How to shut up an anti-semite.......

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Well, as far as I am concerned, this sort of statement should be a banning offense. It is cleary racism of the worst kind.

Yes, clearly.

It is me who claimed palestinains are the children of satan and drink blood of Jews.

I also called for their extermination in cleansing not seen like since the days of the mongols.

Oh wait. The arabs said that. I appologize.

I have a very good friend who is Palestinian - she was born there and brought up there and has never committed any crime. She is well eductaed (I am sure she is a hell of a lot better educated than Sirotnikov) and a nice, well-meaning person. Who has more right to the place of her birth?

Her niceness and well meaning is all very nice. But it has nothing to do with historic facts.

I am too a nice and well meaning person, from a line of people who were forcefully evicted from my homeland and persecuted around the globe.

People representing my nation wanted to go back to the homeland and live in peace with our neighbours the palestinian arabs, those who were there, and those who immigrated there.

The newly immigrating and local palestinains however, decided that they alone can live there, because the land "belongs" to muslem and can't be shared by anyone else.

Furthermore, muslim leaders, such as the Mufti, spread false claims about Jewish intentions to murder muslims and destroy muslim holy sites, as early as 1922.

Are you sure it was Jews who fought the crusaders? Seems like there were other peoples in the area for a long time.

Again I'm asking you to remember who really fought the crusaders, and ask yourself if their majority lived in palestine, or called themselves palestinians.

However, I feel the need to remind you that there indeed were jews in "palestine" during the time of the crusades, and there were before, and there were after.

They were a small percent among a small population living in palestine.

Her, or someone who was not born there but happens to be of a religion which was in dominance in the area 2000 years ago?

Judaism is not only a religion. It is also an ethnical group and a nationality.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
Hm, from my experience u get more Israel propaganda than palastinien one. At least on TV. When they show pictures its usually of Israelis died or injured by a terror act. Retalition Actions on the normal news is only text message with maybe showing some helicopter (not the victims). When they show Palastins they show either stone throwing kids or radicals swearing revenge, firing weapons etc.
So its more one sided in favor of Israel (German/Dutch tv)

Well, it's hardly so on BBC or in French TV.

However, the massive terracts and Israeli retaliations are a small portion of what goes on here, daily.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I cold always argue that the Palestinians were there over 3000 years ago because of Haggar and that they were kicked out of Abraham's land by Issac's father. But I wont... Ancient history does not matter- If I wnated to I could argue that the Italians still have a right to france, which they dont...

If for 2000 years, france appeared in italian literature and song and prayers as their homeland, then I would say they have a right to france.

This is why I do not like nationality- I believe nationalities are evil and like race, should be abolished. There should be an agreed set of festivals which all people celebrate and there should be one nation.

I disagree with you about nationalities. I think humanity is too young to co-exist as one nationality.

People want to devide themselves according to their customs and history - why shouldn't they?

So? How do past events affect the future- the people who conquer the land have the right to own the land. The people who are conquered have the right to dissent. That is the way things are. I do disagree with, however, the way that the Palestinians were wholesaledly forced to leave their homes by the British and Jewish peoples.

The palestinains were not forced to leave their homes, until the very war in 1948.

Most people who left, left on thier own, fearing an attack by Arab forces on the Jewish cities, and not wanting to get in the cross fire.

If that is "ethnic cleansing" then by all means, now the Palestinians are thenically cleansing Israel.

Thousands of Israelis have left Israel, fearing the terracts and the soon approaching wars.

Listen, everyone should live together- correct?
But I can see why the Palestinians were angered- there was no real war- yes there was a war, but it was not excessively large (at least as I understand it->apologies because most of my experience is limited to survey knowledge->I study European History more than Jewish history) However, The Palestinians were forced to leave their homes.

There were little examples of palestinians being forced to leave, and this only during the war in 1948.

Most left in advance.

And just how legal is that of a fundamentalist religious government- I mean, it could be if over 90% of the people in a country were that religion- but that is not the case, and thus, it is just not fair.

??
Judaism is a nationality. There's a special ministry for muslim and christian needs as well.

Religion and politics dont mix when there are too many diverse religions in each sector. The Jews and Muslims should co-govern the land; not split it up more.

That has proved impossible and none of the sides want it.

Why should you with your universal ideas force people to live together?

And In the end I shalt say this:
I am not Anti-semitic, I am not Anti-Palestinian, I equally dislike Muslims,Christians,Atheists,Jewish people, Buddhists, etc.
I believe in equality of dislike.

I would also like to say that I support Natan and Rogan Josh's arguments.

Eh, I find it hard to support Rogan Josh's arguements.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
If for 2000 years, france appeared in italian literature and song and prayers as their homeland, then I would say they have a right to france.

That's really the weakest arguement I've seen in this thread or any other ME thread. The fact that the Jews feel guilty for thier terrorist attacks on the Romans doesn't give them a legal right to land upon which someone else is living.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
The fact that Hebrew people give more right to leave here only for their eyes.

The fact that they build the country is a good point for them.
But Pals people give them hands too to build cities and building.

