Army Guy Posted June 14, 2005 Report Posted June 14, 2005 Black dog: Jewish land ownership at the tiemof partition amounted to just 10 per cent of the land allotted to them by the UN. The first UN partion was in 1947, The figures are alittle confusing if only 10 % of the lands were under jewish control why are they stating that in 1929... 30 % of the Arabs had sold thier lands and were landless, making up the majority of the population that has got to mean the Jews owned more than 10%....Atleast when i went to school... The other major transformation in Palestinian Arab society during the Mandate concerned the issue of land ownership. During the years of Ottoman rule, the question of private property rights was never fully articulated. The tenuous nature of private property rights enabled the Zionist movement to acquire large tracts of land that had been Arab owned. The sale of land to Jewish settlers, which occurred even during the most intense phases of the Palestinian Revolt, reflected the lack of national cohesion and institutional structure that might have enabled the Palestinian Arabs to withstand the lure of quick profits. Instead, when increased Jewish land purchases caused property prices to spiral, both the Arab landowning class and absentee landlords, many of whom resided outside Palestine, were quick to sell for unprecedented profits. In the 1930s, when Palestine was beset by a severe economic depression, large numbers of Arab peasants, unable to pay either their Arab landlords or taxes to the government, sold their land. The British did not intervene in the land purchases mainly because they needed the influx of Jewish capital to pay for Jewish social services and to maintain the Jewish economy. Another development resulting from the 1929 riots was the growing animosity between the British Mandate Authority and the Yishuv. The inactivity of the British while Arab bands were attacking Jewish settlers strengthened Zionist anti-British forces. Following the riots, the British set up the Shaw Commission to determine the cause of the disturbances. The commission report, dated March 30, 1930, refrained from blaming either community but focused on Arab apprehensions about Jewish labor practices and land purchases. The commission's allegations were investigated by an agrarian expert, Sir John Hope Simpson, who concluded that about 30 percent of the Arab population was already landless and that the amount of land remaining in Arab hands would be insufficient to divide among their offspring. This led to the Passfield White Paper (October 1930), which recommended that Jewish immigration be stopped if it prevented Arabs from obtaining employment and that Jewish land purchases be curtailed. Although the Passfield White Paper was publicly repudiated by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in 1931, it served to alienate further the Yishuv from the British Some left, but many, many more were driven out. Israel's leadership knew there could be no Israel with a large and hostile Arab population in its midst, so during the 1948 war, the Haganah and its affiliates were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves, which they did, even massacring the imhabitants. According to pro-Zionist historian Benny Morris, "the worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion I have not been able to find a neutral web site that can back your claims or for that matter to support mine......I've read both sides recall of the events each proclaims the same propaganda.... The PA does not want all lands returned, but eitehr a binational state or a sperate and viable Palestinian state. Under the Oslo Accords, the "peace process" started in 1991 at the Madrid Conference, Israel agreed to withdraw from the disputed territories and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) was given control over land chosen so that more than ninety-nine percent of the Palestinian population lived under the jurisdiction of the PA. But the committment to Israel's security that was the backbone of the Oslo agreements was never honored by the PA and Israel was forced to periodically re-enter the ceded territory to quell terrorism. In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected sweeping concessions by Israel at Camp David -- promoted by US Pres. Clinton in an attempt to reach a final peace agreement -- and the Palestinian Arabs turned again to violence with the Al Aqsa Intifada. That is, after the PA was governing nearly all Palestinian Arabs and a generous peace offer with international backing was on the table, the only response Israel got was increased violence. This is the sole reason Isreal continues to have a military presence in the disputed territories. Yes the Above actions clearly describe a people who only want a state. to live side by side with the Israelis.... I would agree taht Arab states need to do more, but still don't see why anyone should be forced to leave the land of their forefathers because of Israeli expansion. Becaus ethier forefathers took a gamble and attacked Israel and they lost...and now they have nothing... Pointing out the failings of the state of Israel is not rascism. I was refering to the allege racist remarks i made....and you pionted out... plus i was refering to your discrimatory remarks against the US... Actually Israel started the 1967 war which led to the occupation of the west bank and Gaza strip. Sure they did and the Arab nations had nothing to do with that...see link below.... My Webpage I guess military occupation, land expropriation, second-class status, and daily humiliation, poverty and widespread death isn't punsihment enough for the crime of being born an Arab in Israel occupied land... And i guess, living in a high state of military readiness, terrorist attacks...daily humiliation, and wide spread death is'nt enough for living beside the largest terrorist group in the world.....just trying to survive agains't the odd's ...some life for the average Israelis.... i firmly believe that the average joe wants peace....does the average palestinian... I think we beat this subject to death...lets agree to disagree Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Black Dog Posted June 14, 2005 Report Posted June 14, 2005 The first UN partion was in 1947, The figures are alittle confusing if only 10 % of the lands were under jewish control why are they stating that in 1929... 30 % of the Arabs had sold thier lands and were landless, making up the majority of the population that has got to mean the Jews owned more than 10%....Atleast when i went to school... Just because 30 per cent of the Arabs were "landless" does not mean the land was owned by Jews. Rather, most of the land settled by Arabs was owned by absentee landlords. At the time of the 1929 revolt, Jews owned just 865,000 dunums: 3 per cent of Palestine. I have not been able to find a neutral web site that can back your claims or for that matter to support mine......I've read both sides recall of the events each proclaims the same propaganda.... There's an element of truth to both versions. Some left of their own accord, many others were driven out. The individual I quoted above is a pro-Zionist Israeli academic. Yes the Above actions clearly describe a people who only want a state. to live side by side with the Israelis.... Ah yes. That old lie. Since you like maps here's one showing Barak's "generous" offer Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors Becaus ethier forefathers took a gamble and attacked Israel and they lost...and now they have nothing... So the Palestinains