If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Er whatever.
Just after the Six Day War Israel offered to withdraw from the Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace. To quote the Arab leaders response: “no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel”. Diplomatic!
Then Clinton drew up a plan for peace to the Israelis and the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000. He asked for big concessions from Israel, which PM Barak supported because he wanted to bring Israelis the peace they crave. The plan also included a big concession to the Palestinians, offering 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem and a Palestinian state plus the dismantling of settlements. Arafat rejected this offer and instead chose the route of violence - the September 2000 Palestinian uprising. Despite this, Israel's desire for peace meant the Israelis were still willing to negotiate with Arafat. In Dec 2000, Clinton and Barak came up with another proposal for an Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the West Bank, this was once again rejected by Arafat who did not even present a counter-offer to Clinton and Barak.
The Israelis just want to live in peace. They've tried and will continue to try but the Palestinians under Arafat chose violence and bloodshed.
who are the Israelis and the Palestinians you are reffering to here? all of them
I was referring to their political representatives. The Israelis were willing to and did offer compromise - the 2000 Camp David offer for instance. Arafat meanwhile rejected it and wouldn't make a counteroffer - although not really surprising. He was a terrorist.
Anyway I guess too I was referring to the way many Palestinians under Arafat resorted to bloodshed and murder of innocent Israeli civillians.
As for Barak's "generous offer" in 2000...
please don't make me laugh.
FACT: Not once in nearly 40 years of illegal occupation has Israel offered to fully comply with its obligations and the dozens upon dozens of outstanding UN resolutions regarding the total withdrawal from Occupied Palestine to 1967 borders, the right of return for refugees, an immediate stop to the human right abuses and war crimes committed against the Palestinians, the permanent dismantlement of the cancerous illegal settlements and the partition of Jerusalem. Not once.
And whereas some issues might indeed be open to negotiation (right of return for refugees, and how to deal with Jerusalem) the one issue that is absolutely critical is the total and permanent withdrawal from Occupied Palestine. And for as long as the Israeli government refuses to get the flying fuck out of Palestine once and for all, there will never be peace. NEVER.
The ball is, as it has always been, on Israel's court.
i think hes on about the ones who militantly dont want to live their homes gained by illegal occupation
if they actually payed the market price fr the land and was consented i wouldnt mind but how is nicking land to build homes a good thing? no wait it reminds me what greater germany done 1938-1942
It seems to me that both sides are fucking wankers in this. Each then uses the shit pot/kettle logic to justify it's position. After the first bullet was fired, there was all the reason their ever needed to be for a continuing conflict.
From the "paletinians" point of view, it's like a very large man coming into your house and making himself comfortable and then offering "concessions" in the form of not fucking your missus as well. From the "Israeli" point of view, it's a large man with no home being given grudging lodgings by a small man who is cowed by his size.
By using force to take land they became subject to the "Klintock" effect -
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList320/F4607C74CA18E5F5C1256B66005C27D5
i.e. legally, they gave up their status as humans and became pirates (much as I have done as a sovereign individual) or hostis humani generis
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:UL2pib7d-CUJ:www.nyu.edu/pubs/jilp/main/issues/36/36_2_3_Bottini.pdf+klintock&hl=en
How much does peace cost?
Do I have to explain in more detail? :rolleyes:
Matadore doesn't think that zionists, neo-cons and corporations are capable of theft. No doubt he thinks they're just 'reclaiming' what is rightfully theirs......
He also doesn't know that Palestinians are human......
The analogy only works if you accept that the before the bank robber robbed the bank, the bank tried to have him killed.
Er yes you would. Unfortunately for blaming the Israelis for everything it then become extremely complex... As the bank robber would then be able to claim that they had also used to live their and some of their accomplices had been living there up until recently when they were kicked out by the banks owner...
As we have got so far from the original analogy I think you have prooved my point that it was a crap one.
And what different region did the Jews regard as their historic homeland? (ignoring the fact there were plenty already in the region before Zionism came into being)
Funny that archeology has proven otherwise
This should be quite interesting.
The oldest tradition is making up new ones. The past is littered with crap that's been discarded. To use history as justification for your present actions is to hide behind fiction. Or can I go and start a fight down the local "defending my honour" before running through some stranger with my sword?
As though there could be a "jewish" or "palestinian" people anyway. Still, if you follow all the other lemmings you might just wind up over a cliff.
