"Dig We Must" -- Old City of Jerusalem

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by parky76

Web- By what right did the allies have to give western Palestine to ANYONE but the people who lives there? Yes, they conquered the land. Yes, they had the power to make such a decision. But was it right? Was it just?

By what right? This is the way of the world, friend.

It was an equitable and Solomonic proposal. Not a single Arab was dispossesed.
How can that be made more clear?

No Arabs lost anything from the beginning of Zionism in the late-1800's through WW1 and through WW2, while around the planet, countless millions were unsettled, or dead. I refuse to invoke the Holocaust here, because it's not relevant, even when you glibly talk of "just" and "right" ------
Well, parky76, I'm here to point out to you that 100,000 arabs are NOT somehow a special class of individuals who are deserving of a unique status as "owners of palestine" (yes parky76, in 1893, 100,000, maybe 200,000, is the sum total of arabs who were in the areas where the jews began arriving as immigrants. And to be sure, those jewish immigrants were recognized by the laws of the rulers of the land -- the Ottomans)
We live on Planet Earth, which is finite. The harm caused to these 100,000 isolated people was so minimal (if any harm at all can be proven) when the jews started their Zionist Enterprise, that I have to say, it's a frikin' joke for anyone with half a brain to complain that they lost their "rights"

I cannot figure out where you come up with that.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Arabs, on the other hand, are drooling, evil, crafty(in an animal-cunning sort of way) subhumans who don't really deserve to live.

You say that like it's a bad thing.



DR

[Thunder]

No no no. The Jews are lazy, money-grabbing, deceitful, arrogant, racist, traitors, who claim to love their home country when in reality everything and anything always boils down to...."Is it good for the Jews?".

[webfusion]

parky76, I asked you some questions. Give 'em a shot.

The main one was: "If you would be so kind to explain that logic of 100,000 people in 1893 having some sort of "prior claim" in a land that jews have called home for thousands of years?"

When did these 100,000 people become the sole owners of the land? When did all the land become "Arab lands" ?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/920578.html
"Boycott is legitimate and we cling fast to it so long as it is considered a tool of pressure on Israel to force it to bow to give back the usurped Arab lands and rights," Bouslaa told the meeting's opening session.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

The campaign to "defend Al-Aqsa" is not based on facts, but on the political and/or religious needs of its muslim leaders.

And that's a good justification to disregard the Arabs who live in the area (yet again) instead of using the project to build trust?

Originally Posted by webfusion

The article clearly states that the Islamic Trust (WAQF, under the control of the Palestinians) is already making false claims, and making an attempt at this early planning stage to just lie about the route of the passageway.

• Contrary to claims already raised by the Islamic Movement, Arab Knesset members and the Waqf (the Muslim religious trust that runs the Temple Mount), the plan will not involve any digging within the Temple Mount compound. The new passage will lie about 100 meters west of the mount.

Predictable. This isn't much different than local politics anywhere else, the major difference is that this kind of disagreement has way higher stakes and isn't necessary at this specific point and time. This could stand to undermine Abbas, who just the other day was stating that he feels there is a real path to peace emerging. He may not actually believe that's the case, but he's playing the part of the optimistic politician to keep the ball rolling for Annapolis.

Originally Posted by webfusion

So, you are saying that these arabs need to be included in the overall planning, which would allay their unfounded fears, and that they could then bring forth the truth and present logical and rational explanations to the masses, instead of inciting and talking trash? OK, sounds good to me.

Methinks you're presenting it a might unbalanced, friend. Those pushing to get the project started know how delicate things are right now. It's really about three or four decades past time one of these groups step up to be the proverbial "bigger man" in this, and that includes Israel just as much as it does Palestine.

[webfusion]

Quote:

And that's a good justification to disregard the Arabs who live in the area (yet again) instead of using the project to build trust?

I did not see anything to indicate that the Arabs are being "disregarded" --- the WAQF is ordinarily consulted; the Arab MK's are made privvy to whatever details they care to request; while the Islamic Movement leaders have proven themselves to not care about the facts one way or the other --- (see: Sheikh Raed Salah)

Quote:

Those pushing to get the project started know how delicate things are right now.