are responsible for the actions of the Egyptians, the Syrians, etc etc.? I was refering to the allege racist remarks i made....and you pionted out... plus i was refering to your discrimatory remarks against the US... Please provide an example of where I made discriminatory remarks about Americans. Not the American government, but all Americans. Sure they did and the Arab nations had nothing to do with that...see link below.... "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972. And i guess, living in a high state of military readiness, terrorist attacks...daily humiliation, and wide spread death is'nt enough for living beside the largest terrorist group in the world.....just trying to survive agains't the odd's ...some life for the average Israelis....i firmly believe that the average joe wants peace....does the average palestinian... Once again, spare me this bullshit about Israel "defying the odds" by keeping 1.3 million people under its thumb. It's the biggest most advanced military in the region, not some scrappy underdog. Anyway, the way I see it, as long as Israel continues to gobble up land and treat the Palestinians like "beasts walking on two legs" (to use former Israeli PM Menahim Begin's charming phrase) and deny them the right to self-determination, they deserve neither peace nor security. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Army Guy Posted June 15, 2005 Report Posted June 15, 2005 Black dog: There's an element of truth to both versions. Some left of their own accord, many others were driven out. The individual I quoted above is a pro-Zionist Israeli academic Below is from a palestinian site, It should be noted that Begin was acting independently from the formed Goverment of Israel it also disagrees with your numbers " of many many more were driven out" as it quotes 10,000 were driven out ( a few compared to the entire population)... although his acts were acts of terrorism, it goes to further the piont that both sides are guility of terrible things, was Arafat not a terrorist..... It also goes on to say that the Arab countries attack Israel in 1948 with the intention of wiping them out...and at the end of that conflict those areas that were left was annex by Jordanian and Egyptian administrations.which answers another one of your questions should the Palestinians be held responsiable for thier actions "yes" As palestinians were themselfs involved in those attacks over 5000 of them in formed palestinian units....again making them responsiable for thier actions.... When the United Nations (UN) General Assembly approved in 1947 a new partition plan, 749,000 Arabs and 9,250 Jews lived in the territory where the proposed Arab state would be set up, while 497,000 Arabs and 498,000 Jews lived in the part which was to become the Jewish state. To drive the Palestinians from their land, a detachment of the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun, commanded by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, raided the village of Deir Yasin on the 9th of April 1948, killing 254 civilians. The wave of terror drove 10,000 Palestinians from their land. Israel unilaterally proclaimed itself an independent country on the 14th of May 1948. Armies from the neighboring Arab states attacked immediately, but failed to stop the consolidation of the newly-proclaimed Jewish State. The new Jewish state had, in fact, emerged from the 1949 war against the Arab armies with a land area larger than one proposed by the United Nations. More than half of the Palestinians had to abandon their homes and headed towards the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where they lived as refugees. The West bank had been annexed by the then Hashemite kingdom of Tran-Jordan , a territory which had been annexed by the Hashemite kingdom of Transjordan; the Gaza Strip was then under the Egyptian administration. To the United Nations and, consequently, in the eyes of the international law, the Palestinians were not a people but simply refugees, i.e. a “problem” to be solved, although the 780000 Palestinian refugees were a direct result of war and forcible displacement to accommodate Jewish immigrants from Europe and the Arab world. palestinian web page ( here it mentions that over half the population left in fear and panick because of the war...while the remaining stayed ) As a result of the war, 780,000 Palestinians became refugees. About half that number left in fear and panic while those remaining were compelled to make room for Jewish immigrants from both European and Arab countries. The refugees spread into neighboring countries where they have maintained their Palestinian identity plus the desire to return to their homeland. With the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, they had a governing authority. In 1967 during the war between Israel and the Arabs, Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and other previously Arab-controlled areas. Ghaza Strip and the West Bank have been returned to Palestinian control as has been provided for between the Israelis and the Palestinians following the Oslo Accords. And above they say those areas have been giving back to PA authority... If the PA has authority of those lands, why do they continue to launch attacks in Israel..... My Webpage So the Palestinains are responsible for the actions of the Egyptians, the Syrians, etc etc.? What was the activity of the PLO from 1964 to the Six Day War in 1967? PLO Emblem Since Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) including East Jerusalem, and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip at the time the PLO was founded, the PLO was committed to the dissolution of Israel, mainly through the use of armed force. Their emblem includes a map -- Israel is part of their concept of Palestine. True to the Palestinian National Covenant, since its founding, the organization has sponsored innumerable guerrilla raids on Israeli civilian and military targets and has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians -- Israeli, Palestinian Arab, and citizens of every country where the PLO has resided. From early 1965 to the Six-Day War in June 1967, the PLO through Fatah pursued a consistent policy of border attacks, particularly along the Jordanian and Lebanese borders. Criticism of these activities by the Arab governments and by local public opinion persuaded Fatah leaders to adopt a new approach known as "the entanglement theory." This involved using sabotage to force Israel to adopt an offensive position, which in turn would force the Arabs to step up their military preparedness. This cycle of action-retaliation-reaction would lead to a gradual escalation of tension on the borders, and eventually to war. The Syrian military offensive against Israel, with Fatah’s help, among other things, did indeed trigger the Six Day War in 1967, but with disastrous consequences for the Arab armies and governments. The PLO managed to launch significant terrorist attacks against Israel throughout its existence, with a particularly horrific record in the 1970s and during the al-Aqsa intifada following the collapse of the Oslo peace process. Formed palestinian units indicate that the PA authority did take action against Israel and lost again....how many times does Israel have to defeat them in battle...how many times to they have to give those lands back before the PA decides it is not worth the risk.... Some left, but many, many more were driven out. Israel's leadership knew there could be no Israel with a large and hostile Arab population in its midst, so