Are serious? you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and than claim the palestinians aren't arabs. The irony of this is on a level previously unknown to mankind.
Maps of Israel, Jordan and Palestine
- Thread starter nirakar
- Start date
Such property rights are dependent on the nations involved. Sure it's a personal loss for those people, but there are larger issues. If they want to continue to kill Israelis for some land, Israel has the right to kill them. Although theft (as you choose to call it) is wrong, it is never justification for murder.
attempted destruction of a people as a people is justifacation for war. which is what Israel and zionism has been attempting of the palestinian arabs from the very begining.
and you didn't seem to have a problem with jews and than later Israelis trying to use violence to gain land. It the same fucking bullshit with people like you and buffallo and the rest of the mindless pro-Israel gang. Zero intellectual honesty. Did it ever occur to you that the reason they use violence is because it worked for the jews to remove them.? of course not that would require intellectual honesty. Your presicous fucking Israeli are merely reaping what they sowed. If they weren't so hell bent getting what the wanted at the expense of the law and palestinian arabs rights this conflict would have never started.
Whose is being dishonest now? Israel never attempted destruction of a people, quite the reverse. Arabs tried to destroy them for daring to form a defensible nation against Arab/Jewish violence. Land is a necessary part of that, but it's tertiary to defense. Yes, Israel is having to deal with the blowback from these events. The interactions of nations should ideally fall within international law, but any student of history would know that they really act in their own interests above all. Is it worth pointing out that Arab preparations for war against Israel weren't exactly lawful either? Nor were the riots that preceded the war. You may not like that Jewish immigration increased dramatically after WWII, but this was the action of a desperate people within their rights of self-preservation, which are above property rights.
Say you are sent to prison for some good reason. You have to then carve out a place for yourself, make the other prisoners respect you, otherwise they will make your life hell. You might have to use violence (technically illegal), but that's what you have to do.
you are.The arabs have never tried to destroy the jews as a people. forcible prevent them from forming a country that was illegal yes but destroy them as a people no. The Israelis have done everything the could to destroy the palestinian as a people including propagading the myth that jordan is a palestinian country.
no the arabs tried to destroy Israel not the jewish people. The jews took what they had no right to by force from a people that never had a problem with them. The arabs were defending them selves from a jewish invasion.
If by deal you mean contining to deny responsiblity for their wants than you would be correct.
nothing wrong with preparing for war if you feel threatened by an invading people.
Which ones the jewish or arab?
No Spider there is no excuse or justification for denying people their rights. It wasn't a matter of self preservation it was a god damn want of a country. They knew what they wanted would involve deny the resident arab population its right to self determination they just didn't care.
There is a big difference between being forced into a situation( going to prison) and moving to an area and trying to create a country against the wishes of the majority of the population denying them their right to determine their political future( the creation of Israel)
Different standards apply to when you have no choice of being in a situation and when you do. The jews chose to go to palestine and than acted surprised when they tried to preempt the rights of the majority of the resident population.
Last edited:
You don't know what the Arab nations that attacked Israel were going to do, there is no reason to assume they would be merciful. Since there is no significant difference between the Arabs that lived in Palestine and those that lived some miles away, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the formation of Israel inherently denied self-determination to Arabs. The Arabs themselves denied such rights to their fellow Arabs in order to present them as helpless victims and a minority in an area in which they are in fact a vast majority. The formation of Israel was justifed as self-preservation, since only a nation is powerful enough to ensure security. I do not believe that the formation of Israel is the primary cause of this conflict, it was irrelevent, the Jews would have been oppressed anyway.
There is also no reason to think they wouldn't. given not knowing and having to guess what would happen with out the jews trying to preempt the right of self determination we have to default to the status quo which was not doing anything to them
Irrelevant that the were geneticlly similar to arabs else where. It was a different political enitity. The formation of Israel inherently prevented the palestinian arabs in that region from determining their own future.
The crimes of another do not negate your crimes. deal with it.
no one is saying they were a minority at the start. They are a minority now due to Israeli forcibly expelling them which you don't have a problem with. The simple fact was they were the majority and they had their rights strip because of the wants of jews who weren't even living in palestine.
Still using the same stupid reasoning. Israel creation was justified due to we created it against the wishes of the native population so we need to preserve it because it would be wrong to let a country that was created for people not living there to no longer exist so the resident population can have a country. Get it through you thick skull Israel was created because of a want not a need. The jews would have been fucking fine in europe( not including russia) they just didn't want to fucking stay there.
You yell at me for using a hypothetical even though mine is based on nothing changing than use a hypothetical yourself that requires the status quo changing. Like I said being pro-Israel requires someone to be intellectually dishonest.
Thanks
Yes, the Romans friendly with Herod's Jewish Kingdom and then later smashed that Kingdom and took direct control of all of Israel. At Herod's Time, Herod controlled half of current Israel/Palestine and Rome controlled the other half.
After Rome took direct control of Israel Rome called the province Iudaea.
A century or 2 o or 3 later the Jews revolted and Rome crushed the revolt and ethnically cleansed Jerusalem of Jews. Jews remained the majority in Israel, but Jews were not allowed to enter Jerusalem. The Romans also changed the name of the province from Iudaea to Palaestina at that time.
If a family moved into your house and chained you and your family up in the back yard and beat you when you made to much noise, do you think you would ever throw rocks at that families kids if they were playing in the back yard?
