The Law of return provides the israeli citizenship to any jew moving to Israel.The West Bank belonged to Jordan,The Gaza Strip to Egypt and the Golan Hts to Syria.Why weren't those territories given back?What's the difference between an Arab-Israeli and a palestinian?
Originally posted by Damien The Law of return provides the israeli citizenship to any jew moving to Israel.The West Bank belonged to Jordan,The Gaza Strip to Egypt and the Golan Hts to Syria.Why weren't those territories given back?What's the difference between an Arab-Israeli and a palestinian?
Ha! Twisting of truth. The west bank was a part of the to-be palestinian state, and the gaza strip. And egypt neither jordan wasnted those territories back signing the peace with israel. no one wants the palestinians. their regime is too dumb to have a country, and they are too violent to control.
Whose were the occupied territories b4 the Six-days war?The arabic countries didn't want em it's true but it's not comprehensible.Most palestinians are as foreigner as the israelis.Palestinians stem from other arabic nations and came when Palestine began to be economically strong(when Jews developped it).B4 Zionism,there were only 50,000 Jews in Palestine.Then Zionists came and tension began.Without Zionists,Palestine would have been another muslim country,moderated or integrist like Saudi Arabia.
Technically the 1948 Palestinian refugees are traitors aren't they?
They followed the call by the Arabs to abandon Israel so that they would not be a hinderance for "the advancing Arabs to push the Jews into the sea"? They left in the darkest hour, supporting and obeying the enemy. The Israelis did all they could but couldn't make them stay...
Why should they be allowed back? They moved voluntarily, betrayed the new state, and supported the antagonist Arab states. Why shouldn't they do it again?
'Why should they be allowed back? They moved voluntarily, betrayed the new state, and supported the antagonist Arab states. Why shouldn't they do it again?'
My point:
The german people tried to take over Europe when they got enough weapons and slaughtered vast numbers of their population purely on the basis of race - why should they be allowed weapons again. Why shouldn't they do the same again?
Rmsharpe Islam is only the most militant of religions right now. It is not necessarily the most militant of religions
Originally posted by insurgent Technically the 1948 Palestinian refugees are traitors aren't they?
They followed the call by the Arabs to abandon Israel so that they would not be a hinderance for "the advancing Arabs to push the Jews into the sea"? They left in the darkest hour, supporting and obeying the enemy. The Israelis did all they could but couldn't make them stay...
Why should they be allowed back? They moved voluntarily, betrayed the new state, and supported the antagonist Arab states. Why shouldn't they do it again?
I think traitor is a bit a harsh judgement for people, most of them families no doubt, who just try to save their lives. Would you call all people fleeing from a battlezone traitors?
I should have said, it was a rhetorical question, hypothetical...
But in 1948 hundreds of thousand left areas deep in established Israel (not battlezones). They left purely because they wanted Israel destroyed and because they obeyed the Arabs...
The German people is changed. They are litterate, well educated, wealthy etc. The Palestinian society hasn't developed, especially not in the refugee camps, the Arabs erected (surpisingly close to military targets, where the Palestinians are forced to live in by the Arabs). Though the Germans may not be better than the Palestinians, their development, education, and position nonetheless decreases the risk of them beginning to conquer Europe...
America is not a "Christian" nation as it stands now, (nor is it a "Christian homeland"). It was founded by both Christians, (i.e. the Puritans) nominal Christians (Jamestown, VA), atheists, and Jews. But even though it was populated by a majority of Christians in the beginning (there wasa majority of Christians in the world in the first place) by no means was it extremely discriminatory towards those of other belief. Thomas Paine was a well known atheist, and Maryland enacted a Toleration Act (partly to protect the Catholics, but yeah). Hebrew was seriously considered as the official language for the newly independent America, and Ben Franklin wanted a picture of the Crossing of the Red Sea on the one dollar bill.
This is a long reply (what was the first question anyway...) but it seems that a lot of people are really ignorant about America in the first place. ("Squashing Christian Major?") <--I seriously doubt that one. I'm sure their would be a lot of Americans vehemently denying that America is in fact "Christian" if they knew that such a thing was said here.
Btw, i realized that this thread has grown two pages just in this one day alone !
Originally posted by insurgent I should have said, it was a rhetorical question, hypothetical...
But in 1948 hundreds of thousand left areas deep in established Israel (not battlezones). They left purely because they wanted Israel destroyed and because they obeyed the Arabs...
Your remark was not rhetorical, since it is very much debatable. And from what you write now it is clear you do not see it as hypothetical either, actually you are again supporting your previous claim.
I was refering to battlezones, because earlier in this thread or another, the people fleeing Israel in 1948 (probably not only palestinians, but that is not really relevant in this discussion) ran from the armies that announced they would invade, and as was stated here before as well, would attack ANYBODY they found in the then proclamed state of Israel.
I cannot, and dare not to judge other motives they might have had, especially not the motives you accuse them off. I strongly suspect though, that very few of them left because they had those motives, I think most were just scared ****less, and ran for there lives.