during the 1948 war, the Haganah and its affiliates were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves, which they did, even massacring the imhabitants. According to pro-Zionist historian Benny Morris, "the worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres." Below are from a Israelis web site....so what part is true which portion I'm i to believe... What about Israeli atrocities against Arabs? Pro-Arab sources cite examples of Israeli massacres and other atrocities during the 1948 War of Independence. Some Israeli revisionist historians support the atrocity claims as part of their political agenda, but mainstream historians do not think the claims are credible. The crux of the issue is whether the Jewish forces acted in a manner which goes beyond the normal course of warfare or if, on the contrary, any casualties were either opposing Arab armed forces or civilians who were accidently killed due to battle. The weight of evidence from eyewitnesses and sparse documentation is that: The Jewish population came under attack from Palestinian Arabs in the latter days of the British Mandate and, after independence was declared, from the armies of Arab nations. The heavily outnumbered and under-supplied Jews fought both conventional and unconventional battles against their foes, but did not engage in atrocities, massacres, or other improper acts. Arab casualties that did occur were either Arab armed forces in battle, or civilians caught in battle areas. Since Arabs often attacked from civilian areas, most of these casualties were the result of such Arab attacks. The most often mentioned location is Dir Yassin, one of the bases of the Arab forces maintaining pressure on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road. For the full story on this battle, see the Dir Yassin page. Other atrocities attributed to Jewish forces in the War of Independence timeframe include this list and more: Yehida: 13 December 1947 Khisas: 18 December 1947 Qazaza: 19 December 1947 Al-Sheikh Village: 1 January 1948 Naser Al-Din: 13-14 April 1948 Abu Shusha: 14 May 1948 Beit Daras: 21 May 1948 Tantura: May 22-23, 1948 Dahmash Mosque: 11 July 1948 Dawayma: 29 October 1948 Certainly claims of massacres and atrocities should not go without investigation. The problem is that, like the case of Dir Yassin, even when the claim is shown to be unfounded, the legend persists. It is convenient for the enemies of Israel to portray her armed forces as ruthless savages, but that propagandistic position cannot be supported by any facts. For example, Tantura. A Haifa University revisionist historian, Theodor Katz, claimed in his M.A. thesis (released January 2000) that an IDF unit had massacred over 200 Arab residents of the village of Tantura in the 1948 War of Independence. He was brought to court in 2001 by surviving officers and men of the unit who presented contrary evidence including review of Katz's tape recordings showing how he had manipulated the testimony of survivors. Katz admitted finally that he had selectively used reports from Arab sources, taking only those that supported his thesis. The lawsuit was dropped after Katz signed a renunciation of his own work and Haifa University pulled the thesis from library shelves. [it was revealed in September 2002 that tormer Palestinian Authority minister Feisal Husseini paid $8,000 for the legal defense of Teddy Katz.] The University conducted its own review of the evidence. After six months of work, the committee had managed to review only a little more than one-fourth of Katz's tapes, mostly in Arabic, which bore direct relation to the question of whether any massacre took place. Yet even in that limited selection, 14 major discrepancies - in which the tapes didn't accord with the written text - came to light. No pro-Palestinian Arab source had ever pointed to a massacre at Tantura before Katz's thesis appeared in 2000. The thesis has been completely debunked. Nonetheless, there are now hundreds of web sites that cite the "Tantura massacre" as historical fact. And while Arab sources rushed into print to trumpet the news of Katz's thesis, none has mentioned the retraction save a few who cite it as an example of a massive coverup My Webpage What about Arab atrocities against Jews? Rosh Zurim Settlement, Gush Etzion Violence by Arabs against the Jewish civilian population of Palestine was a periodic reality. During the Mandate period, whenever Arab dissatisfaction reached a peak, or when anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic Arab leaders needed to provoke the British authorities, rioting and Jewish casualties were created. Major rioting flared in Palestine during 1920-21, in 1929, and during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. This was not so different from the experience of Jews all over Europe and was part of the motivation for creating a Jewish state where Jews could control their own security. The day after the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947, violence against Jewish civilians began to escalate. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. By the end of the second week, 93 Arabs, 84 Jews and 7 Englishmen had been killed and scores injured. From November 30, 1947 to February 1, 1948 427 Arabs, 381 Jews and 46 British were killed and 1,035 Arabs, 725 Jews and 135 British were wounded. In March alone, 271 Jews and 257 Arabs died in Arab attacks and Jewish counterattacks. These were not military operations, but terrorism against civilian targets intended to achieve political aims for the Arabs who were dissatisfied with the United Nations partition plan. In February 1948 there was a bombing on the 1st in Jerusalem against the Palestine Post building (later renamed the The Jerusalem Post) which killed six people and injured dozens. Then on February 22nd, three booby-trapped trucks positioned in Ben-Yehuda Street exploded, destroying four large buildings, killing 50 and injuring more than 100. On March 11, a car bomb exploded in the courtyard of the Jewish Agency building, killing 12 people, injuring 44, and causing extensive damage. Arab acts of hostility prior to statehood reached their peak in March. Arabs controlled all the inter-urban routes. The road to Jerusalem was blocked, settlements in the Galilee and the Negev were also cut off and daily attacks were perpetrated on convoys. In the four months after the UN resolution, some 850 Jews were killed throughout the country, most of them in Jerusalem or on the road to the city. On April 13, 1948, Arabs set mines in the road in the Sheik Jarrah area to block a convoy of 10 vehicles -- trucks, buses and ambulances -- carrying supplies, nurses, doctors, scientists, and patients to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. In the attack, 78 were killed and their bodies mutilated. Dozens are wounded. British soldiers delayed intervention in the attack for 6 hours while the killing continued. The hospital was cut off from Israel until it was recovered after the Six Day War in June 1967. The largest Arab atrocity of the war was on May 13, 1948, the massacre of dozens of surrendering defenders, including some twenty women, at Kfar Etzion in the Etzion Bloc of settlements (Gush Etzion) just north of Hebron, in the territory allocated to the Arabs under the UN partition plan. The Etzion Bloc had already seen a massacre in January 1947 when a Haganah platoon of 35 soldiers sent to help them with medical supplies and ammunition was massacred by hundreds of Arab militants. Their stripped, mutilated bodies were found the next day by a British