1
   

Israeli firm bids on European wall to keep immigrants out...

 
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 09:00 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Do the Palestinians have the power to stop the conflict and make peace? Yes, they are the only ones with that power.


Bullsh*t. The Israelis have done everything they can to turn palestine into a little hell. I'm not surprised that the palestinians resort to terrorism - every year the vise gets turned a little bit tighter on them. BOTH sides will have to work to end the conflict if either wants peace, and that is going to mean concessions by Israel.



You're claiming there is a country called "Palestine"?? Where is it? Who lived in it in 1850? Who was its king in 1800?

Try educating yourself before saying anything else stupid:

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 09:07 am
I didn't say 'the country of palestine.' I said 'Palestine.' Which, whether you choose to believe it or not, IS a place. I've been there. You can argue all day long that it isn't a country, but I really could care less about your petty definition-game.

Why don't you go back to your pathetic, maturbatory attempts at bashing Clinton and leave the debate to the adults?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 09:26 am
Do you acually think you cn seperate them.


I can't help but notice that the American liberals in most instances have something in common with the Europeans. They are pro palestinian and anti-Israeli. It almost makes me want to vote for Bush.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 10:01 am
au1929 wrote:
Do you acually think you cn seperate them.


Yes, I do.

Quote:

I can't help but notice that the American liberals in most instances have something in common with the Europeans. They are pro palestinian and anti-Israeli. It almost makes me want to vote for Bush.


I think that American liberals and Europeans, in general, have a more balanced view of the problem than the US and Israeli governments. I would not call it anti-Israel, though you can if it makes you feel better.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 10:20 am
Quote:

Who lived in it in 1850? Who was its king in 1800?


The people who lived in the area now called Palestine (and Israel for that matter) in 1850 were Arabs. They were the anscestors of the people who are now generally refered to as Palestinians.

In 1800, I believe it was ruled by Egypt. Later they were ruled by the the Turks and the Brits. But it doesn't matter, the land was occupied for a thousand years by the Arab people you so despise.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 10:21 am
freeduck
As much as I dislike siding with Swolf he is correct about the history of the land called Palestine. In fact the name Palestinian was originally applied to Jews in what is now Israel and the West bank. The Jews turned a dusty swamp ridden sparsely populated land int a veritable garden. And yes I have been their and seen it. That caused the "New Palestinians "to flood in.

Although this is a digression, but than again the entire discussion has been a digression. Why is it that Israel has citizens who are Moslem when Jews who have lived in the Arab nations for thousands of years were literally thrown out or left in fear of their lives with nothing but the cloths on their backs? Why is it that Jews are not allowed in Arab countries? Where the hell is the outcry of apartheid. Need I really ask.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 10:30 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

Who lived in it in 1850? Who was its king in 1800?


In 1800, I believe it was ruled by Egypt. Later they were ruled by the the Turks and the Brits. But it doesn't matter, the land was occupied for a thousand years by the Arab people you so despise.


When Mark Twain went to visit the place in the late 1800s, there was nobody there. He described the entire region as being a ghost town.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 10:40 am
Quote:

Although this is a digression, but than again the entire discussion has been a digression. Why is it that Israel has citizens who are Moslem when Jews who have lived in the Arab nations for thousands of years were literally thrown out or left in fear of their lives with nothing but the cloths on their backs? Why is it that Jews are not allowed in Arab countries? Where the hell is the outcry of apartheid. Need I really ask.


Au, swolf and you have a very biased view of history that does not hold up in light of the facts.

Jews were well treated in Muslim countries until the 1940's. Through much of history, their treatment was considerably better in Moslem countries than the Christian ones. There is evidence that the much of the exodus of Jews to Palestine from Arab countries was precipitated by Israel, not by the Muslim host countries.

Furthermore, the fact is that in 1850 Palestine was populated. Many of what you are calling "New Palestinians" are the descendants of "Old Palestinians".

One source (which is clearly biased but I can't find an unbiassed one right now) estimates there were 500,000 Arabs (of which 400,000 were Muslims and the rest Christian) living in Palestine with 25,000 Jews. If you have a credible source with better numbers, I would be interested in seeing them.

