Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060201/pl_afp/uspoliticsbushmideast_060201152602

GAZA CITY (AFP) - Hamas accused George W. Bush of showing blatant bias towards Israel after the US president appealed to the radical Palestinian movement to disarm and recognise the Jewish state.

"This is the same old American position, which illustrates the extent of its bias towards Israel and the blackmail that is being exercised towards the Palestinian peple," Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri told AFP.

"It is a position prejudiced against the Palestinian people. America and the international community should adopt a more balanced position towards the Palestinian cause and not punish the Palestinian people because of their democratic choice."

Masri said Hamas was ready to deal with all international parties "without preliminary conditions" that would otherwise limit "progress."

In his State of the Union address, Bush reiterated his calls for Hamas to "recognise Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace" in the aftermath of its sweeping victory in last week's Palestinian general election.

Another Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, said Bush's comments were part of the "pressures and blackmail exercised against the movement to compel it to change its positions and renounce the rights of our people".


"These pressures do not concern us and they will not in any case bring about a change in the movement's positions," Abu Zuhri added.

"Pressure must be put on the (Israeli) occupier so that it recognises the rights of our people and not on the victim to accept the occupation," he added.


It would be funny if it wasn't true. Funny thing is that Hamas is even refusing to listen to its voters where 75% of them want change.

I guess wiping out Israel and terrorizing its citizen is a "right" of the Palestinians.

Good to know. Give them some credit, they don't talk with two mouths.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It would be hard to argue the US is not bias to Israel.

It would be equally hard to argue that Palestinian suicide bombers don't create a lot of that bias.

But even before the suicide bombers there was a bias.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It would be hard to argue the US is not bias to Israel.


And the cause of this is the routine brown-nosing that third-rate US politicos do to the American Jewish Lobby.


CF

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

And the cause of this is the routine brown-nosing that third-rate US politicos do to the American Jewish Lobby.

Haven't you heard? there no need for brown-nosing, we already control everything. We control the Horizontal; we control the Vertical...

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And the cause of this is the routine brown-nosing that third-rate US politicos do to the American Jewish Lobby.

.................

Haven't you heard? there no need for brown-nosing, we already control everything. We control the Horizontal; we control the Vertical...

Mark




Strawman, Mitamuna.
And the problem you face is that most Americans, if they were honest, would agree with me.



CF

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Strawman, Mitamuna.
And the problem you face is that most Americans, if they were honest, would agree with me.


I'd add brainwashed to your list.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Haven't you heard? there no need for brown-nosing, we already control everything. We control the Horizontal; we control the Vertical...
----
Strawman, Mitamuna.

What's a strawman? Do you even know what that means?


And the problem you face is that most Americans, if they were antisemitic, would agree with me.


I know.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Haven't you heard? there no need for brown-nosing, we already control everything. We control the Horizontal; we control the Vertical...
...........
Strawman, Mitamuna.


What's a strawman? Do you even know what that means?



You quite clearly don't know what a strawman is, Mitamuna.

The strawman you have dragged out on this occasion is the idea that the Jews of America control everything - the banks, television, industry, Hollywood, you name it.

Since this is patently nonsense, it makes it an easy business for you to knock the "strawman" down. (Now do you understand what a strawman is).

It is a strawman because I never suggested that - I simply said that the third rate politicos of America routinely brown-nose to the American Jewish Lobby, which I would have thought everyone could agree with.


CF

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
the third rate politicos of America routinely brown-nose to the American Jewish Lobby, which I would have thought everyone could agree with.
-----
Count me as another american who disagrees with this.

mugsy66
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
And the problem you face is that most Americans, if they were honest, would agree with me.

Really? I know a few who think this way... but not very many.