Granted. In my OP, I acknowledged this.
However, that does not mean the owners of the property must be refrained from proceeding with their business endeavor, in which they have millions of $$$ invested, just because the Islamists are "up in arms" about some perceived slight they have concocted in their fertile imaginations.
The best thing would indeed for everyone to have a meeting, and straighten out any misunderstandings, then let the Moskowitz's continue, within the parameters of the law.

[Thunder]

Web- Man in Ireland converts to Judaism. Suddenly man starts calling Israel "home". Does man now have the eternal right to move to Israel? According to you, he does.

The Jewish people had no right to come to Palestine and create a country where none existed. No people has the right to move somewhere and declare "God wills it!!" and build a state where other people already live.

But, Israel today is a fact on the ground, and should be seen as such. However, a great injustice was done to the Arabs of Palestine, and the only fair solution is an Arab Palestinian state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by webfusion

By what right? This is the way of the world, friend.

It was an equitable and Solomonic proposal. Not a single Arab was dispossesed.
How can that be made more clear?

No Arabs lost anything from the beginning of Zionism in the late-1800's through WW1 and through WW2, while around the planet, countless millions were unsettled, or dead. I refuse to invoke the Holocaust here, because it's not relevant, even when you glibly talk of "just" and "right" ------
Well, parky76, I'm here to point out to you that 100,000 arabs are NOT somehow a special class of individuals who are deserving of a unique status as "owners of palestine" (yes parky76, in 1893, 100,000, maybe 200,000, is the sum total of arabs who were in the areas where the jews began arriving as immigrants. And to be sure, those jewish immigrants were recognized by the laws of the rulers of the land -- the Ottomans)
We live on Planet Earth, which is finite. The harm caused to these 100,000 isolated people was so minimal (if any harm at all can be proven) when the jews started their Zionist Enterprise, that I have to say, it's a frikin' joke for anyone with half a brain to complain that they lost their "rights"

I cannot figure out where you come up with that.

They lost their right to self determination in that area. They had already made moves to do so while under the Ottomans, and thought they had a deal with the British to get their own state if they helped oust the Ottomans, a decidedly risky stance to take given the viciousness of the Ottoman rulers. As they lived in an essentially feudal system, land ownsership was something denied to most of the inhabitants, historically.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

I did not see anything to indicate that the Arabs are being "disregarded" --- the WAQF is ordinarily consulted; the Arab MK's are made privvy to whatever details they care to request; while the Islamic Movement leaders have proven themselves to not care about the facts one way or the other --- (see: Sheikh Raed Salah)

Do you honestly think going ahead at this time is not negligent of the greater problem of Arab-Jew relations in the area? This kind of project is exactly the type to call for special dispensations meant to improve relations due to the controversial nature of the project. Yes, I get that the project will very likely not infringe on anything, but that really isn't the point at the end of the day. The point is that no tunnel is worth another intifada.

Originally Posted by webfusion

Granted. In my OP, I acknowledged this.
However, that does not mean the owners of the property must be refrained from proceeding with their business endeavor, in which they have millions of $$$ invested, just because the Islamists are "up in arms" about some perceived slight they have concocted in their fertile imaginations.
The best thing would indeed for everyone to have a meeting, and straighten out any misunderstandings, then let the Moskowitz's continue, within the parameters of the law.

That's oversimplification. You understand the difference between technicalities and pragmatism in this case. You've already stated as much. Just because it's legal doesn't make it the right thing to do at this time.

[webfusion]

Quote:

The Jewish people had no right to come to Palestine and create a country where none existed. No people has the right to move somewhere and declare "God wills it!!" and build a state where other people already live.

Between 100,000 and 200,000 people lived in the areas where the jews came to build their state (using the best available population numbers from 1893).

