I was reading the book Beirut to Jerusalem last night and it
went into the history of the Middle East....it basically
starts off by saying that in the late 1800's and early
1900's the Jews decided to move back to Palestine by
emigrating there from around the world....they did this and
basically just set up shop again, after not being there for
over a thousand years, in the middle of the Arab world,
based on (I suppose) the idea that Bibically that is their
homeland. And then the Western countries propped them up
and carved up an area for them post-WWII.
I'm a Catholic American, and thus have no genetic/political
affiliations with either the Jews or Arabs, but this seems
to be a pretty clear situation.....the Jews made their move
back and stole land, backed by the Western countries, from
the people that inhabited that land for thousands of years
(the Arabs).
I'm traveling to the ME soon and am curious....how can
anybody hold a viewpoint that is nothing but sympathetic to
the Arab world?
In Doubt
[There are 53 posts - the latest was added on Mon 10 May, 16:45]
Use the form at the end of this page to add your own post.
Topics
| Thorn Tree
| Home
can say anything they please, and I hope that you will not
be on the receiving end of a firestorm of critical remarks.
It is well to remember that nobody really owns anything
because we are all just passing through this world. But
since we are ruled by laws, property does pass from person
to person, no matter their nationality or ethnicity. In the
case of Zionism, many nations wanted it to exist because of
their own internal conflicts and anti-Semitic proclivities.
Don't blame Zionism solely on Jews -- almost all nations had
a hand in fostering its creation and flowering. But, to be
fair, you must recognize that Israel (with all its faults)
remains the sole outpost of democratic freedom in that area.
Its conduct during the Intifada has not been up to its own
standards, but that will pass, given time. And, speaking of
stealing land, nobody but nobody outdid the United States of
America as it built its inland empire over the native Indian
peoples. If you like to read history, I guarantee this will
come as a shocker to you. Or, if that is too gory for you,
real Prescott's "The Conquest of Mexico and Peru" -- for
shame.
My post was not meant to be anti-semetic, anti-arab, or
pro-american.....just in search of opinions to help form my
own view of the situation.....thanks for responding
ombudsman.
Ombudsman makes a good point. Any American who is so upset
by Israel should really think about the land that they live
on. Not only because of the horrors aginst the Native
Americans, but also that so much of this country prospered
as a result of the slave labor of African-Americans. For
shame is right.
As for the Jews (however, not all Jews are Zionists) where
would everyone like them to go after being persecuted
practically everywhere they have lived. I doubt 5 million
Israelis live in Israel because the love being surrounded
by 250 million Arabs. I think it is a bit easier to be an
Arab in the Middle East.
Since you're a Catholic, 'In doubt', you might also want to
ponder the issue of the land and property Catholics such as
the Spanish and Portugese and French and Belgians stole from
other people in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and the
millions they killed because they (Spanish/Portuguese
particularly) did not believe that non-christians had souls.
Israelis, in the same way, don't think of Arabs as
quite human, more like 'grasshoppers' (to quote Golda
Meier). The feeling is reciprocated. So it goes.
.
In addition to the book you read, which is very vivid and
informative, you might want to read David Shipler's slightly
older book called "Arabs and Jews". Both were New York Times
reporters in the middle east.
Jew always lived in the part now known as Israel, as well as
arabs. After WW2, when the Jews had to have their own land,
a U.N. decision to create a Jewish state and an arab state
was made, not to the liking of the Palestinians. Neither
the Palestinians nor the Jews controlled that part. The
Jews received 52% of the land while the Palestinians
recieved 48%. Unfair from the Palestinian point of view
(with justification), since more Palestinians lived there at
he time. You might know of all the wars that region had
since 1948. Israel did not start those wars, but had to
protect their right to live in their land, for where are
they going to live and dictate their own fate? Don't forget
the Arab countries also received military help from the
U.S.S.R. What do you think the Jews should have done in
times of war?, but not fight, just like the Palestinins have
fought. I really hope that the two sides, (and the other
countries in the region who keep spreading propoganda
against Israel) will be able to accept and trust one
another. Amen
Is everybody here just a little bit defensive? "In Doubt" is asking a valid question, and right away everybody has this knee-jerk reaction of defensiveness. YES, Catholics have performed terrible deeds, YES, America stole the land from natives....my parents are Danish, so should I not be allowed to criticize since the Vikings were responsible for horrible pillages and rapes? Anyways...
Yes, these are valid points, but the main difference with Israel is that it has happened relatively recently. I worked in Israel for a few months, I like the Israelis, and I fully do not expect them to abandon the country they have forged over the last 50 years. Yet, at the same time, one can't ignore the fact that they have uprooted hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from a land which they have inhabited for ages. Is that fair? Yes, the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years, but that is no excuse for taking over someone else's country...two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Jews Didn't came back to Israel to steal land
from the Arabs. They never doubted the right
of the Arabs to be here. You can read exactly
that on the jewish decleration on Indipendence, where
they call for peace with Arabs, and for two-nations
land.
