Israel Historical Precedent
tiglath
Saying that the Zionists displaced the indigenous people of Palestine should
not require explanation. Yet, some posters think that by choosing a
convenient historical juncture they can make the Russian, Polish, French,
Dutch and other Jews that migrated to Israel be the indigenous people of
that land, as relevant to a Jewish claim to that land in modern times.
Despite the fact that neither they nor their ancestors of centuries had ever
set foot on Palestine, and instead of the folks who lived there in 1882 when
the Zionist movement began moving Jews into the Palestine.
The facts are plain. The Zionist didn't live in Palestine, they traveled
there and stayed. They kept traveling and staying for more than a hundred
years until the indigenous population and their immediate generations were
reduced to the state of today's Palestinians.
The proclamation of the State of Israel clearly draws on the unbroken ties
of Jews to the land of Palestine as the moral justification for their having
taken over most of that land. A quick historical survey shows however,
that the attachment is more emotional than real.
A fact born from the strange dichotomy that no race has shown more
persistence, courage, and skill in pulling up and replanting its roots, but
at the same time for more than three quarters of its existence a majority of
Jews has lived outside the Promised Land. They do so today.
There are many staunch Israel supporters that believe Israel' right derives
from historical precedent. There are two main reasons for that: ignorance
and the bible.
The historical framework of the bible accounts cannot be confused with
accurate history, much as some archeologists continue to dig bible in hand
in the name of science and history but serving in fact their confessional
interests. In the bible, geographic and ethnic detail of post-Exilic
times, for example, is used to flesh out events placed centuries earlier,
and discrepancies and anachronisms between scripture and the historical
record are numerous and great.
One thing is clear, the Jews have had an unbroken connection to the land of
Palestine since the time when they first settled it. It takes only one Jew
at least living in Palestine at all times to achieve that. It is
meaningless.
Jews, however, did a really good job writing their history down, and it has
served to provide a strong, deep sense of identity to all Jews.
I grew up in a country where there were no blacks or Jews. A black person
in the street was a curiosity children gathered to see. Jews were the
people in he bible and their expulsion in the fifteenth century was just one
line in the history books among piles of facts and dates, wars, and the
misdeeds of the human chronicle. I didn't learn what a Bar-Mitzvah was
until I started traveling. Too late to ingrain a dislike for blacks or to
inbreed a phobia of Jews, I felt at an advantage in judging things racial.
Except for Moroccan people, maybe, who are despised by the society I grew up
in. A few month's stay in Morocco set that straight, because there are all
kinds of Moroccans in Morocco, from the grubby ruffians in the bad parts of
Tangiers and Marrakech to the suave playboys on the beaches of Casablanca.
In England, I discovered, they have a thing for "Pakis" and Indians, but
don't bother Jamaicans much; in Holland they pretty much dislike -- nobody
hates in Holland, they are too cultured for that -- anyone from the
Mediterranean.
The United States was no surprise since its racial tones are no secret, but
it was kind of funny to meet people of the Lord in Mississippi who are
honest racists. They mean no harm, but that's how it is, having known no
different since birth. This nice lady and her husband said they "don't want
no nigger to suffer, just that they do a good job, and some of them do a
real good job." I read Exodus as a teenager. I didn't know at the time
how much Leon Uris lied and distorted. America annual aid to Israel pales
next to having lent Paul Newman to play Uris' dashing protagonist.
I felt and I still feel genuine admiration for the Jews in general,
especially the Jews of old. Some ethnic groups have conditioned us to
regard them through the contribution of the criminal element in their midst,
unfortunately. On the contrary, the Jews are known for their high
proportion of professionals and businessmen. It is unfortunate that the
crimes of Israel reflect bad on the whole Jewish race.
The Jews created the most influential of all books and had two unique
characteristics as ancient writers: They were the first to create
substantial and interpretative history, and had the ability to present the
human personality in all its range and complexity. It has been argued that
they learned the art of history from the Hittites, another historically
minded people, but it is obvious that they were fascinated by their own
early times. No other people has ever shown, particularly at that remote
time, so strong a compulsion to explore their origins. Hence the Jews were
above all historians. The Jews developed the power to write terse,
dramatic historical narrative half a millennium before the Greeks. In the
portrayal of character, the biblical historians achieved a degree of
perception and portraiture which even the best Greek and Roman historians
could never manage. There is nothing in Thucydides to equal the masterly
presentation of King David, and the bible abounds in sharply etched
characters, brought into vivid focus by a single phrase. The bible has
passages of astonishing beauty and of amazing range: from the Book of
Psalms, which finds echoes in hearts of all ages and places and deeply
penetrates the human psyche, to the mysterious and harrowing Book of Job, no
doubt the most influential theodicy on the problem of evil. (In it, there
are over 100 words found nowhere else which raise insuperable difficulty.
Some think come from the Edomite tongue about which little is known.)
Thus, who can in his right mind despise the Jews for just being Jews?
Here is a summary of the Jewish ties to Palestine.
During the second millennium B.C., Palestine was inhabited by a collection
of peoples -- Canaanites, Jebusites, and others -- who jostled for control
of this or that area. Towards the end of the millennium the Hebrews invaded
and settled the land, and for most of the millennium constituted the
majority of the population and governed the bulk of the country. Through
most of the period there was a minority population of Philistines and later
Hellenistic and Romanized pagans concentrated in the coastal plain.
1200 B.C. - 734 B.C.
A victory stele of Merneptah, Ramses II's successor, dated 1220 B.C.,
relates that he won a battle beyond Sinai, in Canaan, and refers to the
defeated as 'Israel'. This is the first non-biblical reference to Israel.
This long period marks the rise and consolidation of Israel and its time of
hegemony: the Jewish Golden Age with King David, the most successful and
popular king Israel ever had, The Philistines, a predatory race part of the
Late Bronze Age's Peoples of the Sea, were a far more formidable opponent
that the indigenous Canaanites whom the Israelites were in the process of
dispossessing and turning into helots. Salomon their other great king,
secular man of the world, introduced forced labor in a grand scale for his
building programs.
734 B.C. - 400 B.C.
Although the Babylonian exile is the best known, before it there were at
least six deportations and dispersions of the Jews by the Assyrians. In
745 B.C. the cruel Tiglath-pileser III ascended to the Assyrian throne and
turned his warlike race into a nation of imperialists. It was the end of
Jewish hegemony. He inaugurated a policy of mass deportations in conquered
territories, and deported Jews en masse leaving only Samaria untouched.
More deportations continued under the Assyrian kings Shalmaneser V and
Sargon II, following the pattern of removing the entire elite and sending in
colonists. Senacherib's onslaught was halted by an outbreak of the plague.
Nabuchadezzar conquered Israel in 597 B.C. The Babylonians were much less
ruthless than the Assyrians and did not colonize. The illiterate poor, the
am-ha-arez, and the Benjamites, who had submitted, were not exiled. The
exile lasted half a century but had a profound and lasting effect on the
Jewish mind. Under the new Persian rule, the Jews were not only allowed but
commanded by Cyrus the Great to return to Israel. Despite this royal
instigation the First Return was a failure and from that point forward there
exists an Exile and Diaspora mentality among the Jews. Eventually,
successive waves of returning Jews managed to build a Jewish independent
political unit within the Persian empire (c. 445 B.C.)
400 B.C. - 73 A.D.
The years 400-200 B.C. are the lost centuries of Jewish history. There are
no great events or calamities recorded, and it seems that the Persians are
the rulers the Jews liked best. They never revolted against them and
enjoyed religious freedom. These were happy and productive years in which
the Old Testament emerged more or less as we know it. After Alexander of
Macedon cracked the Persian empire the Jews were ruled by the Ptolemies and
the Seleucids. In 63 B.C. Judea became a Roman client-state, a time
inaugurated by Antipater and characterized by his son, Herod the Great an
anti-Jew Jew, upholder and benefactor of Greco-Roman civilization, brilliant
politician, and insane ruler. Enter the Christian era.
Roman-Jewish relations were a rollercoaster, and finally in 66 A.D. a great
Jewish revolt began in Caesarea. This horrifying event is badly recorded
but sufficiently to know that the defeat of the legate in Syria Cestius
Gallus by strong Jewish resistance prompted Rome to send four legions to
Judea under Titus Flavius Vespasian, who left his twenty-nine year old Titus
to finish the campaign on account of becoming Roman emperor. Jerusalem was
left a ruined city, its Temple destroyed and a great Jewish genocide
followed taking the lives of more than a million Jews.
This chapter marks the end of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. Relative
sovereignty, that is, since although locally independent they had been ruled
or dominated by a foreign power since the first Assyrian deportations (c.
734 B.C.) It is at this point that the Jews could justify a claim
Palestine based on historical precedent because they had for over a
millennium been a majority in the area and ruled the land in varying
degrees.
73 A.D. - 1800 A.D
Jews were slaughtered and exiled en mass in the revolt of 66 A.D. and during
the rebellion of 132-135 A.D. These two catastrophes ended Jewish state
history in antiquity. Their history moves now to the Jewish centers of the
Diaspora as they become a minority in Palestine. In the second century A.D.
Jerusalem was not a Jewish city at all. After successive invasions and
counter-invasions by Persians, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes,
and again Turks (and a Jewish resurgence in the Islamic Middle Ages [c.
850-1250]) at the beginning of the nineteenth century, under imperial
Ottoman rule Palestine had a population of 300,000 people, of whom 90
percent were Muslim Arabs, with 10,000 Jews, and 30,000 Christian Arabs
approximately.
1800 - present
By 1881, on the eve of the start of the Zionist Jewish influx Palestine's
population was 457,000 (500,000 by other estimates) about 400,000 of them
Muslims, 13,000-20,000 Jews, and 42,000 Christians (mostly Greek Orthodox).
In addition there were several thousand more Jews who were residents of
Palestine but not Ottoman citizens. *THESE were the indigenous people of
Palestine at that time, and their Muslim majority had not been of recent
advent.*
The small pre-Zionist Jewish population of Palestine -- usually referred to
as the Old Yishuv -- was largely poor. Most were Ottoman subjects
extremely submissive towards the Turkish authorities and deferential toward
the large Muslim communities among which they lived. In all, they were a
numerically insignificant minority.
By 1948 the Jews numbered 500,000 and constituted 37% of the population
ruling 55% of the land, of which they owned 7%, and which included 400,000
Arabs.
Palestinians failed to see in 1948 both the Jewish historical right to their
land and why they should be made to pay for the Holocaust.
In 2002, the problem remains insoluble, the killed are countless and the
suffering is immense.
The above summary shows how the Jew were removed forcibly from their land
repeatedly by foreign invaders, but also how their exile-mentality prevented
a concerted return to re-form a Jewish state when the chance to do so arose.
Therefore the excuse that they were forcibly prevented to return to
Palestine throughout their existence is utterly false. It took the German
"genius," which puts Assyrian cruelty to shame, to shake the exile mentality
out of enough Zionists for them to effect a return plan -- two millennia
late, and to the bewilderment, detriment, humiliation and death of Arabs who
for centuries had lived in Palestine.
It is wrong.
-------------------
References:
Morris, B. (1999), Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict
1881-2001, NY, Vintage Books.
Redford, D.B, (1992) Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, NJ,
Princeton University Press.
Matthew Harley
tiglath wrote:
<much good stuff, snipped.>
> It is wrong.
Yes it is, but you are not.
I also have in the past much admired the Jewish people and the
Israelis in their struggle to survive.
Now, I do not know whether to be angry that the Jews in Israel have
perversely learned from the Nazi monsters how to treat a troublesome
minority and tell the "big lie" about it, or to be relieved that
Israeli behavior shows that racism is indeed a false concept because
it demonstrates that all peoples, regardless of ethnicity, are equally
capable of the most horrendous inhumanity to other "tribes".
Maybe I’m both at the same time.
For all its power the "Jewish Lobby" has failed miserably to keep me
on-side.
I certainly support European efforts to break relations and rescind
trade and association agreements with them.
Matt Harley
Michael W Cook
wrote on 14/4/02 9:57 pm:
My sentiments exactly, any admiration I had for Israel evaporated long ago.
Cheers
MWC
bowman
"Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B8DFB5C8.1E50%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>
> My sentiments exactly, any admiration I had for Israel evaporated long
ago.
I don't have a dog in this fight, and it is certainly OT. However, I would
hope Noam Chomsky gets a little more respect. He has been a pariah for years
because he noticed the emperor was buck naked and felt he should tell the
world.
John Oliver
>The facts are plain. The Zionist didn't live in Palestine, they traveled
>there and stayed. They kept traveling and staying for more than a hundred
>years until the indigenous population and their immediate generations were
>reduced to the state of today's Palestinians.
Tiglath.
Who are the Zionists who stayed in Palestine for a 100 years?
Let us invent some biographies.
Z1 a male zionist traveled to Palestine in 1900 from Germany
Z2 a female zionist traveled to Palestine in 1900 from Russia.
The two met and married. They had a son S1 who was born in Palestine
in 1905.
S1 had a son S2 who was born in Palestine in 1930.
S2 had a son S3 who was born in Palestine in 1955.
S3 had a son S4 who was born in Palestine in 1980.
Z1 and Z2 died about 1960. S1 died about 1970.
S2, S2 and S4 are still alive. Are they the Zionists who migrated to
Palestine and stayed for a 100 years?
And do you consider S2, S3 and S4 to be indigenous residents of the
area?
John
ICQ 15071293
tiglath
"John Oliver" <jdol...@aspire.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vjkbu04tq35m8j09...@4ax.com...
If what you are suggesting is that the invasion and occupation by alien Jews
that started in 1882 and continues to this day instigated by the Law of
Return, is in anyway redeemed by the children those aliens had, which are
natives of the land the answer is, no.
Doc Quantum
to soc.culture.israel and soc.culture.palestine
Doc
John Oliver
>
>> Tiglath.
>>
>> Who are the Zionists who stayed in Palestine for a 100 years?
>>
>> Let us invent some biographies.
>> Z1 a male zionist traveled to Palestine in 1900 from Germany
>> Z2 a female zionist traveled to Palestine in 1900 from Russia.
>> The two met and married. They had a son S1 who was born in Palestine
>> in 1905.
>> S1 had a son S2 who was born in Palestine in 1930.
>> S2 had a son S3 who was born in Palestine in 1955.
>> S3 had a son S4 who was born in Palestine in 1980.
>>
>> Z1 and Z2 died about 1960. S1 died about 1970.
>>
>> S2, S2 and S4 are still alive. Are they the Zionists who migrated to
>> Palestine and stayed for a 100 years?
>>
>> And do you consider S2, S3 and S4 to be indigenous residents of the
>> area?
>> John
>> ICQ 15071293
>
>If what you are suggesting is that the invasion and occupation by alien Jews
>that started in 1882 and continues to this day instigated by the Law of
>Return, is in anyway redeemed by the children those aliens had, which are
>natives of the land the answer is, no.
Does that apply to any children you might have had since you moved to
the US. Do you imply that your hypothetical children are not
Americans?
What of the black people who moved from the Caribbean Islands to
Britain. They have had children. Should we announce those children are
not British?
John
ICQ 15071293
tiglath
"Matthew Harley" <har...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:3CB9ED20...@eircom.net...