As far as I am aware, the jews were granted every right to come and create whatever they wanted to create. They bought lands, they constructed farming communities (kibbutzim) and they started new modern cities (Tel Aviv, founded 1909).

Not a single arab man, woman or child of those original 100,000 lost anything (there were maybe 200,000, depending on who you source, but the point remains valid). It is incredible that you would sit there and declare that 100,000 arab people who essentially lost nothing, are still more important than allowing jews to have sanctuary, during the most violent period of the modern era (from the 19th-century pogroms of Russia, through the upheavals of WW1 and into the nightmare of WWII).

Beyond that, the Zionists never came along saying "God Wills It" -- in fact, you need to check your Herzl quotes:
"If You Will It, It Is No Dream" -- Im Tirzu, Ain Zo Agadah (meaning, if a man takes it upon himself, by free will, to accomplish his dreams, then nothing is impossible). The idea that God was in charge of the endeavor was not a driving force.


==========================

Quote:

The point is that no tunnel is worth another intifada.

Tell that to the arab leaders who are out there inciting and looking for excuses.
If it's not a tunnel, it will be another cartoon, or some other perceived slight against islam.
It's an old, well-known story, that keeps repeating itself in this part of the world. Usually, the jews get blamed for whatever imaginary evils are invented by the inciters.

And people will come along, tsk-tsk, and just mention -- "well, the jews certainly brought that upon themselves, for provoking the arabs. Would you like another crumpet, Lucy?"

http://www.zionism-israel.com/Hebron_Massacre1929.htm
Aref el Aref, along with Haj Amin El-Husseini, had been responsible for previous riots. Aref was now appointed district officer of the Beersheba district. Aref el Aref paid a visit to Hebron and preached an inflammatory sermon on Thursday, August 22. Rumors were spread that the Jews had killed Arabs in Jerusalem, that the Jews had burned down the Al-Aqsa mosque (supposedly this was documented with a fake photo) and that the Jews were planning to build a synagogue near the wailing wall.

• The riots began in earnest, on the morning of Saturday, August 24. Arabs killed 64 to 67 Jews in Hebron and wounded many others. Babies were beheaded. Old rabbis were castrated. There were incidents of rape, torture and mutilation.

[webfusion]

a_u_p makes the attempt to revise history:

Quote:

They lost their right to self determination in that area.

When did this happen? Are you talking about San Remo? By 1927, 80% of the traditional 'palestine' lands were in the hands of the palestinians themselves, and the British gave them pretty much everything they asked for. Hell, from what I've read, the British didn't even look at the documentation of arabs who came in for work, and stayed. Then within two decades, the arabs were handed on a silver platter, self-determination by the bushel, in UN 181.

Here is palestine in the middle-part of the 20th century


and here is the part the jews were offered ----- all the rest of pink-palestine was for the arabs.
And what's their complaint, exactly?



OK, so let's roll the clocks back to 1949, with HAMAS in charge of the establishment of New Palestine from this point forward.
See how far that gets ya.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Tell that to the arab leaders who are out there inciting and looking for excuses.
If it's not a tunnel, it will be another cartoon, or some other perceived slight against islam.
It's an old, well-known story, that keeps repeating itself in this part of the world. Usually, the jews get blamed for whatever imaginary evils are invented by the inciters.

And people will come along, tsk-tsk, and just mention -- "well, the jews certainly brought that upon themselves, for provoking the arabs. Would you like another crumpet, Lucy?"

Well, if it's hyperbole you want, the Jews in the area can just continue to play their long-standing game of poking at the Palestinians until they do something violent again, allowing the Israeli military to pound on Palestine for a little more until the rest of the world tells them to settle down, then back to the childish poking all over again until the next mess where they get to kill three Arabs for every Jew killed again.

But you know it isn't that simple. I know you know this, because you've implied as much in other posts.

[webfusion]

Quote:

the Jews in the area can just continue to play their long-standing game of poking at the Palestinians until they do something violent again

Again? When have the arabs ever stopped being violent? During the 1950's, when the concept of "The Occupation" was not even part of the lexicon, the arabs were on a streak of violence that would make the HAMAS today seem positively benign.
What 'poking with a stick' by Israel against the arabs would you care to allude to during this period?


Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.

June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.

June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.

June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.

Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions.

Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.

Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.

Apr 7, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house.
Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev.
There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.

Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.

Late 1950's: Arafat co-founds Fatah, the “Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine.”

– Jan. 1, 1965: Fatah makes its first attempted attack within Israel — the bombing of the National Water Carrier.

– July 5, 1965: A Fatah cell plants explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.

– 1965-1967: Numerous Fatah bomb attacks target Israeli villages, water pipes, railroads. Homes are destroyed and Israelis are killed.

OK, then, here is 1967. Go ahead, start your timeline, GreNME.

[GreNME]

Ahh, and now we get to the "who wronged who more" contest.

This kind of stupid crap is exactly why there is still no peace between Israel-Palestine.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Again? When have the arabs ever stopped being violent? During the 1950's, when the concept of "The Occupation" was not even part of the lexicon, the arabs were on a streak of violence that would make the HAMAS today seem positively benign.
What 'poking with a stick' by Israel against the arabs would you care to allude to during this period?


Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.

June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.

June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.

June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.

Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions.

Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.

Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.

Apr 7, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house.
Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev.
There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.

Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.

Late 1950's: Arafat co-founds Fatah, the “Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine.”

– Jan. 1, 1965: Fatah makes its first attempted attack within Israel — the bombing of the National Water Carrier.

– July 5, 1965: A Fatah cell plants explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.

– 1965-1967: Numerous Fatah bomb attacks target Israeli villages, water pipes, railroads. Homes are destroyed and Israelis are killed.

OK, then, here is 1967. Go ahead, start your timeline, GreNME.

Just a couple of questions on your listweb. Was it originally a list of middle east violence and you removed violent acts by Israelis and/or the IDF? Or was it a list preprepared ...to reinforce a particular claim? To be honest it looks like more work by Jewish virtual library or some other apologist mouthpeace for Likud style Zionism

Second question, are you suggesting that this list is representative of middle east violence 1952 to 1967...all arab, no Israeli?

see, my viewpoint is that people parading selective lists like that are part of the problem and not part of any solution.

[webfusion]

Go ahead, T-F, provide the list of the Israeli violence in that period of time, before "The Occupation" --- this list I offered was in response to GreNME who said that the Israelis have been involved with childish poking at the palestinians, and that the palestinians are just RESPONDING to the Israeli agitation and provocations.

What did the Israelis do to provoke some arab terrorists attacking a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shooting them to death? In June 1953?

Show me the cause & effect, whereby the jews of Kfar Hess had somehow encouraged an arab attack upon their peaceful community.

========================

Quote:

This kind of stupid crap is exactly why there is still no peace between Israel-Palestine.

No, there is a lack of a resolution because of ongoing arab terror.
Stop the terror, and watch how fast "New Palestine" becomes an independent Union, in close cooperation and under the Israeli umbrella.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Go ahead, T-F, provide the list of the Israeli violence in that period of time, before "The Occupation" --- this list I offered was in response to GreNME who said that the Israelis have been involved with childish poking at the palestinians, and that the palestinians are just RESPONDING to the Israeli agitation and provocations.

What did the Israelis do to provoke some arab terrorists attacking a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shooting them to death? In June 1953?

Show me the cause & effect, whereby the jews of Kfar Hess had somehow encouraged an arab attack upon their peaceful community.

========================



No, there is a lack of a resolution because of ongoing arab terror.
Stop the terror, and watch how fast "New Palestine" becomes an independent Union, in close cooperation and under the Israeli umbrella.

You didn't answer Fool's question.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by webfusion

a_u_p makes the attempt to revise history:


When did this happen? Are you talking about San Remo? By 1927, 80% of the traditional 'palestine' lands were in the hands of the palestinians themselves, and the British gave them pretty much everything they asked for. Hell, from what I've read, the British didn't even look at the documentation of arabs who came in for work, and stayed. Then within two decades, the arabs were handed on a silver platter, self-determination by the bushel, in UN 181.