Also, the main reason for the return to Israel, was
the dis-ability of the jwes to live spread all around
the world. That reason was proof to be right about
60 years after the begining of "zionist" to return
to Israel in the holocast.
If the jews can't live spread in the world, and for your
opinion they don't ahve the right to live in Israel,
where should they live? maybe it was better if
there were no jews in the world,that would save many
problems to the world, but face reality...we are here
Y.D., you know, there are more landless people in the world
than people with a country all their own. So where are all
the other landless people in the world supposed to live? Are
you proposing that every ethnic group in the world be given
it's own country? Or is that reserved only for Jews and
those lucky enough to already have their own land?
Both Jews and Arabs have lived in the Middle East from the
start. Most of the Middle East is Arab so there is no
reason why Jews should not have a jewish state. Jews have
been landless for the past few thousand years, thrown out
of and persecuted almost everywhere they go. So finally
they decided to work and return to the land that belonged
to them in the first place.
Perhaps every ethnic group does deserve its own country, I
think that would be a nice reality. But don't blame the
Israelis for the problems of the world.
Okay, Liz, let me get this strait. Since the Arab world is
very large, a few Arabs should just get up and go somewhere
else to make room for Israel. That logic would never apply
anywhere else in the world. I mean, what if someone proposed
that since the Kurds have no land, and the US has fifty,
FIFTY, states, we could just give the Kurds one of our
states. No one would ever take that seriously, and if the
Kurds were to try to take over just one state, the US would
fight for that state. No one would say, "Aw, come on, the US
has another 49 states, and the poor Kurds have nothing.
Besides, they've been mis-treated for years."
BTW, who said that Israel is responcible for all the
problems in the world.
No one here is blaming Israel for the problems of the
world!!
I doubt that 'In Doubt' is indeed Catholic. If
he/she/it/they would be Christian, that person would know
the Bible which precisely states whose land the Land of
Israel is (and act accordingly). That does not mean that
every detail about reclaiming their land was done properly
by the Zionist movement but gives a first direction about
how Christians should address the problem.
Interestingly he/she/it/they finish the original post with
something like 'how the hell could any sane person be a
friend of Israel' and then retracts this into 'just in
search of opinions to help form my own view of the
situation...'-- immediately after the roll-call for the
Jew-bashers is sent out... Isn't it striking that those
people always show up when the Middle East branch of TT is
about to begin what it is intended to be: a travel forum
with little or no politics?
To Deren: It may be right that the atrocities of the
Vikings, North and South American colonialism etc are more
back in time than the foundation and the growth of the State
of Israel, but the reason for the creation of Israel and the
security problems in the area are still present: The danger
of physical annihilation of the Jewish people through wars,
terrorism, holocaust, 'ethnic cleansing' etc.
To Liz: I appreciate most of your points yet I remember a
lecture when I was in Jerusalem recently. There was a
discussion about the topic, and as usual it was said, well,
the Arabs have (some) 22 countries, so why do they want to
steal ours (said by an Israeli), and another Israeli stood
and said, no, the Arabs have only one country as well, and
that is Saudi-Arabia (where they originally come from), and
all the other 21 states from Morocco to Iraq were stolen
already from the respective natives throughout the history.
And he was right; Arabs did not live in the area 'from the
beginning', they are immigrants who, according to Gods plan
of salvation, have no business in Israel.
Just an aside from this debate, but can somebody give me the story on why Israel was chosen as the "new" homeland? I seem to recall that other areas were looked at in the early 20th century as a possibility, such as South America. Can anybody clarify this for me? Thanks...
your the one who brought up the landless people of the
world while at the same time mentioning Israel. Im not
saying that I don't sympathize somewhat with the
palestinins, but it is not the fault of the jews either
that they had to find somewhere new to live. Even after the
Holocaust the Jews were stilled harassed, so they got on a
boat to leave. That boat either went to Isreal, America, or
possibly somewhere else.
And Deren, since you are refering to recent events, remeber
it was THIS century in which African-Americans and Whites
could not even drink for the same water fountain ! america,
a land built of equality and fairness.
im giving up now.
With friends like 'Black Garden' and Liz, Israel hardly
needs enemies. When people justify their actions on the
basis of the Bible and say things like 'according to God's
plan of salvation', the discussion has crossed the loony
line.
You rock CBGB!!
Liz, you say that you sympathise with the Palestinians,
but Jews need somewhere to live. What kind of logic is that?
There are many oppressed, landless people who "Need
somewhere to live." Where are the Ibo (Nigera,) Dinka
(Sudan,) Karen (Burma,) Uygur (China,) Myans (Mexico and
Guatamala,) and so on supposed to live? These are all
oppressed (to diffrent degrees), landless nations. But if
they tried to take over their respective country and make it
their home, the international community would not accept it.
Do all people have the right to take land and make their own
nation? Or just the Jews? If only the Jews and no one else,
why?
I hope by now that the person who started this topic
realizes by not that it is not as simple as he seems to
think.
