logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Arafat Gone, Nothing Changes?, new boss, same as the old boss
DaffyGrl
post Nov 24 2004, 03:47 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
November 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,758
Member No.: 2,889
Joined: April-10-04

From: California
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. I’ve always considered myself a cynic, but a hopeful cynic. The state of the world today is working hard to remove the “hopeful” part. The hopeful part of me thought that, with Arafat gone, a peace of some sort, however uneasy, could be won in Israel. Well, it doesn’t look as if that will happen:
QUOTE
The newly empowered “moderate” PA leadership Tuesday pledged to remain true to Yasser Arafat’s platform of seeking to flood Israel with millions of Arab “refugees.”

They also insisted there would be no final peace until the PLO flag was raised over a Jerusalem under “Palestinian” sovereignty. Jerusalem News

QUOTE(Mahmoud Abbas)
“We promise that we will continue on the same path that you (Arafat) have paved to achieve the dream that has always lived with you... establishing an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” Abbas told a special session of Parliament to honor the late leader. Arab News

By that statement alone, the chance for peace would be impossible. Israel will never give up Jerusalem (nor should they, in my opinion).

What will be the effect (locally, worldwide) of the new leader, Abbas’ intent to carry on Arafat’s “platform”?

An opinion question: do you believe there will ever be peace between Israel and the PLO?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Ptarmigan
post Nov 24 2004, 04:32 PM
Post #2


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 298
Member No.: 3,568
Joined: September-2-04

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Well - compromise will have to be reached.

If you were hoping for the Palestinian's to say 'We give up on the right of return for our exiles and will happily agree to accept all of Israel's demands for peace' - then well, that is a little optimistic!

Palestine has its position, as does Israel. The point about Arafat's death is NOT that the Palestinians will give up their dreams of getting their land back, but that they may be prepared to compromise with Israel on an eventual solution that both can live with.

Of course, Israel will also have to show a willingness to compromise on the issue of settlers etc.

Peace is not something that happens overnight. Arafat was a symptom of a wider problem, rather than the root cause of Palestinian resistance / terrorism.


What will be the effect (locally, worldwide) of the new leader, Abbas’ intent to carry on Arafat’s “platform”?

Arafat has only just died. It is far too early to tell, but hopefully Abbas will be prepared to compromise, if given a fair deal by Israel.

An opinion question: do you believe there will ever be peace between Israel and the PLO?

Yes, but no-one is going to be happy with the compromise. Both sides will have to accept that the other has a right to be there and live without fear of violence.

QUOTE
By that statement alone, the chance for peace would be impossible. Israel will never give up Jerusalem (nor should they, in my opinion).


Neither side will give up a claim Jerusalem, it has equal religious relevance to both. But that doesn't mean that a compromise can't be reached. Israel will HAVE to compromise on some levels, just as Palestinians will. Expecting one side to completely aquiesce is optimistic at best.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedClayton
post Dec 3 2004, 03:49 AM
Post #3


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 4,029
Joined: November-30-04

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



E-mailing with my brother recently, he asks what I was doing, and I tell him, "Oh, I was just outside taking silly pictures of the pretty clouds as the sunset". "Ted", he says, "you never have to apologize for taking pictures of pretty clouds."

He's right. We have sunsets, and we have hope, and it is wonderful to have them. Period. smile.gif

QUOTE
What will be the effect (locally, worldwide) of the new leader, Abbas’ intent to carry on Arafat’s “platform”?

I agree with Ptarmigan, that is too soon to know, the situation too fluid and transient.

QUOTE
An opinion question: do you believe there will ever be peace between Israel and the PLO?

Yes, I think the current anguish will be behind us one day, and most of us will live to see it.

Israel, like the societies of Europe and America from which it derives, faces a fundamental demographic conundrum which will literally force it to adopt a much different set of policies in the future. The Israel we know is failing.

Israel has always had a problem hanging onto people who move there and give it a try. Especially the better-resourced, more-qualified people from Europe and the USA. They come, but many do not stay. Now, with the chronic 'troubles', even more are not-staying.

To compensate, Israel qualifies as Jewish immigrants groups of people who are wider and wider from the profile they would prefer to establish, and who are less and less able to assist or support Israel in its present needs. In a generation or two, these folks will be wonderful citizens ... but that will be too late.