> Now, I do not know whether to be angry that the Jews in Israel have
> perversely learned from the Nazi monsters how to treat a troublesome
> minority and tell the "big lie" about it, or to be relieved that
> Israeli behavior shows that racism is indeed a false concept because
> it demonstrates that all peoples, regardless of ethnicity, are
equally
> capable of the most horrendous inhumanity to other "tribes".
>
Yes. Also, Judaism contains the earliest ethical and moral base of
the Western world. There must be responsibilities of The Chosen,
which are obviously not being fulfilled, as Israel betrays the very
moral core of its tradition. The IDF is no better than the SS,
morally; they just have more external restrains.
tiglath
alien Jews
> >that started in 1882 and continues to this day instigated by the
Law of
> >Return, is in anyway redeemed by the children those aliens had,
which are
> >natives of the land the answer is, no.
>
> Does that apply to any children you might have had since you moved
to
> the US. Do you imply that your hypothetical children are not
> Americans?
The point is not that they are Americans or not. A native American is
someone born here even if he is Jack the Ripper II.
>
> What of the black people who moved from the Caribbean Islands to
> Britain. They have had children. Should we announce those children
are
> not British?
I wrote above "which are natives of the land." That is, I am NOT
disputing those children are native Israelis.
I don't see the connection between the crimes of alien Jews
dispossessing Palestinians of their land, and their children being
native Israelis. How does one erase the other?
A better example is the illegal immigration problem we have. A
Mexican woman jumps a fence and becomes an illegal alien resident in
the U.S. Because our immigration laws have no teeth, she soon finds
work and has a child as soon as she can. The child is a native
American and by virtue of this trick she obtains legal status. It's
a loophole. We are now looking at changing the law so that children
of illegal immigrants can be deported with their parents.
There is an obvious difference between the native residents born of
illegal immigrants and the indigenous people who for generations have
inhabited the land. It is not unfair to remove the illegal
immigrants and the children they beget to get around the law, it is
not too late for justice, but it is unfair to punish someone for an
act committed by his ancestors centuries ago, since it is too late to
do justice.
tiglath
Thank you. I have.
"Doc Quantum" <thetimet...@yahpoo.com> wrote in message
news:D6wu8.37691$de1.1...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
John Oliver
wrote:
>I don't see the connection between the crimes of alien Jews
>dispossessing Palestinians of their land, and their children being
>native Israelis. How does one erase the other?
And I don't see how people getting off a regularly scheduled ocean
liner, presenting the passports and luggage at a government customs
office, purchasing land from the legally registered owner, and paying
for the purchase in the legal currency of the country are committing a
crime.
Nor do I understand your insistence that you don't think the parents
should have been allowed into the country, therefore human beings (the
children) who were born and raised in the country should be expelled.
I suggest that the question of whether a human being X is allowed to
stay in the country of his/her birth should not depend on how the
parent happened to be in the country.
Your question " How does one erase the other?" draws a connection
between two events and I do not accept that it is legitimate to draw
such a connection.
<snip>
>A better example is the illegal immigration problem we have. A
>Mexican woman jumps a fence and becomes an illegal alien resident in
>the U.S. Because our immigration laws have no teeth, she soon finds
>work and has a child as soon as she can. The child is a native
>American and by virtue of this trick she obtains legal status. It's
>a loophole. We are now looking at changing the law so that children
>of illegal immigrants can be deported with their parents.
And if I were in the US I would be very strongly opposing the
suggestion that citizens (the children) of the US can be deported to a
country they have never seen. I would be more in favor of granting
citizenship to the parents.
John
ICQ 15071293
tiglath
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:39:50 -0400, "tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't see the connection between the crimes of alien Jews
> >dispossessing Palestinians of their land, and their children being
> >native Israelis. How does one erase the other?
>
> And I don't see how people getting off a regularly scheduled ocean
> liner, presenting the passports and luggage at a government customs
> office, purchasing land from the legally registered owner, and paying
> for the purchase in the legal currency of the country are committing a
> crime.
They are not. What have those people to do with the tens of thousands of
illegal Jewish immigrants that went to Palestine?
Are you aware that Jews owned only 7% of the land that they became sovereign
over by the U.N. Partition?
>
> Nor do I understand your insistence that you don't think the parents
> should have been allowed into the country,
There are such thing as immigration laws. I don't understand your
insistence that people should be allowed to break them with impunity.
> therefore human beings (the
> children) who were born and raised in the country should be expelled.
> I suggest that the question of whether a human being X is allowed to
> stay in the country of his/her birth should not depend on how the
> parent happened to be in the country.
It depends on the immigration laws of the land. A government is perfectly
entitled to close a loophole that increases illegal immigration. Where it
is written that it is an inalienable human right that the government of the
land where your mother happens to give birth to you must confer citizienship
upon you? That this is the custom in some countries doesn't make it a
universal right.
>
> Your question " How does one erase the other?" draws a connection
> between two events and I do not accept that it is legitimate to draw
> such a connection.
The connection is inherent and need not be made. Illegal immigrants and
their children are a famly unit. The only humane choices are deport all or
grant residence to all.
>
> >A better example is the illegal immigration problem we have. A
> >Mexican woman jumps a fence and becomes an illegal alien resident in
> >the U.S. Because our immigration laws have no teeth, she soon finds
> >work and has a child as soon as she can. The child is a native
> >American and by virtue of this trick she obtains legal status. It's
> >a loophole. We are now looking at changing the law so that children
> >of illegal immigrants can be deported with their parents.
>
> And if I were in the US I would be very strongly opposing the
> suggestion that citizens (the children) of the US can be deported to a
> country they have never seen. I would be more in favor of granting
> citizenship to the parents.
This is what compassion dictates until you find that society must pay
exorbitant taxes to provide for mothers who have children for this very
purpose and you realize is a managed industry and not just a few isolated
cases society should be good enough to take in stride. Its a complex
question with no simple answers.
But as far as Israel you could compare it with WWII, Say that the Germans
had been occupying France for twenty years, and a whole generation of German
children had been born. Would that make the German occupation desirable or
righteous?
Paul J Gans
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:39:50 -0400, "tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net>
>wrote:
>>I don't see the connection between the crimes of alien Jews
>>dispossessing Palestinians of their land, and their children being
>>native Israelis. How does one erase the other?
>And I don't see how people getting off a regularly scheduled ocean
>liner, presenting the passports and luggage at a government customs
>office, purchasing land from the legally registered owner, and paying
>for the purchase in the legal currency of the country are committing a
>crime.
I agree.
I'd add that there were a fair number of Israelis whose
families have lived in that area since the destruction
of the Second Temple.
Further, as I've pointed out before, there was no
"Palestinian" government in Palestine. It had been
a province of foreign owners for hundreds of years.
When the foreign owners collapsed after WWI, government
was taken over by other foreign owners, the British
to be particular.
The Ottomans allowed land to be bought by Jews who lived
in the area and they allowed immigrant Jews to buy land.
The British, with a good bit of ill-grace, allowed the
same thing.
Why all of this is seen as evil is beyond me.
The formation of the State of Israel is analogous to
the formation of Eritria, a country broken off of
Ethiopia because a population minority of Ethiopia
wanted a separate land. Eritria did not and does
not contain an ethnicallhy uniform population.
It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
and India after WWII. Most folks accept it as
legitimate, though extremists on both sides do
not.
There are many other examples as well. Singling
out Israel for special treatment in this regard
is curious, but understandable.
>Nor do I understand your insistence that you don't think the parents
>should have been allowed into the country, therefore human beings (the
>children) who were born and raised in the country should be expelled.
>I suggest that the question of whether a human being X is allowed to
>stay in the country of his/her birth should not depend on how the
>parent happened to be in the country.
>Your question " How does one erase the other?" draws a connection
>between two events and I do not accept that it is legitimate to draw
>such a connection.
><snip>
>>A better example is the illegal immigration problem we have. A
>>Mexican woman jumps a fence and becomes an illegal alien resident in
>>the U.S. Because our immigration laws have no teeth, she soon finds
>>work and has a child as soon as she can. The child is a native
>>American and by virtue of this trick she obtains legal status. It's
>>a loophole. We are now looking at changing the law so that children
>>of illegal immigrants can be deported with their parents.
>And if I were in the US I would be very strongly opposing the
>suggestion that citizens (the children) of the US can be deported to a
>country they have never seen. I would be more in favor of granting
>citizenship to the parents.
I agree with John. But again I'd add one thing. The "illegals"
(so deemed by the British, who were the government at the time)
had no place else to go. No place. No home to return to,
no welcoming neighbors to return to. No family, no property,
nothing. Where else were they to go.
I've seen Tiglath dismiss this with a wave of his hand saying
they should go back to where they came from, and that I'm
playing the "Holocaust" card. I'm not. Where else were they
to go?
Yes, Jews were not unique in this regard. Solutions had
to be found for every group involved. And they were.
---- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a9g55m$77m$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> I agree.
>
> I'd add that there were a fair number of Israelis whose
> families have lived in that area since the destruction
> of the Second Temple.
A fair number -- another Gansian fuzzy "fact"
Ottoman census of 1878, of *roughly* the area we know as Palestine, four
years before the first aliyah.
403,795 - Muslim
43,659 - Christian
15,011 - Jews (not including some 10,000 not Ottoman citizen Jews).
That is: 87% Muslim, 9.4% Christian, and 5.4 % Jewish, In 1878.
Not a fair number.
>
> Further, as I've pointed out before, there was no
> "Palestinian" government in Palestine. It had been
> a province of foreign owners for hundreds of years.
>
I see that makes everything all right. When the Europeans colonized parts
of Africa, they invaded, occupied, exploited and discriminated against the
indigenous people who didn't have a state either. I gues that makes
everything the colonists did all right according to our Director. Zionism,
as it turns out, is the worse form of colonialism. The European powers left
eventually leaving part of their civilization behind. Zionists stayed
forever.
> Why all of this is seen as evil is beyond me.
>
Violent evictions, you forgot.
>>
> It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
> and India after WWII.
Not analogous. The Muslim majority rules Pakistan.
The Jewish minority ruled Palestine.
Majority rule is a democratic principle. Why make an exception for Israel?
Curious but understandable.
Most folks accept it as
> legitimate, though extremists on both sides do
> not.
>
> There are many other examples as well. Singling
> out Israel for special treatment in this regard
> is curious, but understandable.
>
>
>
>
> I agree with John. But again I'd add one thing. The "illegals"
> (so deemed by the British, who were the government at the time)
> had no place else to go. No place. No home to return to,
> no welcoming neighbors to return to. No family, no property,
> nothing. Where else were they to go.
The same disinformation again. 100,000 Jews came to the U.S. Others were
asked where they wanted to go, they said "Palestine" for first choice, and
"Palestine" for second choice, or "crematoria" as alternative. That was
their choice, not the choice given by the Allies.
>
> I've seen Tiglath dismiss this with a wave of his hand saying
> they should go back to where they came from, and that I'm
> playing the "Holocaust" card. I'm not.
Yes you are. You never stopped. You will never stop.
> Where else were they to go?
You have the answer above. It is the second time I give it to you.
This piece of disinformation suggest that Zionism started because of the
Holocaust. It had been going on for over fifty years. Why don't you ask
about the half million of Jews that went to Palestine BEFORE WWII. "Where
D. Spencer Hines
I love it.
That is his new evasion of choice.
Before, we have had "most people" and "the vast majority".
Flimflam all the way ---- and damn the torpedoes.
That's my pet goose...
Deus Vult.
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation,
commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to
study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain." John Adams, (1735-1826) Second President of the United
States. Letter to Abigail Adams, his wife, 12 May 1780.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:a9gdqs$flj$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
John Oliver
I'm replying to several posts here.
Tiglath wrote:
>A fact born from the strange dichotomy that no race has shown more
>persistence, courage, and skill in pulling up and replanting its roots, but
>at the same time for more than three quarters of its existence a majority of
>Jews has lived outside the Promised Land. They do so today.
A minor quibble. To me "Jew" means a person who shares a definite set
of religious beliefs. I do not consider them a race.
The expression "skill in pulling up and replanting its roots" is
fascinating. Lets take some examples. There was a country called
Spain in 1492. A group of people lived in it who believed that it was
wrong to eat pork and that the time between sunset on Friday and
sunset on Saturday should be treated as a holy day of rest. They spoke
Spanish. They had been born in Spain, their parents and grandparents
and great grandparents had been born in Spain. The Spanish government
of the day announced "They aren't Spanish and must leave". Tiglath
wants to call that "Pulling up their roots". I call it forcible
expulsion.
The same sort of thing happened in Britain and France at other times.
One should notice that the human beings who were expelled from Britain
were not the same human beings who were expelled form Spain. The claim
that the race has shown skill at pulling up and replanting its roots t
makes no sense to me. Individual human beings who were peacefully
living in a country were forcibly expelled and managed to find
someplace else that would allow them to live.
Now lets jump forward 450 years. There was a country named Germany.
A group of people lived in it who believed that it was wrong to eat
pork and that the time between sunset on Friday and sunset on Saturday
should be treated as a holy day of rest. They spoke German. They had
been born in Germany, their parents and grandparents and great
grandparents had been born in Germany. The German government of the
day announced "They aren't German and so we will send them to the Gas
chamber". Nor was that all. There were people who ate pork and went to
church on Sunday. Their parents had done the same. But the German
government went back and looked at grandparents and announce "one of
the grandparents refused to eat pork. Therefore, to the gas chamber
with their descendants".
Tiglath gave us a long and detailed history of the relation between
Jews and Israel. He managed to completely overlook the strongest
lesson of Jewish history. "Never trust a non-Jew." If he wants to know
why Israel has a Law of Return, he need look no further than the
behavior of his own ancestors
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:39:50 -0400, "tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>There are such thing as immigration laws. I don't understand your
>insistence that people should be allowed to break them with impunity.
There are indeed immigration laws. And I nowhere insisted that people
should be allowed to break them with impunity. I insisted that the
misdeeds of the parents do not give reason to punish the children.
I recall reading( a few years ago) about a case of a man accused of
being a Nazi war criminal. The US government stripped him of his
citizenship and expelled him. What I recall is newspaper photographs
of the man surrounded by his children and grandchildren. No one said
"he entered the county illegally because he lied about his Nazi past,
therefore the children and grandchildren must be expelled.
>It depends on the immigration laws of the land. A government is perfectly
>entitled to close a loophole that increases illegal immigration. Where it
>is written that it is an inalienable human right that the government of the
>land where your mother happens to give birth to you must confer citizienship
>upon you? That this is the custom in some countries doesn't make it a
>universal right.
Tiglath, where is it written that children are not human beings? In
the world as it is, it is necessary for people to have nationality.
The suggestion that a government should say "The mother entered the
country illegally, therefore the child does not have a nationality"
fills me with horror.
Moreover, Australia had a gold rush in the 1850s. Quite a few sailors
from the sailing ships of the era jumped ship in Australian ports and
went to the gold fields. Their descendants are still here and are
considered Australian citizens. The suggestion that the Australian
government should check the ancestors of all children born here and
announce, "One of the ancestors entered australia 100 years ago,
therefore the child is not an Australian citizen" fills me with
horror.