I like your posts - I wish you had been here in "the good
old days"- with Khewaga, Blue et al - we have mostly gone
elsewhere because the flamers got so bad.. a pity - stick to
your guns!
The thing was (and is!) quite simple: Israel was chosen for
religious reasons. Many of us are aware of the tricky matter
of defining Jews as a 'national/ethnic group' and/or a
'religious group'. Yet the easiest was seemed to be to take
the religious approach, and this only works with the full
monty, i.e. a combination of Thora (as religion), Am Yisrael
(the people) and Erez Yisrael (the country). Other
approaches wouldn't have kept the Jews together as an entity
but would have created more frictions and factions
instead... Add to this the fact that the place was almost
unpopulated *at that time* (emphasis added for some looneys
here), and you see it is and was the only solution...
Black Garden, you have just hit on one of the most
persistant Zionist myths of all. Palestine was not empty,
nor did it have the low population Zionist revisionist like
to pretend. Nor is there a scrap of evidence to show that
there were mass migrations of Arabs from neighboring areas
who called themselvs Palestinians once they got there.
.
And before someone starts babbling about how there was no
Palestine before World War 2, I was reading an
article about Damascus in a National Geographic from 1911.
It made a reference to "The ajoining state of Palestine."
Furthermore, a newspaper opened in the 1830's called
"Al-Falestini," Arabic for "The Palestinian." Yes, I know it
was part of the Ottoman, and later, British empires. So
what? So were many nations, and the right of an Empire to
shift populations in it's territory has not been recognized
for centuries. Certainly not by the people of those
territories.
Before anyone accusing me of swallowing Arab propiganda, I'm
just waiting for someone to start spouting Arab mythology
about Israel so I can take that on too. Both sides are full
of nonsence with a few grains of truth here and there.
OK, I should have mentioned that 'at that time' refers to
the beginning of Jewish immigration way before the turn of
the century. For those who are a bit slower in their
thinking: that was about 1860.
"Nor is there a scrap of evidence to show that there were
mass migrations of Arabs from neighboring areas"? At least
you show a sense of humor in your postings... Had you been
there, you would undoubtly have seen that, for instance, the
Arabs' faces are as diverse as the Jews' faces. Africans,
blondes, Egyptian faces, whatever you want, on *both* sides.
I am quite sure you will find those 'scraps of evidence'
galore once you take the effort to examine the Turkish and
British archives...
The word 'Palestinian', btw., derives from the old
'Philistines' of Biblical age. They have disappeared in the
gutters of history but are still alive and well in some very
recent English dictionaries. Just take a look :-) How apt...
In response to the claim that Israel is responsible for uprooting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, I believe the truth to be that the two peoples were living fairly happily side by side until the Mufti of Jerusalem (who was a good friend of Adolf Hitler) encouraged the Palestinians to believe that the Israelis wanted to rape, pillage and plunder en masse and stricken by fear of these Zionist murderers, left their own properties behind. Not of their own volition but at the hand of one leader who managed to create mass hysteria throughout Palestine (which incidently happened to happened to be legally bought from Palestinian Fendis by the Jewish National Fund Israeli environmental group which still exists today).
I'm currently working in Tel Aviv, and would like to point
out that the majority of people in this world, and this
discussion have learnt everything they know about Israel
from a hightly distorted and political CNN. CNN promotes a
very distorted black and white view of a region that has
been a complex mix of cultures for thousands of years.
Israelis and Palestinians and Bedouins and Druze and Arabs
are all living together in Israel. The above discussions
seem to focus only on two of the many cultural groups that
inhabit Israel, because these two groups are the only two
that US foreign policy cares about.
My Israeli friends are far more open minded than US media
would have the world believe - Jews have Palestinian and
Druze friends, Palestinians work for Jewish companies, and
the general educated population cares more about building
an economy and raising a family than throwing bombs. It is
the minority of radical Jews and Palestinians who get the
attention of the news media and make life hard for the
rest. I should however admit that I am working with and
meeting very educated openminded people in technology based
companies in Tel Aviv and that life for the average person
living in the poorer settlements like Nazareth and
especially the Palestinian controlled areas is very
different, with people living in fear of their neighbours.
The terrorism over many years and the segregation
implemented to control this has led to the situation where
Palestinians are often living in third world conditions in
a supposedly first world country.
For a number of years it seemed that the peace agreements
brokered by the US were working, but with the current
Jewish political trend to the right and the religious trend
to Orthodoxy it is obvious that things will only get worse.
As with all conflicts there is no real right or wrong, and
no way to change history. Education and openness is the
only thing that will finally resolve the political and
religious differences and lead to peace.
Reality does not hold much logic, but if it did then every
ethnic group would have the opportunity to have their own
land. I believe that the Palestinians deserve their own
state, but at the same time I feel strongly about Israel
for reasons I mentioned before.
It is not fair that the landless people you mentioned are
without a nation. It just happened to be that Jews
(Israelis) were successful in their efforts to create a
state with outside support. But this does not mean that I
don't feel the groups you mentioned do not deserve support
as well. You should become an anthropologist.
