| 
Posted Oct 23, 2002 by Doc
Some time ago I learned from an Arab friend of mine that Pales-
tine is a Western coruption of an Arabic word Philistine.
That explains a lot- this conflict is going on for more than 2000
years! How on earth can we hope that it stops any time soon when reports of its course first appeared in the Bible?!
Personally, I think it's hopeless.Those guys will remain at each
other's throats untill Sun explodes, just like Catholics& Protest-
ants, Serbs& Croats, Russians&Chechens, ...God, it's so dep-
resing to realise that I keep seeing Yasser Arafat on TV my who-
le life.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Oct 23, 2002 by Researcher 168814
The bit about the whole issue I don´t like is that it seems impossible to say the Israelis are doing just as much dirty stuff as the terrorist on the other side. We had this German politician (Möllemann, actually I don´t like at all...) He said something critical about Israel and prompto got clobbered for antisemitic propaganda... (which doesn´t mean I´m not happy the finally found something to get rid of him  )
I don´t think in this "they are jews/they are muslim" way... I rather want to keep out the religious stuff. Leading a country has nothing to do with god or the devil. It´s down to economics, culture and all those other issues a state has... So I guess we are all entitled to think they are all going crazy...
I think our biggest problem is arrogance. We seem to know how the whole stuff could be solved... but look at it... There´s enough people in wepon industry who are interested in these kind of things going on.
Can anyone come up with a reason why any of those people in Israel or Palastina should stop? They seem to live for it. I sometimes think they just need it... and if we would keep quiet enough, the problem would be solved of its own accord... we then can go and sell our products to those who survive...
 I get real cynical when I think about these issues...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Doc
It's difficult not to get cynical about those issues.If history teaches
us anything, it's that yesterday's victim is tommorow's perpetra-
tor.The only possible way out of that vicious circle is a disaster
of planetary proportions. The threat of a, say, meteorite impact is
something that might put things in perspective for humankind.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Gone walkabout
Although there is a lot of history leading up to the situation we see today, I cannot help myself from thinking that there is a huge denial of justice to the Palestinian people on behalf of the rest of the world.
In 1948, UK and USA gave the land which is now Israel to a religious community: the Jews. What an odd thing to do.  Particularly as I can't see how the land was theirs to give.  The people who used to live there are those we now refer to as the Palestinians.
In 1967, Israel invaded Palestinian lands, and they've been there ever since. We were quick enough to help liberate the Kuwaitis after Saddam invaded, but all attempts to do something about the Israeli invasion are vetoed at the UN by the USA.  [The USA also give Israel several *billion* dollars a year of 'aid'.]
The Israelis continually whine about terrorism, but they continue their armed occupation of Palestinian lands. When the Palestinians (temporarily) cease their efforts to rid themselves of the invaders, the Israelis breathe sighs of relief, but do they withdraw from Palestine or stop killing Palestinians in return? No. 
The Palestinians are trying to defeat a military invasion of their lands using little more than hand-held weapons (mostly thrown rocks!!!) against an invader with tanks, missiles and jet aircraft. If they are brave enough to make suicide attacks against the invaders, who can honestly say they're wrong? The French Resistance would have done no less. Were they wrong too?
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Bumblebee
Well said, Pattern-chaser. I think it's time the Western powers face up to their responsabilities in the Middle East. What is going on there now is pure ethnic cleansing.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Doc
Indeed.Nobody sane would deny Jews the right to live in Pales-
tine, but what gives them the right to rule it?Sure, they left 4000
years ago,but my folk left Caucasus at approximately the same
time-should we claim it back, then?
They say that Palestinians are citizens of Israel(sic!) with equal
rights . Good, let's see if Palestinian ever becomes a president
of Israel.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Gone walkabout
<Nobody sane would deny Jews the right to live in Palestine>
Then I'm not sane! Why should *any* religious group be given land because of their beliefs? Christians and Moslems hold parts of Palestine sacred; should they be given rights to go and live there?
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Doc
Judeism is a religion, Jews are nation with a language(Hebrew),
typical racial features(majority),and a very typical culture(music,li-
terature...),but that's beside the point.I'm questioning their rule,
not their location.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Doc
P.S. There are many atheistic Jews.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Gone walkabout
<Judeism is a religion, Jews are nation with a language (Hebrew)...>
I don't think so. There are many Jews throughout the world who certainly don't speak Hebrew (except inasmuch as Catholics spoke Latin when I was young ). Israelis are members of a nation (whose established religion is Judaism); Jews are members of a religion.
I *know* the Israelis have fostered the confusion between the two, for their own political purposes, but that doesn't make it correct!