The basic truth of Israel's predicament is the same as in other Euro-centric cultures: birth rates of 'whites' are in decline, while the 'browns' are growing strongly. Israel is on track to become a defacto Palestinian state, itself, at its own polls, in less than 20 years - some say much less. mellow.gif

Beating Israel without a battle - Demographic infiltration

Israel's demographic timebomb
... second version:
Israel's demographic timebomb

Anti-Demographics

The Israeli leadership is struggling to stave off this eventuality. But the resources they have to counteract it are relatively ineffective, while those who seek to encourage the trend have many advantages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Antny
post Dec 9 2004, 11:57 PM
Post #4


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 150
Member No.: 4,065
Joined: December-6-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Reform



Who can ever tell. It is pretty clear that the Palestinian side of things is willing to die for their cause. Will they have to?

I don't see the Palestinians agreeing to Peace as long as Israel remains intent on maintaining settlements, and occupation of lands outside the Borders drawn by the UN.

Incidentally, anyone see this yet?

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/de...rchive.htm#must

Not exactly promoting peace. We will see. I suppose a lot of it depends on the US stance. Our unabashed support for Israel makes it difficult to work for peace realistically. In fact, that is a large part of what incites the terrorists anger towards the USA.

I recommend anyone who hasn't read the transcript from Bin Laden's speech (the one that supposedly said he wanted us to vote for Kerry). This is the Al Jazeera version. It's interesting to cross reference Al Jazeera's translation with the one that CNN released.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C...BC36E87F61F.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/

Anyhow, I certainly think that the Israeli side is going to have to come to some sort of acceptable compromise. It's hard to imagine the desperation of a people so willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up to make a point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Dec 21 2004, 12:52 PM
Post #5


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



What will be the effect (locally, worldwide) of the new leader, Abbas’ intent to carry on Arafat’s “platform”?Since the 'Palestinians' have never, I do repeat the word NEVER offered any compromise on any issue, nothing has changed and nothing will change. Abbas is the same as Arafat in a suit, he was at Arafat's side for 40 years and is much a terrorist as Arafat.

From the first Oslo Accords when the 'Palestinians' stated that there would be no more violence not all issues would be resolve only through negotiations. Since that time they have attacked Israel tens of thousands of times. Also they have demanded the so-called return of those that fled during the war of independence, but also the millions that were born in other countries and have never been to the lands they claim to be from. They have also demand that Israel gives them Jerusalem. That city which has no meaning to the Muslims, except that is something the Israelis want so it must be taken from them.

An opinion question: do you believe there will ever be peace between Israel and the PLO? Nope not now, not ever the PLO was established for one reason and one reason only, the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ptarmigan
post Dec 21 2004, 01:32 PM
Post #6


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 298
Member No.: 3,568
Joined: September-2-04

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Well,it looks likely that Mahmoud Abbas will win the Palestinian elections - who is considerably more moderate (in that he believes that Palestinian armed resistance is futile ) than Arafat was.

Combined with the addition of Labour (who favour a more moderate approach towards Palestinians) to Likud's coalition, then both sides seem to be moving towards a more moderate stance than before, so I would think that there is a real opportunity to reach a compromise, based on a 2 state solution.

Arafat's death has removed one of the major obstacles to peace and I suspect Sharon will try and push for peace, either working with Palestinians or unilaterally. Palestinian birth rates are far higher than Israeli birthrates, so, unless a seperate Palestinian state is formed, in a couple of generations, Palestinians will be a majority. It will then be very difficult, if not impossible, for the Israeli government to deny them a vote in the running of the country in which they are the majority.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Dec 21 2004, 04:00 PM
Post #7


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ Dec 21 2004, 06:32 AM)
Well,it looks likely that Mahmoud Abbas will win the Palestinian elections - who is considerably more moderate (in that he believes that Palestinian armed resistance is futile ) than Arafat was.
In what way is he more moderate? He does not believe that armed resistance is futile, he stated that it wasn't working. There is a huge difference between those two view points. So please tell me how he is more moderate, he says that he will not change anything.

He continues to make zero concessions, will not fulfill any of the obligations and demands the destruction of the State of Israel as a requirement, what is moderate about that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ptarmigan
post Dec 21 2004, 04:37 PM
Post #8


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 298
Member No.: 3,568
Joined: September-2-04

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
In what way is he more moderate? He does not believe that armed resistance is futile, he stated that it wasn't working. There is a huge difference between those two view points. So please tell me how he is more moderate, he says that he will not change anything.

He continues to make zero concessions, will not fulfill any of the obligations and demands the destruction of the State of Israel as a requirement, what is moderate about that?