Vagrant makes a good point.
Please stop it.
"IN DOUBT" main mistake is getting an opinion just by
reading a book.
Grow up... the truth is a function of so many arguments
that in fact there's no one answer, my truth is completely
different from a guy which was born in Gaza.
If u claim to have an opinion ,one should read ,
travel,meet people ... and still the picture will be
obscure.
Try all to be less judgemental....
There you go again, Black Garden. Yes, you see many blond
heads, Africans, and signs of ethnic diversity amoung the
Palestinians. That's because the good Christians decided
that the land was theres because their religion was right
and the other religons of the area were wrong. Given that,
they went around slaughtering, torturing, and raping the
people of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. With all that
raping (And the fact that a few remained) pleanty of blond
hair genes were worked into the gene pool. The Africans are
the decendents of slaves, who consider themselvs
Palestinians are are very nationalistic twords Palestine.
.
How you can take these facts and conclude that there were
no (or very few) Palestinians in Palestine in the 1860's is
beyond me. In fact, if that were the case, why are the
blond haired decendents of the Crusaders there? If all
Palestinians had died out in the late 1700's (as the Zionist
myth goes) there would be no blond haired Arabs in
Palestine, because blond haired Arabs would have died out
with them. Same with the Black Palestinians. So if your
trying to prove that there were no inhabitants of Palestine
in the 1860's you have got a long way to go.
.
So what if the name refers to the Philistens who have long
since died out? It's the name that has been recognized for
about 1800 years. Who cares if the Philistines aren't there
any more?
.
Now Dasha has some myths for us. There was a small group of
Nazi supporters amoung the Palestinians, so they want to
pretend that all Palestinians were Nazis. Well, there were
Nazi supporters amoung the French! Does that mean that the
French should be considered Nazis? There are Americans
supporters of the Nazis today, so what? As for the
Palestinians leaving on their own, they left becuase their
was a war on. Radical Zionists killed 200 Palestinian
villagers in their sleep in Dir Yassan. The Palestinians had
good reason to flee. Even some Jewish historians in Israel
are starting to claim that there were large scale evictions
during 1948. Everywhere else in the world refugees are
allowed to return to there home once the war is over. No one
told the people of Mozambique who had fled to Malawi that
they left on their own and had no right to come back. In
fact, I can't think of another war where that has happened.
.
Black Garden, try some other sources for your Mid-East news
besides Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.
One of the most volatile issues around, as we've seen on this
thread. I think I'll skip all of the previous responses and
stick to the original posting. In Doubt, I don't feel that
it's accurate to say that the Jews stole the land from Arabs.
When people talk about the "Zionist Invasion" they talk about
3 things, the Jews moving on mass to Palestine, and the war
of 47-49 in which 700,000 Palestinians became refugees, and
the 1967 war. I don't
see how mass Jewish immigration to their religious homeland
can be criticized any more than mass European immigration to
the USA and Canada. At this point Jews bought land from Arabs
(not stealing it). I don't think it is any issue at all that
5 million Jews live in the former Palestine. The second thing
is more difficult, with the war and refugee problem. Well,
the Arabs turned down the partition plan which would have
involved no population transfer. Instead they attacked Palestine,
and in the war that followed 700,000 Palestinians became refugees.
But not just Palestinians became refugees. Every single Jew
who lived in the Westbank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem
had to leave and go to the areas under Jewish control. People
never mention this. Similar "trades" have occurred in other
wars, such as the India-Pakistan partition (a strangely similar
situation created by the British). If neither side can live
together, then fine, separate. For me the problem comes in 1967
when Israel took over the Westbank and Gaza which should have become
part of the Palestinian state in 48. Now instead of the 2 peoples
living mostly in 2 separate states there is an apartheid like
coexistance under one state, in which Israelis have full rights
but Palestinians don't. This has to change. They either have
to go back to separation or learn to tolerate each other
and create a "secular democratic Palestine". Separation is more
likely (and to me seems safer), but Israeli governments (both Likud and Labour)
have hurt the chance for this by filling the Westbank
and Gaza with Israeli settlements. I personally have no problem
with the average secular Israeli, I think they have a right
to their country. But I do have a problem with the ones who
think that all of the land is theirs and that the arabs are
forein aliens. Israel has to give the Arabs of the territories
citizenship or independance. Take your pick.
how can anyone feel anything but sympathy for the plight of
the palestinians, from whom the jews stole vast tracts of
land?
to begin with, there have always been small settlements of
jews in israel. to characterise their return to israel as a
mass invasion is therefore inaccurate.
large parts of the middle east today are the result of
"creative" partitioning on the part of the british. a prime
example of this is the hashemite kingdom of jordan whose
monarchy dates back as far as the brits appointing of a
king. borders are political not geographical entities. there
are many landless people. the jews profited from the
catastrophe which befell then in ww2 to catapult their state
into creation. the palestinians have waged a very effective
media campaign to capture world support in their own quest
for statehood. i would read either side's account of history
with skepticism...