>But as far as Israel you could compare it with WWII, Say that the Germans
>had been occupying France for twenty years, and a whole generation of German
>children had been born. Would that make the German occupation desirable or
>righteous?
I reject the comparison as totally invalid. Germany invaded France.
Show me the headlines saying "Zionists Battleships shell coast of
Palestine" . Or show me the headlines "Fleet of 6000 ships off coast
of Palestine. 100,000 Heavily armed zionists seize Palestinian
beaches."
Assuming you mean children with German fathers and French mothers, I
would say that it would not make the occupation desirable but
something has to be done to provide for the children and the simplest
solution is to call them French. (elementary biology - you always know
the mother)
John
ICQ 15071293
D. Spencer Hines
of religious beliefs. I do not consider them a race."
John Oliver
----------------------
This is just plain wrong in the Real World.
Further, it is not a "minor quibble" ---- it is a major gaffe.
So, since your initial premise is wrong, the rest of your post is arrant
gibberish.
In the immortal words of William Gibbs McAdoo in describing a speech by
Warren Gamaliel Harding, your posts "leave the impression of an army of
pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea;
sometimes these meandering words would actually capture a straggling
thought and bear it triumphantly, a prisoner in their midst, until it
died of servitude and overwork."
_Jew_ and _Jewish_ are ethnic as well as religious terms.
Many Jews do not practice Judaism at all, and may even have a certain
contempt for it, but they still think of themselves as Jews, ethnically
and culturally ---- and make no bones about it.
Fine ---- that is their privilege.
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Now, the term _race_ has picked up so much encumbering baggage, and is
so often misunderstood or misapplied ---- that it is best consigned to
the historical dustbin ---- along with Marx and Engels.
Say _Ethnic Group_ NOT _Race_.
Verbum Sapienti.
Deus Vult.
John 5:14
tiglath
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:10:28 -0400, "tiglath" <tig...@usa.net>
wrote:
>
> I'm replying to several posts here.
>
> Tiglath wrote:
>
> >A fact born from the strange dichotomy that no race has shown more
> >persistence, courage, and skill in pulling up and replanting its
roots, but
> >at the same time for more than three quarters of its existence a
majority of
> >Jews has lived outside the Promised Land. They do so today.
>
> A minor quibble. To me "Jew" means a person who shares a definite
set
> of religious beliefs. I do not consider them a race.
You are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that
"Jew" has both religious and ethnic connotations. Jewishness is
transmitted through the matternal line. I never heard of religious
beliefs being transmitted by consanguinity.
>
> The expression "skill in pulling up and replanting its roots" is
> fascinating. Lets take some examples. There was a country called
> Spain in 1492. A group of people lived in it who believed that it
was
> wrong to eat pork and that the time between sunset on Friday and
> sunset on Saturday should be treated as a holy day of rest. They
spoke
> Spanish. They had been born in Spain, their parents and grandparents
> and great grandparents had been born in Spain. The Spanish
government
> of the day announced "They aren't Spanish and must leave". Tiglath
> wants to call that "Pulling up their roots". I call it forcible
> expulsion.
Please try to follow the argument. This is a gross red herring. The
subject is the Jews and their ties to Palestine. Therefore, it is
clear that the pulling of roots and their replanting refers to leaving
the various places the Jews lived in to emigrate to Palestine.
>
> The same sort of thing happened in Britain and France at other
times.
> One should notice that the human beings who were expelled from
Britain
> were not the same human beings who were expelled form Spain. The
claim
> that the race has shown skill at pulling up and replanting its roots
t
> makes no sense to me. Individual human beings who were peacefully
> living in a country were forcibly expelled and managed to find
> someplace else that would allow them to live.
See this guy making out now that ALL Jews that moved were forced to
move. A strawman lured by the smell of the preceding red-herring
stinking in the moonlight.
I need a challenge. This pervasive low-grade arguing will make anyone
rustic eventually. Are all the fallacious arguers of Usenet
gathering in s.h.m.?
>
> Now lets jump forward 450 years.
May I make a suggestion to jump?
[delete more lame stuff not deserving a reply]
William Black
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:nSZu8.55$9e7....@eagle.america.net...
> _Jew_ and _Jewish_ are ethnic as well as religious terms.
>
> Many Jews do not practice Judaism at all, and may even have a certain
> contempt for it, but they still think of themselves as Jews, ethnically
> and culturally ---- and make no bones about it.
Describe Jewish ethnicity please.
And not in wishy washy sociological terms.
How do we tell Jews from other folks by looking at them in the streets?
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:a9hstr$k7u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I need a challenge. This pervasive low-grade arguing will make anyone
> rustic eventually. Are all the fallacious arguers of Usenet
> gathering in s.h.m.?
Have you considered taking your prodigious talents somewhere else?
We'd miss you but I'm sure that our sacrifice would be appreciated by your
new fans.
I'm told alt.revisionism is nice...
John Oliver
>
>"John Oliver" <jdol...@aspire.com.au> wrote in message
>news:7vjkbu04tq35m8j09...@4ax.com...
>> Who are the Zionists who stayed in Palestine for a 100 years?
>>
>> Let us invent some biographies.
>> Z1 a male zionist traveled to Palestine in 1900 from Germany
>> Z2 a female zionist traveled to Palestine in 1900 from Russia.
>> The two met and married. They had a son S1 who was born in Palestine
>> in 1905.
>> S1 had a son S2 who was born in Palestine in 1930.
>> S2 had a son S3 who was born in Palestine in 1955.
>> S3 had a son S4 who was born in Palestine in 1980.
>>
>> Z1 and Z2 died about 1960. S1 died about 1970.
>>
>> S2, S2 and S4 are still alive. Are they the Zionists who migrated to
>> Palestine and stayed for a 100 years?
>>
>> And do you consider S2, S3 and S4 to be indigenous residents of the
>> area?
Tiglath,
You seem to be claiming that if the ancestor didn't have a right to
enter the territory, then the descendants can not become indigenous.
Now consider this passage from your excellent history of Palestine:
>73 A.D. - 1800 A.D
>
>Jews were slaughtered and exiled en mass in the revolt of 66 A.D. and during
>the rebellion of 132-135 A.D. These two catastrophes ended Jewish state
>history in antiquity. Their history moves now to the Jewish centers of the
>Diaspora as they become a minority in Palestine. In the second century A.D.
>Jerusalem was not a Jewish city at all. After successive invasions and
>counter-invasions by Persians, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes,
>and again Turks (and a Jewish resurgence in the Islamic Middle Ages [c.
>850-1250]) at the beginning of the nineteenth century, under imperial
>Ottoman rule Palestine had a population of 300,000 people, of whom 90
>percent were Muslim Arabs, with 10,000 Jews, and 30,000 Christian Arabs
>approximately.
It is clear that the Jews living in Palestine were the indigenous
inhabitants. But they were removed. According to your own statement
there were successive invasions and
counter-invasions by Persians, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, Mongols,
Mamelukes,
Note that you chose the word "Invasion". I think we can agree that the
Persians, Arabs and Turks were not indigenous to Palestine at the time
they invaded. How did their descendants become "indigenous" ? You
seem to have denied that the descendants of "invaders" can become
indigenous in your reply to my question about Z1, Z2 and their son,
grandson, and great grandson.
John
ICQ 15071293
John Oliver
wrote:
>I need a challenge. This pervasive low-grade arguing will make anyone
>rustic eventually. Are all the fallacious arguers of Usenet
>gathering in s.h.m.?
Ah! Tiglath can not think of any good replies to my points. Therefore
he has descended to his usual tactics of personal insults.
Well Tiglath, my opinion of you is that you are a masters of
fallacious arguments and it is a waste of my time to bother responding
to you. I think I shall do something more useful than wasting my time
replying to you and empty the cats litter tray.
John
ICQ 15071293
Paul J Gans
>"John Oliver" <jdol...@aspire.com.au> wrote in message
>news:kkgnbu4eh6onm7pv2...@4ax.com...
[...]
>> A minor quibble. To me "Jew" means a person who shares a definite
>set
>> of religious beliefs. I do not consider them a race.
>You are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that
>"Jew" has both religious and ethnic connotations. Jewishness is
>transmitted through the matternal line. I never heard of religious
>beliefs being transmitted by consanguinity.
The use of the word "race" is baiting, clear and simple.
Do you use it to describe any other group?
Attempts to deal with Jews as a cultural and/or religious
group do not in any way deal with the question John raised.
You often do this -- avoiding the question -- while claiming
that others are moving the goal posts.
Deal with your use of the term "race".
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
>news:nSZu8.55$9e7....@eagle.america.net...
>> _Jew_ and _Jewish_ are ethnic as well as religious terms.
>>
>> Many Jews do not practice Judaism at all, and may even have a certain
>> contempt for it, but they still think of themselves as Jews, ethnically
>> and culturally ---- and make no bones about it.
>Describe Jewish ethnicity please.
>And not in wishy washy sociological terms.
>How do we tell Jews from other folks by looking at them in the streets?
I'll bet he can tell by looking at their noses.
----- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9i5ho$2hk$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> news:a9hstr$k7u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > I need a challenge. This pervasive low-grade arguing will make anyone
> > rustic eventually. Are all the fallacious arguers of Usenet
> > gathering in s.h.m.?
>
> Have you considered taking your prodigious talents somewhere else?
>
Actually you can consider yourself alluded to.
I've had the dubious pleasure of your company for years now, and I have
learned absolutely nothing from you, never mind being intellectually
challenged. That is substantially less than what I've learned from the
shoeshine downtown. Once you filter the bullshit out of your posts nothing
gets through the sieve. It looks like you skipped secondary education to
go right into whatever you survive on.
tiglath
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:08:41 -0400, "tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I need a challenge. This pervasive low-grade arguing will make anyone
> >rustic eventually. Are all the fallacious arguers of Usenet
> >gathering in s.h.m.?
>
> Ah! Tiglath can not think of any good replies to my points.
If it makes you happy... There are no good replies to your points. The
scorn of silence is all they merit.
Therefore
> he has descended to his usual tactics of personal insults.
Whatever.
tiglath
> tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Oliver" <jdol...@aspire.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:kkgnbu4eh6onm7pv2...@4ax.com...
>
> [...]
>
> >> A minor quibble. To me "Jew" means a person who shares a definite
> >set
> >> of religious beliefs. I do not consider them a race.
>
> >You are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that
> >"Jew" has both religious and ethnic connotations. Jewishness is
> >transmitted through the matternal line. I never heard of religious
> >beliefs being transmitted by consanguinity.
>
> The use of the word "race" is baiting, clear and simple.
> Do you use it to describe any other group?
Ah. Political correctness again. Another word hijacked by the PC
jackasses.
How many is that?
Jew, Jewness, Black, race....
Let's see, would you like this better instead of "Jew"?
Person-in-dilemma-when-offered-free-ham.
Funny how PCers still use "racist" though. For "racist" to have any meaning
there has to be at least two of the thing called "race."
It's as if we are ashamed of what we are and what distinguishes from one
another. If you have a big nose, guess what? You have a big nose. If
your skin is dark, guess what? You are not white.
So fucking what?
Everyone has to be equal. The perversion of equality.
I believe in equality of opportunity, and rights, and choice. But not in
equality of outcomes, not in artificially papering over the inequalities
that stubborn mother nature bestows upon us.
Physically-challenged African American. What happened to all the cripples?
There are no cripples anymore. Black cripple. Deal with it. Perhaps he
is deaf too. oh sorry about that, hearing-impaired. Let me give you some
camomille tea directory for the shock
of thinking of all the fucking DEAF CRIPPLES IN THE BLACK RACE.
Well-to-do folks in New York send two year old kids to ballet classes and
sensitivity training seminars, and all sort of crappy, expensive, inductive
courses so that yuppie assholes can hot-house their kids to be geniuses.
Leave the fucking kids alone. They grow up and fill our Director's class
and rub their PC off to him although he is old enough to know better.
The result is women behaving like men, effeminacy, Michael Jackson, stupid
questions like "what is a Jew," African-Americans, Asian-Americans. And an
almost seventy year old professor horrified at reading "race" in Usenet.
There are plenty of Russians who fled east during WWII, they had children,
native Asians, but they are milk-white Caucasians with big cow-like,
swimminpool-size eyes... When they come here they become Asian-Americans.
Jeez.
So I will continue to use "race" and "Jew" and "Black" and if you think I am
a bad person because of it, then... kiss by Daschle.
Drew Nicholson
>
> Ottoman census of 1878, of *roughly* the area we know as Palestine, four
> years before the first aliyah.
>
> 403,795 - Muslim
> 43,659 - Christian
> 15,011 - Jews (not including some 10,000 not Ottoman citizen Jews).
>
> That is: 87% Muslim, 9.4% Christian, and 5.4 % Jewish, In 1878.
>
> Not a fair number.
>
> > It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
> > and India after WWII.
>
> Not analogous. The Muslim majority rules Pakistan.
>
> The Jewish minority ruled Palestine.
>
> Majority rule is a democratic principle. Why make an exception for
Israel?
> Curious but understandable.
>
I think you don't understand how Pakistan came about.
>
> The same disinformation again. 100,000 Jews came to the U.S. Others were
> asked where they wanted to go, they said "Palestine" for first choice, and
> "Palestine" for second choice, or "crematoria" as alternative. That was
> their choice, not the choice given by the Allies.
>
Oh, I very much want to see the documentation on THAT one. I have relatives
who lived (and many who didn't) through the concentration camps. I can't
imagine a single one of them asking for the crematoria.
Drew Nicholson
<<The result is women behaving like men, effeminacy, Michael Jackson, stupid
questions like "what is a Jew," African-Americans, Asian-Americans. And an
almost seventy year old professor horrified at reading "race" in Usenet.
There are plenty of Russians who fled east during WWII, they had children,
native Asians, but they are milk-white Caucasians with big cow-like,
swimminpool-size eyes... When they come here they become Asian-Americans.
Jeez.
So I will continue to use "race" and "Jew" and "Black" and if you think I am
a bad person because of it, then... kiss by Daschle.>>
Oh-ho... Well, well, well. I do believe I shall close the door after the
cow has come home...
tiglath
"Drew Nicholson" <DRE...@techsanctuary.org> wrote in message
news:yo5v8.235468$Yv2.68863@rwcrnsc54...
>
> > > It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
> > > and India after WWII.
> >
> > Not analogous. The Muslim majority rules Pakistan.
> >
> > The Jewish minority ruled Palestine.
> >
> > Majority rule is a democratic principle. Why make an exception for
> Israel?
> > Curious but understandable.
> >
> I think you don't understand how Pakistan came about.
Irrelevant. This is typical of you. I state something and you take a
tangent, hoping it hints I might be wrong.
If you are disputing that a Muslim majority rules Pakistan, show me, and
I'll stand corrected. Whether I understand how Pakistan was created or not,
does and will not change the fact that Pakistan in ruled by a Muslim
majority.
Since you can't refute that, you question my understanding of something
else. Where is the logic?
Are you the kind of guy who loses his car keys in 5th Avenue and looks for
them in 6th Avenue because the light is better? It surely looks like it.
>
> >
> > The same disinformation again. 100,000 Jews came to the U.S. Others
were
> > asked where they wanted to go, they said "Palestine" for first choice,
and
> > "Palestine" for second choice, or "crematoria" as alternative. That
was
> > their choice, not the choice given by the Allies.