patrol. The final battle for Gush Etzion took place between May 12-14, 1948. Massive, heavily armed enemy forces overran the Jewish positions. A handful of exhausted defenders, equipped only with light arms and very little ammunition could not withstand the attacking forces. On Thursday, May 13th, Kfar Etzion fell, its defenders killed, most of them slaughtered by Arab rioters after the collapse of the defense. Gush Etzion was destroyed in the aftermath -- everything of value was removed, then the buildings were reduced to rubble. Hundreds of thousands of trees in the orchards -- individually planted by the Jewish farmers -- were uprooted Whats all this prove ? that both sides like to go out on long walks on the beach together holding hands, singing comb ba ya....i think not it proves that they where at war and will continue to be for years to come....there is deep seated hatrad and it will take generations of peace to get rid of that...Both sides need to get a firm cease fire in place...both sides need to agree on pull backs of settlements and portions of the wall that are on palestinian land...they also need to finsh the wall legally and seal thier border, close it to all palestinians....complete separation until both sides can live together.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Black Dog Posted June 16, 2005 Report Posted June 16, 2005 ( here it mentions that over half the population left in fear and panick because of the war...while the remaining stayed )As a result of the war, 780,000 Palestinians became refugees. About half that number left in fear and panic while those remaining were compelled to make room for Jewish immigrants from both European and Arab countries. Uh..half of 780,000 is 390,000. The 10,000 number seems to be the number driven out by the Irgun alone. And above they say those areas have been giving back to PA authority...If the PA has authority of those lands, why do they continue to launch attacks in Israel..... First, the PA has only nominal control of its designated territory, as Israel continues to launch military incursions at will as well as control the borders. Second, the PA is the legintimate governing body of the area and does not conduct militant operations. Suicide bombings are largely the work of groups like Hamaas and teh Al Asqa Martyr's Brigade. These groups continue to operate because israel continues to occupy and colonize Palestinian lands. Below are from a Israelis web site....so what part is true which portion I'm i to believe... I'm going to take the word of an armada of scholars (including,a s I said Pro-Zionist, Pro-expuilsion ones) over a propaganda web site. Ever heard the phrase "history is writen by the winners"? Do you think an admittedly pro-Israli web site is interested in the unvarnished truth, or in painting its side in the best light possible. That's the difference between our positions: I have never denied or or minimized Palestinian terrorism or Arab aggression, just pointed out how these things exist in the context of the colonial policies which led to the creation of Israel and the subsequent rendering of thousands of indiginous people homeless, stateless and ghettoized. Whereas Israel's apologists see fit to deny even the realities of the conflict, including Israeli atrocities past and present, in order to paint their side as pure good. Whats all this prove ? that both sides like to go out on long walks on the beach together holding hands, singing comb ba ya....i think not it proves that they where at war and will continue to be for years to come....there is deep seated hatrad and it will take generations of peace to get rid of that...Both sides need to get a firm cease fire in place...both sides need to agree on pull backs of settlements and portions of the wall that are on palestinian land...they also need to finsh the wall legally and seal thier border, close it to all palestinians....complete separation until both sides can live together.... I agree, up to the point of separating. Constructive engagement is the only way to peace. By shutting the Paelstinians behind the wall, Israel would basically be constructing immense concentration camps for the purpose of choking the last life of the Palestinians. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2005 Report Posted June 17, 2005 Black dog: It was disbuting your claim below. Some left, but many, many more were driven out. The 10,000 number seems to be the number driven out by the Irgun alone Like i said before those numbers are taken from a palestinian web site, it's ironic they don't mention any additional numbers or support your claims that would be to thier benifit. I'm not saying they are not true just they are not mentioned... First, the PA has only nominal control of its designated territory, as Israel continues to launch military incursions at will as well as control the borders. Again according the this PA site they cliam they are the adminstrative authority...they are in control of the goverment,police forces and thier security forces ....sounds like control to me... as Israel continues to launch military incursions at will as well as control the borders. Yes they do, that is not disbuted...but Israel claims that the PA authority can not control the Terrorists ,or it's citizens Just what is Israel to do turn the other check...I do agree with you that these incursions do nothing but provide excuses for more violence....that said the PA has to also control it's own people... Second, the PA is the legintimate governing body of the area and does not conduct militant operations. Suicide bombings are largely the work of groups like Hamaas and teh Al Asqa Martyr's Brigade. These groups continue to operate because israel continues to occupy and colonize Palestinian lands. They may not conduct the raids, but they have condoned them and have encouraged them....They have done nothing in routing these groups out of thier lands. That's the difference between our positions: I have never denied or or minimized Palestinian terrorism or Arab aggression, just pointed out how these things exist in the context of the colonial policies which led to the creation of Israel and the subsequent rendering of thousands of indiginous people homeless, stateless and ghettoized. You have a funny way of showing that. a majority of your post place blame on Isreal and say very little of the PA and thier reponsabilty in all this... Whereas Israel's apologists see fit to deny even the realities of the conflict, including Israeli atrocities past and present, in order to paint their side as pure good I believe if you re read my posts i have repeatly admitted that Israel is not pure good or that i agree with everything that Israel has done....but instead tried to show you that the palestinians are just as much to blame for thier current plight. I agree, up to the point of separating. Constructive engagement is the only way to peace. By shutting the Paelstinians behind the wall, Israel would basically be constructing immense concentration camps for the purpose of choking the last life of the Palestinians It has been my experiance that constructive engagement is not going to work, it has not worked in any peace keeping mission i've been on....total separation is the way you have to start....if the palestinian claims are true all want is there land back....It is going to take great effort to accomplish just that one objective...your not going to get the State of Israel to pay welfare for a hostile state as well.... The other Arab countries are going to have to take on that role...until peace stabizes and the people are given a cooling off period... Israel has every legal right to shut its borders to any state or group....and how would that chock the life out of the last palestinian if the truely want peace ,to have thier own state, to build thier own nation then why would it matter....They have a sea port, access to the out side world... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Black Dog Posted June 17, 2005 Report Posted June 17, 2005 Like i said before those numbers are taken from a palestinian web site, it's ironic they don't mention any additional numbers or support your claims that would be to thier benifit. I'm not saying they are not true just they are not mentioned You misread the numbers. from the same page: As a result of the war, 780,000 Palestinians became refugees. About half that number left in fear and panic while those remaining were compelled to make room for Jewish immigrants from both European and Arab countries. It's also worth noting that many Arabs fled with the intention of returning to their homes when the violence ended, but most were not permitted to return to their villages, and a combination of military and legal devices were employed in the ensuing years to destroy or expropriate Arab homes and lands. Again according the this PA site they cliam they are the adminstrative authority...they are in control of the goverment,police forces and thier security forces ....sounds like control to me... On paper, but the reality is somewhat different. I would argue that any body that can be superseded by a forign military force at will can hardly be said to be in control. Yes they do, that is not disbuted...but Israel claims that the PA authority can not control the Terrorists ,or it's citizens Just what is Israel to do turn the other check...I do agree with you that these incursions do nothing but provide excuses for more violence....that said the PA has to also control it's own people... Of course Israel would say that. I just wonder why, if Israel finds the occupied territories to be such dangerous terrorist havens, do they continue to pay for thousands of Jews to settle there? They may not conduct the raids, but they have condoned them and have encouraged them....They have done nothing in routing these groups out of thier lands. Sure. I think Arafat did this as part of a two-pronged strategy to drive the Israelis out. It was a failure and Abbas seems more devoted to non-violent resistance. You have a funny way of showing that. a majority of your post place blame on Isreal and say very little of the PA and thier reponsabilty in all this... Because I believe the Occupation, the inhumane practices of the State of Israel to be the key to the conflict and the cause of terrorism. The P.A. has doen its part, but the overwhelming reality is its Israel's show and thus, their responsibility. I believe if you re read my posts i have repeatly admitted that Israel is not pure good or that i agree with everything that Israel has done....but instead tried to show you that the palestinians are just as much to blame for thier current plight. But that's my point, they are not "just as much to blame" for their plight. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
August1991 Posted July 4, 2005 Author Report Posted July 4, 2005 Muslim insurgents in Thailand have stockpiled more than 7,000 weapons and have trained with Indonesian militants to wreak violence in southern Thailand, a former army commander said Monday...... "There is still no light at the end of the tunnel," Kitti said. "Eighteen months after the government started deploying massive numbers of troops into the region, the situation is getting worse. The separatist movement has complete control of the people. Only the land belongs to us, but the people belong to the movement, 100 percent." ..... But the violence surged early last year and has resulted in more than 880 deaths in the last 18 months. IHTOne wonders why the Thai and Malaysian governments cannot deal with this. I put it in the "Islamic Thread" because of the reference to "Muslim insurgents" but I think the problem is different. Quote
tqa81 Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 Here is an interesting website providing links to news and views to Democracy In the Muslim World : http://www.geocities.com/tqa81/MWDEMOCRACY...l?1120768439719 Quote
August1991 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Report Posted July 13, 2005 This indicates at least some understanding of the problem: Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, the West Yorkshire town which was home to one of the bombers, said the situation in his constituency and further afield represented "the most profound challenge yet faced by the British Muslim community". He said: "Condemnation is not enough, and British Muslims must, and I believe are prepared to, confront the voices of evil head on. This is a defining moment for this country and I can assure you that my constituency of Dewsbury will not be found to be wanting," he declared. At a council meeting in Luton today, Councillor Mohammed Bashir, who represents a large Muslim ward, acknowledged the fears of extremism among the Muslim community. "We know there are extremists living among us and we work closely with the police as a result. They come here to Luton town centre to try and recruit the young ones. They are professional, they tell them stories, brainwash them and then we know some are taken to camp in Afghanistan. Their actions are a big setback for Muslim communities," said Mr Bashir. Times of London Quote
Argus Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 This indicates at least some understanding of the problem:Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, the West Yorkshire town which was home to one of the bombers, said the situation in his constituency and further afield represented "the most profound challenge yet faced by the British Muslim community". He said: "Condemnation is not enough, and British Muslims must, and I believe are prepared to, confront the voices of evil head on. This is a defining moment for this country and I can assure you that my constituency of Dewsbury will not be found to be wanting," he declared. ....But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims." Home Grown Extremists Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
August1991 Posted November 6, 2005 Author Report Posted November 6, 2005 This may seem silly but it sums up the problem succinctly. What image or cartoon could be considered unforgiveable in western societies? A Danish experiment in testing "the limits of freedom of speech" has backfired - or succeeded spectacularly - after newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed provoked an outcry.Thousands of Muslims have taken to the streets in protest at the caricatures, the newspaper that published them has received death threats and two of its cartoonists have been forced into hiding. Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the cartoons a 'necessary provocation' Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's leading daily, defied Islam's ban on images of the Prophet by printing cartoons by 12 different artists. ... Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch MP famous for her criticism of Islam and author of the screenplay for Mr Van Gogh's film Submission, supported the paper. "It's necessary to taunt Muslims on their relationship with Mohammed," she said. "Otherwise we will never have the dialogue we need to establish with Muslims on the most central question: 'Do you really feel that every Muslim in 2005 should follow the way of life the Prophet had 1,400 years ago, as the Koran dictates?' " Daily Telegraph Quote