That's just one of many...
Further, if one were to turn to the theological claim at work (despite the fact that Zionism is rooted in distinctly secular not religious socio-political thought), the claim of god's covenant fails to recognise that that covenant was conditional upon the hebrews maintaining their observance of gods laws. This they failed to do the covenant was null and void (as testified to biblically by the tearing of the veil that separated the holy of holies from the rest of the temple (i.e. God's presence amongst his people departed).
I suggest you go examine Khazaria and the cultural linguistic roots of the proponderance of modern Israelis and you will find that their language and their culture is European, wholly out of keeping with the Palestinian inhabitants they victimised and depossessed by force and terrorism to build their myth of a land without a people.
The original Arab Jewish population of the region that pre-dated the modern state was and remains a tiny minority.
The Temple was built by Hebrews, Aramaic speaking, indigenous to the region and long reduced to little more than a small minority of descendents amongst an otherwise imported European culture.
You're speaking out of your ass as always.
Hebrew is rooted in Arameic. Just as Arabic is.
You are one of the most disingenuous and dishonest advocates of Israel I think I have ever discussed with. Hell scholars in Israel itself even recognise the linguistic roots of the modern state. Your desire to avoid the truth of clear foreign invasion and domination of the indigenous people of that land is clearly ideologically inspired that it makes a mockery of your intellect repeatedly.
You have an awful language, you know?
No I am not "speaking out of my ass".
You said that the bankrobber (or whatever your stupid analogy was), "had no historic, geographic nor cultural roots in the bank as he and his people were descendents of an entirely different region altogether.". Which is not true, as you can by monuments as for example the temple mount observe that they did have a historical, geographic and cultural relation to the area.
Yes, there are converts among Jews, but say in Denmark... First Jews who settled down were of Sephardic decsent. These were people whose ancestors had from Morocco or Spain moved their way up first to Holland, then to Germany and then invited by the King to reside in Denmark. Later they would develop an Ashkenazi character due to the "influx" of Jews from Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.
Though - it has to be noted, a lot of Eastern European Jews have German roots, which means that it his likely that some of those have gone through the same "route".
For you to ignore wanton militant invasion by your Zionist heros who drove out or killed some 700-800,000 original indigenous inhabitants (and have to this day kept the remainder in a state of victimisation and deprivation to serve their agenda of presumed exceptionalism) only shows how dispicable you are at heart.
As for language, your's is fairly appalling as well I must say.
No. Modern Hebrew is the tongue of Modern Israelis. Modern Hebrew was "founded" by someone whose name I can't remember right now (will ask my mom later when she gets back), on the basis of older Hebrew, and I think it became the official language in 1921 before the state was founded.
Yiddish is a mix of biblical Hebrew and mostly German, or Russian/Polish. Can be found in a lot of varieties.
The so-called scholars you are referring to, is among others my uncle who is leading in the research of the Hebrew tongue - and has among others spent time in Oxbridge in order to teach and research. Oh, and my mother also has her degree in Hebrew and Arabic linguistics
Though, at least I'll take credit for the fact that you actually acknowledge that I have an intellect. Almost feels as a compliment when it comes from you.
Thus in both instances underscoring my very point, neither Ashkenazis nor Sephardics are of ancient Hebrew cultural or linguistic origins. The religion is Hebraic in origin bt not the people themselves. Thus any claim that Palestine was their rightful home is false. Zionism is a European ideology and its leaders and founders of the modern state were wholly alien to the indigenous peoples of the region.
And btw, Ashkenazis from Poland, Germany, Armenia, and other Central and Eastern nations are Khazars. If you doubt it then look up the history of Khazaria and the remnants of the Jews which fled therefrom after the Mongols destroyed it.
Modern Israel is a transplanted culture which perpetuates itself upon an apartheid ideology of superiority over its Arab neighbours.
Where in this thread is my language appalling?
And what in your book constitutes their "abrogation of God's covenant"?
When you say "no" immedeatley, have you then bothered to research what I wrote? Original Danish Jews were indeed of Sephardic descent.
And what have I told you so many times before about converts in Judaism? They're in religious terms accepted on the same level as Jewish borns. Rabbi Akiva who has left behind a great legacy was the descendant of converts.
And no, there was no "militant invasion" - war was created after being attacked.