when the state of israel was created, an offer was extended
to the arabs living in areas that had been designated
israeli to have full citizenship and peaceful co-existence.
obviously, this was unacceptable to a large segment of the
population who had a vested interest in remaining under arab
rule, at the same time leaders of the more militant arab
factions urged locals to leave their homes temporarily so
that the jews could be driven into the sea, after which they
could resume their lives without the nasty thorn of israel
in their side- a plan which failed disastrously. the same
scenario repeated itself thing in subsequent wars with
israel gaining more and more territory with each of her
neighbouring countries' attempts to annihilate her.
that israel botched the question of the palestinian refugees
goes without saying. the territories should have been
promptly returned in echange for peace treaties- as was the
case with sinai, or they should have been annexed, turned
into part of israel proper- as with the golan, and residents
accorded full citizenship. in allowing the territories to
fester with misery and resentment, the country reneged on
the very principles it claimed to hold sacred... it should
be noted though, that all of the surrounding arab countries
have equally awful records with regard to their treatment of
the palestinians.
that the palestinians deserve a homeland is clear. however
to lay blame for their plight solely at israel's feet is an
oversimplification of the issue.
It seems Joe can be helpful to me (and maybe to others as
well) by disclosing the web-sites of Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson in order to allow me to read them as additional
sources :-)
To his points: I did not claim that the presence of blonde
and African types among the Arabs is my sole source for the
assumption of a massive immigration of Arabs to the Land of
Israel. I cited this as *one* point (and a very obvious one)
to consider and went on recommending to read Turkish
archives (in processed shape, of course; I don't suppose any
of us to understand Turkish in Arabic script). The thing is
that I didn't see that ethnic diversity during my trips in
any Arab country (OK, I was in Jordan and northern Egypt
only..., Lebanon is another case). Btw., the Turks did
hardly 'employ' African slaves.
'In fact, I can't think of another war where that has
happened.' Selective memory, isn't it? I don't know about
your educational background, but you definitely
underestimate ours.
'Radical Zionists killed 200 Palestinian villagers in their
sleep in Dir Yassan.' Arab propaganda lie, and not even
cited correctly. The latest (1996) Arab examination of this
attack by a Bir Zeit (!) historian refuted that decades-old
lie and put the number of Arab dead at about or slightly
less than 100 (the same number that Israel claimed
throughout the time). The attack was in the middle of the
day (that much for 'in their sleep'), and the number
includes a large percentage of Arab combattants and bandits.
Btw, that Arab scientist was subsequently incarcerated by
the PLO for writing the truth...
There is no 'Zionist myth' that the native Arab population
of Israel had died out in the 18th century. Nobody claims
that except you. The truth is (and can be verified in any
travelogue, expedition report etc. at that time) that the
country was indeed nearly empty 150 years ago. Of course
there were townships like Jerusalem, Hebron, Shechem, Jaffa,
Haifa, Acre, Gaza and a few more, but with four-digit
populations only (of which a significant number consisted of
native Jews, Armenians, Druze etc.). In addition there were
few villages and some Beduin (nomadic) bandits who plagued
the travellers and inhabitants alike.
OTOH, it seems you've kicked your own a** in the first two
paragraphs. No matter whether there were 'no' or 'few' Arabs
in the Land of Israel by 1860, no matter whether they have
'died out in the late 1700's' or not, my point was that
those 'strange-colored' Arabs (and much more not so
'strange-colored') emigrated afterwards from surrounding
Arab areas, where they may or may not be brought forth by
crusaders or whomever. Your assumptions aren't contradicting
my claims.
Furthermore, it may have escaped your attention but in the
past century all inhabitants of the country were called
'Palestinians' regardless of their ethnic and religious
affiliations. It had nothing to do with any nationalist or
(in fact) separatist feelings; it was just because the
country was temporarily called 'Palestine'. The
self-definition of Arabs living in the Land of Israel as a
separate Arabic entity wasn't done until 1964. The infamous
Mufti of Jerusalem (a close forefather of both Faisal
Husseini and Yassir Arafat) did not speak about a separate
state for the Arabs but about unification with Syria.
I did not claim that there is something wrong with that
referrence to the old Philistines. What I was trying to tell
is that it is quite funny, even more so given the apt
translation of 'philistine' into English.
I don't think it is all CNN. More like the BBC and
Manchester Guardian propaganda, clothed as news, for the
politically correct. As a Glaswegian explained it to me ...
The Anglos have three main reasons to support the
Palestinian cause, believeing they are of course impartial
in this debate. They were the ones who started the whole
mess by promising both ethnic groups an independent
country, if they supported and fought for England in the
first of the great Europeon imperialistic struggles of the
20th century. When the Israeli terrorist groups attacked
the English after WWII, they did some pretty nasty things -
the King David Hotel killed 140 + people. Impressive even
by todays standards. While they wouldn't say it as such -
it is still an issue. Israel was also involved in Englands
last gasp to be a world power. The ill fated joint attack
with the French and Israel to sieze the Suez Canal - Their
"property". The resulting peace saw, of all things, the USA
supporting the Arab position against this lovely
triumvirate. Militarily it was a "success", politically it
put the knife in as a world power. Eisenhower was a lot
more astute in political realities than people today
imagine - he was smart enough to commit genocide in places
like Guatemala. The world didn't notice for another decade.