FWIW I do think the US is biased towards Israel (as opposed to "the Jewish Lobby") and I don't have a problem with that. IMHO they (Israel) get a lot of flack for fighting back in response to attacks against them, and have since day one. I don't think everyone disagreeing with them is anti-semetic, though some certainly are. I wouldn't even go as far to say that they're perfect, but they're far better than those they're defending themselves against, and for that reason alone deserve our help.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
they (Israel) get a lot of flack for fighting back in response to attacks against them


Your answer reveals your conditioning, Mike.
You have been led to believe that Israel is the victim of "terror" attacks, and is simply responding to them.

Try to step out of that square for just one moment and put yourself into the shoes of a Palestinian.
Consider the unending theft of Palestinian land by the State of Israel, consider the daily jackboot under which they live, the casual, unpunished murder by the IDF of their children and their neighbours, the demolition without compensation of their houses.

If you think you haven't been conditioned, remember that communication that Mitamuna provided, from Honest Reporting (sic). This propaganda organ of the Jewish State worked itself up into a frenzy to get the press to label Hamas a "terrorist" organisation.

Looked at from the point of view of the Palestinians, it resembles a resistance organisation, fighting for justice againt Israeli violence and oppression.


CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

Looked at from the point of view of the Palestinians, it resembles a resistance organisation, fighting for justice againt Israeli violence and oppression.

So, come out and tell us with a straight face. Do you support Hamas?
Do you support their methods?

You seem to defend them with all your might, why can you just come out and admit you're nothing but a terrorist supporter (but only when Israelis/Jews are on the receiving end).

Tell us please what we already know. Own up.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I thought your shift was over.

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

I thought your shift was over.

Getting some overtime. It seems we're a little short of people today at the Cabal.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
D'uh...Dov was suspended.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
D'uh...Dov was suspended.

What happened?

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What's a strawman? Do you even know what that means?

No, he doesn't. The "straw man" (two words BTW Click) fallacy attempts to misrepresent an argument and attack it. You did no such thing, Click's weak defense of claiming straw man notwithstanding.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your answer reveals your conditioning, Mike.

I wouldn't call it conditioning as much as an interpretation of history.

The Palestinians are fighting to restore a country that never really existed. There never was a Palestine ruled by arabs. The area has been ruled by the romans, by the crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and even by the British after World War II. There is also the issue of what constitutes the "Palestinian people". Prior to the use of this national identity as an excuse to attack Israel, it simply didn't exist. They were arabs that lived in the area, making them no different than arabs living in Jordan, or Syria, or Lebanon. The PLO even admitted this in an interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on March 31, 1977 with PLO executive committee member Zahir Mujsein.

The reason the "Palestinian people" identity exists is as a political construct to legitimize the destruction of Israel. That doesn't justify any atrocities committed by Israel, but it does put the whole conflict in a different light.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There is also the issue of what constitutes the "Palestinian people". Prior to the use of this national identity as an excuse to attack Israel, it simply didn't exist. They were arabs that lived in the area, making them no different than arabs living in Jordan, or Syria, or Lebanon.

You could say similar things about almost any nation that came into being after the end of colonialism. The Palestinians are Arabs and part of the Arab nation, BTW.

And to claim that the Palestinians used the Palestinian national identity as an excuse to attack 'Israel' only shows your bias.

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, he doesn't. The "straw man" (two words BTW Click) fallacy attempts to misrepresent an argument and attack it. You did no such thing, Click's weak defense of claiming straw man notwithstanding.


Worst thing in the world is an inaccurate pedant, mmurray. In my opinion they deserve to be boiled in oil and served to Anibaldo.

"Strawman", one word, is perfectly acceptable:

2. strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman


You're equally inaccurate in suggesting that Mitamuna didn't use a strawman.
My argument was the third-rate politicos routinely brown-nose to the American Jewish Lobby.
Mitamuna then tried to suggest that I was implying that Jews control every aspect of America - and easy strawman to knock down.


CF







Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The reason the "Palestinian people" identity exists is as a political construct to legitimize the destruction of Israel.