> >
> Oh, I very much want to see the documentation on THAT one. I have
relatives
> who lived (and many who didn't) through the concentration camps. I can't
> imagine a single one of them asking for the crematoria.
I see; every Jew did as you relatives did. Guaranteed. Oh boy.
Look in the archives. I posted it already.
tiglath
"Drew Nicholson" <DRE...@techsanctuary.org> wrote in message
news:yo5v8.235468$Yv2.68863@rwcrnsc54...
> news:a9gdqs$flj$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > A fair number -- another Gansian fuzzy "fact"
> >
> > Ottoman census of 1878, of *roughly* the area we know as Palestine, four
> > years before the first aliyah.
> >
> > 403,795 - Muslim
> > 43,659 - Christian
> > 15,011 - Jews (not including some 10,000 not Ottoman citizen Jews).
> >
> > That is: 87% Muslim, 9.4% Christian, and 5.4 % Jewish, In 1878.
> >
> > Not a fair number.
> >
> You get to decide what a "fair number" is?
I appreciate how you folks want to make me feel at home. This is much like
a bullfight. We have a 'matador' in the person of our esteemed Director of
s.h.m., and we have several subordinate 'peones,' Drew and Co. I get to
be the bull, it seems, always an honor.
The job of the peones is to flash a red herring, I mean... cape in front of
the bull to distract him so that the matador can get a respite, and also to
tire the bull, hoping it will make a mistake, which the matador can exploit
and go in for the kill.
Normally, there are also 'banderilleros' and 'picadores' which are skilled
bullfighters in their own right, but our director's ensemble is much too
shabby and the few peones he's tried to promote to banderillero and picador
have managed only to poke themselves in the eye with the 'pica' and harpoon
their own foot with the 'banderilla.' So the current peones must make do
with trying to badger the bull with their raggy red capes and watch out for
those two sharp points that often nip them in the butt.
The Matador is quite upset after bending a few 'estoques' already going for
the kill at the wrong moment and hitting bone every time.
The whole 'quadrilla' keeps wondering why the bull is still standing and not
bleeding, ignorant of the fact that to down a bull healthy in body and mind,
it takes far more than bullshit.
Cerinthus
Yes, and may those families be left in peace on the land
they bought legally from the owners.
However, this doesn't alter the dispossession that occurred
when the State was founded. Even Ben-Gurion talked of
getting the Palestinians off that land. The fact that they
were dispossessed is the crime.
Purchases legally made from owners is not evil.
>
> Why all of this is seen as evil is beyond me.
>
> The formation of the State of Israel is analogous to
> the formation of Eritria, a country broken off of
> Ethiopia because a population minority of Ethiopia
> wanted a separate land. Eritria did not and does
> not contain an ethnicallhy uniform population.
>
> It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
> and India after WWII. Most folks accept it as
> legitimate, though extremists on both sides do
> not.
But in these cases, both peoples got a homeland. In India
and Pakistan's case, there is dispute over the amount, and
the border. However, two people got two countries. In Israel
that did not happen. One people got the land, the other had
to endure a bad situation or leave. And the IDf and others
didn't try so hard to make the situation any easier.
These are important things when you compare the various
situations. So, I think they should not be overlooked in an
attempt to water down the tragedy of the Palestinian people.
>
> There are many other examples as well. Singling
> out Israel for special treatment in this regard
> is curious, but understandable.
See previous paragraph.
[snip]
--
Cerinthus
Anarchy - it's not the law, it's just a good idea.
---Unknown
Cerinthus
Tig has made some excellent points that relate to a post I
just made. I wish I had seen this one before I wrote it.
Excellent points. Also, I think the fact that the Muslims
got a homeland at all is a significant reason to call the
comparison unreasonable and unfair.
tiglath
"Cerinthus" <nihilizmn...@xtNOra.cCRAPo.nz> wrote in message
news:Frcv8.2022>
> Excellent points. Also, I think the fact that the Muslims
> got a homeland at all is a significant reason to call the
> comparison unreasonable and unfair.
In the Palestinian question a moral impartial man has just to
establish a few crucial points to pass right judgment.
1. That there was a concerted Jewish effort to return to the home of
their ancient ancestors and overwhelm both the authorities and the
indigenous people of Palestine and usurp that land: Zionism. It was a
solution to the problem of anti-Semitism. INTENT TO USURP.
2. That in 1948, the U.N. had neither sovereignty, competence or
consistency to legitimize the partition against the wishes of the
majority of its inhabitants. The U.N. recognizes to the right of
self-determination of peoples, in Article 1 of the United Nations
Charter. FRAUDULENT PARTITION.
3. Giving the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right to
the majority of the land, disregards the cherished democratic
principle of majority rule. And there is an aggravating factor in
that the great majority of the Jewish minority that was given 55% of
the land to rule in 1948, were alien Jews from Europe Partition was
established not by popular referendum but based on racial division --
a veritable hot powder keg in the midst post-WWII peace. RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION.
3. The Jews aggravated the wrong by taking even more territory by war.
Let us say that a burglar breaks into my house and clean the safe. I
challenge him and I lose the fight; he then takes the Rembrandt and
breaks my legs. If caught he would be charged with burglary and
theft, and then aggravated assault and grand theft. Israel steals
other people's land and when they try to get it back, Israel kills
thousands of them and takes more land, and the U.S. applauds.
TERRITORIAL GAIN BY WAR.
4. Israel is the invading and occupying force. Under the pretense of
its own security it tries to justify torture, and the killing of
thousands of Palestinians that languish in refugee camps while
Israelis live it up. WAR CRIMES
5. Any future Palestinian state will be composed of non-contiguous
parcels of land. What kind of security can such a state have? U.N.
Resolution 242 favors "secured and recognized borders" for Israel.
But what security can a Palestinian state have with its land scattered
into islands in a Jewish sea?
6. The Unites States support for Israel is based on ignoring all the
previous points. That is the fundamental divide between the two
parties in the struggle. They don't talk about it anymore. It's
always about Oslo, or Camp David, or the latest violence. But the
Palestinian motivation to resist, the Israeli motivation to stand
firm, and the U.S. motivation to support Israel are based on the above
points. Israel and the U.S. see no wrong has been committed (pretend
to, rather) and the Palestinians can't forget or forgive it.
The perfidy of the U.S. is disheartening. A country that still denies
officially that Thomas Jefferson had a black concubine with whom he
had children, is also in denial about the grave misstep of Harry
Truman, despite the horrific, ill consequences it has had to the
interests of our country and the western world. Our leaders (dog
doesn't eat dog) tell us that Arabs hate us because we are free.
Perhaps the visits that Vice-president Cheney and Secretary Powell
have paid to the Arab countries will help dispel that notion in the
administration and the public.
The other excuse to support Israel is that it is the only democratic
power in the region.
Well. Let us see... all the smart Jews out there...
Why isn't there an Arab Party in Israel?
Can Arab citizens occupy houses in any of the government-built so
called Jewish settlements?
Paul J Gans
>Whatever.
Shall I post about cutting and running, avoiding the issue,
moving the goalposts, etc., etc.
Or shall I post about your sexual abilities, excretory functions,
and intellectual abilities?
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:a9ihri$deg$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Oliver" <jdol...@aspire.com.au> wrote in message
>> >news:kkgnbu4eh6onm7pv2...@4ax.com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> A minor quibble. To me "Jew" means a person who shares a definite
>> >set
>> >> of religious beliefs. I do not consider them a race.
>>
>> >You are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that
>> >"Jew" has both religious and ethnic connotations. Jewishness is
>> >transmitted through the matternal line. I never heard of religious
>> >beliefs being transmitted by consanguinity.
>>
>> The use of the word "race" is baiting, clear and simple.
>> Do you use it to describe any other group?
>Ah. Political correctness again. Another word hijacked by the PC
>jackasses.
>How many is that?
>Jew, Jewness, Black, race....
I'm sorry, but you are losing it. You've wondered why I've
hinted about prejudice. Here it is again.
As most of us know, the term "race" has a clear biological
meaning. The various forms of humanity do not qualify as
separate "races".
The term "race" has been used in the US for blacks, Jews,
orientals and others not of our kind by people who wish to
separate themselves from members of those "races". The
term, as used, also connotes inferiority.
Put more bluntly, a racist is one who used the term "race"
to separate out a group of humans from the rest of the human
race.
>Let's see, would you like this better instead of "Jew"?
> Person-in-dilemma-when-offered-free-ham.
I don't think so. It certainly doesn't describe me (I happen
to be eating a salad containing both ham and bacon as I type)
but it does describe both Muslim and vegitarian friends of mine.
Are they Jews?
>Funny how PCers still use "racist" though. For "racist" to have any meaning
>there has to be at least two of the thing called "race."
>It's as if we are ashamed of what we are and what distinguishes from one
>another. If you have a big nose, guess what? You have a big nose. If
>your skin is dark, guess what? You are not white.
>So fucking what?
>Everyone has to be equal. The perversion of equality.
>I believe in equality of opportunity, and rights, and choice. But not in
>equality of outcomes, not in artificially papering over the inequalities
>that stubborn mother nature bestows upon us.
Is that why you keep complaining about the outcome in the Middle
East?
>Physically-challenged African American. What happened to all the cripples?
>There are no cripples anymore. Black cripple. Deal with it. Perhaps he
>is deaf too. oh sorry about that, hearing-impaired. Let me give you some
>camomille tea directory for the shock
>of thinking of all the fucking DEAF CRIPPLES IN THE BLACK RACE.
What black race? How can I tell if someone is a member of the
"black race"? Are dark-complected Spanish speakers (of which
there are many in New York) members of the "black race"? Or
have you exposed your basic thinking to everyone?
>Well-to-do folks in New York send two year old kids to ballet classes and
>sensitivity training seminars, and all sort of crappy, expensive, inductive
>courses so that yuppie assholes can hot-house their kids to be geniuses.
>Leave the fucking kids alone. They grow up and fill our Director's class
>and rub their PC off to him although he is old enough to know better.
>The result is women behaving like men, effeminacy, Michael Jackson, stupid
>questions like "what is a Jew," African-Americans, Asian-Americans. And an
>almost seventy year old professor horrified at reading "race" in Usenet.
>There are plenty of Russians who fled east during WWII, they had children,
>native Asians, but they are milk-white Caucasians with big cow-like,
>swimminpool-size eyes... When they come here they become Asian-Americans.
>Jeez.
>So I will continue to use "race" and "Jew" and "Black" and if you think I am
>a bad person because of it, then... kiss by Daschle.
I don't think I need comment any further.
---- Paul J. Gans
William Black
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a9i5ho$2hk$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> > news:a9hstr$k7u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > > I need a challenge. This pervasive low-grade arguing will make anyone
> > > rustic eventually. Are all the fallacious arguers of Usenet
> > > gathering in s.h.m.?
> >
> > Have you considered taking your prodigious talents somewhere else?
> >
>
>
> Actually you can consider yourself alluded to.
>
> I've had the dubious pleasure of your company for years now, and I have
> learned absolutely nothing from you, never mind being intellectually
> challenged.
Gunsite Ranch, Arizona?
You claimed it was not possible for civilians to get police style training.
You'd never heard of it before I mentioned it.
Paul J Gans
>"Drew Nicholson" <DRE...@techsanctuary.org> wrote in message
>news:yo5v8.235468$Yv2.68863@rwcrnsc54...
>>
>> > > It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
>> > > and India after WWII.
>> >
>> > Not analogous. The Muslim majority rules Pakistan.
>> >
>> > The Jewish minority ruled Palestine.
>> >
>> > Majority rule is a democratic principle. Why make an exception for
>> Israel?
>> > Curious but understandable.
>> >
>> I think you don't understand how Pakistan came about.
>Irrelevant. This is typical of you. I state something and you take a
>tangent, hoping it hints I might be wrong.
>If you are disputing that a Muslim majority rules Pakistan, show me, and
>I'll stand corrected. Whether I understand how Pakistan was created or not,
>does and will not change the fact that Pakistan in ruled by a Muslim
>majority.
>Since you can't refute that, you question my understanding of something
>else. Where is the logic?
Tiggy, you are making a fool of yourself. The Muslim majority
that rules Pakistan today was the Muslim MINORITY that lived in
India before partition. That was Drew's point. And I suspect
you knew it.
Pakistan came about in almost the same way Israel came about.
Artificially and without the consent of the populations involved
-- they were never asked.
If Israel is illegitimate, so are both Pakistan and India.
If you think consent of the people is needed, you are in deep
trouble. The residents of what I shall call Palestine were
not asked by the Ottomans if they'd like to join the Ottoman
Empire. Nor did they give their consent to be governed by
the British. Nor were they asked if they minded having their
country split into two countries (one is called Jordan). Nor
were they asked if the minded having their country split again
into two parts.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being against the
Israeli government, its actions, or even its existance. But
your arguments are mainly special pleading. You claim a moral
basis for your position, but overlook other situations with
the same morality. That makes most of us think that you really
have a somewhat different agenda.
[...]
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Cerinthus" <nihilizmn...@xtNOra.cCRAPo.nz> wrote in message
>news:Frcv8.2022>
>> Excellent points. Also, I think the fact that the Muslims
>> got a homeland at all is a significant reason to call the
>> comparison unreasonable and unfair.
>In the Palestinian question a moral impartial man has just to
>establish a few crucial points to pass right judgment.
>1. That there was a concerted Jewish effort to return to the home of
>their ancient ancestors and overwhelm both the authorities and the
>indigenous people of Palestine and usurp that land: Zionism. It was a
>solution to the problem of anti-Semitism. INTENT TO USURP.
That is more than one point. There was no intent to usurp.
The immigration to Palestine began under the Ottomans. There
is no indication that there was any desire to replace the
Ottomans.
>2. That in 1948, the U.N. had neither sovereignty, competence or
>consistency to legitimize the partition against the wishes of the
>majority of its inhabitants. The U.N. recognizes to the right of
>self-determination of peoples, in Article 1 of the United Nations
>Charter. FRAUDULENT PARTITION.
The UN thought it had the power to do so. It did so.
>3. Giving the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right to
>the majority of the land, disregards the cherished democratic
>principle of majority rule. And there is an aggravating factor in
>that the great majority of the Jewish minority that was given 55% of
>the land to rule in 1948, were alien Jews from Europe Partition was
>established not by popular referendum but based on racial division --
>a veritable hot powder keg in the midst post-WWII peace. RACIAL
>DISCRIMINATION.
The almost contemporary case of India and Pakistan took the
same course. The Muslims were a minority in India. The
country of India was separated into two parts, one named India,
the other named Pakistan.
Your figures about 55% of the land are, of course, wrong. The
land was known as "Transjordan". It was split twice. The
first time it was partitioned into "Palestine" and "Jordan".
Partition was not established by popular referendum. The
second time it was parititioned into two again. Both were
intended to become separate countries. Again there was no
popular referendum. The separation was done primarily on
religion and not on race.
The same thing was done in the case of India and Pakistan.
The separation was done by race.
>3. The Jews aggravated the wrong by taking even more territory by war.
