DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Even India should have a say in Israel's status since Alexander the Great was defeated there. That's the spirit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 so yeah, lets get this straight: we have over 90% palestinian arabs living in the palestine "region" and then a mass immigration by the jews happens from russia and europe and a country named israel is born on the land that these palestinian arabs have been living on for centuries. there is a promise of a palestinian state but the arabs are like, "wtf? you can't just come in here and call this land your land! who do you think you are" and so they fight a few wars and lose the wars. then, one country after another accepts the state of israel and even arafat accept the creation of israel and the 1967 borders. yet, israel continues to stall and continues to annex more of the land. Interesting how anti-Israelis always start their history at the moment most convenient for them. Why do you pick 1800-1900 as your baseline? Why not 1950, or 0? Also, you forget that it was Arafat that, in the end, rejected the creation of a Palestinian state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Interesting how anti-Israelis always start their history at the moment most convenient for them. Why do you pick 1800-1900 as your baseline? Why not 1950, or 0? Also, you forget that it was Arafat that, in the end, rejected the creation of a Palestinian state. Arafat would have been out of a job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) so yeah, lets get this straight: we have over 90% palestinian arabs living in the palestine "region" and then a mass immigration by the jews happens from russia and europe and a country named israel is born on the land that these palestinian arabs have been living on for centuries. there is a promise of a palestinian state but the arabs are like, "wtf? you can't just come in here and call this land your land! who do you think you are" and so they fight a few wars and lose the wars. then, one country after another accepts the state of israel and even arafat accept the creation of israel and the 1967 borders. yet, israel continues to stall and continues to annex more of the land. To best way to stop Israel from invading neighboring territories is to understand what an alien traumatic kernel is: http://books.google.com/books?id=8fn8n4RLg...lt&resnum=1 Edited June 22, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 The Israilis were really disappointed with the former soviet "russian Jews" who wanked and wailed persecution and needed dear Israel to rescue them and give them safe haven...then the Israelis figured out after about 100 thousand of them settled in - that the russians were about as Jewish as Eskimos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 More hate and racism from Oleg. Russian Jews are no less Jews than any other type of Jews. In fact, in the late 80s and early 90s, hundreds of thousands of highly educated professionals migrated from the Soviet Union / Russia to Israel, much to Israel's benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Interesting how anti-Israelis always start their history at the moment most convenient for them. Why do you pick 1800-1900 as your baseline? Why not 1950, or 0? Also, you forget that it was Arafat that, in the end, rejected the creation of a Palestinian state. what are you talking about? maybe it's the most convenient because that's when israel came to be? arafat never rejected the creation of a palestinian state. he agreed to create a palestinian state based on resolution 242. at the risk of repeating myself; what are you talking about? Edited June 23, 2009 by dub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 More hate and racism from Oleg. Russian Jews are no less Jews than any other type of Jews. In fact, in the late 80s and early 90s, hundreds of thousands of highly educated professionals migrated from the Soviet Union / Russia to Israel, much to Israel's benefit. In Israel, there is discrimination of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews by Ashkenazim (German) Jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) arafat never rejected the creation of a palestinian state. at the risk of repeating myself; what are you talking about? In the 2000 Camp David Summit, Arafat was offered the creation of a Palestinian state that included 100% of Gaza, 91% of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Arafat said no and walked away. He could have accepted in good faith, or accepted and endevored to later recover the rest of the West Bank, or proposed a counter-offer and continued negotiations until a satisfactory outcome. He said no and walked away. He rejected the creation of a Palestinian state. Seriously man where do you learn your history? Do you follow events at all or do you just read anti-Israel propaganda? Edited June 23, 2009 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 In the 2000 Camp David Summit, Arafat was offered the creation of a Palestinian state that included 100% of Gaza, 91% of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Arafat said no and walked away. He could have accepted in good faith, or accepted and endevored to later recover the rest of the West Bank, or proposed a counter-offer and continued negotiations until a satisfactory outcome. He said no and