That's not true. Arabs living in Palestine were called "Palestinian Arabs" long before Israel even existed. Jews living in Palestine were often called "Palestinian Jews." That designation became obsolte with the creation of Israel when Palestinian and immigrant Jews became, obviously, Israelis. "Palestinian Arabs" was shortened to "Palestinian" in part because there was no longer any reason to distinguish "Palestinian Arabs" from "Palestinian Jews" making the "Arab" part redundant.

One of the ironic things about the absurd argument that there's "no such thing as a Palestinian" is that the provenance of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" is far more modern and clear than the provenance of the terms "Israel" and "Israeli" which were adopted from the name of a 3,000 year-old kingdom. For tthat matter, the Arab title to much of the land is more modern and clear as well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1


The Palestinians are fighting to restore a country that never really existed. There never was a Palestine ruled by arabs. The area has been ruled by the romans, by the crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and even by the British after World War II. There is also the issue of what constitutes the "Palestinian people". Prior to the use of this national identity as an excuse to attack Israel, it simply didn't exist. They were arabs that lived in the area, making them no different than arabs living in Jordan, or Syria, or Lebanon. The PLO even admitted this in an interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on March 31, 1977 with PLO executive committee member Zahir Mujsein.

The reason the "Palestinian people" identity exists is as a political construct to legitimize the destruction of Israel.



By the same argument, Israel is, of course, exactly the same political construct.
The fall-back position to justify all the Zionist land-theft is an ancient, 3000+ year-old document, written by a Jew, in which a mythical character is supposed to have heard from God that all the real estate in the area belonged to the Jews.
This is, of course, legend.
On the stock market, this would be called "talking your book".


CF


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Worst thing in the world is an inaccurate pedant, mmurray. In my opinion they deserve to be boiled in oil and served to Anibaldo.


I hope you and Anibaldo have a long and happy life together. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You're equally inaccurate in suggesting that Mitamuna didn't use a strawman.
My argument was the third-rate politicos routinely brown-nose to the American Jewish Lobby.
Mitamuna then tried to suggest that I was implying that Jews control every aspect of America - and easy strawman to knock down.


Why should we expect you to begin structuring logical arguments now? Keep the entertainment coming.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, come out and tell us with a straight face. Do you support Hamas?
Do you support their methods?

You seem to defend them with all your might, why can you just come out and admit you're nothing but a terrorist supporter (but only when Israelis/Jews are on the receiving end).

Tell us please what we already know. Own up.


Of course he wont.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course he wont.

It's 'won't', I believe.

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The reason the "Palestinian people" identity exists is as a political construct to legitimize the destruction of Israel.

...........

That's not true. Arabs living in Palestine were called "Palestinian Arabs" long before Israel even existed. Jews living in Palestine were often called "Palestinian Jews." That designation became obsolte with the creation of Israel when Palestinian and immigrant Jews became, obviously, Israelis. "Palestinian Arabs" was shortened to "Palestinian" in part because there was no longer any reason to distinguish "Palestinian Arabs" from "Palestinian Jews" making the "Arab" part redundant.

One of the ironic things about the absurd argument that there's "no such thing as a Palestinian" is that the provenance of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" is far more modern and clear than the provenance of the terms "Israel" and "Israeli" which were adopted from the name of a 3,000 year-old kingdom. For tthat matter, the Arab title to much of the land is more modern and clear as well.




How many times have we gone through this tedious argument, Felix?
I've lost count.
It's always being dragged out by Zionists trying to talk down the legitimacy of the Palestinian people.
It's disgraceful.

CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's 'won't', I believe.

You're right of course. I made a typo and I'll own up. Will Click? Doubt it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why should we expect you to begin structuring logical arguments now? Keep the entertainment coming.


You've been on the board for five minutes and you begin to post ridiculous stuff like this, mmurray.
Who's "we"?
What do you know of my posts?
My advice to you, is to settle in a little while before you go large with your self-esteem.


CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You're right of course. I made a typo and I'll own up. Will Click? Doubt it.