How can you have given something to someone if you take it away again, and not give them independence?

[webfusion]

a_u_p, I most certainly DID answer the questions asked by TheFool. It would be up to T-F to now show when and where the Israelis instigated and brought upon themselves the violence perpetrated by the arabs. GreNME says that the Israelis are "childishly poking" and I say no, that is false, and produced evidence of the opposite being true. T-F now is welcome to give any piece of information he may have which may support the premise of GreNME that the Israelis are the ones "causing" the arabs to be violent.

For your information, people aren't given independence, they have to earn it.

The palestinians have a long, long way to go yet.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by webfusion

a_u_p, I most certainly DID answer the questions asked by TheFool. It would be up to T-F to now show when and where the Israelis instigated and brought upon themselves the violence perpetrated by the arabs. GreNME says that the Israelis are "childishly poking" and I say no, that is false, and produced evidence of the opposite being true. T-F now is welcome to give any piece of information he may have which may support the premise of GreNME that the Israelis are the ones "causing" the arabs to be violent.

For your information, people aren't given independence, they have to earn it.

The palestinians have a long, long way to go yet.

Give me a break, history is full of people using violence to achieve independence.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

a_u_p, I most certainly DID answer the questions asked by TheFool. It would be up to T-F to now show when and where the Israelis instigated and brought upon themselves the violence perpetrated by the arabs. GreNME says that the Israelis are "childishly poking" and I say no, that is false, and produced evidence of the opposite being true. T-F now is welcome to give any piece of information he may have which may support the premise of GreNME that the Israelis are the ones "causing" the arabs to be violent.

For your information, people aren't given independence, they have to earn it.

The palestinians have a long, long way to go yet.

I do believe you have a problem with a strawman.

You see, I didn't accuse the Israelis of any such thing. I pointed out that it isn't really that simple. I called it hyperbole right away, because it is exactly the same kind of hyperbole you spewed in the part of your post I quoted. I showed you exactly what you were doing from the converse perspective, and even stated in that very thread that it obviously isn't that simple and that you should know better.

I am telling you right now that if they go forward with the tunnel project without diplomatically addressing the problems with it on the Arab side, there will be violence. And by "addressing" I mean talking with the Arab leaders in the area, not at them. Taking the "it's legal" line as justification is disingenuous when it's obvious there are real concerns that need to be addressed. If the issue with the concerns is that they are not based in fact, then it should be simple to convince a reasonable number of people to be comfortable with it.

This happens all the freaking time in local politics in the US: officials dream up a plan to do something, a bunch of people have a problem with it, and before the project gets underway resources are used to communicate with the people who have a problem with it, come to a consensus on a compromise or simply assuage the fears presented, then move forward having followed through with politically acceptable due diligence so that the party who originally complained has less ability to claim they weren't consulted. The difference in this case is that Israeli groups often have little desire to reach a consensus in sensitive areas, and the Palestinians do a whole hell of a lot more than just complain a bunch. This is a cycle, and after decades of that cycle you're going to have to do a whole lot better than shooting off a one-sided list to convince me that both parties aren't responsible for continuing the cycle. That same kind of insipid justification is why the political climate in US partisan politics has escalated to the degree it has the last six years.

Originally Posted by webfusion

For your information, people aren't given independence, they have to earn it.

Oh baloney. If you think that is true then America doesn't deserve crap, because we fought our way to independence as well. That's a ridiculous and hypocritical stance to take.

[webfusion]

Quote:

I am telling you right now that if they go forward with the tunnel project without diplomatically addressing the problems with it on the Arab side, there will be violence.

The only concerns are those of the municipal planning and zoning commission. If you have a complaint about the opening of a museum on private lands, go to the hearings and raise your hand.
If there is widespread rioting and violence, I am telling you right now that the IDF and Border Police will handle it. We are not going to be threatened by mob rule.