>Let us say that a burglar breaks into my house and clean the safe. I
>challenge him and I lose the fight; he then takes the Rembrandt and
>breaks my legs. If caught he would be charged with burglary and
>theft, and then aggravated assault and grand theft. Israel steals
>other people's land and when they try to get it back, Israel kills
>thousands of them and takes more land, and the U.S. applauds.
>TERRITORIAL GAIN BY WAR.
This is a perversion of what happened. The new state of
Israel was instantly attacked by the armies of FOUR other
nations. Armies that were better armed and more numerous.
These states did not invade at the request of the Palestinian
government. Indeed, the inhabitants of the Muslim territory
were not even asked if they wanted "saving".
Israel did (barely) win that war. And they kept large chunks
of the land they'd gained. This is a time honored priniciple
known as "right of conquest". Everyone, including the US
has done that (or Bush would be the President of Mexico).
Perhaps it is the four uninvited invading countries who owe
the Palestinians reparations? Certainly those countries
intended to keep any land *they* captured.
>4. Israel is the invading and occupying force. Under the pretense of
>its own security it tries to justify torture, and the killing of
>thousands of Palestinians that languish in refugee camps while
>Israelis live it up. WAR CRIMES
This is both diffuse and muddled. The refugee camps are in
Arab territory and could have been emptied any time in the last
50 years. Camps exist in Lebanon now. Why is that? As for
the legacy of 50 years of war, there has been remarkably little
inhumane treatment. The Israelis have had the power to drive
*all* the inhabitants of the west bank out of the country for
years. They have not done so.
How many Jews are left in the Arab lands? Why is it you never
talk about that?
>5. Any future Palestinian state will be composed of non-contiguous
>parcels of land. What kind of security can such a state have? U.N.
>Resolution 242 favors "secured and recognized borders" for Israel.
>But what security can a Palestinian state have with its land scattered
>into islands in a Jewish sea?
None of this is certain. But I would remind you that if there
had been no four country invasion in 1948 this situation would
not exist. And if there had been no further wars, each and
every one the Arabs lost, the situation for them would be much
better too.
One cannot fight continual wars and then complain that you want
a "do-over" because you've lost.
>6. The Unites States support for Israel is based on ignoring all the
>previous points. That is the fundamental divide between the two
>parties in the struggle. They don't talk about it anymore. It's
>always about Oslo, or Camp David, or the latest violence. But the
>Palestinian motivation to resist, the Israeli motivation to stand
>firm, and the U.S. motivation to support Israel are based on the above
>points. Israel and the U.S. see no wrong has been committed (pretend
>to, rather) and the Palestinians can't forget or forgive it.
Since all of the above points are flawed or wrong, this is also
flawed and wrong.
>The perfidy of the U.S. is disheartening. A country that still denies
>officially that Thomas Jefferson had a black concubine with whom he
>had children, is also in denial about the grave misstep of Harry
>Truman, despite the horrific, ill consequences it has had to the
>interests of our country and the western world. Our leaders (dog
>doesn't eat dog) tell us that Arabs hate us because we are free.
>Perhaps the visits that Vice-president Cheney and Secretary Powell
>have paid to the Arab countries will help dispel that notion in the
>administration and the public.
You are entitled to your opinions, though what this has to do
with the current Middle East is beyond me.
If you wish to grope for straws, let me give you one: why is
it that the vast majority of the Arab population of the Middle
East is convinced that no Arab was involved in 9/11? Do you
think that they came to this conclusion by divine revalation?
>The other excuse to support Israel is that it is the only democratic
>power in the region.
>Well. Let us see... all the smart Jews out there...
>Why isn't there an Arab Party in Israel?
Why isn't there a Jewish party in Israel? Why isn't there an
Arab party in the US? Why isn't there an Italian party in the
US? Does England have an Arab party? Does Germany? What about
Ukraine?
>Can Arab citizens occupy houses in any of the government-built so
>called Jewish settlements?
No. You are right on this one. I will leave it as an exercise
to figure out why.
---- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
> >If you are disputing that a Muslim majority rules Pakistan, show
me, and
> >I'll stand corrected. Whether I understand how Pakistan was
created or not,
> >does and will not change the fact that Pakistan in ruled by a
Muslim
> >majority.
>
> >Since you can't refute that, you question my understanding of
something
> >else. Where is the logic?
>
> Tiggy, you are making a fool of yourself. The Muslim majority
> that rules Pakistan today was the Muslim MINORITY that lived in
> India before partition. That was Drew's point. And I suspect
> you knew it.
Thanks for the clarification, professor. Let us rewind.
Drew wrote:
"It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan and India after
WWII."
Yes. My reply was inappropriate. Sorry.
I don't want to get into a long discussion about Pakistan. But the
only analogy I see, however, is that the British were involved and
that a bloody Partition along religious lines took place. The
analogy limps too much, since there is no analogy in the parts that
are critical to the ME conflict.
Muslims got a large *contiguous* piece of land -- not analogous, and
part of the ME problem.
No minority was given most of the land -- not analogous, fundamental
part of the ME problem.
The party that got most of the land was not composed of foreigners
just arrived. Hindus never ceased to be a majority in the
subcontinent. Definately not analogous to Zionism and its
consequences.
If not for these difference there would probably not be a ME conflict.
tiglath
> tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >"Cerinthus" <nihilizmn...@xtNOra.cCRAPo.nz> wrote in message
> >news:Frcv8.2022>
> >> Excellent points. Also, I think the fact that the Muslims
> >> got a homeland at all is a significant reason to call the
> >> comparison unreasonable and unfair.
>
> >In the Palestinian question a moral impartial man has just to
> >establish a few crucial points to pass right judgment.
>
> >1. That there was a concerted Jewish effort to return to the home
of
> >their ancient ancestors and overwhelm both the authorities and the
> >indigenous people of Palestine and usurp that land: Zionism. It
was a
> >solution to the problem of anti-Semitism. INTENT TO USURP.
>
> That is more than one point. There was no intent to usurp.
> The immigration to Palestine began under the Ottomans. There
> is no indication that there was any desire to replace the
> Ottomans.
It was the beginning of the usurpation of the land, that took 50 years
to accomplish, occupied by the indigenous people of Palestine, who
were at the time under Ottoman domination, and Ottoman citizens most
of them.
The First Aliyah began in 1882, as a result of Russian progroms, Leo
Pinsker, one of the founders of Lovers of Zion, settle some 7000 Jews
in Palestine, part of the First Aliyah that was to last until 1900,
settling a total of 20,000 Jews.
>
>
> >2. That in 1948, the U.N. had neither sovereignty, competence or
> >consistency to legitimize the partition against the wishes of the
> >majority of its inhabitants. The U.N. recognizes to the right of
> >self-determination of peoples, in Article 1 of the United Nations
> >Charter. FRAUDULENT PARTITION.
>
> The UN thought it had the power to do so. It did so.
Are you sure about that?
The UN had and has no power. It was the support of the U.S. that
encouraged the Israelis to seize the moment. The U.N. Resolution bein
g "better than nothing" as far as a legitimate act.
The Partition Plan was adopted by the General Assembly, not the
Security Council. Resolutions of the General Assembly have the force
of recommendations to member states of the United Nations but do not
have any mandatory force. Therefore, the General Assembly vote to
accept the recommendations of UNSCOP to partition Palestine into an
Arab and a Jewish state did not mean that one or another state was
being created over the objections of one of the parties.
>
> >3. Giving the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right
to
> >the majority of the land, disregards the cherished democratic
> >principle of majority rule. And there is an aggravating factor in
> >that the great majority of the Jewish minority that was given 55%
of
> >the land to rule in 1948, were alien Jews from Europe Partition
was
> >established not by popular referendum but based on racial
division --
> >a veritable hot powder keg in the midst post-WWII peace. RACIAL
> >DISCRIMINATION.
>
> The almost contemporary case of India and Pakistan took the
> same course. The Muslims were a minority in India. The
> country of India was separated into two parts, one named India,
> the other named Pakistan.
>
> Your figures about 55% of the land are, of course, wrong.
Professor Morries gives the same figures. Show me a source that
gives a minority share.
> The
> land was known as "Transjordan". It was split twice. The
> first time it was partitioned into "Palestine" and "Jordan".
> Partition was not established by popular referendum. The
> second time it was parititioned into two again. Both were
> intended to become separate countries. Again there was no
> popular referendum. The separation was done primarily on
> religion and not on race.
>
> The same thing was done in the case of India and Pakistan.
> The separation was done by race.
You dont' understand. It is not wrong to partition FAIRLY according
to race, as happened in Pakistan.
It is RACIAL DISCRIMINATION when the minority race gets most of the
land.
> >3. The Jews aggravated the wrong by taking even more territory by
war.
> >Let us say that a burglar breaks into my house and clean the safe.
I
> >challenge him and I lose the fight; he then takes the Rembrandt and
> >breaks my legs. If caught he would be charged with burglary and
> >theft, and then aggravated assault and grand theft. Israel steals
> >other people's land and when they try to get it back, Israel kills
> >thousands of them and takes more land, and the U.S. applauds.
> >TERRITORIAL GAIN BY WAR.
>
> This is a perversion of what happened.
It is not. Your "new state of Israel" was cosummate theft.
The Arab neighbors didn't want to permit such theft. Palestinians
are entitle to having supporters no less thatn Isrealis are, arent'
they?
> The new state of
> Israel was instantly attacked by the armies of FOUR other
> nations.
Naturally. They were chasing the thief away.
> Armies that were better armed and more numerous.
Irrelevant.
> These states did not invade at the request of the Palestinian
> government. Indeed, the inhabitants of the Muslim territory
> were not even asked if they wanted "saving".
Irrelevant. Arabs are allowed to support other Arabs being abused.
>
> Israel did (barely) win that war. And they kept large chunks
> of the land they'd gained.
It is not allowed by the UN Charter.
> This is a time honored priniciple
> known as "right of conquest".
I see. The same right that allowed Saddam Hussein to keep Kuwait.
You need an update.
> Everyone, including the US
> has done that (or Bush would be the President of Mexico).
This is no longer legal according to the U.N. Charter its members are
obliged to abide by. Israel is a member.
UN Resolution 242 begins:
"The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the
Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State
in the area can live in security..."
You need a history update. Take a break fro the BT.
> Perhaps it is the four uninvited invading countries who owe
> the Palestinians reparations? Certainly those countries
> intended to keep any land *they* captured.
How would you know that?
I laugh at how many people mention Arab dictarorships and backwardness
to justify Israel's atrocities. Make the Arabs as bad as you will.
We are the leading edge in political and social thinking. We, and our
allies purport to be "The Good Guys." We are democratic people that
cannot suspend our principles for land and still have an intact moral
base. We believe in self-determination and majority rule, and in
that no land must be acquired and retained by war. Your ambivalency
in these matters, shows the the depth of your democratic values and
moral convictions.
>
>
> >4. Israel is the invading and occupying force. Under the pretense
of
> >its own security it tries to justify torture, and the killing of
> >thousands of Palestinians that languish in refugee camps while
> >Israelis live it up. WAR CRIMES
>
> This is both diffuse and muddled. The refugee camps are in
> Arab territory and could have been emptied any time in the last
> 50 years. Camps exist in Lebanon now. Why is that? As for
> the legacy of 50 years of war, there has been remarkably little
> inhumane treatment. The Israelis have had the power to drive
> *all* the inhabitants of the west bank out of the country for
> years. They have not done so.
I see. Your point being that we should be thankful that the Israelis
have only perpetrated limited massacres and have not taken out every
Palestinian wholesale, since they have the power to do so. After
all there are only 3.3 million Palestinian and that could never come
near six million, the only point when we should really start worrying.
>
> How many Jews are left in the Arab lands? Why is it you never
> talk about that?
There is a Law of Return. What are they doing there? Perhaps
staying voluntarily because Israel ain't no hot potato no more?
> >5. Any future Palestinian state will be composed of non-contiguous
> >parcels of land. What kind of security can such a state have?
U.N.
> >Resolution 242 favors "secured and recognized borders" for Israel.
> >But what security can a Palestinian state have with its land
scattered
> >into islands in a Jewish sea?
>
> None of this is certain. But I would remind you that if there
> had been no four country invasion in 1948 this situation would
> not exist.
I would remind you that if there had been no fraudulent partition the
FIVE armies would not have invaded.
> >6. The Unites States support for Israel is based on ignoring all
the
> >previous points. That is the fundamental divide between the two
> >parties in the struggle. They don't talk about it anymore. It's
> >always about Oslo, or Camp David, or the latest violence. But the
> >Palestinian motivation to resist, the Israeli motivation to stand
> >firm, and the U.S. motivation to support Israel are based on the
above
> >points. Israel and the U.S. see no wrong has been committed
(pretend
> >to, rather) and the Palestinians can't forget or forgive it.
>
> Since all of the above points are flawed or wrong, this is also
> flawed and wrong.
>
You illustrate exactly why Powell's mission has failed.
>
> Why isn't there a Jewish party in Israel? Why isn't there an
> Arab party in the US? Why isn't there an Italian party in the
> US? Does England have an Arab party? Does Germany? What about
> Ukraine?
>
A neat box of red herrings lying side-by-side.
There MAY be a Jewish party in Israel.
There MAY be an Arab party in the US, or Italian, or whatever.
An Arab party is NOT ALLOWED in Israel. Arab candidates have to run
through Jewish parties so that they can never count in the precarious
balance of coalitions that are always involved in the election of
governments.
tiglath
> >
> > I've had the dubious pleasure of your company for years now, and I
have
> > learned absolutely nothing from you, never mind being
intellectually
> > challenged.
>
> Gunsite Ranch, Arizona?
>
> You claimed it was not possible for civilians to get police style
training.
>
> You'd never heard of it before I mentioned it.
Sorry no luck.
By the time you had responded to my comment the next day I had checked
and found Masad Ayoob advertising such courses and also an article on
Gunsite Ranch. I was going to correct my own post at the time I read
your correction. I said "I have just checked" in my reply to you.
Perhaps next time, if you study hard.
Paul J Gans
>Drew wrote:
Sorry, while nothing is exact in an analogy the comparison should
be between the minority groups. The Muslims *and* the Israelis
got contiguous pieces of land.
Further, the Arabs got continguous pieces of land too. The
first settlements did not come until later.
>No minority was given most of the land -- not analogous, fundamental
>part of the ME problem.
Wrong. The Muslim minority in India got most of the land on which
they lived. The Israelis were given no land outside of the areas
in which they lived.
>The party that got most of the land was not composed of foreigners
>just arrived. Hindus never ceased to be a majority in the
>subcontinent. Definately not analogous to Zionism and its
>consequences.
You've already been raked over the coals on "just arrived".
>If not for these difference there would probably not be a ME conflict.
Wrong. The Middle East conflict is mainly religious. Arab-Arab
violence generates no ire in your breast. Nor in the hearts
of the Arabs in the region.
The conflict began instantly on the creation of the state of
Israel. No bones were made about it. Its purpose was to drive
all the Jews away. Read the statements made at the time.
And remember, it was not the local Palestinians who were fighting
the Israelis. It was four other countries: Egypt, Syria, Jordan,
and Lebanon. At the time estimates were made as to how long it
would take the Jordanian army, British trained and equipped,
to drive the Jews into the sea.