Black Garden
I was thinking about how to respond to your balloney, but
then I thought, "Why bother." I don't see any point in
arguing with people who invent their own facts, or swallow
propaganda unquestionally because it fits into their view of
the world. I have given up trying to argue with a relitave
of mine because he invents facts. For example, on nuclear
energy: You get more radation from standing near burning
charcoals than you would get from holding nuclear waste. A
nuclear power plant produces so little waste that one years
worth would not even fill up and oil barrel. He even insists
that Apartide South Africa was the least repressive country
to blacks than any other country in Africa. He get's that
stuff from his radicle right wind newsletters, and it is the
undenyable truth. No point is arguing with that stuff.
.
I do have a question for Black Garden, however. Do you
believe that the Jesus will return to Israel, and will all
Jews who do not become Christians go to Hell?
.
Sunshine
So what if there were a few tiny Jewish communities in
Palestine when the first Zionists started to move in
(Remember too, many of those Jewish communities moved into
Palestine from other places such as Spain after the fall of
Grenada.) There are small communities of Celts in England.
The Celts of what became England (known as "Britons") were
thrown off their land by the Anglo-Saxons just like the Jews
were thrown off their land by the Romans. Many of the
Britons who were thrown out of their land now live in an
area called "Britony" in France, where they speak their
native Celtic language. Now, if the Briton people started to
migrate to England, bought up large tracts of land, would
you say that they have the right to replace England with
their own Republic? Would the existance of Celtic
communities in England justify this?
Why are you all bothering? None of you seem to have any cred in terms of history of the region and reading one book does not an academic make. Your opinions are largely unfounded emotion which is based on some seeming media-fed 'truth' and we all know that papers just want to make money and have little regard for the truth or have even littler access to the truth (in a place like the middle east).
Marco
I've read about nine books on the matter, many articles
from diffrent sources (many of them European, more
reliable,) and I've talked to many Jews and Arabs. Thank
you. Not that I'm saying my opinion is the undeniable truth
since I've studied the matter, but it does count for
something.
Black Garden? Hello? Hello?
I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. Do you
believe that Jesus will return to Israel at the second
comming, and all Jews who do not convert to Christianity
will go to Hell? Still waiting...
Well, I allowed myself to be offline over the weekend...
Actually, I have no net access at home at all but only in
the company.
The matter you raised is far too complicated to be
conclusively discussed here. Simply put, I don't know. Yes,
I do believe in the second coming of Christ to Israel.
Nobody knows when, but He will. Maybe in 2000, maybe
tomorrow or at any time He decides.
Yet I don't have (and nobody has) any idea what's going to
happen then. Some traditions believe He will decend on the
Mount of Olives and then walk to and open the Golden Gate of
the Old City in Jerusalem after which He will destroy the
muslim temples on the Temple Mount and build the Third
Temple. Somehow I wish I would see the golden dome to
collapse... :-)
Anyway, Christ said that 'the only way to the father is
through me'; God (the father) however told somewhere in the
Bible (I forgot the exact source) that beyond that
prerequisite He (the father) would allow others into Heaven
according to His very own decision. I don't know for sure
but I guess that this generally applies to those Jews who
don't convert to Christianity because they are, simply put,
His Chosen People. Maybe.
On the other hand, your relative isn't that wrong with the
assertations concerning the nuclear power thing. Coal power
plants do emit more radioactivity than nuclear power plants
of the same size. Not to speak of the carbon dioxide, acid
rain gases etc. emanating from coal fire... BTW, I am
working in that branch. Concerning South Africa; I haven't
been in Africa before 1993 thank to the commies that usurped
my country and prohibited free travel, but as far as I heard
there were millions of black Africans illegally immigrating
to anti-communist SA instead of millions to escape from
there... And, did they have genocides or all-out wars, mass
starvation, mass deaths through plagues, skyscraping infant
mortality rates and all the neat things that happen in
the rest of Africa?
Maybe you'd be so kind to explain which facts I 'made up' in
my postings?
Shouldn't you be working rather than spending an inordinate amount of time posting here? Sheesh, I feel bad for the sucker who's paying your salary.
Black Garden:
Most of your fictional post about Dir Yassan was made up,
perhaps by you, more likly by someone else. Most of your
rabble about nuclear waste was made up (Yeah, plutonium is
less raidoactive then charcoal. SURE!!!)
.
As for South Africa being Communist, well, as I understand
it communists believe in nationalizing all industries. Well,
is there any private enterprise in South Africa today?
.
Then there is your joke about how much better things were
in the old South Africa than in other African countries.
That might not have been totally made up, but I think it is
indictive of your logic. Infant mortality rates were as high
amoung blacks in South Africa as anywhere in Africa. The
diffrence is that when you average in the white population,
the numbers look better. Figures don't lie, but liers sure
can figure.