walked away. He rejected the creation of a Palestinian state.Seriously man where do you learn your history? Do you follow events at all or do you just read anti-Israel propaganda? the offer (which was never put in writing) was crap. have you seen a map of the offer? do you expect anyone to agree to have its people live in 4 cantons? with the highways controlled by another state? with the borders controlled by israel? with giving up occupied jerusalem? that's not a state. that's a prison. if you truly want to learn about camp david, look beyond DoP type sources. here is one that you can look at and maybe even learn from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) In the 2000 Camp David Summit, Arafat was offered the creation of a Palestinian state that included 100% of Gaza, 91% of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Arafat said no and walked away. He could have accepted in good faith, or accepted and endevored to later recover the rest of the West Bank, or proposed a counter-offer and continued negotiations until a satisfactory outcome. He said no and walked away. He rejected the creation of a Palestinian state.Seriously man where do you learn your history? Do you follow events at all or do you just read anti-Israel propaganda? 2000 Camp David Summit: Reasons for impasse Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit Edited June 23, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 What the situation is akin to is this ---- I come to a place with a totally self absorbed attitude...oblivious to all others around me - full of joy because my romantic notion of a homeland is finally fulfilled. Then a neighbour becomes irritated - because his grape vine has grown over to my side of the fence -- and I am eating from it - The neighbour wages war against me --- I beat him - now - I not only eat from his vine - but I have taken possession of the root. NO way in hell am I going to give back what I have taken by force. ------ That's the way I see this thing....Look into the Old Testiment - there are many expamples of treachery and taking of the spoils of war - the Jews love this shit - they even think that King David is a hero - a man who by cunning killed the husband of Bathsheba so he could have her---not very classy...I for the life of me can not see any just justification for bad behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 krusty.. you continue to make excuses like this is a saudi issue. even though you cannot find an official writing saying "no jews", lets pretend that you were able to find it in official writing that saudi has said "no jewish" people. fine. saudi arabia is a piece of shit country. i have never said otherwise. I make no excuses for Israel or acknowledgment. I only wish to correct a statement you made when you said "i'm sure in saudi there is nothing in their law saying "no jews"" I showed a BBC article that states the contrary. There was in fact an official site that stated just that however, it is no more as the offensive policy has now been put out of sight while still remaining in effect. There are hundreds of agencies reporting on this and even the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act which demands action based on their official policy, which I imagine is law given the derogatory terms used in their government handbook (AKA the Koran) which states that Jews are subhuman beings in any nuber of passages. So yes, there is something in Saudi Official policy or law that says 'no Jews.' Unless of course you wish to call CNN, BBC, Weiner and a host of other witnesses wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I make no excuses for Israel or acknowledgment. I only wish to correct a statement you made when you said "i'm sure in saudi there is nothing in their law saying "no jews""I showed a BBC article that states the contrary. There was in fact an official site that stated just that however, it is no more as the offensive policy has now been put out of sight while still remaining in effect. There are hundreds of agencies reporting on this and even the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act which demands action based on their official policy, which I imagine is law given the derogatory terms used in their government handbook (AKA the Koran) which states that Jews are subhuman beings in any nuber of passages. So yes, there is something in Saudi Official policy or law that says 'no Jews.' Unless of course you wish to call CNN, BBC, Weiner and a host of other witnesses wrong. It should say no semites - that would be fair - Saudis are semites as are the Jews.