>> Pakistan came about in almost the same way Israel came about.
>> Artificially and without the consent of the populations involved
>> -- they were never asked.
>>
>> If Israel is illegitimate, so are both Pakistan and India.
>>
>> If you think consent of the people is needed, you are in deep
>> trouble. The residents of what I shall call Palestine were
>> not asked by the Ottomans if they'd like to join the Ottoman
>> Empire. Nor did they give their consent to be governed by
>> the British. Nor were they asked if they minded having their
>> country split into two countries (one is called Jordan). Nor
>> were they asked if the minded having their country split again
>> into two parts.
You continue to refuse to deal with these arguments.
tiglath
tiglath
>
> >Jew, Jewness, Black, race....
>
> I'm sorry, but you are losing it. You've wondered why I've
> hinted about prejudice. Here it is again.
>
> As most of us know, the term "race" has a clear biological
> meaning. The various forms of humanity do not qualify as
> separate "races".
I see. The pigmentation of the skin is not biological, the slant of
eyes is not biological, the shape of the nose or lips is not
biological.
bi-o-log-i-cal (bi-loji-kl) also bi-o-log-ic (-lojik)adj. Abbr.
biol. 1. Of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living
organisms. 2. Having to do with biology. 3. Related by blood: the
child's biological parents; his biological sister.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
>
> The term "race" has been used in the US for blacks, Jews,
> orientals and others not of our kind by people who wish to
> separate themselves from members of those "races". The
> term, as used, also connotes inferiority.
>
The liberal interpretation of a perfectly good word, which means
nothing of the sort. The corruption of language for political
purposes.
> Put more bluntly, a racist is one who used the term "race"
> to separate out a group of humans from the rest of the human
> race.
>
Dream on. In reality the human species can be differentiated by a
set of physical/biological or sometimes even linguistic/cultural
traits shared by large groups of people frequently occupying the same
geographical area. This groups constitute separate races. There is
considerable overlap but the distinction is clear and useful, much as
it is use by bigots to discriminate. Eliminate bigotry, keep the
races.
Worse than racism is the hypocrisy of eliminating the concept of race,
papering over evident natural differences and force them to be erased
from human consciousness obviously because of the underlying thought
that these differences are bad.
What is bad is to discriminate because of racial differences, not that
those differences are bad. We should at the same time celebrate our
variety and fight discrimination base on that variety.
This is akin to the liberal scheme to blame the gun for the deeds of
the criminal. Confiscate the guns and you'll have no violence... it
goes.
Abolish race, and you will have no discrimination... it goes.
It's so wrong, it's silly.
Abolish race just to find that the human animal is discriminatory by
nature, and if it can discriminate by the color of the skin, it WILL
discriminate by the way you cut your steak, or what have you. Enter
Steak Abolition.
>
> >Let's see, would you like this better instead of "Jew"?
>
> > Person-in-dilemma-when-offered-free-ham.
>
> I don't think so. It certainly doesn't describe me (I happen
> to be eating a salad containing both ham and bacon as I type)
> but it does describe both Muslim and vegitarian friends of mine.
Eating again?
No wonder you miss so much. Each time you swallow you miss a
paragraph, at least.
>
> What black race?
Dark skin, thick lips, wide nose, curly hair distinguishable by
forensics as black, and other less obvious characteristics.
There is overlap between races. Some Caucasians have black skin. But
there is a bulk large enough in Africa, and people of African descent
sharing the above characteristics to deserve it's own racial category.
William Black
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:a9ka2k$ajg$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote:
[...]
>> That is more than one point. There was no intent to usurp.
>> The immigration to Palestine began under the Ottomans. There
>> is no indication that there was any desire to replace the
>> Ottomans.
>It was the beginning of the usurpation of the land, that took 50 years
>to accomplish, occupied by the indigenous people of Palestine, who
>were at the time under Ottoman domination, and Ottoman citizens most
>of them.
>The First Aliyah began in 1882, as a result of Russian progroms, Leo
>Pinsker, one of the founders of Lovers of Zion, settle some 7000 Jews
>in Palestine, part of the First Aliyah that was to last until 1900,
>settling a total of 20,000 Jews.
I'm sorry Tiggy, but this just won't do. First, people came
legally and settled legally. The Ottoman government allowed
it.
Second, what indigenous people? There was not country of
Palestine. The people living there (some of whom were Jews
whose families had lived there for 2000 years or more) often
came from neighboring regions, liked the land and settled on
it.
>> >2. That in 1948, the U.N. had neither sovereignty, competence or
>> >consistency to legitimize the partition against the wishes of the
>> >majority of its inhabitants. The U.N. recognizes to the right of
>> >self-determination of peoples, in Article 1 of the United Nations
>> >Charter. FRAUDULENT PARTITION.
>>
>> The UN thought it had the power to do so. It did so.
>Are you sure about that?
>The UN had and has no power. It was the support of the U.S. that
>encouraged the Israelis to seize the moment. The U.N. Resolution bein
>g "better than nothing" as far as a legitimate act.
>The Partition Plan was adopted by the General Assembly, not the
>Security Council. Resolutions of the General Assembly have the force
>of recommendations to member states of the United Nations but do not
>have any mandatory force. Therefore, the General Assembly vote to
>accept the recommendations of UNSCOP to partition Palestine into an
>Arab and a Jewish state did not mean that one or another state was
>being created over the objections of one of the parties.
Whatever. You said UN, so I said UN. Don't now tell me that
the UN didn't do it. You're the one claiming the UN did it.
[...]
>> >established not by popular referendum but based on racial
>division --
>> >a veritable hot powder keg in the midst post-WWII peace. RACIAL
>> >DISCRIMINATION.
>>
>> The almost contemporary case of India and Pakistan took the
>> same course. The Muslims were a minority in India. The
>> country of India was separated into two parts, one named India,
>> the other named Pakistan.
>>
>> Your figures about 55% of the land are, of course, wrong.
>Professor Morries gives the same figures. Show me a source that
>gives a minority share.
Because the original mandate was for the area known as Transjordan.
The fraction of the land that was Jewish-owned was miniscule.
You can't talk about the First Aliyah ending in 1900 and
then talk about what was left of the area after two separate
partitions.
>> The
>> land was known as "Transjordan". It was split twice. The
>> first time it was partitioned into "Palestine" and "Jordan".
>> Partition was not established by popular referendum. The
>> second time it was parititioned into two again. Both were
>> intended to become separate countries. Again there was no
>> popular referendum. The separation was done primarily on
>> religion and not on race.
>>
>> The same thing was done in the case of India and Pakistan.
>> The separation was done by race.
>You dont' understand. It is not wrong to partition FAIRLY according
>to race, as happened in Pakistan.
Are you claiming that the Jews were not the majority in that
area tortuously carved out of the Mandate?
Or are you claiming that there is no dispute over land between
India and Pakistan. I thought there had even been several
shooting wars about that. Both sides claim that the division
was unfair.
>It is RACIAL DISCRIMINATION when the minority race gets most of the
>land.
What land? You seem to be talking about the artificial entity
created by the Brits *after* they carved off bits a pieces.
There is no "land" to make comparisions to. There was no
historic "land of Palestine". There never has been. It
is an artificial creation of bureaucrats in London. Shall
we compare the Jewish area to the Ottoman Empire? To the
Arab parts of the Ottoman Empire? To the area administered
by the Ottoman officials who administered much of the area
now known as Israel? Or what?
You keep referring to artificial land divisions that never
existed on the ground and then claiming "unfair".
>> >3. The Jews aggravated the wrong by taking even more territory by
>war.
>> >Let us say that a burglar breaks into my house and clean the safe.
>I
>> >challenge him and I lose the fight; he then takes the Rembrandt and
>> >breaks my legs. If caught he would be charged with burglary and
>> >theft, and then aggravated assault and grand theft. Israel steals
>> >other people's land and when they try to get it back, Israel kills
>> >thousands of them and takes more land, and the U.S. applauds.
>> >TERRITORIAL GAIN BY WAR.
>>
>> This is a perversion of what happened.
>It is not. Your "new state of Israel" was cosummate theft.
>The Arab neighbors didn't want to permit such theft. Palestinians
>are entitle to having supporters no less thatn Isrealis are, arent'
>they?
What theft? You keep saying this. It is no more theft
than Pakistan is theft (though the Indians say just that)
or that Formosa is theft or that Texas is theft.
This sort of thing has been going on for centuries and
doubtless will continue to go on for centuries. When folks
don't like it they sometimes go to war. Sometimes they
win the war and that is the end of it. And sometimes they
lose the war and that is the end of it.
And sometimes they lose the war and complain bitterly -- without
ever recognizing that *now* they'd be happy to settle for what
they threw away when they went to war.
If you are looking for proximate causes of the present problem,
look to that original war.
>> The new state of
>> Israel was instantly attacked by the armies of FOUR other
>> nations.
>Naturally. They were chasing the thief away.
What business of theirs was it? Did the Palestinians want
war? Did their neighbors do the neighborly thing and send
them arms or money to buy arms? If they won did their
neighbors intend to give the land back?
Your memory is awfully short-term. Do you recall who
owned the Gaza strip? Do you remember how the owners
never asked the occupants if they wanted to be independent?
Do you remember that the owners kept the Palestinians living
in refugee camps under horrible conditions?
Why do you think that those owners (who had the largest army
in the area -- also British trained and equipped) would ever
give anything back that they had captured?
>> Armies that were better armed and more numerous.
>Irrelevant.
Not at all. They fought with the expectation of winning.
>> These states did not invade at the request of the Palestinian
>> government. Indeed, the inhabitants of the Muslim territory
>> were not even asked if they wanted "saving".
>Irrelevant. Arabs are allowed to support other Arabs being abused.
Oh? Why is that? Is it ethnic or religous? And are you sure
they did not want to dismember Palestine and keep it. Do you
think the Jordanians would give it back? They kept their claim
to the whole region until very recently.
So I gather that you are saying that it would be all right for
the Jordanians to take the land for themselves without asking
the Palestinians, but wrong for Israel to do it? Why is that?
They are both Semites? They even speak related languages.
Could it be religion that does it?
Are we talking morality or the notion that once a land is Islamic
it must remain Islamic?
Where are your basic moral principles here? Or is it just that
you prefer non-Jews to Jews.
>> Israel did (barely) win that war. And they kept large chunks
>> of the land they'd gained.
>It is not allowed by the UN Charter.
I thought that the UN had no right to set up the state. You
can't have it both ways.
Besides, we both know that lots of land has changed hands since
the UN was created.
>> This is a time honored priniciple
>> known as "right of conquest".
>I see. The same right that allowed Saddam Hussein to keep Kuwait.
That's right. Except that he couldn't keep it.
If you are saying that the Arabs have the right to go to war
to try to destroy Israel, I agree. They certainly do. But
if so spare me your pious moralities about it. Because if
they do, the Israelis have a right to beat them in that war
and keep whatever land they wish to keep.
And I might remind you that the Arabs *did* go to war and they
lost the west bank.
>You need an update.
On what?
>> Everyone, including the US
>> has done that (or Bush would be the President of Mexico).
>This is no longer legal according to the U.N. Charter its members are
>obliged to abide by. Israel is a member.
>UN Resolution 242 begins:
>"The Security Council,
>Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the
>Middle East,
>Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
>and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State
>in the area can live in security..."
>You need a history update. Take a break fro the BT.
You are arguing this both ways. If you consider this valid, then
you must consider the establishment of the state of Israel valid.
Tell me which way you want it.
>> Perhaps it is the four uninvited invading countries who owe
>> the Palestinians reparations? Certainly those countries
>> intended to keep any land *they* captured.
>How would you know that?
See above. I go by the stated intentions of both the Jordanians
and the Egyptians. I don't know about the Syrians or the Lebanese.
>I laugh at how many people mention Arab dictarorships and backwardness
>to justify Israel's atrocities.
Stop with the atrocity bit. The atrocity is that the Israelis
did not do what every other civilized nation would have done
in response to suicide attacks: bomb the crap out of the
terrorist bases. That would have given thousands of Arab
casualties with no Israeli casualties.
Instead they violated all current military doctrine and went
in house to house. They took unnecessary casualties. And
in spite of the constant propaganda to the contrary, nobody
has been able to point to the "mass graves" the Israelis are
supposed to have dug.
Curious that Palestinians claim to have seen them dug but cannot
now find them.
So spare me atrocity stories. Especially when, as usual, Arafat
says "stop the suicide bombings" and his wife says "we need more
suicide bombings".
>Make the Arabs as bad as you will.
>We are the leading edge in political and social thinking. We, and our
>allies purport to be "The Good Guys." We are democratic people that
>cannot suspend our principles for land and still have an intact moral
>base. We believe in self-determination and majority rule, and in
>that no land must be acquired and retained by war. Your ambivalency
>in these matters, shows the the depth of your democratic values and
>moral convictions.
Perhaps Tiglath, perhaps you are wrong and the US is doing
just that?
We do believe in self-determination and majority rule. That is
why we support the only nation in the area that has that. Don't
forget, the Palestinians *HAD* a state and had it taken away from
them by Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Of course, they blame
the Jews for that, right?
As for holding land taken in war? Ha! This post is too short
to list the examples of that since 1945.
>>
>>
>> >4. Israel is the invading and occupying force. Under the pretense
>of
>> >its own security it tries to justify torture, and the killing of
>> >thousands of Palestinians that languish in refugee camps while
>> >Israelis live it up. WAR CRIMES
>>
>> This is both diffuse and muddled. The refugee camps are in
>> Arab territory and could have been emptied any time in the last
>> 50 years. Camps exist in Lebanon now. Why is that? As for
>> the legacy of 50 years of war, there has been remarkably little
>> inhumane treatment. The Israelis have had the power to drive
>> *all* the inhabitants of the west bank out of the country for
>> years. They have not done so.
>I see. Your point being that we should be thankful that the Israelis
>have only perpetrated limited massacres and have not taken out every
>Palestinian wholesale, since they have the power to do so. After
>all there are only 3.3 million Palestinian and that could never come
>near six million, the only point when we should really start worrying.
See above. No massacres. And yes, they did and do have the power
to take out the Palestinians. And what do you think the US would
have done? Or the Russians? Or the Indians vs Pakistan?
>> How many Jews are left in the Arab lands? Why is it you never
>> talk about that?
>There is a Law of Return. What are they doing there? Perhaps
>staying voluntarily because Israel ain't no hot potato no more?
What? You've forgotten the million Jews who used to live in the
Arab lands. You've forgotten how they had to run for it with what
they could carry? How the ones left behind disappeared? Is that
another bit of mid-Eastern history you've forgotten? I'm glad
they had some place to go. That does not make there having to
leave their homes a good thing.
Jews living in countries where they were comfortable and not
in danger of death, stayed in those countries. They not only
stayed in the US and France, they stayed in Morocco and Tunisia.
They could NOT say in Arab lands in the Middle East.
>> >5. Any future Palestinian state will be composed of non-contiguous
>> >parcels of land. What kind of security can such a state have?
>U.N.
>> >Resolution 242 favors "secured and recognized borders" for Israel.
>> >But what security can a Palestinian state have with its land
>scattered
>> >into islands in a Jewish sea?