There is no cycle. It is one-sided. The islamic maniacs are the ones perpetrating mayhem and murder. They have been doing so long, long before "The Occupation" ---- If you can point to a clear and proximate reason why, on Apr 11, 1956 arab terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir, then I would like to see you offer it here.



By the way, the United States was not "given" independence. The citizens built up a civilized and organized way of life, earning their right to independence.
When the citizens of the Palestinian Authority decide to maintain and organize a civilized way of life, then they will have earned their national independence. Right now, they are being run by a loose association of murderers and thugs.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

There is no cycle. It is one-sided.

And, clearly, there is not going to be any useful conversation on this.

Thanks. That's all I needed to know.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

By the way, the United States was not "given" independence. The citizens built up a civilized and organized way of life, earning their right to independence.

After fighting off the occupying force, using guerilla warfare and attrition. Don't try to use sixth-grade US history rhetoric with me.

Originally Posted by webfusion

When the citizens of the Palestinian Authority decide to maintain and organize a civilized way of life, then they will have earned their national independence. Right now, they are being run by a loose association of murderers and thugs.

The sweet smell of dehumanization. If you don't mind, I'm not going to talk to you about anything regarding Israel or Palestine for a while.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by GreNME

And, clearly, there is not going to be any useful conversation on this.
Thanks. That's all I needed to know.

Evasion noted.

If you can point to a clear and proximate reason why, on Apr 11, 1956 arab terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir, then I would like to see you offer it here.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Evasion noted.

Your racism has already been noted, so now I guess we're both content.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by GreNME

Your racism has already been noted, so now I guess we're both content.

I'd call it chauvinism, Israeli chauvinism, which doesn't require racism to be in operation.

You, or web, or anyone else, don't have to consider an Arab to be genetically or racially inferior in order to have a significant political disagreement with him.

Why use racism? It's not just imprecise, it's loaded, and in this case, I don't think it's warranted. Chauvinisam, Israeli style, on the other hand, is one of web's calling cards.

Not all nationalism is racism, though some is, would be another useful way to help decide when to use racism, or use a more accurate descriptive. Overusing racism robs it of meaning when its use is warranted.

DR

[davefoc]

I think that's right DR.

The term "racism" has been expanded to cover prejudice and abuse based on factors beyond race like religion or national origin. The use in those cases is a bit iffy, but the use of the word here seems to not be justified by any posts in this thread.

I think the word jingoism might apply in addition to chauvinism.

Webfusion surprised me with this statement:

Quote:

...

There is no cycle. It is one-sided. The islamic maniacs are the ones perpetrating mayhem and murder. ...

In the world of all things are possible I guess this statement could be considered not absolutely false, but in the real world of assumptions based on a reasonable consideration of the evidence available it was so unlikely to be true that it is hard to see anything else underlying the statement other than extreme chauvinism/jingoism.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I'd call it chauvinism, Israeli chauvinism, which doesn't require racism to be in operation.

You, or web, or anyone else, don't have to consider an Arab to be genetically or racially inferior in order to have a significant political disagreement with him.

Why use racism? It's not just imprecise, it's loaded, and in this case, I don't think it's warranted. Chauvinisam, Israeli style, on the other hand, is one of web's calling cards.

Not all nationalism is racism, though some is, would be another useful way to help decide when to use racism, or use a more accurate descriptive. Overusing racism robs it of meaning when its use is warranted.

I'm well aware of this. Here, let me try to give you a bit of an idea of why I chose the word.

Originally Posted by webfusion

The palestinian side mainly just makes stuff up as they go along. Myths. Lies. BS.
Their adherence to the facts and the truth is minimal.

I didn't focus on this because it seemed unnecessary to have another huge argument over the ham-handed use of hyperbole.

Originally Posted by webfusion

Tell that to the arab leaders who are out there inciting and looking for excuses.
If it's not a tunnel, it will be another cartoon, or some other perceived slight against islam.
It's an old, well-known story, that keeps repeating itself in this part of the world. Usually, the jews get blamed for whatever imaginary evils are invented by the inciters.

