chicot Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Gee, then you think the so called Palestinians would have been little more accommodating to the relocated Jews. When people were displaced after Hurricane Katrina, folks all over the country opened up the homes to them. Its called “compassion”, you know that thing you show people who have been through a terrible time. So lets see, the Jewish folks had six million of their people killed, almost wiping them off of the earth. The UN decides that maybe these folks need a place to call their own. A place were they used to live before anyone ever heard the word Islam. But they got kicked out and slaughtered by the Romans. So now these suffering people are given a small place to start over, that historically was theirs before. After all, the Dome of the Rock is built ON TOP of a Jewish temple. So instead of working side by side with the Jewish people, the Arab Muslims say “we hate you” and move away. Then the Jewish people learn how to grow stuff on the dry land, and then the Arab Muslims come rushing back and now want the land again. After all, they are doing such a bang up job now that they got GAZA back. Hurray for them! 665286[/snapback] I wonder if the people displaced by hurricane Katrina would have got such a warm welcome if they had come proclaiming that they were God's chosen people, that God had promised them that their host's homes in fact belonged to them and that their hosts were inferior and actually had no right to live in their own homes. Somehow I think not.
Fan in Chicago Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 you talk as if that was a mistake.....it wasnt a mistake 665025[/snapback] The winner writes history. There are several countries who could justify use of nukes. We simply made it the 'right' decision because of the war's outcome and resulting economic prosperity in our country.
yall Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 There's so much nonsense there that I don't know where to start. If you really think that the intention of zionism (which predates the holocaust) was to live side-by-side with the Arabs muslims I suggest you take a look at some of the zionist literature that was written in the early 1900's. 665300[/snapback] Gasp.... you mean the Jews wanted their land back??? If you think Islam is friendly towards Jews, I suggest you take a look at the Koran.
chicot Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Gasp.... you mean the Jews wanted their land back??? If you think Islam is friendly towards Jews, I suggest you take a look at the Koran. 665317[/snapback] Why was it "their" land? Because God said so?
yall Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Why was it "their" land? Because God said so? 665338[/snapback] It's their land as much as where you are sitting right now is probably Native American land. Where do you draw the line, i.e. how far back can you go? The answer is you can't otherwise these types of conflicts will never go away. The palestinians need to step up and recognize Israel, stop openly supporting terroroism, and Iran needs to stop it's dangerous rhetoric. And you are fooling yourself if you think there would be any conflict if Jews worshipped allah. It's all about the deities.
KRC Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 It's their land as much as where you are sitting right now is probably Native American land. Where do you draw the line, i.e. how far back can you go? The answer is you can't otherwise these types of conflicts will never go away. The palestinians need to step up and recognize Israel, stop openly supporting terroroism, and Iran needs to stop it's dangerous rhetoric. And you are fooling yourself if you think there would be any conflict if Jews worshipped allah. It's all about the deities. 665349[/snapback] Actually, he is in England, so the Native American part does not apply. The point is taken, however. It is simple to solve the dispute. Who was on that land first: Jews, Arabs or someone else? Later conquerers do not count. Until this question is accurately answered, the two of you will just be spinning your wheels.
chicot Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Actually, he is in England, so the Native American part does not apply. The point is taken, however. It is simple to solve the dispute. Who was on that land first: Jews, Arabs or someone else? Later conquerers do not count. Until this question is accurately answered, the two of you will just be spinning your wheels. 665356[/snapback] No, because I don't accept the argument that whoever came first therefore owns that land forever from that day forth. The Palestinians had lived in that land for centuries. To me, that gives them a right to remain there and not be displaced by Jews coming from Europe, whose only connection to the land is that there was a Jewish kingdom there some two millenia ago and some biblical prophecy.
GG Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 No, because I don't accept the argument that whoever came first therefore owns that land forever from that day forth. The Palestinians had lived in that land for centuries. To me, that gives them a right to remain there and not be displaced by Jews coming from Europe, whose only connection to the land is that there was a Jewish kingdom there some two millenia ago and some biblical prophecy. 665392[/snapback] Then you should have absolutely no problem in handing 1/2 of Jordan to the Palestinians, as well. Right? What do the Bedouins get? Who owns Kashmir?
KRC Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Then you should have absolutely no problem in handing 1/2 of Jordan to the Palestinians, as well. Right? What do the Bedouins get? Who owns Kashmir? 665401[/snapback] Whoever was there most recently?
KRC Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 No, because I don't accept the argument that whoever came first therefore owns that land forever from that day forth. The Palestinians had lived in that land for centuries. To me, that gives them a right to remain there and not be displaced by Jews coming from Europe, whose only connection to the land is that there was a Jewish kingdom there some two millenia ago and some biblical prophecy. 665392[/snapback] How long must people be on land before it becomes theirs? The state was created about 58 years ago. Is that long enough for it to be theirs? Do they need it to be there for a couple of centuries? If that is the case, after a couple of centuries, then the Jews rightfully own the land, correct?