Okay, I fail to see the difference between believing that armed resistance is futile and armed resistance isn't working. I don't really care what the guy personally feels about Israel, he probably hates it. But if he is pragmatic (and from what I've read he is) then it's a bit of a no brainer to see that the Palestinians aren't going to drive Israel into the sea ever...but by the same token, Sharon recognises that the current occupation of Palestine cannot carry on indefinitely.

Palestinians view Israelis as invaders. They hate them - when I say 'moderate' Palestinian, I mean 'moderate by Palestinian standards' NOT 'someone who believes Israel has any right to be there'. Moderate by Palestinian standards is someone who accepts that, right or wrong, Palestine is powerless against Israel and that improving the lives of Palestinian people should take precedent over destroying Israel. It aint pretty and I wouldn't invite the guy over for dinner - but it's still an improvement on Arafat.

Sharon is in power and seems to be intent on forging a Palestinian state, regardless of what the Palestinians might want. He has indicated that he will work with a Palestinian leader to achieve this, if one can be found. It is in the Palestinians best interest to co-operate, rather than have all the terms dictated by Israel.


Finally, he has never been in a position to fulfil or demand anything. That was always Arafat's purview - I would wait to see what happens IF and WHEN he gets elected and actually has some power to effect change in Palestine. (And he wants to be elected by the Palestinian people. Standing up and saying 'actually, Israel is not so bad' is not going to win votes from your average Palestinian is it?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Dec 21 2004, 05:56 PM
Post #9


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ Dec 21 2004, 09:37 AM)
Okay, I fail to see the difference between believing that armed resistance is futile and armed resistance isn't working. I don't really care what the guy personally feels about Israel, he probably hates it. But if he is pragmatic (and from what I've read he is) then it's a bit of a no brainer to see that the Palestinians aren't going to drive Israel into the sea ever...but by the same token, Sharon recognises that the current occupation of Palestine cannot carry on indefinitely.
You fail to see the difference between peace and genocide?!? He is opening praising the murder of Israelis and that is a moderate?! He has said that using weapons was a mistake because it isn't working. So he intends to change his method of getting rid of the State of Israel to a more politically acceptable method.

There is nothing to indicate that the goal of genocide has changed. No just the opposite he proudly proclaims that the original ideals of the PLO as to be fulfilled via other methods. Is he truly pragmatic no! Though he is a better liar.

So as long as he advocates the destruction of the State of Israel in a nice, politically acceptable European manner he is a moderate.

He has been Arafat's right hand for the past 4 decades, he is a terrorist as much as Arafat ever was, so there is no change. He openly states that the goals remain the same. But if that is the definition of a 'Moderate Palestinian' then there is nothing to talk about. Nor is there likely to be any change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Dec 23 2004, 07:28 PM
Post #10


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Nothing changes.....

It would appear at this time that there is nothing new under the sun in the Middle East. From The World Tribune.......

QUOTE
The new leader of the ruling Fatah movement said the Palestinians want to replace Israel with a state of their own.

Fatah chief Farouk Khaddoumi said the Palestinian strategy toward Israel was two-fold. In the first stage, he said, the Palestinians would accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In the second stage, the Palestinians would seek to eliminate the Jewish state.

In November, Khaddoumi replaced the late Yasser Arafat as leader of Fatah, Middle East Newsline reported.

"At this stage there will be two states," Khaddoumi told Iran's Al Aram television. "Many years from now, there will be only one."



Later on, same article we get this chilling comment.......

QUOTE
"[There are] 300 million Arabs, while Israel has only the sea behind it," Khaddoumi said.

Khaddoumi said his platform was endorsed by the PLO in 1974. He said the strategy called for a phased plan that would establish authority over any territory obtained from Israel, concluding with an Arab war to destroy the Jewish state.



So what's changed here in the last 30 years? It never ceases to amaze me how so many people around the world seem to think that Israel can negotiate with this mindset. It's like settling a dispute with your neighbor by him saying "Ok, I'll let you sleep tonight, but one of these nights I'm going to kill your family and burn down your house."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lordhelmet
post Jan 4 2005, 01:36 AM
Post #11


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
June 2005

Group: BANNED
Posts: 1,177
Member No.: 4,185
Joined: January-3-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Dec 23 2004, 02:28 PM)
Nothing changes.....

It would appear at this time that there is nothing new under the sun in the Middle East.   From The World Tribune.......

QUOTE
The new leader of the ruling Fatah movement said the Palestinians want to replace Israel with a state of their own.

