Should Israel Have Been in Europe Instead

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit

About Dr. Strangelove... I bought several books about the subject, and got a subsctiption to Newsweek, if I could find the articles I'd post them asap. Btw I have no reason to lie about that, believe it, KLA isnt' the bunch of cool guys you may think. Remember what they did to that group of macedonian soldiers just a couple of years ago?

The incident in Macedonia didn't take place in the 1960s. AFAIK the political movement of the Kosovars was non-violent until Milosevic's soldiers began roughing people up, using death squads to silence dissidents, and quietly shoving others across the borders. Prior to Milosevic coming to power the Kosovars enjoyed a fairly high degree of civil equality with the Serbs in Kosovo and held many of the govermental posts as would be expected in a region in which they were the majority. Milosevic took away their political rights and began to pressure them out of the country. When non-violent means failed violent groups like the KLA became active.

Even if some violent acts occurred in the 1960s I'm fairly certain that Tito took care of the problem in the usual brutal fashion and suppressed the movement. If there were some incidents 40 years ago, then the group went dormant until 5 years ago it wouldn't be rational to say that they had a 40 year reign of terror, would it?

I'm not defending the actions of the KLA in Macedonia, where it is clear that their claims are spurious. In the late 1990s in Kosovo however they clearly had the right to defend their people.

[Adalbertus]

That would be about as believeable as Hitler's claim that Polish terrorists blew up German radio stations

They did do! According to what I've heard of my father (maybe it's only a rumour which spread in Germany among those who were not so happy about Hitler) some 20 Polish prisoners in German prisons were promised freedom if they dress as Polish terrorists and fake an attack on Germany. Of course, all of them were killed.

Second, Western Palestine (aka Israel) is the historical homeland of the Jewish (Hebraic) people.

Be careful about that ... This is water on the mills of every German revisionist. The problem is not about where your ancestors lived 2000 years ago but where Jews and Palestinians (and especially those born in the region) can live now.
-----
Personally, I had preferred that Jews live where they were (in, say, 1900) and without persecution etc. Not necessarily in a separate state but with the same rights and obligations as anybody else in their respective home state (I guess that many Jews stayed in Germany until they were killed for something that Nazis never would admit to exist - love of their native country). Today, many of them have their home in Israel. The existence of modern Israel is a historic fact for over 50 years now and we have to live with it. This region is home to many Jews and many Palestinians - nobody has the right to deny it to either them. I believe that at least 80% of both populations would accept this - but unfortunately 5% and being unscrupulous is enough to terrorize 95%. I have no hope for the near future.

[Ned]

Adalbertus, good post.

On the point about Jews staying were they were without discrimination, etc., the problem is that the Jews have had only small periods of lack of persecution for the last 2000 years. The reason for this is obvious: they insist on maintaining their own religion and culture and therefor are permanently strangers in a strange land.

They had no choice but to seek a homeland of their own.

[Adalbertus]

Correct me, if I am wrong, but I don't seem any Europeans demanding that the descendants of the American slaves go back to where they came from, America, where they were "persecuted." I don't seen anyone saying that movement of slaves to Liberia was a form of racism. I don't see anyone suggesting that the Americans were aggressive colonizers that the stole the land from the native Africans.

Why?

I'm not into the history of Liberia. But whether they are agressive colonizers depends on their behaviour. The "Ameroafricans" have no higher right on the land than those who spent their lives there. If they said "All is ours", they are aggressive colonizers. If they were able to get more or less incorporated in their old tribal structures and taught the rest how to create an effective state they are not. But don't get caught in a sort of argument "We Americans were (mostly) English, so England is ours" or "We Germans came from Eastern European regions, therefore Ukraine is ours", or fill in what you despise most.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
I think you are referring to the 100 year's war...... Again, no expulsion of population. The population was relabelled from "English" to "French".

Renaming is a form of cultural occupation and absorbtion.

You seem to lose sigh of non-european nations which those immigrating europeans now days occupy.
like the original occupants of Britain, or the origianl occupants of America.

(But possibly I'm speaking unrelated nonsense since I can't remember what my original point was )

English subjects went to America out of free will or as prisoners. Fought for independence. Thus they were relabelled. Others went there (then mostly of their own free will) and became Americans. Again no expulsion by war.

English subjects fought other english subjects for independance.

And both conquered local americans.

Same as English in America, only more unwilling and/or unwelcome to assimilate.

French migrated and settled in Canada.
So did english.

Normally remained in their original region (prior to Stalin).