.
I have no interest in contenuing this. If we do, it will be
just another "Yes it is," "No it isn't," sort of thing. I
hate that.
What if you tried to learn how to read? Undoubtly, in that
case you had understood that I did not claim that charcoal
would be more radioactive than plutonium. What I said (and
what is true and can be verified) is that coal power plants
emit more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant of the
same electricity output as long as both are working as
planned. The reason is quite simple: the radioactive
materials stay in the reactor (except for Chernobyl, of
course) in the latter case, while nothing is withheld from
being blown out of the chimney in coal power stations. Any
undergraduate student or even five minutes of own thinking
could have told you...
If you were able to read properly you would undoubtly have
seen that I did not consider South Africa a communist
country. What I told was that *my* home country was ruled by
communists for much too long and that I therefore was unable
to travel to SA in order to get first-hand impressions then.
Before I forget, yes, there are private companies in SA
today...
As for infant mortality rates, I am sure you can come up
with politically correct(ed) numbers? Otherwise, I would
agree with your last paragraph, and the discussion should be
finished. Have a nice weekend...
I was about to finish this conversation, but let me clear
up a few things. First, sorry about misreading the South
Africa bit, but it did sound like you were calling South
Africa communist and indicating that you couldn't return for
that reason.
.
As for the Nuclear waste issue, if YOU could read you would
see that I said that my relitave claimed that, and this is
an exact quote from my above message, "You get more radation
from standing near burning charcoals than you would get from
holding nuclear waste."
..better yet, who cares??!
-
-
God you guys are both pathetic. Get a life.
Wouldn't giving Germany to the Israeli's have been more
justifiable than giving Palestine, which was innocent in
the Holocaust? So the Palestinains are Hitlers last
victims? Also Annisa you say you wish Joe had been here
when Khwega and Blue had been cause the flamers got so bad
and then you post a post like you did about Amy not being
able to see through her veil to focus a picture? Hold up a
mirror, if you want to see who was the flamer.
Absolutly. If someone's land was to be taken from them to
make up for the holocaust, let it be the country that
committed the Holocaust, namely, Germany.
It sounds crazy, but this might resovle the conflicts in the
ME. I would say 1/3 of former DDR should be given to the
Israelis if not he whole part. The problem is though that
most of the Jews wouldn't want to, I wonder why? Cos, they
still get huge monetary restitution for the WWII from
Germany. I also noticed that SOME Jews blame everybody for
the holocaust: Lithuanians, Italians, Hungarians, Dutch,
Danes, Poles, Ukrainians, Slovakians, Romanians, Belgian and
so on, occasionally they mention Nazis but they never say
Germans why is that? GERMANS CAUSED HOLOCAUST! And that in
effect created the hole mess in the Middle East.
Many attrocities have been committed against both the Arabs
and the Jews. Neither side has been blameless in the
quagmire that has resulted. Still what if? What if the
Jewish people just for once ceased whinning and blaming
anyone at all for their history. What if "remember the
holocost" for once wasn't shoved down everyones' throat for
any constructive criticism or innocent question asked of a
people who refuse to be questioned. What if the Jewish
people did not harass and harangue each and every weaker
organization they feel imposes upon their right to
unquestionable unaccountability. What if the Jewish people
quit, just for once, reminding the rest of the world that
they are "the Chosen ones!" It is so far fetched and
inexcusable to suggest that you are your own worst enemies?
You fly in the face of all decorum. Must you always be
above reproach? Could anti semitism be just a public
backlash; a defense mechanism against the Jewish tirade?
Could guilt be a Jewish propaganda mechanism designed to
soil the nests of those who do not need to suffer and
persecute in order to exist? I warned you it would be a can
of worms. In light of the subject matter it will inevitably
be called "hate mail." I am affraid it is nothing more than
an innocent inquiry.
I bet your last girlfriend dumped you for a Jew, right?
In regard to the Holocaust, of course Polish Jews blame
Poles, Russian Jews blame Russians, Latvian Jews blame
Latvians - not for instigating the Shoah, as we call it,
but for standing by and watching, or supporting, or
encouraging. Not for driving the tanks, but for refusing to
stand up and be counted. Or refusing to hide Jews in their
attics, or for turning them into the police to pocket some
reward. That is why.
BTW, Jews do not sit down at large talbles and come up with
finely tuned plans to fuck the world over. If you think
that is true, well, you are very naieve. We can't agree on
our own issues regarding anything, let alone giving a shit
about what the rest of the world thinks! And you are also
very misguided if you think that we Jews just want to rort
the system for our own benefit! Gee, as if we don't have
enough to worry about with the peace process, assimilation,
religious/secular rifts, reform Jews' rights, funding for
our schools, Ashkenazi/Spehardi relations and so on.
And, Arab sympathiser, if you want to talk whinger, then
let the games begin!