Fatah chief Farouk Khaddoumi said the Palestinian strategy toward Israel was two-fold. In the first stage, he said, the Palestinians would accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In the second stage, the Palestinians would seek to eliminate the Jewish state.

In November, Khaddoumi replaced the late Yasser Arafat as leader of Fatah, Middle East Newsline reported.

"At this stage there will be two states," Khaddoumi told Iran's Al Aram television. "Many years from now, there will be only one."



Later on, same article we get this chilling comment.......

QUOTE
"[There are] 300 million Arabs, while Israel has only the sea behind it," Khaddoumi said.

Khaddoumi said his platform was endorsed by the PLO in 1974. He said the strategy called for a phased plan that would establish authority over any territory obtained from Israel, concluding with an Arab war to destroy the Jewish state.



So what's changed here in the last 30 years? It never ceases to amaze me how so many people around the world seem to think that Israel can negotiate with this mindset. It's like settling a dispute with your neighbor by him saying "Ok, I'll let you sleep tonight, but one of these nights I'm going to kill your family and burn down your house."
*



I agree. And which side is the UN and the "left" of the world on?? Until Arabs stop teaching their young children that Israelis are evil and should be destroyed, there will be no peace.

However, we can outsmart them all. My strategy involves sending a free satellite TV system, 6 months of free service, a PS2 or X-box, a DVD player, and a 6 month unlimited subscription to Netflix.

In 6 months, the people in that region will be so brain dead that they'll lose their passion for a fight.

Then, the second wave will open McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's franchises on every corner. That will suppliment their new found laziness with obesity in short order.

They will then argue about who should win "Middle East Idol" rather than strap explosives to themselves in order to go out of this world in a blaze of carnage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ptarmigan
post Jan 6 2005, 10:20 AM
Post #12


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 298
Member No.: 3,568
Joined: September-2-04

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Dec 23 2004, 07:28 PM)
Nothing changes.....

It would appear at this time that there is nothing new under the sun in the Middle East.   From The World Tribune.......

QUOTE
The new leader of the ruling Fatah movement said the Palestinians want to replace Israel with a state of their own.

Fatah chief Farouk Khaddoumi said the Palestinian strategy toward Israel was two-fold. In the first stage, he said, the Palestinians would accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In the second stage, the Palestinians would seek to eliminate the Jewish state.

In November, Khaddoumi replaced the late Yasser Arafat as leader of Fatah, Middle East Newsline reported.

"At this stage there will be two states," Khaddoumi told Iran's Al Aram television. "Many years from now, there will be only one."



Later on, same article we get this chilling comment.......

QUOTE
"[There are] 300 million Arabs, while Israel has only the sea behind it," Khaddoumi said.

Khaddoumi said his platform was endorsed by the PLO in 1974. He said the strategy called for a phased plan that would establish authority over any territory obtained from Israel, concluding with an Arab war to destroy the Jewish state.



So what's changed here in the last 30 years? It never ceases to amaze me how so many people around the world seem to think that Israel can negotiate with this mindset. It's like settling a dispute with your neighbor by him saying "Ok, I'll let you sleep tonight, but one of these nights I'm going to kill your family and burn down your house."
*



Although Fatah does not speak for all Palestinians - Israel is negotiating with the moderate factions as opposed to the hardliners. Nothing will ever be resolved by portraying all Palestinians as mindless terrorists, any more than portraying Israel as land grabbing oppressors would. Sadly the real world is often more complex and far less black and white.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Jan 6 2005, 01:25 PM
Post #13


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ Jan 6 2005, 03:20 AM)
Although Fatah does not speak for all Palestinians - Israel is negotiating with the moderate factions as opposed to the hardliners. Nothing will ever be resolved by portraying all Palestinians as mindless terrorists, any more than portraying Israel as land grabbing oppressors would. Sadly the real world is often more complex and far less black and white.
*

The first sentence should be the give away. The Fatah faction are the so-called moderates. They are the ones stating that they will settle for nothing else than the destruction of the State of Israel. Sometimes the world is really black and white, the Arabs do not want peace with Israel, never have, never will.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Jan 6 2005, 01:45 PM
Post #14


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 6 2005, 08:25 AM)
The first sentence should be the give away. The Fatah faction are the so-called moderates. They are the ones stating that they will settle for nothing else than the destruction of the State of Israel. Sometimes the world is really black and white, the Arabs do not want peace with Israel, never have, never will.
*