newbie Posted November 6, 2005 Report Posted November 6, 2005 There is a new movie coming out with Albert Brooks where Sony was pressured to take the word "Muslim" out of the title Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World. It's a comedy for God's sake and has absolutely nothing to do with politics or mocking their religion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4292976.stm Quote
August1991 Posted June 25, 2006 Author Report Posted June 25, 2006 I started this thread with some good quotes. Here's another: The Islamic world today is full of paradoxes and contradictions. In spite of a number of Muslim nations being extremely wealthy, there is not a single one of them that can be classified as developed by any criteria. Certainly there is no Muslim world power as there was for much of the past 1,300 years. Almost all are lagging behind in modem knowledge, financial and technological skills and, in many instances, effective government. In addition poverty, ignorance and instability have become such common features in the Muslim world that our detractors assume that these are the natural consequences of following the teachings of Islam.It is, therefore, not surprising that today the world associates Islam with backwardness. This angers us Muslims. But the fact is that we are backward. We are almost totally dependent upon others for almost all our needs in life. Even in the extraction of the wealth and resources that Allah has blessed us with, we depend on others. The whole Muslim Ummah of 1.5 billion is one huge consumer society, procuring all our needs from outside our community, including our defense and security requirements. We produce practically nothing on our own, we can do almost nothing for ourselves, we cannot even manage our wealth. We hire other people to do everything for us. When doing this we seem not to have faith in Muslim ability or qualifications. Mahathir Mohammed, Chairman of the IDB and ex-PM of MalaysiaThis little diatribe is aimed to show how far the Islamic world has fallen from its great heights of the past: That Muslims were at one time the most advanced people in all fields of human endeavour is a historical fact. At the time when the European Christians were wallowing in the Dark Ages and the Jews were wondering rootless all over the word, the Muslim Ummah were the biggest traders, the producers of goods, the strategists, navigators and redoubtable defenders of the faith. They were also the most learned, the most enlightened and the most liberal of the people in the world. Christians and Jews lived freely under Muslim rule. Talk about an inferiority complex, and a self-serving desire to dominate. These people have serious psychological issues to work out. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Bizarre views. They sound like the beginnings of union-worker or crony-"friends"-of-the-government arguments. We hire other people to do everything for us. When doing this we seem not to have faith in Muslim ability or qualifications. This attitude sounds worse than backwards. In fact, it is backwards for them to associate this with their backwardness. If every country in the world had a self-sufficiency attitude, every person in the world would have a standard of living slightly above sustenance level at best. At the time when the European Christians were wallowing in the Dark Ages and the Jews were wondering rootless all over the word, the Muslim Ummah were the biggest traders, the producers of goods, the strategists, navigators and redoubtable defenders of the faith. From the sounds of it, old-world Muslims were not averse to international trade. What changed??? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
kimmy Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Bizarre views. They sound like the beginnings of union-worker or crony-"friends"-of-the-government arguments. We hire other people to do everything for us. When doing this we seem not to have faith in Muslim ability or qualifications. This attitude sounds worse than backwards. In fact, it is backwards for them to associate this with their backwardness. If every country in the world had a self-sufficiency attitude, every person in the world would have a standard of living slightly above sustenance level at best. I think his concern is not so much about international trade, but about the Muslim world having virtually no capabilities of its own. Western companies drill their oil or mine their diamonds and pay them some royalties. They take their royalties and put them in western banks. When they spend their wealth, it's to buy western-made goods or pay western professionals for assistance. They're somewhat like a rich but senile aunt who has a big bank account and a hefty pension, but doesn't know how to manage her money or care for herself anymore. She puts her trust in her nephew to manage her money, do her taxes, shop for her, care for her home and pay her bills... and trusts that he won't rob her blind in the process. The speaker sounds someone very aware that until Muslim nations develop their own ability to manage their wealth effectively-- ie, "good government"-- they're as helpless and dependent as the senile old aunt. At the time when the European Christians were wallowing in the Dark Ages and the Jews were wondering rootless all over the word, the Muslim Ummah were the biggest traders, the producers of goods, the strategists, navigators and redoubtable defenders of the faith. From the sounds of it, old-world Muslims were not averse to international trade. What changed??? He addresses that later in his speech: Then, the great Islamic civilisation went into decline. With hindsight, we could pinpoint the turning point that marked the decline. This was when the learned Muslims interpreted knowledge acquisition as enjoined by the Quran in Iqraq or “Read" to mean acquiring only the knowledge of the Islamic religion, rejecting other knowledge as un-Islamic as giving no merit in the afterlife. Following this, the Muslims gave up the study of science, mathematics, medicine and other so-called worldly disciplines. Instead they spent much time debating on Islamic teachings and interpretations, on Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic practices. The differences in the interpretations and understanding of Islam led to a break-up of the ummah and the founding of numerous sects, cults and schools. Such were the differences between them that they often kill and war against each other. To this day they are blowing up each other’s mosques to the delight of their detractors. Almost at the same time of the Muslims rejection of worldly knowledge which started them on their decline, the Europeans, benefiting from the early studies and researches of the Muslim scholars achieved 1their Renaissance and went on to develop their countries until they were able to threaten and dominate us, with their wealth, knowledge and military power. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Rue Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Pinning all the blame for the problems of the Arab and Muslim world on Islam (as though it were a singular, monolithic entity), while ignoring the broader, more tangible social, political and economic factors at work, is ridiculous. But ignoring its effect on social, political and economic factors at work, is alsoequally as ridiculous, so your point is overstated. Quote I come to you to hell.
