsibility for themselves than you would have them take. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | | Of course they shoulder some of the blame, but it's a chicken and egg debate. Look at Israel on the map for a few minutes and tell me if you wouldn't be *slightly* worried living in a pea-sized state surrounded on all sides by people hostile to your very existence. If their specific actions aren't justified, their paranoia certainly is, and when another bus gets blown up every week it only serves to exacerbate the problem. |
I really don't agree with your chicken and egg analogy at all. And the reason being is that I tend to look at this from the "start" of the conflict, so to speak; that being the origins and intent of the zionist movement as a whole. If you grant me the fact that for over 15 centuries, Arabs were living in the land called Palestine, and the fact that the majority of these Arabs were expulsed forcibly to a large extent, then I don't see a chicken and an egg argument at all. I see a movement (zionism) with clear aspirations to establish a state in a land clearly populated by local inhabitants.
Furthermore, this is of course fact, and not personal opinion. Any student of zionist history will attest to the fact that the goal of the movement had malicious intent with regards to the local population. By malicious, I of course do not mean that they intended to massacre the entire population, although massacres did occur and were somewhat part of official policy. But they did intend to ethnically cleanse the population, or uproot it if you will, and settle in the land left behind.
Here are just three quotes (from about a thousand or so) to support my above point. I'm sure you're already familiar with them:
| quote: | | "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries,while denying it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." -- Theodore Herzl (from Rafael Patai, Ed. The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I) |
| quote: | | "The very point of Labor's Zionist program is to have as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible!" --Yitzhak Navon ("moderate" ex-Israeli president and a leading labor party politician.) Cited on p.179 of Nur Masalha's A Land without a People who cites Bernard Avishai's The Tragedy of Zionism 1985 p.340 |
| quote: | "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- Moshe Dayan, addressing the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Haifa. Quoted in Ha'aretz, 04/04/1969 |
My point being that the entire creation of the state of Israel could not have occured without the oppressing, ethnically cleansing, massacring or what have you of innocent Palestinians.
| quote: | | The question is not whether or not Israel has caused damage to the Palestinian state - that goes without saying - the real questions are (a) just how significant that damage is compared to the damage the PLO itself has done, and (b) whether or not Israel really has any viable alternatives. |
The damage is, in my opinion, HUGE, if one is to take the above historical perspective on the problem. As for the PLO, I clearly mentioned what I thought about them in a previous post in this thread. As for viable alternatives, I'm going to be extremely cynical here and say that no, they don't have other alternatives as long as they want to continue existing in a land that is perceived by many as "stolen", whatever that means. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
I really don't agree with your chicken and egg analogy at all. And the reason being is that I tend to look at this from the "start" of the conflict, so to speak; that being the origins and intent of the zionist movement as a whole. If you grant me the fact that for over 15 centuries, Arabs were living in the land called Palestine |
Whoa, slow down there Jimmy! There was no land called Palestine before 1967. Feel free to find some books published before that time if you think I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the Arabs living in what we NOW call Palestine were merely disconnected sections under occupation by other Arab states, like Jordan, and were generally treated like human waste by those states.
| quote: | | and the fact that the majority of these Arabs were expulsed forcibly to a large extent, then I don't see a chicken and an egg argument at all. I see a movement (zionism) with clear aspirations to establish a state in a land clearly populated by local inhabitants. |
So you do not believe that the population transfer was, perhaps, necessary for the survival of the Israeli state? You don't believe that Israel's neighbours were extremely hostile and that the Jews stood a good chance of being slaughtered? I'll tell you, I don't believe that the word "forcefully" is correct, because documents from that period show that Palestinian leaders encouraged Palestinians to leave.
| quote: | | Furthermore, this is of course fact, and not personal opinion. Any student of zionist history will attest to the fact that the goal of the movement had malicious intent with regards to the local population. By malicious, I of course do not mean that they intended to massacre the entire population, although massacres did occur and were somewhat part of official policy. But they did intend to ethnically cleanse the population, or uproot it if you will, and settle in the land left behind. |
It is fact that the uprooting happened, but it is not exactly fact that that was the plan from the beginning. Most people (who have researched the issue) believe that although the transfer was of course intentional, it only happened after they realized they had no other chance of survival.
Further to that, as said before, there is much evidence to show that the now-Palestinians left willingly.
| quote: | | Here are just three quotes (from about a thousand or so) to support my above point. I'm sure you're already familiar with them: |
Taken out of context of course. But nitpicking here won't help, because for the most part I agree with you on what happened, I just don't agree with you on why it happened.
| quote: | | My point being that the entire creation of the state of Israel could not have occured without the oppressing, ethnically cleansing, massacring or what have you of innocent Palestinians. |
Powerful language - I wouldn't call what happened "massacres" - in fact the actual death toll was quite low.
Surely you must know that before the expulsion occurred, there were numerous massacres of Jews perpetrated by Arabs in the region. They were hostile to the state of Israel. In the beginning Israel just wanted to be left alone, they wanted nothing to do with their neighbours - they weren't given that option, and early Zionists like Ben Gurion rightly realized that they could not continue to exist unless they took action.
SOME of them may have chosen that path for ideological reasons. Certainly the Zionist movement as a whole was ideological in nature. BUT that does not displace the very sound military rationale that was merely survival-based.
When you're told flat-out that there's only enough room for one of you, who do you pick? You or them?
That's what I thought.
| quote: | | The damage is, in my opinion, HUGE, if one is to take the above historical perspective on the problem. As for the PLO, I clearly mentioned what I thought about them in a previous post in this thread. As for viable alternatives, I'm going to be extremely cynical here and say that no, they don't have other alternatives as long as they want to continue existing in a land that is perceived by many as "stolen", whatever that means. |
Indeed it is perceived by many as that, but perception and reality are two very different animals.