I think also that the word obey is very much out of context here. Thinking of many other people who have fled there homes in more recent times, I would not call there seeking refuge elsewhere 'obedience'.
Originally posted by rmsharpe A Muslim majority in America would crush the ideas of our founding fathers. Equal protection under tha law would be dissolved in favor of a code of "law" (religious fanatacism) like Saudi Arabia.
Judaism and Christianity share very much in common concerning ideas, but Islam is the more militant of all of the religions.
Islam is not a violent religion - in fact it is based on tolerance and acceptance of others. There are people currently in the world that have taken it and twisted it to suit their own means - to justify their own acts of violence and cruelty - but this has been done by people belonging to MANY religions throughout history.
I'm sure someone is going to find horrible ugly quotes from the Koran that show violence or intolerance - Thats fine go ahead but I bet you could find things similar in the Christian bible if you were inclined to look hard enough. I KNOW they exist - just do't know them off the top of my head.
I'm an atheist and tend to dislike organize religion - however i believe in a people's right to believe in whichever diety they choose. I also tend to think that it shows ignorance and bigotry to paint an entire religion's followers with the same brush...
I'm sorry your country was attacked but it does NOT make every Muslim irrational, violent or suicidal.
'They are litterate, well educated, wealthy etc. The Palestinian society hasn't developed, especially not in the refugee camps, the Arabs erected (surpisingly close to military targets, where the Palestinians are forced to live in by the Arabs). Though the Germans may not be better than the Palestinians, their development, education, and position nonetheless decreases the risk of them beginning to conquer Europe...'
Germans in world war 2 were literate and wealthy, didnt stop them. Now what you appear to be saying is that people who are iliterate and wealthy or more correctly the chidren of people who are iliterate or wealthy should be persucuted for what their parents did but wealthy people shpould not.
Think about this before writing a snap response - you do not trust a poor man uneducated man whos parents murdered because you think he will do the same but you do trust a wealthy man whos parents murderd because you think he wont do it again?
:crazy:
rjgo you threadjacker (referring to another thread) what does shalomest mean?
acutually then I would hvae to disagree, budhism is probably the most peaceful religion (however just because a religions peaceful doesn't mean people wont be nasty it just means they are less likely to be violent using the religion as a pretext)
the text of Judaism is more violent than that of christianity it just happens that since the foundation of Judasim the assyrians and babylonains, romans and others stopped the Jews becoming powerful enough to becomne violent.
If England wouldn't exist there wouldn't be any tension against them in France in the 18th century and france could just take over it.
So, therfor, england has no right to exist.
Originally posted by germanos Your remark was not rhetorical, since it is very much debatable. And from what you write now it is clear you do not see it as hypothetical either, actually you are again supporting your previous claim.
Well it was rhetorical - lacking a better word for it. I do not believe it myself, I think it is too tough, but I wanted your input.
To answer Graeme the Mad: No, I do not propose to persecute anyone because of their origins or literacy. No, no, no, NO! I am just saying that an iliterate (etc.) people is more likely to turn violent. They are easilier effected.
The German connection doesn't really hold: only a third of the population supported Hitler and many more were iliterate or uneducated etc. The support for Arafat - however - seems to be almost universal (but that could just be because he represses resistance and use every means of information as propaganda for himself and against Israel).
And, to answer one question you will surely ask: Are you comparing Arafat with Hitler? Yes, I am. It seems a perfectly good comparison. He uses the same methods to keep his people down, uses the same methods for keeping in power, but besides that - there is no comparison.
Originally posted by Citizen_K America is not a "Christian" nation as it stands now, (nor is it a "Christian homeland"). It was founded by both Christians, (i.e. the Puritans) nominal Christians (Jamestown, VA), atheists, and Jews. But even though it was populated by a majority of Christians in the beginning (there wasa majority of Christians in the world in the first place) by no means was it extremely discriminatory towards those of other belief. Thomas Paine was a well known atheist, and Maryland enacted a Toleration Act (partly to protect the Catholics, but yeah). Hebrew was seriously considered as the official language for the newly independent America, and Ben Franklin wanted a picture of the Crossing of the Red Sea on the one dollar bill.
This is a long reply (what was the first question anyway...) but it seems that a lot of people are really ignorant about America in the first place. ("Squashing Christian Major?") <--I seriously doubt that one. I'm sure their would be a lot of Americans vehemently denying that America is in fact "Christian" if they knew that such a thing was said here.
Btw, i realized that this thread has grown two pages just in this one day alone !
Religions: Jewish 80.1%, Muslim 14.6% (mostly Sunni Muslim), Christian 2.1%, other 3.2% (1996 est.)
Well, seems like USA is more christian than Israel is jewish by population.
Now, do you think it is such an impossible scenario that incase the christian majority in the US is at risk to lose the majority to muslims, laws would be created to give immigration preferentials to christians?
Oh yes, and I'm sure it is real that the USA will accept an immigration wave of 200 million indians.
(Israel is excpected by the arab world to accept 3 million palestinians).
And that really ruins the idea of a Jewish National Home. The Jews would be a minority in their sanctuary, and the Arabs wouldn't wait a moment to exploit it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
!