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Like it or not, there was no nation known as Palestine. There was a Roman territory (renamed) and a British mandate...but no nation/country/state. I think it was Golda Meir who described them as "two-legged beasts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Someone referring to a certain region by a given name does not mean that a state by that name with a distinct nationality exists at that time.It does for people who first decided that the Jews aren't worthy of a state, or decided that any expansion of Western-style democracy in an area littered with primitive hellholes is a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 It does for people who first decided that the Jews aren't worthy of a state, or decided that any expansion of Western-style democracy in an area littered with primitive hellholes is a bad idea. Got a point there - to establish a civil democracy in an area surrounded by primative hellholes is offensive to the primatives where law comes down in the form of a sword that severs the beggars hand if he takes a loaf of bread without permit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Got a point there - to establish a civil democracy in an area surrounded by primative hellholes is offensive to the primatives where law comes down in the form of a sword that severs the beggars hand if he takes a loaf of bread without permit. I'm not intelligent enough to understand that. Care to put that in simpler terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 What the situation is akin to is this ---- I come to a place with a totally self absorbed attitude...oblivious to all others around me - full of joy because my romantic notion of a homeland is finally fulfilled. Then a neighbour becomes irritated - because his grape vine has grown over to my side of the fence -- and I am eating from it - The neighbour wages war against me --- I beat him - now - I not only eat from his vine - but I have taken possession of the root. NO way in hell am I going to give back what I have taken by force. ------ That's the way I see this thing....Look into the Old Testiment - there are many expamples of treachery and taking of the spoils of war - the Jews love this shit - they even think that King David is a hero - a man who by cunning killed the husband of Bathsheba so he could have her---not very classy...I for the life of me can not see any just justification for bad behaviour. In the case of Yasser Arafat, your view can be summarized by simply saying: you harass this man all his adult life and when he becomes old (in 2000, Arafat was 71) then you blame him for not having conserve his mental capacity to negotiate a peace deal calmly, responsibly and reasonably!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 In the case of Yasser Arafat, your view can be summarized by simply saying: you harass this man all his adult life and when he becomes old (in 2000, Arafat was 71) then you blame him for not having conserve his mental capacity to negotiate a peace deal calmly, responsibly and reasonably!!! Much like Collin Power who should have been the first black American President - they burned him out..they harrassed the wisdom and calm right out of him over a prolonged period - leaving him a remorseful liar--ending his career as a broken man instead the grand and noble hero he should have exited as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Much like Collin Power who should have been the first black American President - they burned him out..they harrassed the wisdom and calm right out of him over a prolonged period - leaving him a remorseful liar--ending his career as a broken man instead the grand and noble hero he should have exited as. But Collin has a quite irresponsible son - Michael Powell – who had run the FCC to fit the concentration goals of big corporate US media. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/20...well/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestViking Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 In the case of Yasser Arafat, your view can be summarized by simply saying: you harass this man all his adult life and when he becomes old (in 2000, Arafat was 71) then you blame him for not having conserve his mental capacity to negotiate a peace deal calmly, responsibly and reasonably!!! Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you go about harassing a terrorist. Arafat was an original and in some ways is unsurpassed, even by bin Laden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 But Collin has a quite irresponsible son - Michael Powell – who had run the FCC to fit the concentration goals of big corporate US media.http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/20...well/index.html Did not realize he had a son. The son is not the father. From what I remember, Collin Powell seemed to be an honourable man......was he? Was their a deterioration in that honour over time? Will take a quick look at the link.....usually fathers of his level install sons - so maybe I am wrong on this one --Powell as a young man looked more Presidential than Obama - maybe that is what I was imagining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm not intelligent enough to understand that. Care to put that in simpler terms? I think he means that Israel, with western ideals, democratic indicators, economic vitality and fair human rights values is viewed by those in the region who's values are more basic and medieval along with low human rights and almost zero on the democracy scale view Israel with animosity for those reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Did not realize he had a son. The son is not the father. From what I remember, Collin Powell seemed to be an honourable man......was he? Was their a deterioration in that honour over time? Will take a quick look at the link.....usually fathers of his level install sons - so maybe I am wrong on this one --Powell as a young man looked more Presidential than Obama - maybe that is what I was imagining? Basically, Collin Powell is a US soldier, that is a "yes man". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.