'Strawman' ain't no typo.

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
'to restore a country that never really existed'

Que? What a bizarre statement. I refer you to the proposal made in the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country 'against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants,' which was narrowly defeated in 1947. In 1946, there were 1.2 million Arabs in Palestine. Do you know anything about the history of the region in question? Nah, thought not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
'Strawman' ain't no typo.

Abe,

Try to keep up.

Mitamuna wrote:

So, come out and tell us with a straight face. Do you support Hamas?
Do you support their methods?

You seem to defend them with all your might, why can you just come out and admit you're nothing but a terrorist supporter (but only when Israelis/Jews are on the receiving end).

Tell us please what we already know. Own up.


To which I replied:

Of course he wont.

Again, will Click own up to his support of Hamas? We eagerly await his response. And you coming to his defense is so cute. You are his knight in shining armor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course he wont.


Again you reveal your total ignorance of my posts, mmurray.
Try to walk before you run.
My opinion of Hamas has been posted many times.
I believe Hamas are a legitimate resistance organisation.
They should, however, concentrate their military activity on Israeli forces, wherever they may find them - they are legitimate targets.
They should also attack the infrastructure of the Israeli state - power lines, generators, television and radio transmitters etc.
I do not approve of the murder of any civilians, Israeli or Palestinian.

CF




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course he wont.

...........

It's 'won't', I believe.

Abe


Pedants are fair game, don't you think, Abe?


CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
How many times have we gone through this tedious argument, Felix?
I've lost count.


Too many.

It's always being dragged out by Zionists trying to talk down the legitimacy of the Palestinian people.

It's disgraceful.


Yes it is.

And pointless. Whether we call the Palestinians "Palestinians" or "Ooompa Loompahs" it wouldn't change a thing. Why Zionists feel it necessary to deprive people of their national identity is beyond me. It's as if after decades of pretending that Palestinians didn't exist and ignoring their national aspirations, simply wishing Paelstinians didn't exist would make it so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Again you reveal your total ignorance of my posts, mmurray.

Thank God!

Try to walk before you run.

You're so witty and cool that you can post mindless banter on here.

I believe Hamas are a legitimate resistance organisation.
...
I do not approve of the murder of any civilians, Israeli or Palestinian.

Squeeze me, bacon powder? It's either one or the other chief.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I made a typo and I'll own up. Will Click? Doubt it.


Will Click what?


CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Again, will Click own up to his support of Hamas? We eagerly await his response. And you coming to his defense is so cute. You are his knight in shining armor.


My God, mmurray, you're wet.


CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Squeeze me, bacon powder?

I have no idea what you mean, mmurray.
Try to speak in plain English.
It's always better than trying to appear cool and failing.



CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Keep it coming clown.


Read the rules of posting on this board, mmurray.
You're already developing bad habits.



CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Of course he wont.

He's in denial to something we all know already.

How ironic.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

I believe Hamas are a legitimate resistance organisation.


Here's some of their charter:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."


I do not approve of the murder of any civilians, Israeli or Palestinian.

Heh, you sound like Saeb Arakat after a suicide bombing.

Yet you support them as a legitimate organization. Which is it? You
Sounds to me you're admitting to being a terrorist supporter considering its a central pillar of their mission statement.

Now, the PA will not be able to blame the failure of negotiations or advancement of the peace process on some fringe terrorist movement. It must cause you great pains.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

And pointless. Whether we call the Palestinians "Palestinians" or "Ooompa Loompahs" it wouldn't change a thing. Why Zionists feel it necessary to deprive people of their national identity is beyond me. It's as if after decades of pretending that Palestinians didn't exist and ignoring their national aspirations, simply wishing Paelstinians didn't exist would make it so.


It's because its a recently conjured up term.