Don't you think the descendants of these Arabs who clearly have a tie to the land and villages where they lived for hundreds of years have a claim?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 10:40 am
au1929 wrote:
freeduck
As much as I dislike siding with Swolf he is correct about the history of the land called Palestine. In fact the name Palestinian was originally applied to Jews in what is now Israel and the West bank. The Jews turned a dusty swamp ridden sparsely populated land int a veritable garden. And yes I have been their and seen it. That caused the "New Palestinians "to flood in.



I think you meant to address this to e_brown.

Quote:

Although this is a digression, but than again the entire discussion has been a digression. Why is it that Israel has citizens who are Moslem when Jews who have lived in the Arab nations for thousands of years were literally thrown out or left in fear of their lives with nothing but the cloths on their backs? Why is it that Jews are not allowed in Arab countries? Where the hell is the outcry of apartheid. Need I really ask.


Jews are not allowed in Arab countries? Anybody tell that to the ones in Morocco? Look I don't know the whole history of the Jewish people and I don't begrudge them their state, but they have certain obligations to the people who were already living there when they declared their state.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 11:28 am
In Mark Twain's account of his 1861 travels in "Innocents Abroad" there is no text stating the area is a "ghost town." He called it dismal and it had lost its former glory but did not say it was devoid of towns or people.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 12:57 pm
Since roughly the third aliyah wave - in the 1930's, many of them German Jews, as well Jews from Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland - the position of Jews in Arab countries has deteriorated. This can be seen by the huge numbers of Jews who - especially after 1948 - left the Arab countries to settle in Israel - countries like Iraq , Libya and Yemen, although many Jews from the Maghreb - especially Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia - left for France (which has a current Jewish population of 600,000 - 750,000). However, it's important to know how many Jews were also pushed by the Israeli government to leave their countries.

Now the point is: how is the current situation for Jews in the Arab world? Well, it is known that especially Morocco and Tunisia still have a considerable "large" Jewish population - approximately 5,500 and 2,000 people. For what I know, their position is relatively good. However, notice that anti-Semitism in the Arab media is still common. It's not only anti-Zionist / anti-Israel feelings being expressed here. Nevertheless, a lot of Arabs still seem to be proud of their countries's Jewish histories - I noticed that in my days on arabia.com.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:05 pm
ebrown_p wrote:


Au, swolf and you have a very biased view of history that does not hold up in light of the facts.

Jews were well treated in Muslim countries until the 1940's. Through much of history, their treatment was considerably better in Moslem countries than the Christian ones. There is evidence that the much of the exodus of Jews to Palestine from Arab countries was precipitated by Israel, not by the Muslim host countries.

Furthermore, the fact is that in 1850 Palestine was populated. Many of what you are calling "New Palestinians" are the descendants of "Old Palestinians".

One source (which is clearly biased but I can't find an unbiassed one right now) estimates there were 500,000 Arabs (of which 400,000 were Muslims and the rest Christian) living in Palestine with 25,000 Jews. If you have a credible source with better numbers, I would be interested in seeing them.

Don't you think the descendants of these Arabs who clearly have a tie to the land and villages where they lived for hundreds of years have a claim?



Arab populations started to reach 500,000 around 1918 or thereabouts. Prior to that, like I said, the place was a ghost town. Mark Twain described there being about 18000 people living in Jerusalem and it's hard to picture more than another 18K living in the rest of anything now called Israel, including the west bank. By the late 1860s, Jews made up more than half of the 18K in Jerusalem:

http://judaism.about.com/library/1_jerusalem/bl_jerusalemhistory4.htm

Other than that, the history of the region is fairly well known and is not particularly replete with stories about good treatment of Jews by muslims. The grand mufti of the region sided with Hitler in WW-II and his minions tried to poison the water supply at Tel Aviv. There should be very little doubt what would have happened to Jews living in and around Jerusalem had Hitler and his muslim allies won WW-II, and no Germans would have been involved other than as advisors or contractors.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:13 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:


Now the point is: how is the current situation for Jews in the Arab world? Well, it is known that especially Morocco and Tunisia still have a considerable "large" Jewish population - approximately 5,500 and 2,000 people. For what I know, their position is relatively good. However, notice that anti-Semitism in the Arab media is still common. It's not only anti-Zionist / anti-Israel feelings being expressed here. Nevertheless, a lot of Arabs still seem to be proud of their countries's Jewish histories - I noticed that in my days on arabia.com.