GG Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 How long must people be on land before it becomes theirs? The state was created about 58 years ago. Is that long enough for it to be theirs? Do they need it to be there for a couple of centuries? If that is the case, after a couple of centuries, then the Jews rightfully own the land, correct? 665408[/snapback] If we are going to accept partitions of the land post-20th century based on loose British colonial guidelines, we should be consistent in the application. If Israel is deemed to be illegitimate, then let's start fresh with every single country in the Mid East and divvy it up along tribal lines. That's much more logical.
chicot Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 How long must people be on land before it becomes theirs? The state was created about 58 years ago. Is that long enough for it to be theirs? Do they need it to be there for a couple of centuries? If that is the case, after a couple of centuries, then the Jews rightfully own the land, correct? 665408[/snapback] As I have said before, the only fair and equitable way out of this mess is to for the whole of Israel/Palestine to be a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for all of it's inhabitants regardless of their race/religion. I have never advocated ethnic cleansing of anyone, so the question of who "owns" the land is not relevant. My point was that, having lived on the land for centuries (more than a couple, incidentally), the Palestinians had the right to remain there and not treated as if they were squatters with a temporary lease on the land until the rightful (Jewish) owners decide to return.
Scraps Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Actually, he is in England, so the Native American part does not apply. The point is taken, however. It is simple to solve the dispute. Who was on that land first: Jews, Arabs or someone else? Later conquerers do not count. Until this question is accurately answered, the two of you will just be spinning your wheels. 665356[/snapback] The point with respect to Native Americans is poorly applied. Native Americans have full rights of citizenship and more. Palestinians do not have such rights in Israel.
KRC Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 As I have said before, the only fair and equitable way out of this mess is to for the whole of Israel/Palestine to be a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for all of it's inhabitants regardless of their race/religion. I have never advocated ethnic cleansing of anyone, so the question of who "owns" the land is not relevant. My point was that, having lived on the land for centuries (more than a couple, incidentally), the Palestinians had the right to remain there and not treated as if they were squatters with a temporary lease on the land until the rightful (Jewish) owners decide to return. 665424[/snapback] But, if the Jews were to just hold out for a few more centuries, then they have a right to remain on that land and not have to worry about the Palestinians, correct? Just trying to follow the logic here.
chicot Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 But, if the Jews were to just hold out for a few more centuries, then they have a right to remain on that land and not have to worry about the Palestinians, correct? Just trying to follow the logic here. 665430[/snapback] You would have a point if it was the Palestinians that forced the Jews out in the first place. As I understand it, it was the Romans that expelled them.
KRC Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 You would have a point if it was the Palestinians that forced the Jews out in the first place. As I understand it, it was the Romans that expelled them. 665453[/snapback] Actually, wasn't it UN Resolution 181 that forced the Palestinians out? Why take it out on the Jews? As I mentioned earlier, following your logic (if I understand it correctly), all the Jews have to do is hang in there for a few more centuries and they are in good shape. Water under the bridge.
Scraps Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Actually, wasn't it UN Resolution 181 that forced the Palestinians out? 665499[/snapback] What part or resolution 181 did that? As I mentioned earlier, following your logic (if I understand it correctly), all the Jews have to do is hang in there for a few more centuries and they are in good shape. Sounds like a Mickey argument to me.
KRC Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 What part or resolution 181 did that? Hence the question mark. Too difficult for you to understand basic punctuation? Sounds like a Mickey argument to me. 665532[/snapback] No, Mickey would just tell you what you opinion is while not even reading what you posted, just because he wants to B word about something. I specifically stated, "if I understand it correctly." Having trouble following along today? I know the anti-Jew discussion would bring you out of the woodwork, but I was not expecting that you would be so excited that you could not even read the posts correctly. Try a little harder next time, OK?
Scraps Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Hence the question mark. Too difficult for you to understand basic punctuation?665537[/snapback] Not really. I figured if you wanted to know the answer to that question you would have read the resolution to answer your question. So either I missed something when I read it you your to lazy to read it yourself. No, Mickey would just tell you what you opinion is while not even reading what you posted, just because he wants to B word about something. I specifically stated, "if I understand it correctly." Having trouble following along today? Actually I think he made himself clear enough. Either your to dense to figure it out or you're pulling a Mickey.
KRC Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Not really. I figured if you wanted to know the answer to that question you would have read the resolution to answer your question. So either I missed something when I read it you your to lazy to read it yourself. Got it. You didn't understand what a question mark is for. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I will remember to give explainations of basic punctuation in the future, so that you can keep up. (That last dot-looking thingy was a period. It marks the end of a sentence. It can also be used after abbreviations, but that is not the case here.) Actually I think he made himself clear enough. Either your to dense to figure it out or you're pulling a Mickey. 665544[/snapback] Jews bad, right? (The squiggly thingy at the end of this sentence is a question mark. We already discussed why this is used. If you forgot, please refer to your notes.) No wonder you understood it so well and the rest of us wanted clarifications. (Again, that dot-thingy is a period. In this case, it is used to mark the end of the sentence.) Listen, I understand that you are embarrassed that you did not know what a question mark is for, but trying to deflect things to make it about me is pathetic. Just accept the fact that you did not understand what a question mark is for and we all can move on.
Recommended Posts