Before WW2 (or even 1964) the Palestinians didn't`t exist as a separate entity same as Syrians,Jordanians,Iraqis,Saudis,Kuwaitis etc didn't`t exist either before WW1.They were Arabs the same way as Austrians and Prussians were Germans, Moldavians were Romanians and most Cypriots were Greek.
When Faisal Al Hasheem the Sheriff of Mecca started the Arab uprising against the Ottoman empire during WW1 he hoped to get a unified Arab state including all of the Middle East. But the British and the French carved it up to suit their interests and created these puppet states as they saw fit. As I said before, never trust a British cartographer.

Why didn't the Palestinians express their national inspirations between 1947 & 1967 when Jordan and Egypt "occupied" them? Why have they gladly accepted Jordanian citizenships when Jordan annexed the west bank?

True or False?: Before 1947, the Arab population of "Palestine" refused to have their identity cards stamped by the British as Palestinian. They wanted nothing to do with the Jewish inhabitants of the time who gladly took the Palestinian identity.

I am not disputing their current aspirations for their own nation and a homeland to call their own in Gaza & the West bank. They rightfully deserve it as the Serbians and Kurds and even the Basques.

You know I fully support a Palestinian state but I am completely against rewriting history.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You know I fully support a Palestinian state

So does Ariel Sharon.
It's the nature of that state that is important.



CF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My reply to you was pulled. Most probably Mitamuna reported it, I don't know why.

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's because its a recently conjured up term.

No, it isn't, but so what if it were? Say the Palestinians were to call themselves Canaanites instead. What difference would it make? The only reason right-wing Zionists prattle on about this is to try to deny Palestinians national identity, as if nitpicking about the what they chose to call themselves somehow undermines their claims. To me, it's just the mirror image of the Arab nonsense about denying Jews claims to Jerusalem by questioning whether the ancient Jewish temple stood there.

Before WW2 (or even 1964) the Palestinians didn't`t exist as a separate entity same as Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaitis etc. didn't`t exist either before WW1. They were Arabs...

Again, so what? Before World War One "Israelis" didn't exist either. They were simply Jews.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

No, it isn't, but so what if it were? Say the Palestinians were to call themselves Canaanites instead. What difference would it make? The only reason right-wing Zionists prattle on about this is to try to deny Palestinians national identity, as if nitpicking about the what they chose to call themselves somehow undermines their claims.



We're not talking simply about the term, its the unique national aspirations that were recent to the game. Like I said before, it's a fact they only in the last 40 years adopted a distinct identity. Like I said, I am not denying it but to claim they considered themselves as Palestinians for longer than that is absurd. Their own leadership does not deny the fact, why should you?

Again, that does not in any way belittle their claim to the land. It's simply the truth. They live there now and no one will ever try to remove them from there using the above reasoning.


To me, it's just the mirror image of the Arab nonsense about denying Jews claims to Jerusalem by questioning whether the ancient Jewish temple stood there.


Oh please, that's not even apples & oranges. Don't even start with me with Jerusalem.


Again, so what? Before World War One "Israelis" didn't exist either. They were simply Jews.

Jews were dreaming of coming back to their national homeland for 2 millennia. Jews also maintained a presence for said period. Our national aspirations of restoring our kingdom/nation on the land has been ingrained in our customs and religion since our nation was expelled from the land.

Mark




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, bad formatting in the first attempt:


No, it isn't, but so what if it were? Say the Palestinians were to call themselves Canaanites instead. What difference would it make? The only reason right-wing Zionists prattle on about this is to try to deny Palestinians national identity, as if nitpicking about the what they chose to call themselves somehow undermines their claims.


We're not talking simply about the term, its the unique national aspirations that were recent to the game. Like I said before, it's a fact they only in the last 40 years adopted a distinct identity. Like I said, I am not denying it but to claim they considered themselves as Palestinians for longer than that is absurd. Their own leadership does not deny the fact, why should you?

Again, that does not in any way belittle their claim to the land. It's simply the truth. They live there now and no one will ever try to remove them from there using the above reasoning.