Would you feel less angry for chaining you in the back yard if the family explained to you that they only chained you in the back yard because you tried to force them out of your house when they came share your house with you. And they explained that they had to move into your house because their ancestors once live in the house that was previously on that land and where they were living had been a bad neighborhood and half their family had been killed. Would any of that have convinced you to share your house with these people? If a cop who you knew was corrupt said it was the law that you had to share your house with these people and give them the best rooms would that have made you choose to share your house or would you have tried to drive them out of your house if you thought your family was stronger than their family?
When it turned out that you were wrong and their family was actually stronger then your family what would you do about being chained in the back yard. The family chaining wants you to live in your relatives house. Your relative don't want you. They say they are too poor and their house is too small. They say wait until their is an honest cop and an honest judge and then they will try to help you get a hearing. They do pass a few rocks over the backyard fence to you. You have been waiting for this honest cop for a long time and have pretty much lost hope in their ever being an honest cop. Can you cope? What do you do? What kind of life can your children have chained in the back yard?
You could be nice nice and suck up to the family and hope that they will allow you to share your own house with them. But it is fairly clear that they don't even want you in the yard never mind in the house. They want your house. They always wanted your house. They never really wanted to share it but some of them felt morally bound to share the house prior too you trying to kick them out of your house.
Now what do you do? Wouldn't hurting them just to relieve your own frustration and reclaim a little dignity for yourself feel good? Who care what they do to you, you are screwed anyway.
Last edited:
If I get arrested, is that assault? If I am sent to jail for tax evasion, is that kidnapping? If I am drafted and killed in war, is that murder? The morals of interpersonal relations are usurped by larger matters. The Palestinians claim to be a trapped minority, and yet they live in the midst of a virtual empire of Arab nations. They are just as much trapped by Arabs as they are Jews, they are being used as pawns, the sacrificial lamb, martyrs for the cause of not allowing Jews any power in the Middle East. It's religious prejudice, nothing more.
You appear to be incapable of posting anything that doesn't reveal your obvious religious bias, mate.spidergoat said:
Then Israel is a religious prejudice? Israel has created some pawns to use in a game of religious persecution and prejudice, the rules as you seem to describe them, involve making up reasons to do this, like "they aren't allowing Jews any power in the Middle East"? Things like that, which are patently untrue.
Complete bullshit, propaganda you obviously prefer to cling to, claims that simply don't seem to gel with reality, yada yada...
I was pointing out to PJ that they are not all Arabian descent. In your link read the part about Ancestral origins. PJ is going by what he believes to be true but geographic distance does not give a clear picture. S.A.M is a Muslim but she is not an Arab. I am assuming you are Muslim but you are not an Arab because of your religion.
Palestinians can and do have Arabic descendants but certainly not all of them. Thats all...no need to 'brain' people with books.
all most all of them are. I am going by what is true.
Basically you are an Arab if Arabic is your first language. Being an Arab is like being an Anglo. Perhaps Arab might identify more with the Hejaz than than Americans, Jamaicans, Irish and Australians identify with England. Most Arabs are Muslims which furthers the connection with the Hejaz.
English is the largest single ancestry in the most of the Anglo countries. The Arab lands became Arab in the way that India is becoming Anglo and not in the way that America became Anglo.
Palestinian and Egyptian Christians still identify as Arabs. Some Lebanese Christians and most "Assyrian or Chaldean" Christians do not consider themselves Arabs despite speaking Arabic and being considered Arab by other Arabs. Some "Assyrians/Chaldeans" Speak Syric/Aramaic and therefore are not Arabs.
Arab is not a nationality. Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian, Sudanese, Saudi Arabian, Yemeni, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Omani are Arab nationalities.
American, Canadian and Australian are Anglo nationalities.
Whether Palestinian is a nationality is debatable because they don't have a nation. Palestinian is more equivalent to Scottish but that analogy is a bit lacking. I really can't find a good analogy for Palestinian.
Last edited:
Most Iranians speak Farsi which is a language from the Indo-European language family. because Iran speaks Farsi Iran is not an Arab nation.
Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) are languages from the Semitic language family.
Kurds in Northern Iraq are 25% of the Iraq's population and they are not Arab because they speak Kurdish. Kurdish is also from the Indo-European language family.
Southwest Iran does have a Arabic speaking population. Nothwest Iran has a Azerbaijani speaking minority. Azerbaijani is a language from the Turkic language family. Iran has other non-Farsi speaking minorities.
Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) are languages from the Semitic language family.
Kurds in Northern Iraq are 25% of the Iraq's population and they are not Arab because they speak Kurdish. Kurdish is also from the Indo-European language family.
Southwest Iran does have a Arabic speaking population. Nothwest Iran has a Azerbaijani speaking minority. Azerbaijani is a language from the Turkic language family. Iran has other non-Farsi speaking minorities.
Are they Arabs then?
Nonsense. There is very much a Palestinian nation (and hence nationality). What they don't have is a state, but that is not required in order to have a nation.
Also, this linking of nationality to language is a red herring. While language is an important component of social and cultural identity, and so tends to be correlated with nationality, it is not necessarily a defining factor. For example, I think you'll find that most Persians would tell you that they don't speak Arabic because they are not Arabs, not that they are not Arabs because they do not speak Arabic.