Since Israelis have perfectly the right to leave here. But Pals too.

I agree that the palestinians have a right to live here.

However, they, starting from the 1920's have been constantly hostile to the Jewish population, and wanted to ethnically cleanse them.

It didn't work out for them - instead we kicked their asses. Too bad for them.

And still, there are 1,100,000 arabs who live in Israel with equal rights.

What they refuse to understand apparently is that other nations will not considere as normal that Israel gouvernment destroy the house of palestinian living here for several generation now to settle newbie Israeli.

To which houses do you refer?

Many palestinians were living in their houses on "rented" land, which they rented from the Turkish government. The Turkish government made them pay taxes.

When Jews bought land from the turks, they let most arabs stay and work for the new jewish land lords. Those who left, were paid.

However, in 1948 they declared war of ethnic cleansing on Jews. I think no one in his senses thinks we had any other choise but fight back vigorously.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You are not getting this are you?

It doesn't ****ing matter what the history is. It doesn't ****ing matter what happened 3000 years ago. All that matters are the people. Anyone born in Irael/Palestine should have the right to live there, unpersecuted for their religion and with a say in their government. It shouldn't matter what their colour is, or their religion or their political persuasion.

Fine by me.

Now go tell that to the Arab armies who sought to cleanse the land of jews in 1948.

Go tell that to the arab rioters and murderors in 1929.

Go tell that to Arafat, whose henchmen said even in 2000, that "the peace process is a stage in a strategy of phases" to rid the land of Jews.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Echinda
His point is that the people who live there now are the ones that matter. Not someone with a claim based on some long dead ancestor.

Long dead ancestor?

Go tell that to people who for 2000 years sang and dreamt of Jerusalem.

So, certainly he would have the right to kick you out of his house, but he wouldn't have the right to kick you out of a house that some ancestor of his was kicked out of 3000 years ago.

You are reffering to Jews as if they wanted to kick someone out.

They didn't.

Infact, zionist Jewish thinkers debate the question of a single nation for jews an arabs, or two nations for two people.

There wasn't a single thinker who suggested cleansing the land or anything similar.

The result - some 500,000 - 700,000 Palestinian residents leaving the land, was a result of the war that broke out - a war initiated by the Arabs.

Most left prior to the war, many encouraged by the Arab politicians to "make way for the armies", and some were deported by force, due to allegiance to the Arab armies.

My ancestors on my paternal grandmothers side had a farm taken from them when they fled the US due to being United Empire Loyalists (i.e. they were on the losing side of the US revolution). My dad did some digging around and found the old deeds. It is quite clear that the farm is now covered by a good chunk of urban Boston. Should I be able to claim it back?

Your case is similar to the case of most Palestinian refugees.

They left prior to the war, or during it, making way for the Arab armies to "rid the land of Jews". Some were forced to leave because they supported the Arab armies.

Now, some of their houses are now covered by modern Israeli cities.

[chequita guevara]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sirotnikov
It's only a proof of how biased towards faked even-hand policy your TV networks are.[quote]

Yes, but not in the way you are implying.

I've seen Arafat's interview on Al-Jazira myself,

We don't get al-Jazira.

Infact, BBC often portrays captured or failed terrorists as "innocent victims". I've seen a palestinian march in memory of two terrorists who failed and exploded without injuring anyone, being described as "more aggravation caused by Israel".

We don't get the BBC. We don't get French TV.

On the other hand, we do get ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, & CNN (not CNN International, which you get). These are all solidly pro-Israel. In addition, the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and USA Today, which are also solidly pro-Israel.

American opinion is the one that matters, cuz we're the one who keep Israel afloat. Without us, Israel collapses economically and militarily. Stop your whining. My country is overwhelmingly behind Israel.

Say, if you're against this evil bourgeois society, why do you keep living in it and taking advantage of it?

I have an obligation to destroy it. You don't do that by leaving.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
However, they, starting from the 1920's have been constantly hostile to the Jewish population, and wanted to ethnically cleanse them.

That's not exactly true, Siro. The Palestinians have not been constantly hostile to the Jewish population.

The Zionist movement took place during the time that the Ottoman Empire was breaking up. This encouraged Arabs to espouse nationalism for lands that the Turks formally dominated. At the time, the Palestinians believed themselves to be part of Syria, and because the Turks had objected to Jewish settlement, the Palestinians were willing to consider Jewish immigration as an expression of Syrian nationalism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The result - some 500,000 - 700,000 Palestinian residents leaving the land, was a result of the war that broke out - a war initiated by the Arabs.

Most left prior to the war, many encouraged by the Arab politicians to "make way for the armies", and some were deported by force, due to allegiance to the Arab armies.

Lies, lies, lies. Most left because they were trying to avoid the fighting, just as happens in every war. When armies come your way, you flee if you are smart or die if you are stupid. Some left becuase of Arab leaders, some were deported by force, and some fled Jewish attrocities. However, the overwhelming majority were just trying to get out of the way of the fighting.

Furthermore, most of the fighting in that war was initiated by the Israelis. Certainly the five broken truces were.