Rue Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Black Dog as usual your recitation of history in regards to Palestine and Palestine refugees is selective. What you seem to have conveniently forgotten is that the Arab League of Nations declared war on Israel with the express purpose of ridding the entire Palestinian area of Jews as it catergorically rejected the Belfour Declaration or any suggestion of an independent Jewish State. You seem to pretend this decision to go to war and attempt to get all or nothing is not directly related to the decision of thousands of Palestinians to flee. They were told to flee by the Arab League who also suggested they could return as soon as the war was over. What you also selectively ignore is the fact that the Arab League deliberately has left Palestinians in refugee camps when it could have re-settled many of them. Palestinians asked to be resettled in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, Morrocco, Libya and Algeria and were refused by those governments. So you can engage in your usual one-sided, selective recitation of history, but there is another side to the story and the ARab League's explicit role in deliberately forcing Palestinians to live in exile as a political decision to pressure the West into getting ride of Israel doesn't just vanish because you have been brought up to read just the portion of history that suits your preconception that Israel is bad, Palestine is good. And one last point should be made. Israel accepted Muslim refugees from the Yugoslav civil war so attempts to depict Israel as being simply bad are b.s. As much as you love to single out Israel as the big bad evil oppressor unlike any Arab nation, it has in its charter, guaranteed property rights for its Muslim citizens and has nuermous cases that have decided in favour of Muslims on property rights disputes not to mention it guarantees the use of Arabic in all civil service and government services, provides free medical care to Muslim Israelis AND Palestinians, and warts and all has at least made an effort legally to try deal with the legal rights of Muslims in Israel. But then again in your world, The Arab League are a bunch of angels. They have no complicity in the plight of todays Palestinians. They could not possibly have offered to set up Palestinians in communities in their countries. Your simple recitation of selective history ignores the hatred and discrimination of Palestinians at the hands of Arab governments who did not want any of them in their country. It also deliberately ignores the fact that Jordan is an artifical state created by the British and was the home of the majority of Palestinians who the King of Jordan did not want taking over his nation. So as much as you love to depict it as Israel bad, Palestine good, you also forgot the King of Jordan had to call on Beduin Arabs to rid his country of Palestinians in a bloody uprising because he did not want them ruling his country with majority rule. You seem to forget the Syrian Army openly feuding with Arafat and forbidding him from settling in Damascus with Palestinians. You seem to forget how Syria was a principal player in ridding Lebanon of Palestinians. You forget the expulsion of Palestinians from Tunisia. You also ignore the fact that Iran loaths Palestinians who are not Shiite and that the Algerians and Moroccans wanted nothing to do with Palestinians. I would also point out, as much as you love to portray this as Israel bad invader, Palestine as pre-existing innocent victims, it is far more complicated then that but then your selectivity as to whose land was taken away and when seems to begin and end in 1949. Quote I come to you to hell.
Rue Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Bizarre views. They sound like the beginnings of union-worker or crony-"friends"-of-the-government arguments. We hire other people to do everything for us. When doing this we seem not to have faith in Muslim ability or qualifications. This attitude sounds worse than backwards. In fact, it is backwards for them to associate this with their backwardness. If every country in the world had a self-sufficiency attitude, every person in the world would have a standard of living slightly above sustenance level at best. I think his concern is not so much about international trade, but about the Muslim world having virtually no capabilities of its own. Western companies drill their oil or mine their diamonds and pay them some royalties. They take their royalties and put them in western banks. When they spend their wealth, it's to buy western-made goods or pay western professionals for assistance. They're somewhat like a rich but senile aunt who has a big bank account and a hefty pension, but doesn't know how to manage her money or care for herself anymore. She puts her trust in her nephew to manage her money, do her taxes, shop for her, care for her home and pay her bills... and trusts that he won't rob her blind in the process. The speaker sounds someone very aware that until Muslim nations develop their own ability to manage their wealth effectively-- ie, "good government"-- they're as helpless and dependent as the senile old aunt. At the time when the European Christians were wallowing in the Dark Ages and the Jews were wondering rootless all over the word, the Muslim Ummah were the biggest traders, the producers of goods, the strategists, navigators and redoubtable defenders of the faith. From the sounds of it, old-world Muslims were not averse to international trade. What changed??? He addresses that later in his speech: Then, the great Islamic civilisation went into decline. With hindsight, we could pinpoint the turning point that marked the decline. This was when the learned Muslims interpreted knowledge acquisition as enjoined by the Quran in Iqraq or “Read" to mean acquiring only the knowledge of the Islamic religion, rejecting other knowledge as un-Islamic as giving no merit in the afterlife. Following this, the Muslims gave up the study of science, mathematics, medicine and other so-called worldly disciplines. Instead they spent much time debating on Islamic teachings and interpretations, on Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic practices. The differences in the interpretations and understanding of Islam led to a break-up of the ummah and the founding of numerous sects, cults and schools. Such were the differences between them that they often kill and war against each other. To this day they are blowing up each other’s mosques to the delight of their detractors. Almost at the same time of the Muslims rejection of worldly knowledge which started them on their decline, the Europeans, benefiting from the early studies and researches of the Muslim scholars achieved 1their Renaissance and went on to develop their countries until they were able to threaten and dominate us, with their wealth, knowledge and military power. -k The notion that Muslims and Muslim countries are weak savages, or victims is b.s. Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia to mention but 3 countries, have no problems getting into bed with the big bad evil imperialists to maintain totalitarian regimes. You want to point fingers, don't point it just at the West and simply state its the result of colonialism. That arguement is like a child who grows up and at the age of 50 still blames all his failures on his father and childhood. There's a limit to how much can be blamed on the past. The present and future also has to be looked at. The point is today's current state of corupt, totalitarian police states through-out the Middle East is as much a direct result of fundamentalism Islam engrained in the culture as it is anything you care to pin on the Americans, British, etc. Today's genocide in Sudan can not be blamed on the US or Britain as much as some would like to say the artificial border of Sudan imposed by the colonialists is to blame. The fact is Sudan's current regime is racist and in the name of Islam slaughters millions simply because they have dark skin and are Christian. Quote I come to you to hell.
