You "don't condone" yet you say it is "surely understandable".
Yes. Much the same was as I'd understand a broken hearted husband, feeling he'd lost all, killing his cheating wife, while, at the same time, not condoning it; ie, still punishing him for the crime.
Alfonso, it is time to cease trying to make your case. "Balanced discussion"? There is nothing "balanced" at all about your arguments. They are clearly anti-semitic, and historically inaccurate. I should not even attempt to persuade you with facts. Because facts have been ignored by your side of the argument essentially since the day Islam came to be.
Why would it be time to cease making my case? Because I'm coming too close for comfort?
If there is "nothing balanced" about my argument, it's only because I find nothing "balanced" about the way the state of Israel was created.
I can hardly be called anti-Semitic, since I'm obviously supporting the Arab cause; unless you are using the pilfered defintion of Semetic. But even then, if "anti-semite" means being opposed to anything Jewish on principle alone, then I am certainly not; but if being "anti-semite" means being opposed to way the the state of Israel was created, and the Israeli people's and politicians' actions after the victory, with respect to the Palestinians, then ok, I'm an "anti-semite".
I really hope you reconsider attempting to persuade me with facts. Afterall, it's facts that have led me to support the position I do; and only facts will persuade me to abdandon it. Certainly nothing else will.
But just not to walk in, shut the door in your face and leave, I will say this. There were Jews in what is now Israel always. They too were displaced, returned, displaced, returned etc.
Hmm, I think I acknowledged that.
Don't you think, though, that we have to take into account the factor of Time? Ask any anthropologist about the necessity of time in creating cultural and customary "norms".
So, if we take Time into account, we would have to acknowledge that ARABS, not Jews, were the inhabitants of Palestine at the turn of the 20th century; that there were only a handful of Jews in comparison to the vast majority Arab population; and that it had been this way for centuries.
Surely in light of that any historical Jewish claims are tenuous at best. (Would you care to apply the same reasoning to indigenous American claims to land in New York?)
There were also Arabs in that region for thousands of years. However, there was never a "Palestinian" anywhere on the planet until 1948. When the term came about as a further excuse for the Arab world to "drive Israel into the sea".
Oh really? Gee, I was under the impression that the region had been known as Palestine since Roman times.
In any case, it's the fact that the Arab inhabitants of that land were displaced by the Jewish conquest that is the issue here;what the inhabitants of that land choose to call themselves is beside the point.
Some ARABS were displaced, yes. But the vast majority left willingly because they were promised that the Jews would be massacred and then they could return to their homeland and have it all. It did not work out that way. And these "Palestinian" refugees, who were promised a swift Arab victory, were hung out to dry by their fellow Arabs. They were NOT accepted into their neighboring Arab countries. So they became refugees among their "own people". In other words, they were put into camps and not permitted to assimilate into Egypt, Syria, Jordan (which was supposed to be "Palestine") or Lebanon. The countries that bordered Israel. The "Palestinian" issue became essentially an excuse to keep the hatred of the Jews and their independent state alive.
Hmm, are you really sure about that?
Are you sure you haven't just swallowed whole the patriotic propaganda?
Of all the Jewish lies, the voluntary exodus of the Arabs is probably the biggest.
Doesn't your wife work for the Jewish lobby or something to do with Israel? I really thought you'd be more informed than this.
How, in light of Israeli documents that demonstrate the expulsion was a pre-planned and part of the wider goal of establishing a Jewish state for the Jews, can you continue pretending that the exodus was anything but forced?
Read some Avi Schlaim or Benny Morris or Tom Segev (all Jews).
In any case, just ask yourself, don't you think it sounds more than a little bit ridiculous to think that thousands upon thousands of Palestinians would leave their homes in order to...? What? Be able to come back and reclaim them? Why the hell go to all that trouble if you are already there, and allowed to stay (as you claim)?
Hell, EVEN IF they did leave based on the idea that the Arabs would band together and expel the Jews -- afterall, this was a WAR, let's not forget -- does that STILL mean that they should not be allowed to return? Even though the Geneva Convention holds that a person born in a certain region has the right to live there?
And yes, the Palestinians by and large (except for Jordan in 1950) weren't accepted into the neighboring Arab countries, but so what? What does that have to do with anything? Is that somehow supposed to mitigate Israel's refusal to let them return?
In 1967, Israel was again attacked on all fronts, just as they were in 1948. This time, Israel retained conquered land, as had every nation in every war in all of history. In 1973, the Arabs gave it another shot. (They also had an unsuccessful campaign in 1956.... A whole world full of Islamic French soldiers?) But in the interest of pursuing peace, Isreal returned the Sinai to Egypt and has tried to return essentially to the "green line". But they have not because, as has been pointed out, in this thread, and demonstrated to the world, Arafat does not want peace.
Yeah, Israel was attacked. Well, what did you expect? You could just barge in, expel a population from its ancestral home and expect things to be hunky dory?
So it's about Muslims and Jews being enemies. The Arab world cannot tolerate the existence of Israel. further, it gives the Arabs (who have plenty of infighting going on amongst themselves) a fine common enemy. And beyond the Arab world, as in Iran, there is also hatred for Israel. No political threat. No Persians displaced from "Palestine". Just hatred of the Jews. Official Muslim policy. Says so right in the Koran.
Whether the Arab, or Muslim, world can tolerate Jews or not is of little consequance to the matter at hand. I don't support the Arab cause because I find Jews intolerable -- although, if I was forced out of my own country, I might -- but because the Palestinians were, by every fair measure of the word, wronged and robbed.