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Reply to Keygen:

The Hebrews, yes, an independent state- but it should have representation from both sides.
Even if you think that it "shouldnt" then you would have to agree that it certainly would help lower the violence in the region, and I am willing to sacrafice right for peace.
Peace is more important than Political Correctness.
Friendship is more important than being right.
This is a hard thing for me to say, but I'll say it.

I disagree.

I think that the notion of a single state is much more PC than two states for two people.

Because - the two people do not wish to live together. Period.

Yes, but how far are you willing to go back.
History is my hobby.
I love history.
But I put it in its place.
History misdone can turn into a problem such as Echinda describes.
Everyone should live together AS THEY ARE.

We can't live together as we are since starting from 1922, when the Arab leaders started spreading anti-semitic propoganda, we aren't exactly fond of each other.

People should do what they can and not be weak jerks and claim that they have "rights" to own land in certain areas because some grandparent 1000 years ago owned a hovel on the spot.

I don't claim I have a right because of abraham or the two temples.

I have a right because for 2000 years, my ancestors dreamt of coming back.

And yes, the Palestinians and Israelis would have full rights to uprise if they were not represented in the governing of their provinces.
Both sides are at fault.

The palestinian - israeli conflict is not one of "uprising".

It's not a single state - and it will never be such.

What exactly happenned:

1967 - after arab provocations and terror from the west bank, Israel conqueres the west bank. Israeli prime minister says it is conqered "as a card, to be given back when they put down their guns".

1993 - Israel is convinced arabs have put down their guns. Talks start. Terrorist acts continue all this time, with no Israeli military reaction.

2000 - After not getting a share as large as they want, the palestinains start a planned war of terror against Israel.

If there were no Nationalities or REligions, there would be no problem... hmm...

If there were no humans...
animals would behave exactly the same.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's not exactly true, Siro. The Palestinians have not been constantly hostile to the Jewish population.

The Zionist movement took place during the time that the Ottoman Empire was breaking up. This encouraged Arabs to espouse nationalism for lands that the Turks formally dominated. At the time, the Palestinians believed themselves to be part of Syria, and because the Turks had objected to Jewish settlement, the Palestinians were willing to consider Jewish immigration as an expression of Syrian nationalism.

But after the 1920s, and the great propoganda made by the mufti of jerusalem, most palestinians were exclusively against Jews.

The fact remains, that only 250,000 remained in Israel in 1952.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
At the time, the Palestinians believed themselves to be part of Syria, and because the Turks had objected to Jewish settlement, the Palestinians were willing to consider Jewish immigration as an expression of Syrian nationalism.

To build on this, both King Faisal of Syria (the oringal Syria encompassing modern Syria, Lebabon, Israel, the Territories, Jordan, and the Mosul region of Iraq) and later his brother, King Abdullah of Palestine (later divided into West and East Palestine, with East Palestine being renamed Transjordan) wanted the Jews to emigrate and help build their new countries. Abdullah offered the Zionists half the parliament, even though they weren't anywhere close to this number as a percentage of the population. Furthermore, the Nashishibi family of Jerusalem (one of the two ruling families) was also in favor of the Jews emigrating.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Lies, lies, lies. Most left because they were trying to avoid the fighting, just as happens in every war. When armies come your way, you flee if you are smart or die if you are stupid. Some left becuase of Arab leaders, some were deported by force, and some fled Jewish attrocities. However, the overwhelming majority were just trying to get out of the way of the fighting.

The arab forces were very happy to promote the fleeding and asked people to flee to "make way".

Even when the jews didn't want the arabs to leave.

http://www.commentary.org/0007/karsh.html

Furthermore, most of the fighting in that war was initiated by the Israelis. Certainly the five broken truces were.

Fighting against who?
Did we really fight the palestinians that lived here?
I was under the impression we were attacked by foreign Arab armies.

And the truces and such are irrelevant. Breaking a truce is a tactical decision, and just a matter of who does it first.

I'm talking about a strategic decision - who first decided to clear the land by force?

The arab leaderss decided so as early as the 1920s, as evident from them leading massacares against the Jews through out the 20s and 30s.

Later, the arab countries sent their armies to help their brothers to rid of Jews.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
To build on this, both King Faisal of Syria (the oringal Syria encompassing modern Syria, Lebabon, Israel, the Territories, Jordan, and the Mosul region of Iraq) and later his brother, King Abdullah of Palestine (later divided into West and East Palestine, with East Palestine being renamed Transjordan) wanted the Jews to emigrate and help build their new countries. Abdullah offered the Zionists half the parliament, even though they weren't anywhere close to this number as a percentage of the population. Furthermore, the Nashishibi family of Jerusalem (one of the two ruling families) was also in favor of the Jews emigrating.

And where have they all disappeared?

King Faisal signed a document of peace with Wiezman and later anulled it publically.

The real leaders, such as the Mufti al-Hussaini, were all too busy with anti-Jewish propoganda, later tying knots with the Nazi government.

But he spread anti-semitic propoganda starting from the 1920s, and spread rumors about Jews meaning to detonate Temple Mount, in the eve of the 1929 massacares.