To me, it's just the mirror image of the Arab nonsense about denying Jews claims to Jerusalem by questioning whether the ancient Jewish temple stood there.



Oh please, that's not even apples & oranges. Don't even start with me with Jerusalem.


Again, so what? Before World War One "Israelis" didn't exist either. They were simply Jews.


Jews were dreaming of coming back to their national homeland for 2 millennia. Jews also maintained a presence for said period. Our national aspirations of restoring our kingdom/nation on the land has been ingrained in our customs and religion since our nation was expelled from the land.

Mark


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Re my post: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=23648787

I also noticed you did not challenge the facts I outlined but simply resorted to semantics. Shall I then assume you're in agreement?

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We're not talking simply about the term, its the unique national aspirations that were recent to the game.

Hello!!??

Jewish national asiprations are unique and a relatively new thing too.

Palestinian national identity arose in tandem with Zionism, as a reaction to it. Prior to Zionist immigration and colonization there was no political need for Palestinian Arabs to make much of a distinction between themselves and, say, Arabs living across the river in Jordan.

Like I said before, it's a fact they only in the last 40 years adopted a distinct identity.

Big surprise, that. I wonder why it is that Palestinian Arabs who have been deprived of their homeland -- either by expulsion or by Israel's refusal to allow their return -- and Palestinian Arabs who have lived under Israeli occupation for nearly 40 years might develop some sense of common political identity and have common national aspirations?




Like I said, I am not denying it but to claim they considered themselves as Palestinians for longer than that is absurd. Their own leadership does not deny the fact, why should you?

Deny what fact? I never deny facts.




Oh please, that's not even apples & oranges. Don't even start with me with Jerusalem.

It's nearly the same thing. You're trying to undermine Palestninian claims by making spurious historical arguments.




Jews were dreaming of coming back to their national homeland for 2 millennia.

So? Are you saying that Palestinian refugees should have to wait two millenia before their descendants are allowed back?

Our national aspirations of restoring our kingdom/nation on the land has been ingrained in our customs and religion since our nation was expelled from the land.

You're confusing returning to Eretz Israel with the establishment of a Jewish state. The "premature" establishment of a state (prior to the arrivalof the Messaih) was considered heretical by many Jews until after the Holocaust, which made a state seem like a damn good idea regardless. The early Zionists were not particularly religious. They were mostly nationalists.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I also noticed you did not challenge the facts I outlined but simply resorted to semantics.

Go away.

Come back when you understand that words have meaning.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Go away.

I wish I could charge some fee for my creation.

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Palestinian national identity arose in tandem with Zionism, as a reaction to it. Prior to Zionist immigration and colonization there was no political need for Palestinian Arabs to make much of a distinction between themselves and, say, Arabs living across the river in Jordan.

Wrong, only after the creation of the state.

Again, TRUE OR FALSE: Palestinian Arabs did not want the term Palestinian applied to them during British rule.


Big surprise, that. I wonder why it is that Palestinian Arabs who have been deprived of their homeland -- either by expulsion or by Israel's refusal to allow their return -- and Palestinian Arabs who have lived under Israeli occupation for nearly 40 years might develop some sense of common political identity and have common national aspirations?

Many chose to stay and many did not want to come back when indeed offered. Many left with Jews begging them to stay ( read on Haifa).

Absolutely. No one can honestly despute their political aspiration and identity as Palestinians.


s nearly the same thing. You're trying to undermine Palestninian claims by making spurious historical arguments.

It's not the same thing and you know it.
Spurious? Refute them. You just dance around with Semantics.
Am I undermining their claims? what about you? recall the little blurb about the kindom of Judea, a small hill? soon your buddy will be quoting Kazarist origins.


So? Are you saying that Palestinian refugees should have to wait two millenia before their descendants are allowed back?

Oh please. You can do so much better.