So what's your solution? That position is not exactly consiliatory either. And as of right now it's the state of Israel who is negotiating from the position of force. After all, Israelis have a state to protect from destruction; Palestinians do not. Desperation calls for desperate acts. All of the world's uprisings/revolutions come from desperation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Jan 6 2005, 01:54 PM
Post #15


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(English Horn @ Jan 6 2005, 06:45 AM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 6 2005, 08:25 AM)
The first sentence should be the give away. The Fatah faction are the so-called moderates. They are the ones stating that they will settle for nothing else than the destruction of the State of Israel. Sometimes the world is really black and white, the Arabs do not want peace with Israel, never have, never will.
*



So what's your solution? That position is not exactly consiliatory either. And as of right now it's the state of Israel who is negotiating from the position of force. After all, Israelis have a state to protect from destruction; Palestinians do not. Desperation calls for desperate acts. All of the world's uprisings/revolutions come from desperation.
*

Very simple, there are 22 Arab countries, there is even one that was setup for the Arabs living in the mandate territories, it is 4 times the size of Israel, has less than half the population, has a majority of the population that are 'Palestinians' and is currently called Jordan. They can name it anything they want, I really could care less, they should just go home.

Everybody is calling for land for peace, okay the Arabs own 99.6% of the land in the MiddleEast, why is it that Israel is the only one being called on to give up land? Why is it that it unacceptable to expel people from their homes on a basis of religion, unless those people are Jewish?

If the 'Palestinians' are living in desperation, why do Syrians with half the income that those 'Palestinians' have not rise up, or the starving millions in Africa. The statement is bogus. Poverty does not and has never begot terrorism. Only intolerance begets terrorism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Jan 6 2005, 02:11 PM
Post #16


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 6 2005, 08:54 AM)
Everybody is calling for land for peace, okay the Arabs own 99.6% of the land in the MiddleEast, why is it that Israel is the only one being called on to give up land? Why is it that it unacceptable to expel people from their homes on a basis of religion, unless those people are Jewish?


Because this land was seized illegally in either an armed conflict or through settlements. By the same logic Soviet Union should have never "given up" Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. By the way, more than 50 percent of Latvian population are ethnic Russians - so what?

QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 6 2005, 08:54 AM)
If the 'Palestinians' are living in desperation, why do Syrians with half the income that those 'Palestinians' have not rise up, or the starving millions in Africa. The statement is bogus. Poverty does not and has never begot terrorism. Only intolerance begets terrorism.


By the way, why do you put the word "palestinians" in quotes? I assume that's because you don't believe thay're people who have their own national identity. Let me ask you another question, then - what makes hundreds of thousands of Jews arriving from Soviet Union Jewish? They don't speak a word in Hebrew, 99 percent of them never been to sinagogue (and don't plan to go, either), their men are not circumcised... what makes them Jewish?

QUOTE
Poverty does not and has never begot terrorism. Only intolerance begets terrorism.


French Revolution of 1791 (First Republic) - who those people were intolerant of? How about Russian Revolution of 1905? Poverty is a driving force behind any insurgency... and unwillingness by the ruling class to yield one inch.

This post has been edited by English Horn: Jan 6 2005, 02:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Jan 6 2005, 02:34 PM
Post #17


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(English Horn @ Jan 6 2005, 07:11 AM)
Because this land was seized illegally in either an armed conflict or through settlements. By the same logic Soviet Union should have never "given up" Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. By the way, more than 50 percent of Latvian population are ethnic Russians - so what?

By the way, why do you put the word "palestinians" in quotes? I assume that's because you don't believe thay're people who have their own national identity. Let me ask you another question, then - what makes hundreds of thousands of Jews arriving from Soviet Union Jewish? They don't speak a word in Hebrew, 99 percent of them never been to sinagogue (and don't plan to go, either), their men are not circumcised... what makes them Jewish?
*

As for the land being illegally seized, since when? Please offer one shred of proof. The only international treaties ever created award the land to whom - the Jews. The war that liberated the territories, was one of defense, so there only illegal acts were committed by the Arabs that started the war. Land gained during a defensive war have been kept by the victor in nearly every circumstance.

As for the quotes, there has never been a country of Palestine. The only people that have ever been referred to as 'Palestinians' were Jewish not Muslims during the mandate period, hence the quotes.

As for the Soviet Union, simple they were born Jewish. According to Jewish law, membership is not restricted to language, worship practises, or place of birth. If the mother is Jewish, the child is Jewish.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Jan 6 2005, 02:38 PM
Post #18


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



loreng59

QUOTE
Very simple, there are 22 Arab countries, there is even one that was setup for the Arabs living in the mandate territories, it is 4 times the size of Israel, has less than half the population, has a majority of the population that are 'Palestinians' and is currently called Jordan. They can name it anything they want, I really could care less, they should just go home.
They are already home. THATS the problem.