More hyperbole, worded in a dehumanizing fashion.

Originally Posted by webfusion

When have the arabs ever stopped being violent?

Originally Posted by webfusion

For your information, people aren't given independence, they have to earn it.

The palestinians have a long, long way to go yet.

Originally Posted by webfusion

There is no cycle. It is one-sided.

Originally Posted by webfusion

The islamic maniacs are the ones perpetrating mayhem and murder.

Originally Posted by webfusion

When the citizens of the Palestinian Authority decide to maintain and organize a civilized way of life, then they will have earned their national independence. Right now, they are being run by a loose association of murderers and thugs.

DR, would you not admit that were any of these statements switched to talking about Jews that the most common immediate reaction would be "OMG anti-semitism" for these claims? Would stating that blacks aren't civilized, prone to mayhem, and liars be considered a racist statement?

I agree that there's plenty of chauvanism in there, too. Maybe web's actual views are more chauvanistic, and he gets to sounding racist when he dips too heavy into the hyperbole. That doesn't excuse what the hyperbole being used actually is, though.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by GreNME

...


DR, would you not admit that were any of these statements switched to talking about Jews that the most common immediate reaction would be "OMG anti-semitism" for these claims? Would stating that blacks aren't civilized, prone to mayhem, and liars be considered a racist statement?

...

FWIW, I disagree with you here BreMNE.

First, I don't know webfusion, personally but after reading his posts for quite awhile, I doubt that he is a racist, and I am disinclined to believe he would make a statement intended to be racist.

Secondly, I think your question implies something which is not true. That is that Jew and Palestinian describe equivalent things, clearly they don't. If you had asked your question with the word Israeli substituted for Jew you would have been closer to the mark.

And I think, if you did substitute the word Israeli for Palestinian in webfusion's comments you wouldn't judge the statements to be necessarily racist but, IMHO, they certainly would indicate an unjustified bias on the part of the person making the statements, just as I see unjustified bias on the part of webfusion when he made the statements in their original form.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by GreNME

I agree that there's plenty of chauvanism in there, too. Maybe web's actual views are more chauvanistic, and he gets to sounding racist when he dips too heavy into the hyperbole. That doesn't excuse what the hyperbole being used actually is, though.

Emphasis mine.

I am perfectly willing to accept that webfusion might not be racist, and is instead grossly chauvanistic. The things said, however, are still racist. They imply an inferiority and use a broad brush to dehumanize.

[webfusion]

Indeed I'm not a racist; I would describe myself as a bombast.

[GreNME]

I can dig that.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by GreNME

I agree that there's plenty of chauvanism in there, too. Maybe web's actual views are more chauvanistic, and he gets to sounding racist when he dips too heavy into the hyperbole. That doesn't excuse what the hyperbole being used actually is, though.

I see what you are saying, Gren, but I don't think the antipathy is based on race so much as nationalism, and a particular political group identity. There is no question the "we don't like them, they suck" mode is in operation. I don't care for Islamists of any stripe, be they Pashtun, Arab, Lebanese, Persian, or Indonesian. That doesn't make me a racist, as race isn't the problem. Its' more politics, and my lifelong aversion to Communists/communism also isn't racist.

The problem with Islamists isn't their religion, it how they want to fuse it with politics, and the means they use to achieve those ends. I've a similar aversion to Fundies.

DR

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I see what you are saying, Gren, but I don't think the antipathy is based on race so much as nationalism, and a particular political group identity. There is no question the "we don't like them, they suck" mode is in operation. I don't care for Islamists of any stripe, be they Pashtun, Arab, Lebanese, Persian, or Indonesian. That doesn't make me a racist, as race isn't the problem. Its' more politics, and my lifelong aversion to Communists/communism also isn't racist.

The problem with Islamists isn't their religion, it how they want to fuse it with politics, and the means they use to achieve those ends. I've a similar aversion to Fundies.