Huh?

Russians conquered the entire mongolian areas, only after mongolia conquered most of asia.

My whole point was that ethnicities migrate and affect other places!

god dammit, the human race has settled around the globe from africa.

True also for the most classical ages of China, Japan, Inca (Aztecs might be different due to their religious needs for prisoners of war ...)

Huh?
The wars between japan and china did change the population of eastern asia alot.

In any case, the original japanese civilization (strangely white men) is practically extinct.

Mongols have spread from mongolia to a huge area across asia, most controlled by Russia bynow.

The arabs have spread themselves and their culture through out southern asia and north africa (and than continued into the 2nd century)

I know they think so. And I think this is sick. Because it invariably results in expulsions, murders, etc. China is much less homogeneous than Yugoslavia (which was about as homogeneous as Germany), in terms of ethnicities. Chinese understand themselves as Chinese, Germans understand themselves as Germans, and Yugoslavians as Croatians, Serbs, etc. The problem is that "Nation" is merely a matter of definition.

I agree.

Thus, once a whole group of people decide that they don't belong to the mother culture, to stop them from defining themselves would be lethal.

I think it is much worse to drive people out of their region of birth (or which they otherwise feel as their home) than living together with people of different ethnicities.

I don't suggest that.

I don't have a problem with living with different ethnicities.

But if an ethnicity wants also to rule itself, alone - then they should.

I guess you'd have a hard time to find a supporter of ethnic "defragmentation", who would volunteer to give up his home. That's one half why I think it's sick.

I don't preach ethnic defragmentation nor do I find any reason to give up anyone's home.

The other half is that I doubt there are many people who can be sure of a "pure" ancestry over more than a few hundred years. A highly civilized culture tends to mix up ethnicities, and sometimes also not-so-highly civilized cultures (I think about Europe in 500 AC...).

Nationality is not based only on ethnicity but also on heritage and culture or history.

If I were not an Israeli and a zionist (I immigrated in a young age and learnt about zionism and agree with its goals), I could have been a russian or ukrainian, or even a german national.

Because I have alot of culture and heritage from all those nations.

Nationality is a matter of choise.

Ethnicity isn't.

[Sirotnikov]

Btw, I'm not sure what I wrote in my last post.

I wrote it in 3 different sessions and I'm quite sleepy now, so I might have confused things.

I caught myself on several accounts prior to posting.

P.S. you may not like this. But within 100 years I expect Israel to go into the hands of the Palestinians

LOL
Make that 20 years.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Dry
Oh, yes, Thanks for having enlighten us all.
......
From me at least, you have free hands, Go on.

You, and all others of course. From now on, any people who kill less than 5,999,999 human beings will have my 100% support.

In other words, from now on, I allow myself to criticise only... Germany.

Hey, jerk, if you don't want to have a serious conversation - don't.

But, please keep the records of the deads, humiliated, raped... - I fully 100% trust your stats - so I know when I will be allowed to think by myself again.

raped?
huh?

Think for yourself?

Tell me do you believe in the masons or the illuminati??

I just have a last question. If, let's say the Chinese beats the Germans by killing... 8 million people - according to your stat - will that forbid all Asians to criticise any other country until someone else beat that score?

What does that have to do with anything, you *****?

I bet you didn't even read my f*cking post. You have a problem with the number 6,000,000 and that is YOUR problem. My post about how the comparison is wrong doesn't even mention that number, but the essense of the hapenning, so f*ck off.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I'm glad you respect me because I like Baldur's Gate

I respect you regardless of that.
That's just a fun fact.

Hmm this thread is killing me I need to sleep!

Heh.

Get used to it.

I'm here for two years now and I don't sleep at all now.

but they are a political party- it's nice to hear that I'm not the only one thinking that palestinians should have their own state, it's just that the more you wait to do so, the more you allow fundamentalists to poison the minds of people with sick thoughts. But using violence and denying history isn't helping anyone.

heh

there are 1000 versions for the history of the region, new ones being written as we speak

In Europe most of the people believe Sharon to be a slaughterer. Now either the europeans or the israelis are wrong.

It's a work of alot of PR and alot of misinformation.

Sharon was found responsible for that - because that is just what his job title suggested at the time - as a minister he was responsible.

But the court didn't find him guilty of intent to cause the slaughter.

Sharon wasn't the general on the ground. Sharon didn't instruct them to commit a slaughter, Sharon, according to the court didn't anticipate the slaughter.

That's hardly a slaughterer.