QUOTE
Everybody is calling for land for peace, okay the Arabs own 99.6% of the land in the MiddleEast, why is it that Israel is the only one being called on to give up land? Why is it that it unacceptable to expel people from their homes on a basis of religion, unless those people are Jewish?
Because the Arabs have been living in the middle east for the last 2,000 years where as the Israeli's have only been living there in recent living memory.

Being Jewish and Palestinian does not give any one the right to steal the land from the Arab Palestinians. Regardless of what you, the west or the UN may say about it. Israel was founded on stolen land, from people who were forced out due to their ethnicity.

It doesn't matter how many times you deny it or how many times you point the finger at the Palestinians. The bottom line is, Israel did not exist until outsiders created it.


QUOTE
If the 'Palestinians' are living in desperation, why do Syrians with half the income that those 'Palestinians' have not rise up, or the starving millions in Africa. The statement is bogus. Poverty does not and has never begot terrorism. Only intolerance begets terrorism.
There is no one single cause for terrorism just as there is no one single form of terrorism. It is not a political ideology.

Terrorism is merely the act of using violence to get what you want through fear and as such any one can be a 'terrorist', whether they are rich, poor, right or wrong. By the OED definition, even the US 'shock and awe' tactics are 'terrorism'.

Fundamentally, the word has no value what so ever in the debate of the middle east and is usually used as nothing more than a smoke screen to deflect criticism of Israel's own violence.


editted for spelling

This post has been edited by moif: Jan 6 2005, 02:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loreng59
post Jan 6 2005, 02:49 PM
Post #19


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 835
Member No.: 2,830
Joined: March-31-04

From: Monterey, California
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(moif @ Jan 6 2005, 07:38 AM)
They are already home. THATS the problem.

Because the Arabs have been living in the middle east for the last 2,000 years where as the Israeli's have only been living there in recent living memory.

Being Jewish and Palestinian does not give any one the right to steal the land from the Arab Palestinians. Regardless of what you, the west or the UN may say about it. Israel was founded on stolen land, from people who were forced out due to their ethnicity.

It doesn't matter how many times you deny it or how many times you point the finger at the Palestinians. The bottom line is, Israel did not exist until outsiders created it.
editted for spelling
*


Okay I have a question, where did you learn history? Israel was a country when Denmark was a forest. Arabs haven't existed for 2,000 years. Jews have been there continuously for more than 5,000 years.

The land was purchased by Jews, and stolen by Arabs. The facts are the thieves are the Arabs and you can not change those facts.

Israel existed long before there where Muslims, or for that matter Christians. It will exist longer after both are a mere memory too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Jan 6 2005, 02:55 PM
Post #20


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 6 2005, 09:34 AM)
As for the land being illegally seized, since when? Please offer one shred of proof. The only international treaties ever created award the land to whom - the Jews. The war that liberated the territories, was one of defense, so there only illegal acts were committed by the Arabs that started the war. Land gained during a defensive war have been kept by the victor in nearly every circumstance.


And almost in every circumstance it was eventually given back (otherwise Russians would still be camping on Champs-Elysees since the war of 1812, Japan would own Port-Arthur, and Japan would still be under US occupation.)

QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jan 6 2005, 09:34 AM)
As for the quotes, there has never been a country of Palestine. The only people that have ever been referred to as 'Palestinians' were Jewish not Muslims during the mandate period, hence the quotes.

As for the Soviet Union, simple they were born Jewish. According to Jewish law, membership is not restricted to language, worship practises, or place of birth. If the mother is Jewish, the child is Jewish.


So by the same logic there're no Gypsies because there's no Gypsy state; there're no Basques, no Corsicans, no Bashkirs, no Maya, etc. because they never had their own state? Jewishness, however, is not determined by the culture or the presence of the state; all of a sudden it's determined by Jewish Law. I hope you see the double standard here...
As for Palestinian state, as you know, UNSCOP proposed division of Palestine into two states. Everybody knows that Arabs rejected the proposal; however, few mention that Menahem Begin rejected the proposal as well, saying
QUOTE
The partition of the homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. The Land of Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it, and forever.


This post has been edited by English Horn: Jan 6 2005, 02:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 25th, 2022 - 01:29 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.