You know, I also don't think most 9/11-truthers and anti-Fed CT-ists are really anti-semites (at least they don't start out that way), yet many of them still manage to keep shooting off those anti-semitic talking points as if they're evidence, often completely unaware of how close their arguments are to the very same ones listed in Mein Kampf (seriously... some nearly word for word, with a few name changes). However, just because their goal is not ostensibly an anti-semitic one doesn't make such arguments any less unacceptable and don't make the comments any less racist. That's the most insidious part of racist propaganda: you don't necessarily have to be a racist to disseminate it. Whether it's a 'celebrity' like Ann Coulter in an interview saying that Jews should become 'perfected' as Christians (yes, she said that) or someone in normal conversation saying that Arabs are violent and not civilized, such speech is completely and totally unacceptable.

[Thunder]

This reminds me of how some blacks used to argue that they could be prejudiced...but were incapable of being racist. They argued that to be racist, you have to have economic and political power over your target. This was bs.

Arabs and Palestinians also sometimes argue that they cannot be anti-Semites, because they are also Semites. Once again, its just word game bs.

And I read in "The Myth of the Jewish Race", that Jews are incapable of of being racist. Its reached a point that to accuse a Jew, Israeli, or the Israeli governmant of racism, is often seen as itself, an act of anti-Semitism. Once again, absolute bs.

Lets get it straight then, once and for all.

Blacks can be racist against white people.
Arabs and Palestinians can be anti-Semites.
Jews and Israelis can be racist against Arabs and non-Jews.

Case closed.

[webfusion]

Quote:

...someone in normal conversation saying that Arabs are violent and not civilized...

I never said that "arabs are violent and not civilized", GreNME. Don't mischaracterize my opinion.

These were my exact words:
"When the citizens of the Palestinian Authority decide to maintain and organize a civilized way of life, then they will have earned their national independence."

Right now, they do not have a civilized way of life, because their leaders are frikkin' terrorists and average law-abiding and deserving-of-independence citizens are not standing up and putting them out of business.

The militant Islamic organization Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in June, would take over the West Bank if Israel pulled out of the territory, a senior Hamas leader said on Friday.

and

Israel Defense Forces troops shot and killed two Palestinians who were crawling near the security fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel on Friday night, apparently planting an explosive device, the military said.


Israel is not about to permit the situation in Gaza (nor the West Bank) deteriorate into the kind of insanity that other islamic-jihadists have created in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq. Israel is perfectly aware of where this could lead... and we're not going to let it.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by webfusion

When the citizens of the Palestinian Authority decide to maintain and organize a civilized way of life, then they will have earned their national independence. Right now, they are being run by a loose association of murderers and thugs.

It's always easy to claim you're misunderstood when you have little regard for how your words are going to be taken in the first place.

[webfusion]

The citizens of the Palestinian Authority have a problem. They hate Israel so much, that they're willing to sacrifice the chance for a good life for themselves. The citizens elected a self-declared terror organization to run things, on the promise that this terror organization would "destroy Israel" ---- how is that "civilized" ?
In fact, it represents the polar opposite of the norms of civilized societies.

And here we have HAMAS leaders who aren't even trying to hide their intentions (unlike Fatah, which is doing everything they can to hide under diplomatic cover, and yet still going ahead and implementing the 1974 Phased Plan).

What you're failing to recognize, GreNME, is that Israel is not buying into the fantasy and the myth of "Palestinian Nationalism" which is really "palestinian and arab war against Israel" ----- that's the way it has been for generations, and I see nothing to indicate any change. Nothing.

Until I see a real change, and until I see people step up on the palestinian side and overthrow the maniacs and jihadists, and until I see declarations of honest intentions to live in peace with Israel (and that includes declarations which specify that the jews have every right to pray at the Western Wall, and re-build their synagogues) then I am of the opinion that the palestinians are doomed to another 60-years or longer of misery --- misery caused by their leaders' inability to get real.

[GreNME]

You know, I apologize for responding to you and giving you the impression I wanted to continue the conversation with you.