You might note that muslim treatment of Jews or Christians living in muslim lands is one thing, but that a Jewish or Christian STATE in the midst of the muslim world is another. That, most muslims view as intolerable.

Moreover, there should be no question as to the need for a Jewish state in Israel. It is very unlikely that more than a handful of Jews ever died because they couldn't get out of Germany; the holocaust was brought about because of Jews not being able to get INTO any other country on the face of the Earth.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:16 pm
Iran for example refuses to even recognize Israel's existance. Think they aren't supporting the Palestinian terrorists? Saddam was as well.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:19 pm
swolf wrote:
That, most muslims view as intolerable.

Can you back that claim swolf? Now, I've heard this a lot, but thinking about it, it has always been an assumption by many, nor have I ever seen a real research concerning this.

swolf wrote:
... the holocaust was brought about because of Jews not being able to get INTO any other country on the face of the Earth.

You could apply this to the Austrian, German and Czech Jews if you will, but even than: the percentage of German Jews able to escape Nazi-Germany in the 1930's was I think about 50%, and in Austria it was 75% (although a lot of them left for countries which were eventually overrun by the Nazis after all, countries like the Netherlands, Poland, France and Belgium).
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:31 pm
I do have to agree with you though swolf that not many Jews could leave for a safe country. However, I seriously doubt whether the Holocaust would not have accured when the boarders were open.

Quote:
Almost immediately the Nazi government set up an Office of Emigration in Vienna. Adolph Eichmann, the Jewish expert in the SD, was placed in command of the center. There were more than 180,000 Jews in Austria in 1938. Eichmann began deporting Jews as efficiently as possible and by September of 1939, there were only about 60,000 remaining in Austria. But there were still hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany and in Austria. The Emigration Center encountered serious difficulties finding countries around the world to open their doors to Jews. However, there was enough interest to cause President Roosevelt to call a meeting of some 32 nations to discuss the problem. They convened at Evian, France on July 6, 1938.
By 1938, the world outside Germany should have known something of Hitler's sentiments and intentions toward the Jews. As early as 1935, the Nazis had passed the infamous Nuremberg Laws regarding racial purity and, in subsequent statutes, defined the Jews as non-citizens. In the three months prior to the conference at Evian, several specific statutes were passed which were clearly intended to deprive Jews of their economic livelihood and to remove them from a competitive position in the German economy. Despite these widely known facts, the conference closed on July 15 without deciding on any policy for assisting Jewish deportees.
In fact, the rest of the world turned a totally deaf ear to the problem. The United States admitted about 100,000 prior to 1939 (during the years from 1933 to 1943, there were 400,000 unfilled slots in the U.S. quota system which had been established by the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924; however, Germany's quota was filled and the quotas were non-transferable!) England accepted 80,000, Holland, 22,000, Belgium, about 13,000, Switzerland, 9,000, Argentina, 20,000, other Latin American countries, about 20,000. British-controlled Palestine only admitted about 70,000 prior to 1941. These numbers are pitifully small in contrast to the fate, which Europe's 11 million Jews faced in 1933.

Small rectification: the percentage of Austrian Jews fleeing from Austria was 67%, not 75%.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:41 pm
I just realized that this whole conversation is kind of inane. All these arguments over history don't justify the brutal acts of both the Palestinians and Israel toward each other.

We should be talking about how to solve the problem in a way that doesn't involve driving Israel into the sea, or kicking the Palestinians into other countries (or as swolf suggests exterminating them).

There is a brave group of Israelis and Palestinians who have the obvious solution. This solution is perfectly reasonable to anyone who is not either blinded by historical propaganda or has a vested interested in continued violence.

The Geneva Accords are simple. Both sides make concession. Israel pulls out all of the settlements back to the 1967 borders (with a few tweaks made near the border for suburbs of Jersusalem and other sensitive border areas). In return the Palestinians drop all claim to the right of return.

This would mean a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian State. Furthermore it would mean that the McGentrix's and even the Swolfs of both sides would stop justifying violence.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:42 pm
Well said ebrown_p. Eventually, we live NOW, and we have to be realistic.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:44 pm
Agreed, Ebrown_p. Both sides need to forget the past and work towards a future together.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:48 pm
I completely agree -- all the talk of who started it is just a distraction. How far back in history are we willing to go before we can take one step into the future?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 08:36:52