And you're right - it has little to do with the main point. 
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Buzz Lightyear: Getting Ever Warmer
Upon reading the Bible, you should note that it was Moses [following God] who led the Jewish people out of slavery in Egypt to the "Promised Land" of Israel. It took them 40 years with many trials. In about 70 A.D., the Roman diaspora forcibly ejected the Jews from Israel obliging them to roam the world stateless until 1948 when the United Nations decreed to give Israel back to the Jewish people. Afterall, being stateless had seen much anti-semitism erupt throughout Europe & the rest of the world within the countries they had settled spurred on by the fact that many Jews were very well-off. This of course culminated in the horrors of the Holocaust.
Unsurprisingly, when they returned, it displaced the Palestinian settlers who had replaced them. As a result, the Israeli intent to hold on to their homeland (and after what had happened, who can blame them?)aggressively manning their borders aiming to restore the old Biblical frontier is backed unswervingly by the United States. However, this unequivocal support for Israeli aggression seems to have alienated a large proportion of Arab public opinion, prompting the fury of Al-Queda (among other things!). The U.S.-Israeli inability to see the Palestinian point of view at times (in particular, under Ariel Sharon, as this disregards the peace efforts endeavoured throughout the late-70s & 1990s) has alienated Palestinians from the peace process & drives them to the despair of invoking suicide attacks. Unfortunately, forging a state for the previously stateless Jewish people has only created a new stateless populace: the Palestinians! But, if anyone is going to be sensitive to the sensibilities of the stateless Palestinians, it will be the Jews who know what it feels like, right?!
Perhaps it will be trying to understand one another with reasoning and a bit of compromise that a solution can finally be brokered in the Middle-East. Since as it stands, the Israeli aggression followed by the Palestinian suicide attacks is merely proving a downward spiral of violence.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Doc
I still think I'm right, but, hey,who cares. Wins? Anyway, internatio-
nal comunity should strongly support the most progressive for-
ces on both sides, solution for Middle East must come from wit-
hin , outside world should offer only constructive support.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Researcher 168814
I think, if we (the world comunity represented by the United Nations) gave back the country the Jews that they lived in 2000 years before, we should give back America to the Red Indians (please excuse me if this is an politically incorrect term  )... Australia to the Aboriganies and parts of England to the French
I would like it, if the world was put together of small running comunities of no more than what we call in Germany the Landkreis... it´s some 360 000 inhabitants in ours... don´t ask me about the avrage sizes here... and then we just put some together for some stuff that has to be organized on a larger scale... we just have one curancy... oh... and then we get new problems, I know... I guess nationalistic stupos will quickly find support... this utopia is far to optimistic...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by Researcher 203508
too right, now the UK was in the hands of the Romans 2000 years ago, so who owns that? In fact if we are all descended from western africa originally then do we all belong to, say, the Ivory Coast?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by Gone walkabout
<...if we ... gave the Jews back the country that they lived in 2000 years before, we should give back America to the [native Americans] ... Australia to the Aboriginies and parts of England to the French...>
Thanks for saying that, €ngländer - it saved me the trouble!
To give a people a country - already occupied by others - because a supernatural being is said to have 'promised' it to them is pretty flimsy, Buzz.
What if it was me instead of the Jews: My God has made certain promises to me; will America back me in forcing others to deliver on those promises, do you think? No, I agree. The idea is nonsense, isn't it?
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by Doc
Hi Englander (sorry, I'm a cybermoron, couldn't figure out the co-
rrect form of your nickname)
Strange that you mentioned micro-state model, I've seen a very
interesting alternative map of Europe the other day. A friend of
mine is associated to Heineken Foundation,which ,supported
by beer profits, funds political and sociological research.Rec-
ently, a group of philosophers, sociologists and historians came
up with a theory of Europe of regions.It's based on ethno-cultural
reality of our continent , meaning that there's another , real map
of Europe that lies under the one we know. According to resear-
chers, there are more than hundred perfectly formed cultural un-
its in Europe origining from Middle Age. The proposal is that this
reality should be politically accepted for it makes all the border-
based wars that shook Europe in the past , obsolete.I fell in love
with this idea, it's so obvious and natural! I wonder if it could be
the solution on a global scale.Maybe the Middle East case is too
complicated to be solved this way.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by tacsatduck- beware the <sheep> lie
Let me see if I got this straight...please fill in any gaps
Moses takes some people into the promiced land(took him forty years but come on guys it's not like he could stop and ask directions)
Romans took land away
UN gave historical lands back 2000 years later (they looked at many diffrent places to put the people and decided that it would be a good idea just to follow history) plus this way they could break up a contry and punish it for it's involvemnt (some how) with WWII
Nations around the new Israel decide it's not cool having these people in here so they invade Israel...and fail...Israel drives them back takeing new land in the process
Israel is told to give new land back...does give back some to Egypt after some sort of treaty
then we have quite a few years of bickering back and forth with terrorist attacks and military ocupation and attacks
I don't see anything being resolved in the near future and I am not sure exactly what the most fair thing we would be but I would like to see Jerusalem taken out of the equation...make it a seprete city state or something...with so many people wanting it I don't think there is going to be anyother way to only slightly offend everybody and not piss off anybody
(  )
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by Fruitbat (Eric the)
We can no more return lands to people which was 'stolen' from them in antiquity than we can 'give' them land now to call home. There are simply too many people already living in places that others want to, or claim a historical right to, who will be displaced.