>>
>> None of this is certain. But I would remind you that if there
>> had been no four country invasion in 1948 this situation would
>> not exist.
>I would remind you that if there had been no fraudulent partition the
>FIVE armies would not have invaded.
Five? Did I miss one?
>> >6. The Unites States support for Israel is based on ignoring all
>the
>> >previous points. That is the fundamental divide between the two
>> >parties in the struggle. They don't talk about it anymore. It's
>> >always about Oslo, or Camp David, or the latest violence. But the
>> >Palestinian motivation to resist, the Israeli motivation to stand
>> >firm, and the U.S. motivation to support Israel are based on the
>above
>> >points. Israel and the U.S. see no wrong has been committed
>(pretend
>> >to, rather) and the Palestinians can't forget or forgive it.
>>
>> Since all of the above points are flawed or wrong, this is also
>> flawed and wrong.
>>
>You illustrate exactly why Powell's mission has failed.
No Tiggy, no. Powell's mission failed because he's trying
to get Arafat to admit that Israel is there to stay. Thanks
to the Saudis, most of the rest of the region admits that.
Arafat doesn't.
I particularly loved his saying that he wants the Israelis
to withdraw before he'd endorse a cease fire. Typical. If
he'd not started the round of suicide bombings, the Israelis
would not have moved into Arab territories. In other words,
he *had* that situation a few months ago and, of course, was
not happy with it.
And that's the sad history of the Palestinians. Always wishing
they had what they've just thrown away.
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: I will give you one thing. I've stated my bit. I'm
willing to repeat it one or two more times. After that,
unless there are new issues, I'm done. Claim victory.
Michael W Cook
wrote on 17/4/02 3:59 pm:
> 6. The Unites States support for Israel is based on ignoring all the
> previous points. That is the fundamental divide between the two
> parties in the struggle. They don't talk about it anymore. It's
> always about Oslo, or Camp David, or the latest violence. But the
> Palestinian motivation to resist, the Israeli motivation to stand
> firm, and the U.S. motivation to support Israel are based on the above
> points. Israel and the U.S. see no wrong has been committed (pretend
> to, rather) and the Palestinians can't forget or forgive it.
Just as the US media rips the heart out of any Palestinian justice.
The Occupied Territories have become "Disputed Territories".
Jewish Settlements have become "Jewish Neighbourhoods".
How Arab militants become "Terrorists", yet Israeli militants are only
"Fanatics" or "Extremists".
The execution of of surviving Palestinian fighters is referred to as
"Mopping up", yet civilians killed by Israeli soldiers are "caught in
crossfire".
It's the old Gung Ho, here we go, with infantile soundbites to reinforce the
message " Dead or Alive", "With us or against us", "Axis of evil".
Yet the best comes from the New York Times who described Sharon as having
the instincts of "A warrior". This is a man who was held "personally
responsible" by Israel's own commissioner's inquiry for the 1982 Shabra and
Shatilla
Yes, Tiggers, Oslo and Camp David are the be all and end all, nothing else
matters, Arafat refused peace.
Lies, Lies and more damn lies.
Then we have the old ex US naval officer who served on the JFK during '73.
"We were stationed off Gibraltar and our job was to refuel the Fighter jets
we were sending to Israel after their Air Force was shot to pieces by the
Arabs. Our planes would land with their USAF and Marine markings partly
stripped off and the Star of David was already painted on the side.
Does anyone know why we gave all those planes to the Israelis just like that
? When I see all our Planes and Tanks used to attack Palestinians, I can
understand why people hate Americans".
Smart man, here's one American who is questioning the unwarranted,
unconditional support the US gives Israel.
Or should he be questioning the role of the American Jewish Lobby, and their
influence in US decisions in the Middle East.
Why did the US fly all those planes to Israel in '73 ?
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
-
Drew Nicholson
>
> "Drew Nicholson" <DRE...@techsanctuary.org> wrote in message
> news:yo5v8.235468$Yv2.68863@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > > > It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
> > > > and India after WWII.
> > >
> > > Not analogous. The Muslim majority rules Pakistan.
> > >
> > > The Jewish minority ruled Palestine.
> > >
> > > Majority rule is a democratic principle. Why make an exception for
> > Israel?
> > > Curious but understandable.
> > >
> > I think you don't understand how Pakistan came about.
>
> Irrelevant. This is typical of you. I state something and you take a
> tangent, hoping it hints I might be wrong.
>
> If you are disputing that a Muslim majority rules Pakistan, show me, and
> I'll stand corrected. Whether I understand how Pakistan was created or
not,
> does and will not change the fact that Pakistan in ruled by a Muslim
> majority.
>
Pakistan was created when the muslim minority in India wanted to have their
own country. It was supposed to be a peaceful transition, and then
blossomed into violence that has continued, on and off, ever since. There
are some remarkable paralells, actually.
And would you quit putting all these extra carriage returns into your posts?
>
> I see; every Jew did as you relatives did. Guaranteed. Oh boy.
>
Ah, no. If I thought they did, I wouldn't ask for the reference. I
personally find it unlikely, but certainly I've been wrong before. Again,
that's why I asked for the reference.
> Look in the archives. I posted it already.
>
Hum. Don't remember seeing it. But you're more interested in being
petulant.
Drew Nicholson
> But in these cases, both peoples got a homeland. In India
> and Pakistan's case, there is dispute over the amount, and
> the border. However, two people got two countries. In Israel
> that did not happen. One people got the land, the other had
> to endure a bad situation or leave. And the IDf and others
> didn't try so hard to make the situation any easier.
>
Actually, that's not entirely correct -- when the partition was first
created, there were two seperate states, intertwined with each-other. Then
Israel was attacked, and when they won, they took more land. Which is
exactly what India or Pakistan -- or many other countries -- would do in the
same situation: consolidate gains.
Now, if the partition had made more geographic sense... who knows?
> These are important things when you compare the various
> situations. So, I think they should not be overlooked in an
> attempt to water down the tragedy of the Palestinian people.
>
I agree that there is a tragedy here, on all sides. Certainly, to my mind,
the government of Israel has absolutely stepped over the line, and did so
years ago.
Drew
Drew Nicholson
>
> It was the beginning of the usurpation of the land, that took 50 years
> to accomplish, occupied by the indigenous people of Palestine, who
> were at the time under Ottoman domination, and Ottoman citizens most
> of them.
>
For a group of people that's been persecuted for 1000 years, we sure are
organized.
> Are you sure about that?
>
> The UN had and has no power.
Remember this statement. It has relevance later.
> t was the support of the U.S. that
> encouraged the Israelis to seize the moment. The U.N. Resolution bein
> g "better than nothing" as far as a legitimate act.
>
Ok. So what?
> The Partition Plan was adopted by the General Assembly, not the
> Security Council. Resolutions of the General Assembly have the force
> of recommendations to member states of the United Nations but do not
> have any mandatory force. Therefore, the General Assembly vote to
> accept the recommendations of UNSCOP to partition Palestine into an
> Arab and a Jewish state did not mean that one or another state was
> being created over the objections of one of the parties.
>
I don't think that I, at least, have ever said otherwise.
> You dont' understand. It is not wrong to partition FAIRLY according
> to race, as happened in Pakistan.
>
> It is RACIAL DISCRIMINATION when the minority race gets most of the
> land.
>
So it would have been ok with you if Israel had gotten land based on
population?
> The Arab neighbors didn't want to permit such theft. Palestinians
> are entitle to having supporters no less thatn Isrealis are, arent'
> they?
>
Of course they are.
> > The new state of
> > Israel was instantly attacked by the armies of FOUR other
> > nations.
>
> Naturally. They were chasing the thief away.
>
Didn't do a bloody good job of it, did they...
> > These states did not invade at the request of the Palestinian
> > government. Indeed, the inhabitants of the Muslim territory
> > were not even asked if they wanted "saving".
>
> Irrelevant. Arabs are allowed to support other Arabs being abused.
>
Now THAT's an interesting statement, and I don't think it means what you
think it does...
> > Israel did (barely) win that war. And they kept large chunks
> > of the land they'd gained.
>
> It is not allowed by the UN Charter.
>
Didn't you just get through saying above that the UN has no power?
>
> > This is a time honored priniciple
> > known as "right of conquest".
>
> I see. The same right that allowed Saddam Hussein to keep Kuwait.
>
If he'd been able to keep it, he'd have been able to keep it. Bush Sr.
decided to not let him keep it. I'm sure Kuwait would have preferred to do
it themselves. They couldn't and asked for help -- the US. When Palestine
theoretically asked for help, it was other Arabs -- and they still lost.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to achieve with this line of thought.
Israel has done wrong. Palestine has done wrong. They're ALL wrong.
> > Everyone, including the US
> > has done that (or Bush would be the President of Mexico).
>
> This is no longer legal according to the U.N. Charter its members are
> obliged to abide by. Israel is a member.
>
> UN Resolution 242 begins:
>
> "The Security Council,
> Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the
> Middle East,
>
> Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
> and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State
> in the area can live in security..."
>
> You need a history update. Take a break fro the BT.
>
Didn't you say above that the UN has no power? Even the security council
isn't much, and I say that as someone who's done quite a bit of research
into the UN and international relations.
> > Perhaps it is the four uninvited invading countries who owe
> > the Palestinians reparations? Certainly those countries
> > intended to keep any land *they* captured.
>
> How would you know that?
>
Because he's not stupid?
> I laugh at how many people mention Arab dictarorships and backwardness
> to justify Israel's atrocities. Make the Arabs as bad as you will.
> We are the leading edge in political and social thinking. We, and our
> allies purport to be "The Good Guys." We are democratic people that
> cannot suspend our principles for land and still have an intact moral
> base. We believe in self-determination and majority rule, and in
> that no land must be acquired and retained by war. Your ambivalency
> in these matters, shows the the depth of your democratic values and
> moral convictions.
>
I think you may find that there's a difference between principles and
reality -- and while Paul and I may both see parts of the reality of the
Middle East, we both have publicly condemned Israel's tactics...
> I see. Your point being that we should be thankful that the Israelis
> have only perpetrated limited massacres and have not taken out every
> Palestinian wholesale, since they have the power to do so. After
> all there are only 3.3 million Palestinian and that could never come
> near six million, the only point when we should really start worrying.
>
>
Restraint demonstrated. Not you, of course. The Israelis.
>
> >
> > How many Jews are left in the Arab lands? Why is it you never
> > talk about that?
>
> There is a Law of Return. What are they doing there? Perhaps
> staying voluntarily because Israel ain't no hot potato no more?
>
Who knows? I read a NYT article today that talks about people thinking
about leaving Israel to return to the US. First time I've ever seen that
(not that it's the first time it's ever happened, I'm sure).
>
> > >5. Any future Palestinian state will be composed of non-contiguous
> > >parcels of land. What kind of security can such a state have?
> U.N.
> > >Resolution 242 favors "secured and recognized borders" for Israel.
> > >But what security can a Palestinian state have with its land
> scattered
> > >into islands in a Jewish sea?
> >
> > None of this is certain. But I would remind you that if there
> > had been no four country invasion in 1948 this situation would
> > not exist.
>
> I would remind you that if there had been no fraudulent partition the
> FIVE armies would not have invaded.
>
You include Israel's army? Interesting take. There would have been no
partition, I agree, if certain people had not wanted it.
>
> You illustrate exactly why Powell's mission has failed.
>
Eh? I would expect it failed because neither side wants to give in.
> A neat box of red herrings lying side-by-side.
>
> There MAY be a Jewish party in Israel.
>
> There MAY be an Arab party in the US, or Italian, or whatever.
>
> An Arab party is NOT ALLOWED in Israel. Arab candidates have to run
> through Jewish parties so that they can never count in the precarious
> balance of coalitions that are always involved in the election of
> governments.
>
If this is true, then it's wrong of the Israeli government.
tiglath
Evidence?
Drew Nicholson
> >
> > Liar
>
> Evidence?
>
Do we have to say anything other than "look it up in the archives?"
:P
tiglath
> >>
> >> Your figures about 55% of the land are, of course, wrong.
>
> >Professor Morries gives the same figures. Show me a source that
> >gives a minority share.
>
> Because the original mandate was for the area known as Transjordan.
> The fraction of the land that was Jewish-owned was miniscule.
>
Mark this answer folks, more on this tactic below.
You think that you can move the goalposts in plain general view and people
won't notice? Undoubtedly you do because you can do no wrong for your hard
core fans. You are always lovable to them. Gans the poor victim. So you
think you can get away with the most blatant subterfuge to grease out of a
tight spot. But there is a growing number of people who are wising up to
your sneaky ways.
Here is the gist of the argument of our distinguished director. For
example, I say that the Chinese have no business imposing their rule in New
York because they are a minority. "Ah," replies Gans, "but they are a
majority in Chinatown."
So when I talk about the Partition of India I said:
"No minority was given most of the land"
Gans replies:
"Wrong. The Muslim minority in India got most of the land on which they
lived. The Israelis were given no land outside of the areas
in which they lived."
Look at the gross, noisy, dusty dragging of goalposts.
"The Land" obviously means the land being partitioned into two states. *Out
of that land* the Hindu majority was given the most and the Muslim minority
the smaller piece. That is a fact.
So that Gans can say "Wrong" he changes the meaning of "The Land" to mean
the land in which the Muslims lived. Which is a crock since Hindus and
Muslims were well mixed. So mixed that upon partition the largest human
migration took place: 17 million.
Likewise, when I say that the Jewish were a minority in Palestine in 1948,
and they got 55% of it in the Partition Resolution, it is obvious that "The
Land" is the land being partitioned, that is the sum of Israel and the
occupied territories. But in order to show that the Jews were a majority
he changes the meaning of "The Land" to be the land in which the Jews lived.
Which is to the same as saying that the Jews were a majority in the land
where they were a majority. I am sure they were also a majority in the
garden of the Feinbergs, and the grove of the Goldsteins, the balcony of the
Cohens. But that has nothing to do with the Middle East conflict.
This is the sort of childish trickery this man has to resort to in order to
defend the indefensible. I am not arguing with him because I expect him to
learn anything from what I write or to make him even consider that he might
be backing the wrong horse. I am well past that. Talking to him about the
misdeeds of the Zionist is like trying to gain sympathy from the mother of a
convict by pointing to her son's crimes. It's visceral not rational for
our dear director. But it is still worth bringing these facts to the light
to make all aware of the important details of this conflict that affects us
all. And a less important reason to uncover the dishonest tricks of this
man who lies, twists, distorts, and plays dumb for his beloved Promised
Land, the land of milk and honey where everything is free, as I understand.
[snip the rest in which Gans seems to have forgotten having admitted that
the Jews screwed the Arabs... but without the Jews doing anything wrong it
seems. Nuts, nuts, nuts]
Paul J Gans
There is debate over this. For a long time it was asserted
that the Israelis did not push Palestinians out of Israel.
There is ample evidence that they were told to go by Arabs
who warned them to get out of the way of the armies that
were coming.
But it is now recognized that the Israelis did encourage
many Palestinians to leave. It seems that both sides did
it.
>Purchases legally made from owners is not evil.
>>
>> Why all of this is seen as evil is beyond me.