And it is sad that so many europeans based on so little actual evidence (unless of course they all read ALL the evidence and the trial protocol), decide things about Sharon.

I don't think that 58 millions of italians could live just in S. Marino

hehehe

About Yugoslavia. The yugoslavians were guilty of being the best friends of russians, and you know what the UN did to every single communist country in the world. I'm not saying that communism is a good thing (N. Korea above all) but they were'nt doing anything wrong, and now they are free from the evil cossacks and free to live in sewers, just as anyone wants. Wonder what will be of China..

I again don't get your point.

I think I'm starting to get what you mean, but you aren't clear enough.

You are saying a part of what you want, and not everything, and that confuses me.

You don't mean actual guilty but "guilty". am I right?

[Sirotnikov]

Be careful about that ... This is water on the mills of every German revisionist. The problem is not about where your ancestors lived 2000 years ago but where Jews and Palestinians (and especially those born in the region) can live now.

If they drop that "no jews in our neighbourhood" attitude they adopted in 1920, I see no reason why Arabs can't be our best friends.

As for the german revisionism - I see your point, but I don't see Israel demanding the borders it had under king Solomon (including Jordan, Lebanon and Syria).

Furthermore we gave back the sinai which is huge. So I don't think we reall can be blamed of expansionism.

Personally, I had preferred that Jews live where they were (in, say, 1900) and without persecution etc.

I think ned covered it best.

This situation is hard to imagine.

Plus, we feel that no one understands us the way we do, and no one cares to protect us as we do.

Not necessarily in a separate state but with the same rights and obligations as anybody else in their respective home state (I guess that many Jews stayed in Germany until they were killed for something that Nazis never would admit to exist - love of their native country)

I agree.

Most german jews loved germany. Infact, it was home to the reformist and liberal movements which say that judaism should become a standard religion, and not a full way of life and nationality.

But as long as judaism is not clearly a religion, but is also tied to ethnicity and nationality (judaism is practically the official religion of the hebraic people) Jews can't live properly in other countries.

. Today, many of them have their home in Israel. The existence of modern Israel is a historic fact for over 50 years now and we have to live with it. This region is home to many Jews and many Palestinians - nobody has the right to deny it to either them. I believe that at least 80% of both populations would accept this - but unfortunately 5% and being unscrupulous is enough to terrorize 95%.

Agreed.

But I doubt that more than 50% on the Palestinian side, and more than 70% on our side, are mature enough to get over the "this is all ours" attitude.

I have no hope for the near future.

I have no hope for the future as well.

[Datajack Franit]

Could you specify what's a zionist by the point of view of a jew?

[Datajack Franit]

there are 1000 versions for the history of the region, new ones being written as we speak

History is written by the winners

I think I'm starting to get what you mean, but you aren't clear enough

I think I'm more confused than you

Let's see if I can explain it... What I want to make clear is that I'm not against Israel neither on its side, nor I am with the kosovars or again, agaisnt them. What I care about is doing the best thing.
The best thing is giving everyone a country, a land to live peacefully and do what the f#uck you want to do, unless it's offensive or illegal.

But you can't give a country to every single ethnic group in the world. It would be insane and racist. That's why people are expected to live together.
So why are things so messed up as they are nowadays?
I spoke about Yugoslavia because it's a shame what they did to that country and its citizens. They were forced to live together but they did it, they managed to live peacefully for more than 70 years. Even under communism.

Now, there's no right to destroy a country even if it's a communist one, because:
1 people under a communist regime are not just mindless drones (sometimes they are- N.Korea, but it's a very rarity), so they have the same rights of every citizen of the world;
2 the fall of Yugoslavia happened only because they were allied with the russians. Nothing else. They just suffered the same fate of every east-european country
3 you could say that people were being kidnapped, killed, and suffered. That's true. But the west definitely couldn't care less about it. They had interests from the fall of Yugoslavia and did nothing to stop it. Now everyone had freedom, although living in misery and famine is a reality for most of the population. I lived in an ex-communist country for a couple of years, and although I was a child I can see the differencies.
Was giving freedom to the communist countries right? Definitely. But that wasn't the way to do it.

The same applies to the situation in the middle east. Land was given to Israel to form a country. What's done it's done. But the world totally forgot about the whole place too soon, as it happened in Yugoslavia, in Russia and in the islamic countries in middle east. Now the results.. you can see by yourself. If it will happen in Israel as well.. WW3! ehm

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Dr s, Since the Albania people were Orthodox before the conquest, I don't find your explanation compelling. While often conquests are merely changes of ruling groups, in some cases there are population changes. Especially in the Balkans, where groups had a tendency in ages past to committ wholesale massacres.