You're confusing returning to Eretz Israel with the establishment of a Jewish state. The "premature" establishment of a state (prior to the arrivalof the Messaih) was considered heretical by many Jews until after the Holocaust, which made a state seem like a damn good idea regardless. The early Zionists were not particularly religious. They were mostly nationalists


Oh please. that belief is only shared by a nutty group of wacko Jews. Ever asked them what they'll do to the Arab inhabitants once the Mashiah actually shows up?

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Palestinian national identity arose in tandem with Zionism, as a reaction to it. Prior to Zionist immigration and colonization there was no political need for Palestinian Arabs to make much of a distinction between themselves and, say, Arabs living across the river in Jordan.
---
Wrong, only after the creation of the state.

Again, TRUE OR FALSE: Palestinian Arabs did not want the term Palestinian applied to them during British rule.


As usual, you are entirely missing the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT. PALESTINIAN NATIONALISM AROSE IN TANDEM WITH AND IN REACTION TO ZIONISM. Did it lag Zionism? Of course. It was a reaction to it. It came after. Cause... effect. Get it???

If instread of "Zionists" had instead adopted as their own the political name "Palestinians" then the Palestinian Arabs would have called themselves something else.

In 1948 Zionists chose the name Israel for their state and called themselves Israelis even though most of them had no meaningful connection to the ancient Israeli kingdom (if it even existed.) The name has important relgious and policitcal symbolism to them.

I don't begrudge them their self-chosen national identification. Why do hardcore Zionists deny the existence of Palestine and quibble about what Palestinian Arabs call themselves and what everyone else calls them?

The Arabs from Palestine now call themselves "Palestinians" and desire a state called "Palestine." EVERYONE, except for right-wing Zionist nuts call Arabs from Palestine "Palestinians." Get used to it.

It simply does not matter, except maybe to etymologists, what the Arabs from Palestine called themselves in 1900 or 1910 or 1920 or 1930...



Oh please. that belief is only shared by a nutty group of wacko Jews.

It didn't used to be. Before the Holocaust, it was the predominant viewpoint.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As usual, you are entirely missing the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT. PALESTINIAN NATIONALISM AROSE IN TANDEM WITH AND IN REACTION TO ZIONISM. Did it lag Zionism? Of course. It was a reaction to it. It came after. Cause... effect. Get it???

It only arose after 1967. Beforehand, even the Palestinian leadership admitted they did not differentiate themselves from Syrians and/or Jordanians. How else can you explain the lack of national aspirations during the Jordanian/Egyptian occupation and their willingness to acquire Jordanian citizenship?


In 1948 Zionists chose the name Israel for their state and called themselves Israelis even though most of them had no meaningful connection to the ancient Israeli kingdom (if it even existed.) The name has important religious and policitcal symbolism to them.


Oy Vey, now who's denying ties to the land?


Why do hardcore Zionists deny the existence of Palestine and quibble about what Palestinian Arabs call themselves and what everyone else calls them?

Some do. I don't. I am fine with them being called whatever they want to be called. I refer to them as Palestinian and I don't recall ever putting it in quotes. If I ever did, it was probably in context of the post. BTW, "Umpah Loompas" was a great choice:)


The Arabs from Palestine now call themselves "Palestinians" and desire a state called "Palestine." EVERYONE, except for right-wing Zionist nuts call Arabs from Palestine "Palestinians." Get used to it.


And I don't? I was specifically discussing the historical context and truth. Why do you assume I deny their existence. All I am saying is that their unique national inspirations effectively resulted from the 1967 war.



It simply does not matter, except maybe to etymologists, what the Arabs from Palestine called themselves in 1900 or 1910 or 1920 or 1930...

What I said before, and let me repeat it again and again, that their uniqueness, the separation from their fellow Arab brethren is relatively new. Honestly, Yassir Arafat deserves credit for this. He brought it to the national and international arena when he formed the PLO.
Why are we quibbling over the facts? It's known that pre-1967 war, the Arab inhabitants never expressed their national desire to form Palestine on the west bank and Gaza when occupied by Egypt and Jordan, as the residents did not differentiate between themselves and the occupier. I am certain you can pull of quotes of google. I've seen many of them on the Haaretz talk back forum.