This quarrel has been raging in Canada for the past hundred years: the Aboriginal Peoples, or First Nations, across the country have been dispossessed (except in some extreme instances) by the dominant White culture. There's no way to return the vast stretches of their former lands to them without dislocating thousands of people and all kinds of business/government structures. That simply won't happen.
Sadly, I don't have a solution for this; I'm not normally political. I do find a certain irony, though, in their attitudes: these deeply religious people feel quite okay about killing each other over land.
Fruitbat
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by Zagreb - go and see "Moon", you won't regret it!
"In 1948, UK and USA gave the land which is now Israel to a religious community: the Jews. What an odd thing to do. Particularly as I can't see how the land was theirs to give. The people who used to live there are those we now refer to as the Palestinians."
Actually, it was UK-held territory and I think it was a UN mandate that gave it to the jews. "An odd thing to do"? Not really, the Jewish people had always been a minority in whatever country they had lived in a needed a homeland. It's just a shame they wanted to live where their ancestors did, even though the locals weren't too keen on being uprooted, but that's religion for you.
"In 1967, Israel invaded Palestinian lands, and they've been there ever since. We were quick enough to help liberate the Kuwaitis after Saddam invaded, but all attempts to do something about the Israeli invasion are vetoed at the UN by the USA. [The USA also give Israel several *billion* dollars a year of 'aid'.]"
First off, a little perspective. The Israeli's were not merely empire-building in minature. The Arab states had vowed to push the israeli's back into the sea. They were defending themselves and took territory *after* being attacked. They didn't strike first. I don't agree with Zionism or the Israeli's often-brutal treatment of their Palestinian subjects (especially under their current government) but that doesn't change the fact that the Israeli's were not the people over there making trouble. Sadly, all the wars with the arabs have probably altered their attitude.
Despite popular beliefs, the US is often very critical of Israel. The thing is, Israel is a strong, wealthy nation with strong economic links with the US and there's little the US can do to force them to do anything. They want them to play ball but don't want to upset them.
"The Israelis continually whine about terrorism, but they continue their armed occupation of Palestinian lands. When the Palestinians (temporarily) cease their efforts to rid themselves of the invaders, the Israelis breathe sighs of relief, but do they withdraw from Palestine or stop killing Palestinians in return? No."
You'd probably "whine" if someone thought acceptable political resistance was to blow up buses of civilians. Don't forget that up until Sharon, the Palestinians always resorted to the more immoral tactics of warfare. I feel sorry for the Palestinians a lot of the time, but let's not kid ourselves that this is a black/white moral issue.
"The Palestinians are trying to defeat a military invasion of their lands using little more than hand-held weapons (mostly thrown rocks!!!) against an invader with tanks, missiles and jet aircraft. If they are brave enough to make suicide attacks against the invaders, who can honestly say they're wrong? The French Resistance would have done no less. Were they wrong too?"
As far as I know, the French resistance stuck to attacking the Nazi political and military system. The Palestinian terrorists deliberately attack civilians. If it's wrong for Sharon's forces to fire missiles into tower blocks, then it's wrong for Intifada fighters to kill Israeli civilians. As I said before, no black and white.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 26, 2002 by Researcher 168814
Well, this only supports my idea, that both of these folks have gone bananas... along with all those other stupos in Northern Irland, the Basks and Spanish, the thing going on in Ruanda, Sudan, the whole bloody s**t in Kashmire, and Sri Lanka too... or think of Peru and those other places in Southamerica where they have to fight the drug-cartells...
We are a barmy world, and I feel happy and sad that I´ve had the privilege of being brought up in a post WWII Germany, where we´ve only got a few Neonazis still believing in the second comeing of Mr. Moustache... Hey! Look at it: Even the French should think they´ve got a bigger problem with M. Lepen around... 
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