Are you sure that they were all Orthodox? Remember that Serbian was not indigenous to the area, it and its people came from the Hungarian plains area. Albanian and Kosvar are related to the indigenous language, and are the only living languages of that group left anywhere in the world. If anything it was Serbian that was brought in by conquerers. Are you suggesting that the Ottomans invaded the area, killed the inhabitants (i.e. the Serbian speakers and the Albanian speakers), then settled the area with foreign Muslims requiring them to use a dead language, one that the Turks had exterminated and which the Turks themselves did not speak? Geeeezzzz, those Turks sure are some wicked evil!! I'll bet they read Nostradamus and realized that someday their empire would fall, so they decided to hide their settlers by forcing them to learn the dead indigenous language. Soon those sleeper Turks, none of whom actually speak Turkish, while rise up and murder the hapless Christians of Europe in their beds.

Both of them.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit


History is written by the winners

Well, if Hitler said it, it must be true!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit


I spoke about Yugoslavia because it's a shame what they did to that country and its citizens. They were forced to live together but they did it, they managed to live peacefully for more than 70 years. Even under communism.

Now, there's no right to destroy a country even if it's a communist one, because:
1 people under a communist regime are not just mindless drones (sometimes they are- N.Korea, but it's a very rarity), so they have the same rights of every citizen of the world;
2 the fall of Yugoslavia happened only because they were allied with the russians. Nothing else. They just suffered the same fate of every east-european country
3 you could say that people were being kidnapped, killed, and suffered. That's true. But the west definitely couldn't care less about it. They had interests from the fall of Yugoslavia and did nothing to stop it. Now everyone had freedom, although living in misery and famine is a reality for most of the population. I lived in an ex-communist country for a couple of years, and although I was a child I can see the differencies.
Was giving freedom to the communist countries right? Definitely. But that wasn't the way to do it.

:

Yugoslavia fell apart because Milosevic got elected. He got elected by cornering the Serbian vote by appealing to their chauvinism. He told them that the other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia had more than their rightful share of the jobs and land and that he was going to do something about it. Not long after he took office the other ethnic groups abandoned ship. If Yugoslavia had elected someone who had made it clear that he considered all the peoples of Yugoslavia equal then the country might have survived.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Are you suggesting that the Ottomans invaded the area, killed the inhabitants (i.e. the Serbian speakers and the Albanian speakers), then settled the area with foreign Muslims requiring them to use a dead language, one that the Turks had exterminated and which the Turks themselves did not speak?

You misunderstood me. Albanians are decendents of the people whom the Romans ruled. They converted to Islam under the Turkish occupation, but were Orthodox before they were made part of the Ottoman Empire. Their nobility and royalty was Catholic, IIRC. There were three Albanian kingdoms at the time, allied to the Turks. When the Turks decided to annex their allies, their great Albanian-Ottoman general, Skanderbeg, led a 25 year revolt against the Turks.

When the Serbs invaded, I believe they were pagans. However, the Orthodox Church sent St. Cyril (hence the Cyrillic alphabet) to convert them. When the Great Schism happened, the areas under Roman occupation, both Albania and Serbia went with the Orthodox.

As for what the population of Kosovo was, it all depends on who did the asking. I've seen three different maps of the same region at the same time from three different countries (England, France, and Germany) all with different ethnicities in charge of various areas.

We do know that there has been a significant population change in Kosovo in the last fifty years, with many Serbs leaving for jobs in the big cities in the NorthWest while Abanians, like many rural people, had lots of babies. There was also a significant population shift just a few years ago, with the KLA chasing out everyone who wasn't Albanian, including Jews, Gypsies, Serbs, Romanians, etc.

I personally knew two Serbian Jews whose family was from Kosovo. Well before the war, my freind Sonja would tell me stories about what Kosovar terrorists were doing there. I chalked a lot of it up to nationalist hysteria, but there was undoubtedly a core of truth.

Milosevic's campaign against the Albanians began with some anti-Serbian incidents (some rapes and murder). No doubt if they hadn't happened he would have invented them. Also, following Tito's death, the Albanians began withdrawing from public life in Kosovo, refusing to serve in government positions, withdrawing their children from public schools, and refusing to use state health services, etc. Milosevic's speech came after that. None of which justifies any of the heavy handedness his government engaged in.