>>
>> The formation of the State of Israel is analogous to
>> the formation of Eritria, a country broken off of
>> Ethiopia because a population minority of Ethiopia
>> wanted a separate land. Eritria did not and does
>> not contain an ethnicallhy uniform population.
>>
>> It is also analagous to the formation of Pakistan
>> and India after WWII. Most folks accept it as
>> legitimate, though extremists on both sides do
>> not.
>But in these cases, both peoples got a homeland. In India
>and Pakistan's case, there is dispute over the amount, and
>the border. However, two people got two countries. In Israel
>that did not happen. One people got the land, the other had
>to endure a bad situation or leave. And the IDf and others
>didn't try so hard to make the situation any easier.
This is wrong. Both peoples got land. No government
was ever set up in the Arab part. That was NOT because
of the Israelis. The invasions started within days of
the declaration of independence.
Let's not blame the Israelis for the fact that they were
invaded by vastly superior forces in weapons and numbers.
>These are important things when you compare the various
>situations. So, I think they should not be overlooked in an
>attempt to water down the tragedy of the Palestinian people.
There is a tragedy of the Palestinian people. And the
Israelis have contributed. But so have the Arabs. In
particular the worst have been the leaders who have
constantly told them that they should not leave the
camps except to go "home". The Palestinians as a group
have never attacked Israel. It has always been their
"friendly" neighbors who have done it. Each time the
Palestinians have been hurt.
The average Palestinian has no control over the fact
that militants hide out among them. That is the way
of urban warfare. When those militants are sought out,
they fight. And the Israelis fight back. Civilians
get hurt. Does that mean that the Israelis should never
seek to find those who organize terror? Or does it
mean that cynical killers who hide among civilians
*know* that they will have a good propaganda ploy
when the Israelis come for them.
In Afghanistan the US has totally wiped out a number
of villages because we had information that terrorists
were hiding there. We had no moral qualms about it.
The Israelis have more qualms than does the US. They
too could have just bombed the camps out of existance.
>>
>> There are many other examples as well. Singling
>> out Israel for special treatment in this regard
>> is curious, but understandable.
>See previous paragraph.
Ditto.
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: If we start repeating ourselves, which I am starting
to do, then it is time to stop. Not to declare a winner
or loser, but only because we will be boring ourselves as
well as everyone else. These are not discussions that
change people's minds.
Paul J Gans
You forget that the Muslims got a home in the Middle
East too. And a much larger one than they have now.
Please don't ignore that.
---- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
tiglath
"Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote in message
news:B8E3B1A6.236E%mwcook@crusader->
> Yet the best comes from the New York Times who described Sharon as having
> the instincts of "A warrior". This is a man who was held "personally
> responsible" by Israel's own commissioner's inquiry for the 1982 Shabra
and
> Shatilla
>
The killing of 20 people by a suicide bomber is call a massacre. The
bulldozing of families in their houses and the killing of hundreds and the
denial of international aid for the injured is called 'dismantling terrorist
infrastructure."
Read UN Resolution 242. It is very illustrative of the problem.
Cerinthus
--
Cerinthus
Anarchy - it's not the law, it's just a good idea.
---Unknown
Cerinthus
argued ourselves silly when we last talked on this. I also
think that we have to face it. You firmly accept Israel's
legitimacy. I firmly reject it. :-) Mind's probably won't be
changed in this life.
Drew Nicholson
Drew Nicholson
> > You forget that the Muslims got a home in the Middle
> > East too. And a much larger one than they have now.
> >
> > Please don't ignore that.
> >
> > ---- Paul J. Gans
> And which homeland did the Palestinians get?
> --
> Cerinthus
>
In the original partion plan, there was land set aside for them. I honestly
don't remember if it was called Palestine or not. But when Israel was
attacked, the Israeli Army took it all.
tiglath
reference. I
> personally find it unlikely, but certainly I've been wrong before. Again,
> that's why I asked for the reference.
>
> > Look in the archives. I posted it already.
> >
> Hum. Don't remember seeing it. But you're more interested in being
> petulant.
You are out of order. I posted what you ask already. For someone who NEVER
provided a reference you have a nerve expecting me to re-post just to make
up for your lack of attention. I posted once the evidence that YOU should
have posted to support you point about blacks in the US government. You
blame me of what you are most guilty of.
Petulant?
Go to hell.
Gans is doing a real bad job training his peones. They are cocky and
ignorant and get their little red capes in a terrible twist.
Drew Nicholson
>
> "Drew Nicholson" <DRE...@techsanctuary.org> wrote in message
> news:JTov8.30869$> Ah, no. If I thought they did, I wouldn't ask for the
> reference. I
> > personally find it unlikely, but certainly I've been wrong before.
Again,
> > that's why I asked for the reference.
> >
> > > Look in the archives. I posted it already.
> > >
> > Hum. Don't remember seeing it. But you're more interested in being
> > petulant.
>
> You are out of order. I posted what you ask already. For someone who
NEVER
> provided a reference you have a nerve expecting me to re-post just to make
> up for your lack of attention. I posted once the evidence that YOU
should
> have posted to support you point about blacks in the US government. You
> blame me of what you are most guilty of.
>
don't know much about public relations.
I don't tend to post references because most of what I've said has been
opinion, and what facts I have posted have been facts that people know --
like the fact that the original Partition Plan had a homeland for the
Palestinians as well as one for the Israelis. No need to post a reference
to that fact -- we all know it's true.
> Petulant?
>
> Go to hell.
>
You _are_ persnickety tonight.
> Gans is doing a real bad job training his peones. They are cocky and
> ignorant and get their little red capes in a terrible twist.
>
>
"Peones" isn't a word. I'll guess that you mean "peons". But I look
horrible in red, I'd never get a cape that color.
tiglath
> > The UN had and has no power.
>
> Remember this statement. It has relevance later.
>
> > > of the land they'd gained.
> >
> > It is not allowed by the UN Charter.
> >
> Didn't you just get through saying above that the UN has no power?
> >
You think you are so smart....
In 1948 Palestine had no representation in the UN. It wasn't a state. The
U.N. passes resolutions that its MEMBERS are obliged to heed. You belong
to the club you have to obey the rules. You don't belong to the club you
don't. The U.N. had no jurisdiction over Palestine or sovereignty.
Now Israel by accepting the Partition Resolution and becoming a member is
obliged to play by the UN rules, its charter and resolutions. That's why
Palestine or anyone can single out Israel for blatant hypocrisy. It abides
by some resolutions, Partition, 242, etc. but not by others (it has ignored
some 80 resolutions, and thre are resolutions about Israel not complying
with resolutions). Palestine doesn't have to respect any UN resolution,
not Partition not any other one.
Drew Nicholson
> > Didn't you just get through saying above that the UN has no power?
> > >
>
> You think you are so smart....
>
Well, now that you mention it...
> In 1948 Palestine had no representation in the UN. It wasn't a state.
The
> U.N. passes resolutions that its MEMBERS are obliged to heed. You belong
> to the club you have to obey the rules. You don't belong to the club you
> don't. The U.N. had no jurisdiction over Palestine or sovereignty.
>
> Now Israel by accepting the Partition Resolution and becoming a member is
> obliged to play by the UN rules, its charter and resolutions. That's why
> Palestine or anyone can single out Israel for blatant hypocrisy. It
abides
> by some resolutions, Partition, 242, etc. but not by others (it has
ignored
> some 80 resolutions, and thre are resolutions about Israel not complying
> with resolutions). Palestine doesn't have to respect any UN resolution,
> not Partition not any other one.
>
So, if Israel HADN'T joined the UN, this would all be ok?
Name me one country (alright, besides Canada) that has obeyed every UN
resolution.
Does Palestine have to respect international law? Did it have to while it
was "stateless"?
You can't have it both ways. Either the UN has the authority or it doesn't.
I mean, you can say that Israel has to follow the rules because they're a
member, and Palestine doesn't have to because they're not -- but not only
will we laugh, but we'll say things like "If Palestine doesn't recognize the
UN's authority, then why should Israel recognize it in a country or place
that doesn't?"
Before I clip the rest of my inexplicably retained post, I'll mention that
you didn't comment on some of the other things I said, like:
> > Israel has done wrong. Palestine has done wrong. They're ALL wrong.
and
> > I think you may find that there's a difference between principles and
> > reality -- and while Paul and I may both see parts of the reality of the
> > Middle East, we both have publicly condemned Israel's tactics...
and
> > Eh? I would expect it failed because neither side wants to give in.
and
tiglath
Something you are always reluctant to do. Where is your evidence for
what you claim Little Willie said?
Can't find it?
I guess you must have been wrong then, right?
Put up or shut up.
tiglath
Remember it now. Where is the evidence for your claim that:
"William was asking for proof of a department of genealogy that grants
degrees."?
Your claim, your burden.
If you are unwilling to support your assertions don't ask others to do
so.
Despite what Gans may have told you, you are not all that special.
tiglath
> "tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> news:a9kiu1$irg$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> >
> > It was the beginning of the usurpation of the land, that took 50
years
> > to accomplish, occupied by the indigenous people of Palestine, who
> > were at the time under Ottoman domination, and Ottoman citizens
most
> > of them.
> >
> For a group of people that's been persecuted for 1000 years, we sure
are
> organized.
This is both irrelevant and incorrect. Don't you have anything
better to do than post tripe like this?
So the persecutions of Jews started in 1002 A.D. now, right?
Some Jew.
tiglath
> > > Hum. Don't remember seeing it. But you're more interested in
being
> > > petulant.
> >
> > You are out of order. I posted what you ask already. For someone
who
> NEVER
> > provided a reference you have a nerve expecting me to re-post just
to make
> > up for your lack of attention. I posted once the evidence that
YOU
> should
> > have posted to support you point about blacks in the US
government. You
> > blame me of what you are most guilty of.
> >
> For someone who is attempting to convince people of something, you
sure
> don't know much about public relations.
>
Another one who things nice makes right.
> I don't tend to post references
No kidding.
> because most of what I've said has been
> opinion,
Nope. You express matters of fact. What Little Willie wrote is a
matter of fact no opinion. The number of blacks in the U.S.
government likewise.
You just like to shoot from the hip like many others here. That's why
both your feet are wrapped in bandages.
tiglath
> > Now Israel by accepting the Partition Resolution and becoming a
member is
> > obliged to play by the UN rules, its charter and resolutions.
That's why
> > Palestine or anyone can single out Israel for blatant hypocrisy.
It
> abides
> > by some resolutions, Partition, 242, etc. but not by others (it
has
> ignored
> > some 80 resolutions, and thre are resolutions about Israel not
complying
> > with resolutions). Palestine doesn't have to respect any UN
resolution,
> > not Partition not any other one.
> >
> So, if Israel HADN'T joined the UN, this would all be ok?
>
What if, what if. The last resort of the drowning. What if water
was air...
> Name me one country (alright, besides Canada) that has obeyed every
UN
> resolution.
>
Israel?
> Does Palestine have to respect international law? Did it have to
while it
> was "stateless"?
What international law? Be specific.
>
> You can't have it both ways. Either the UN has the authority or it
doesn't.
I has authority over ITS MEMBER nations. No more.
> I mean, you can say that Israel has to follow the rules because
they're a
> member, and Palestine doesn't have to because they're not -- but not
only
> will we laugh, but we'll say things like "If Palestine doesn't
recognize the
> UN's authority, then why should Israel recognize it in a country or
place
> that doesn't?"
That's twice I say it because Israel is a member of the UN, and
Palestine isn't. Clear?
The U.N has no sovereignty over ANY country; that's why its
resolutions can be ignored without consequences. However, if Israel
has it that the UN had the authority to partition Palestine, it should
also recognize its authority in other resolutions. Palestinians mere
observe that fact.
Paul J Gans
That portion of the Palestine mandate that was not
given to Israel. That they never set up a government
there is not Israel's fault. At that time Israel
had no claim whatsoever to that land.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:a9lei0$de$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> Cerinthus <nihilizmn...@xtnora.ccrapo.nz> wrote:
[rather enormous snip]
>> ----- Paul J. Gans
>>
>> PS: If we start repeating ourselves, which I am starting
>> to do, then it is time to stop. Not to declare a winner
>> or loser, but only because we will be boring ourselves as
>> well as everyone else. These are not discussions that
>> change people's minds.
>>
>I have to agree with you in this Postscript. I think we
>argued ourselves silly when we last talked on this. I also
>think that we have to face it. You firmly accept Israel's
>legitimacy. I firmly reject it. :-) Mind's probably won't be
>changed in this life.
That's fine. I have no quarrel with that. You are certainly
entitled to your opinion. I'm perfectly happy to leave it
that way.
---- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
> >>
> >> Ah! Tiglath can not think of any good replies to my points.
>
> >If it makes you happy... There are no good replies to your points. The
> >scorn of silence is all they merit.
>
>
>
> >Therefore
> >> he has descended to his usual tactics of personal insults.
>
> >Whatever.
>
> Shall I post about cutting and running, avoiding the issue,
> moving the goalposts, etc., etc.
Only if you can show evidence for each one of these charges.
You would have to show first of all which of his "incisive" questions
stumped me. My response threshold is not all that high, after all I reply
to idiotic retorts from you and Drew all the time, but the chirping of
crickets carry a better argument than the natter of this last recruit of
yours. I have limits too.
>
> Or shall I post about your sexual abilities, excretory functions,
> and intellectual abilities?
Two can play that game.
tiglath
> > Petulant?
> >
> > Go to hell.
> >
>
> You _are_ persnickety tonight.
You can't even get your comebacks right. Persnickety means "Overparticular
about trivial details; fastidious."
It is not something you say after you are told to go to hell.
We stand divided by a common language. Go back to school.
>
> > Gans is doing a real bad job training his peones. They are cocky and
> > ignorant and get their little red capes in a terrible twist.
> >
> >
> "Peones" isn't a word. I'll guess that you mean "peons". But I look
> horrible in red, I'd never get a cape that color.
Peones is a word. Get out of the house, see the world, expand your
vocabulary.
Cerinthus
Thanks. As you are to yours. :-) Thanks for an enjoyable
discussion. It is good to have one without the usual
attempts at "conversion". :-)
tiglath
> >And there is an aggravating factor in that the great
> >majority of the Jewish minority that was given 55% of
> >the land to rule in 1948, were alien Jews from Europe.
> Your figures about 55% of the land are, of course, wrong.
You are absolutely right. I stand corrected.
"... A United Nations plan of partition, similar to other previously
proposed by the British, was adopted in 1947. This envisage the Jewish
state receiving 56 per cent of the territory of Palestine."
"... It was the war for the first Arab-Israeli War, in which against
enormous odds and by dint of extraordinary determination Israel was
triumphant. As a result of subsequent armistice agreements, Israel retained
75 per cent of Palestine."
-- Margaret Thatcher (2002) Statecraft, NY, HarperCollins Publishers,
(p.244).
Drew Nicholson
> > For a group of people that's been persecuted for 1000 years, we sure
> are
> > organized.
>
> This is both irrelevant and incorrect. Don't you have anything
> better to do than post tripe like this?
>
> So the persecutions of Jews started in 1002 A.D. now, right?
>
> Some Jew.
>
temple... I like bagels and matzoh, tho.
Tiglath, the Jews have been persecuted for at least two millenia, if not
longer.
I'm sure that there are other people who fall into that range as well.