Charles Anthony Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 I think his concern is not so much about international trade, but about the Muslim world having virtually no capabilities of its own.It is precisely international trade that can solve their problems and makes them even more rich. I think that guy should take a high school economics course for starters. I can look at the same things and say that they are a highly specialized economy luckily because of their oil. If they had to depend exclusively on themselves and their oil, they would have very little except pieces of paper with George Washington on them. Western companies drill their oil or mine their diamonds and pay them some royalties.That could be the cheapest way for them to do it. They sound like they want to eat their cake and have it too. Imagine every single country in the world saying: "We have no capabilities to produce our own coffee, tea, sugar, bananas and eyePods!" Would we take that argument seriously??? Almost at the same time of the Muslims rejection of worldly knowledge which started them on their decline, the Europeans, benefiting from the early studies and researches of the Muslim scholars achieved 1their Renaissance and went on to develop their countries until they were able to threaten and dominate us, with their wealth, knowledge and military power. In this day and age, I think his excuse is garbage because they have money and they have lots of money. Most "worldly knowledge" is completely free or affordable. Regardless of what happened in the past, they can afford to pick up their bootstraps and do whatever they want today. I do not buy his arguments at all. Not one bit. He sounds like a civil-public-servant-entitled-to-his-entitlements type who wants more wealth redistribution. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Black Dog Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 You seem to pretend this decision to go to war and attempt to get all or nothing is not directly related to the decision of thousands of Palestinians to flee. They were told to flee by the Arab League who also suggested they could return as soon as the war was over. Some left of their own accord, many more were driven out. As for the rest: yeah, the rest of the Arab world has done little to solve the refugee problem. What would adding a couple million refugees do to their already poor countries? My view is pretty simple: since the root of the problem lies in Israel's founding, it's primarily Israel's responsibility to solve it. That's not to say that others shouldn't do more. They should. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
M.Dancer Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 My view is pretty simple: since the root of the problem lies in Israel's founding, it's primarily Israel's responsibility to solve it. That's not to say that others shouldn't do more. They should. If you want all the roots, I suggest you dig a little deeper.....But you are right about your view... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
August1991 Posted September 18, 2006 Author Report Posted September 18, 2006 You seem to pretend this decision to go to war and attempt to get all or nothing is not directly related to the decision of thousands of Palestinians to flee. They were told to flee by the Arab League who also suggested they could return as soon as the war was over.Some left of their own accord, many more were driven out. As for the rest: yeah, the rest of the Arab world has done little to solve the refugee problem. What would adding a couple million refugees do to their already poor countries? My view is pretty simple: since the root of the problem lies in Israel's founding, it's primarily Israel's responsibility to solve it. That's not to say that others shouldn't do more. They should. BD, one of the problems is the Islamic world's obsession with the Palestinian problem. In fact, the problem is far broader than Palestine or Israel. Go back to the quotes in the OP. Or look at Mahathir's speech. The Islamic world depends on oil for its wealth - not its own efforts. By cultural measures, it is impoverished. It's only point of pride is a medieval religion. Where China and India have accepted the modern world and begun to change, the Islamic world largely hasn't. Blaming Israel for this state of affairs is ludicrous. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 BD, one of the problems is the Islamic world's obsession with the Palestinian problem. In fact, the problem is far broader than Palestine or Israel.Go back to the quotes in the OP. Or look at Mahathir's speech. The Islamic world depends on oil for its wealth - not its own efforts. By cultural measures, it is impoverished. It's only point of pride is a medieval religion. Where China and India have accepted the modern world and begun to change, the Islamic world largely hasn't. Blaming Israel for this state of affairs is ludicrous. I'm blaming Israel for the Palestinian refugee problem. If some other idiot wants to blame the whole sorry state of Muslim affairs on Israel, that's not my problem. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Liam Posted September 19, 2006 Report Posted September 19, 2006 BD, one of the problems is the Islamic world's obsession with the Palestinian problem. In fact, the problem is far broader than Palestine or Israel... Blaming Israel for this state of affairs is ludicrous. I think the Islamic world's obsession with Palestine/Israel only extends so far as they can continuously hold out the Palestinians as the "poor, oppressed Muslim brothers" while keeping Israel as Public Enemy #1. If the Islamic world wanted to help Palestinians, and I mean *really* wanted to help them, there would be excellent schools and hospitals and infrastructure and economic development going on all over Gaza and the West Bank. Quote
myata Posted September 20, 2006 Report Posted September 20, 2006 If you want all the roots, I suggest you dig a little deeper.....But you are right about your view... Me too, I'd like to hear about those deeper roots, why stop when the intrigue's at the highest? (Just to compare, it's been what, two, three centuries? since British colonized Ireland and they're still sorting out consequences. Would be interesting to examine those roots as well, ne c'est pas?) Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
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.