Yes. Much the same was as I'd understand a broken hearted husband, feeling he'd lost all, killing his cheating wife, while, at the same time, not condoning it; ie, still punishing him for the crime.
Alfonso, it is time to cease trying to make your case. "Balanced discussion"? There is nothing "balanced" at all about your arguments. They are clearly anti-semitic, and historically inaccurate. I should not even attempt to persuade you with facts. Because facts have been ignored by your side of the argument essentially since the day Islam came to be.
Why would it be time to cease making my case? Because I'm coming too close for comfort?
If there is "nothing balanced" about my argument, it's only because I find nothing "balanced" about the way the state of Israel was created.
I can hardly be called anti-Semitic, since I'm obviously supporting the Arab cause; unless you are using the pilfered defintion of Semetic. But even then, if "anti-semite" means being opposed to anything Jewish on principle alone, then I am certainly not; but if being "anti-semite" means being opposed to way the the state of Israel was created, and the Israeli people's and politicians' actions after the victory, with respect to the Palestinians, then ok, I'm an "anti-semite".
I really hope you reconsider attempting to persuade me with facts. Afterall, it's facts that have led me to support the position I do; and only facts will persuade me to abdandon it. Certainly nothing else will.
But just not to walk in, shut the door in your face and leave, I will say this. There were Jews in what is now Israel always. They too were displaced, returned, displaced, returned etc.
Hmm, I think I acknowledged that.
Don't you think, though, that we have to take into account the factor of Time? Ask any anthropologist about the necessity of time in creating cultural and customary "norms".
So, if we take Time into account, we would have to acknowledge that ARABS, not Jews, were the inhabitants of Palestine at the turn of the 20th century; that there were only a handful of Jews in comparison to the vast majority Arab population; and that it had been this way for centuries.
Surely in light of that any historical Jewish claims are tenuous at best. (Would you care to apply the same reasoning to indigenous American claims to land in New York?)
There were also Arabs in that region for thousands of years. However, there was never a "Palestinian" anywhere on the planet until 1948. When the term came about as a further excuse for the Arab world to "drive Israel into the sea".
Oh really? Gee, I was under the impression that the region had been known as Palestine since Roman times.
In any case, it's the fact that the Arab inhabitants of that land were displaced by the Jewish conquest that is the issue here;what the inhabitants of that land choose to call themselves is beside the point.
Some ARABS were displaced, yes. But the vast majority left willingly because they were promised that the Jews would be massacred and then they could return to their homeland and have it all. It did not work out that way. And these "Palestinian" refugees, who were promised a swift Arab victory, were hung out to dry by their fellow Arabs. They were NOT accepted into their neighboring Arab countries. So they became refugees among their "own people". In other words, they were put into camps and not permitted to assimilate into Egypt, Syria, Jordan (which was supposed to be "Palestine") or Lebanon. The countries that bordered Israel. The "Palestinian" issue became essentially an excuse to keep the hatred of the Jews and their independent state alive.
Hmm, are you really sure about that?
Are you sure you haven't just swallowed whole the patriotic propaganda?
Of all the Jewish lies, the voluntary exodus of the Arabs is probably the biggest.
Doesn't your wife work for the Jewish lobby or something to do with Israel? I really thought you'd be more informed than this.
How, in light of Israeli documents that demonstrate the expulsion was a pre-planned and part of the wider goal of establishing a Jewish state for the Jews, can you continue pretending that the exodus was anything but forced?
Read some Avi Schlaim or Benny Morris or Tom Segev (all Jews).
In any case, just ask yourself, don't you think it sounds more than a little bit ridiculous to think that thousands upon thousands of Palestinians would leave their homes in order to...? What? Be able to come back and reclaim them? Why the hell go to all that trouble if you are already there, and allowed to stay (as you claim)?
Hell, EVEN IF they did leave based on the idea that the Arabs would band together and expel the Jews -- afterall, this was a WAR, let's not forget -- does that STILL mean that they should not be allowed to return? Even though the Geneva Convention holds that a person born in a certain region has the right to live there?
And yes, the Palestinians by and large (except for Jordan in 1950) weren't accepted into the neighboring Arab countries, but so what? What does that have to do with anything? Is that somehow supposed to mitigate Israel's refusal to let them return?
In 1967, Israel was again attacked on all fronts, just as they were in 1948. This time, Israel retained conquered land, as had every nation in every war in all of history. In 1973, the Arabs gave it another shot. (They also had an unsuccessful campaign in 1956.... A whole world full of Islamic French soldiers?) But in the interest of pursuing peace, Isreal returned the Sinai to Egypt and has tried to return essentially to the "green line". But they have not because, as has been pointed out, in this thread, and demonstrated to the world, Arafat does not want peace.
Yeah, Israel was attacked. Well, what did you expect? You could just barge in, expel a population from its ancestral home and expect things to be hunky dory?
So it's about Muslims and Jews being enemies. The Arab world cannot tolerate the existence of Israel. further, it gives the Arabs (who have plenty of infighting going on amongst themselves) a fine common enemy. And beyond the Arab world, as in Iran, there is also hatred for Israel. No political threat. No Persians displaced from "Palestine". Just hatred of the Jews. Official Muslim policy. Says so right in the Koran.
Whether the Arab, or Muslim, world can tolerate Jews or not is of little consequance to the matter at hand. I don't support the Arab cause because I find Jews intolerable -- although, if I was forced out of my own country, I might -- but because the Palestinians were, by every fair measure of the word, wronged and robbed.