It didn't used to be. Before the Holocaust, it was the predominant viewpoint.


You maybe right on this point. Although many influential and rich Jews did support the creation of the state and going back to Eretz Israel.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oy Vey, now who's denying ties to the land?

No one. I was talking about the biblical Kingdom of Israel. Whether the biblical kingdom accords with the actual kingdom is a matter of some historical dispute, as you know.

I am fine with them being called whatever they want to be called.

Then knock it off.


Why do you assume I deny their existence. All I am saying is that their unique national inspirations effectively resulted from the 1967 war.

I'd say it started before that, in the '20s, at least, and culminated after the '48 war. The PLO was founded in 1956.


What I said before, and let me repeat it again and again, that their uniqueness, the separation from their fellow Arab brethren is relatively new.

Yes. So what? What made Palestinian Arabs totally distinct from Arabs in Syria or Jordan or Lebanon was that Syrian, Jordanian and Lebanese Arabs did not lose their homeland to Zionist colonists and state-builders.


Honestly, Yassir Arafat deserves credit for this. He brought it to the national and international arena when he formed the PLO.

Which only demonstrates the inaccuracy of your argument. You said Palestinian national identity didn't come into being until after 1967. As I noted above, the PLO was formed in 1956. It was a result of the formation of a national Palestinian political consciousness.


It's known that pre-1967 war, the Arab inhabitants never expressed their national desire to form Palestine on the west bank and Gaza when occupied by Egypt and Jordan...

...because they still held out hope (a delusion) that they'd regain all of their homeland, all of Palestine. At the time, the formation of a Palestinian state on part of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, was seen as an acknowledgement that the rest of it was Israel.

...as the residents did not differentiate between themselves and the occupier.

That is not why and even if it were, it is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Oy Vey, now who's denying ties to the land?
---------
No one. I was talking about the biblical Kingdom of Israel. Whether the biblical kingdom accords with the actual kingdom is a matter of some historical dispute, as you know.


Again, it's a typical anti-Israeli tactic. I know you don't see it as such but you accuse me of using the same argument as the ones denying the existance of the Palestinians.



I'd say it started before that, in the '20s, at least, and culminated after the '48 war. The PLO was founded in 1956.


OK, you pegged my curiosity... got a link?
Also, the PLO, to my knowledge, was not formed for a national aspiration , but for the taking back of Palestine.


Which only demonstrates the inaccuracy of your argument. You said Palestinian national identity didn't come into being until after 1967. As I noted above, the PLO was formed in 1956. It was a result of the formation of a national Palestinian political consciousness.


Come to think of it, the formation of the PLO was specifically to regain all that was lost in 1948 and drive the Jews out. No indication whatsoever of forming a new national home for the Palestinian Arabs was ever at the plate at that time. If that's incorrect, please provide a link. You're right, I wasn't specific enough as to his standing ovation speech at the UN & the writing of the charter. I was referring to the Palestinian political counciousness as a seperate entity from its Arab neighbours.


...because they still held out hope (a delusion) that they'd regain all of their homeland, all of Palestine. At the time, the formation of a Palestinian state on part of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, was seen as an acknowledgement that the rest of it was Israel.


In a way, but not as a seperate country from Jordan per say. That came later.


...as the residents did not differentiate between themselves and the occupier.
----------
That is not why and even if it were, it is irrelevant to the question at hand.


Like I said, the Palestinians at the time did not see themselves differently than the Syrians and Jordanians. I am certain you can pull off statements and quotes as proof if you wish. As I mentioned, I've seen them posted on the Talkback forums in Haaretz.

We
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, I know Mitamuna, but it's like trying to tell a flat-earther that the world is round... you can cite all of the evidence you want but they just don't believe it. To each their own.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top