Here we go of the little insignificant mishaps to occur to
the Jewish people:
* slavery and murder of all first born boys as a means of
birth control in ancient Egypt.
* destruction of the first and second Temple by invaders
who put idols in our holiest place of worship, the Temple
Mount. Twice. Presecuted for having one god, not many.
* Exile
Now some you might actually know
* deicide - the Murder of (your) God. Beat that! Persecuted
for not having the right god.
* an interpretation of the Bible into Latin reading that
Jews have horns (because the Hebrew said rays of joy coming
out of their heads and it was interpreted as horns).
* the Spanish Inquisition - Jews being forced to convert to
Catholicism or die.
* Jews ghettoised in Italy (first ghetto in the world).
From here on in, Jews not allowed to integrate into society
anywhere in Europe (until 1700s emancipation after the
Enlightenment). And today Jews are accused of sticking
together and not integrating!
* Jews only allowed to be money lenders and no other
professions. Therefore, become good with money. Today, as a
result of being only allowed to work with money, are blamed
for "only working with money". And controlling Senate,
Congress, Hollywood ...
* the Blood Libel. A Christian boy was murdered in an east
European nation and the Jews were accused of ritually
sacrificing him to use his blood to make ritual bread for
Passover. An enduring concept causing the ...
* Pogroms - throughout Europe. Cossacks etc sweeping
through towns killing en masee, raping, burning and
pillaging.
* The Holocaust - a man sat down and thought all the
problems of the world are caused by Jews. Maybe we should
systematically remove this vermin from our midst.
Therefore, when the einsatzgruppen B passed through Babi
Yar in 1942, that small Lithuanian town, 22,000 people were
shot into a pit and buried. That was in 15 hours. 22,000
fewer people on earth in 15 hours. And the rest.
* After the Zionist movement started, Arab Jews were
persecuted and violated where they once prospered.
* Russian Jews refused to leave Russia but refused rights
within USSR. Not allowed to practise religion. Not allowed
to go away. 1970 - 1991. Still blamed for economic
downfalls.
* Conspiracy theories abounds. Monica Lewinsky is a Zionist
plot as a decoy to remove Clinton from Preseidency because
he supports Palestine and is an anti-Jew president.
And so on.
Yet people blame us for being accutely aware of our history
and using it to illustrate themes in the past. Now, I ask
you, just because we like ourselves and are proud of our
achievements despite all odds, why does the world care so
much about such a small group as us? Stop caring! We don't
want your attention! Go and make your own history and stop
trying to make us feel little. Because we're not changing
for no-one and we're here to stay. So you do your thing and
we'll do ours.
Who caused Holocaust?
Why Jews deny openly to state that Germans are behind this?
Is it cos you got so far 120 billion dollars and still
getting?
EGG ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, we obviously sacrificed 6 million of our own people to
reap the financial benefits, sure.
Please remember that this is a web-site for travellers and
not a political/religous/historical stamping ground. It is
very boring and takes up space that could be put to good
use by people who would benefit. Please go to a chat-room
and carry on your opinionised, ignorant and sometimes
down-right offensive debate. Basically fuck off, get a
life and leave the airwaves clear for people who aren't
going to abuse the system.
Fellow travellers, rise up against these arseholes who ruin
an otherwise excellent and useful website.....
...The power is in your hands.
IGOR
What an enlightening thread.
Having gotten it into my craw this past year that I'd like to visit Syria, I was puzzled by admonitions that one can't gain entry to Syria if one's passport indicates past travel to Israel. "What's their beef?", I wondered. Completely ignorant of Middle Eastern politics, I decided to take a History course this semester at the local university, on "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict". We're reading 4 books, theoretically to gain a balanced view of the situation. Most of what I've read in this thread has been bits and pieces of what I've gleaned thus far, although most remarks have been one-sided and a bit loud, not at all like the original question. I liked Jorg's post, thanks guy.
The fact that there are so many one-sided remarks, and accusations of the media's tilt on things, confirms for me the reason that I enjoy travel: to see for myself, and pull together all of the various 'facts' that I've read, and form my own opinion. I disagree with Igor's post; sometimes, that's what travel is all about.
Well, well, well..Jews Jews Jews...simple facts..the Jew's
are disliked around the world! Why..well I'm sure there
must be some good reasons. Fact during WWII it was not only
the Nazis that took part in finding jews but EVERY single
occupied country freely partisipated in rounding up Jews
for deportation. Why? This is a question that should be
answered from deep inside..Most people will never express
the "real" reasons for this in public. Was it wrong? You
tell me.
In any event the Land (the is now Isral)was stolen!!Fact
Fact...This land should be returned now! Will this ever
happen NO. Was this is wrong, yes. Of course , there was a
little problem ,it's true that the jews had no other place
to go after WWII since no other country in the world wanted
them (Why you ask..hummmm, I think we all probably know)
Anyway don't be too concerned because the largest jewish
"State" in the world in in good ol USA New York.. More Jews
in NY then in all if the Middle East. What a group!! Just
remember "There will always be war"! have a nice day!
Welcome to reality...