I wish I had more time to put a little more thought into this debate but I really have to go to sleep. Next time, start the debate at an earlier hour! :p |
|
|
| Palestinian |
There WAS a land called Palestine prior to 1967. As I stated in another thread, the land was called Palestine for centuries, but it wasn't a 'state'. It was considered part of Southern Syria, but it was it's own territory. Those residents of Southern Syria were called Palestinians and the area was specifically called Jund Falasteen. I think Jund meant land. As early as 1845, Palestinians began to take a liking to the idea of independence and sovereignty. One of the first political magazines calling for independence was called "Palestine" and a typical poster of the time said "Palestine for the Arabs".
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Palestinians left voluntarily out of their own will or because their leaders told them to. It's a myth that was spread after the 1948 war. It might have happened in a few districts where local commanders would tell the villagers to make room for the army. Not one radio broadcast, however, told them to leave. In fact, the BBC monitored the radio stations and said that there wasn't a single announcement for the Arabs to leave. There were announcements ORDERING THEM TO STAY AND "WHOEVER LEAVES IS A TRAITOR!" The Palestinians left because they fled out of fear of war or because they were expelled. Just like in any other war on this earth.
And what about the 1967 War? I think both you and I can agree that the Arab leaders did not tell anyone to leave during this war. Yet 300,000 to 400,000 Palestinians were made refugees during this particular war and are still not allowed to return. This proves that it really doesn't matter how the refugees left, even if they were expelled, Israel still will not allow them to return. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
Awesome! Straight out of the Michael Moore Playbook. Good for you!
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, can we kiss and make up?
I always laugh at that phrase: "scare tactics on its own people" when referring to the US, as if the prospect of nuclear annhialation or biochemical attack on the US is a total fiction concocted by the US gov't to maintain power. As if 9/11 didn't happen. *sigh* lets keep the conspiracy theories flowing folks.
Isn't the notion that America is driven by fear and lies a generalization? Oh God! NOOOOO!!! Don't generalize!
War profiteering? If that exists (which it probably doesn't), but I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that one, then what the hell is the gov't and the economy doing so intertwined?
*sigh* but separation of economy and state is just another thing that you leftists can't grasp.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
the way you portray your generalizations indeed does
look for example how a nation such as ammerica is driven by fear and lies.. moulding at its best
would you not consider that a form of terrorism? the act of using fear as a political weapon?
the US spends billions of dollars on weapons of mass distruction every year.. im sure they would also know scare tactics on its own people as an excuse to implement its weapons..
war is a good and corrupt business.. lots of money to be made from both sides.. you seem to turn a blind eye on the US.. but tehy are the ones financing hte problem and instigating it
when you start to use generalizations and labels.. thats when it becomes ok to target people as masses.. your saying im being too politicallyl correct.. im saying your being medival in your resolutions. |
|
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
I have a palestinian friend, even tho he's not an Israeli fan, he would never go explode himself. |
Nice one! You're finally catching on!
Why is it that so many Palestinians (or arabs and muslims in general) come to the West and integrate into Canada and America so well, are driven with entrepreneurial spirit, and so often lift themselves out of refugee status and launch themselves into prosperity within a generation or two? Could it be that Western society offers freedom opportunity? Of course! Could it be that the political and social arrangements of the middle east stifle that opportunity? Yep.
But to acknowlege that would be to make a value judgement that one societal arrangement is better than another. And to do that, in the eyes of the people on your side of the argument, would mean to abandon reletavism. I don't have much hope for that changing anytime soon.
Instead, there'll be a continual tirade of emotionalism. I realize that the Palestinians are victims in the conflict. But the emotional appeal of "Palestinian victimhood" has corrupted the mideast debate so much that people can't take an objective look at the situation and step beyond the "Israeli aggression vs. palestinian victim." |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
If you ask me, they SHOULD tank the schools; they're some of the worst breeding grounds of hate in Palestine. Instead of learning how to add 2 and 2 they learn how to make molotovs, they learn the glory of martyrdom, and they learn not to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. |
in idiot :rolleyes: |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
in idiot :rolleyes: |
He's right about the whole glory or martirdom and the refusal to accept israel though...it's not a secret that the textbooks are filled with anti-Israeli stuff :) I don't agree you need to blow them but...don't agree with hardcore either |
|
|
| maxtuh |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
in idiot :rolleyes: |
i think a big bomb on diginut would do the job.:D |
|
|
| malek |
Diginut: you are clearly wrong on the Palestinian existence.
The word philistine comes from the Roman were holding that region.
And the whole concept of Stathood is a false debate. Empire after empire ruled that corner of the world. Surely there wasn't a modern state like others with a definite flag, borders, currency, passeport, etc. But it was still a recognized province in these empires.
Did you know that Germany became a modern state in the middle of the 19th century, will you say that there was no Germans at that place?
Or that Italy became a state even after the Germans in 1861? Would you deny that Italians lived there even before the creation of their state?
En résumé: The land named palestine was never a mordern state because it it was always occupied by empires, either being the Romans or Ottamans or other (Israel) |
|
|
| starsearcher |
How is Israel an empire? :conf:
By the way Malek although you are right, when these countries you mentioned became unified they took wtih them a lot of other land that wasn't theirs, and when the whole Balkan region was created, it too wasn't all occupied by the right kind of people.
But you can't deny there were Jews living in the area...you wouldn't call the Jews Palestinians...you wouldn't call them Israelis either cause there wasn't Israel...
And the reason why Israel became Israel where it became is because it was the obvious place, I mean where else would Israel be established? The entire history of the Jews goign back to the bible is there (and christian and muslim) But overall you can't deny this is the ultimate Jewish land...(I'm not saying not palestinian because many of them aren't even muslim...) |
|
|
|
|
