Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Hm, I don't know much about Zionism. Is it less corny and cliche than satanism? Or is it less retarded than um... lord I forget their names... oh the Raelians? *Laughs heartily*

---

At 1/6/06 07:17 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Hm, I don't know much about Zionism. Is it less corny and cliche than satanism? Or is it less retarded than um... lord I forget their names... oh the Raelians? *Laughs heartily*

I just have to tell you how funny this joke is!
Seriously, no brain, no opinion!
>:-(

---

I don't get on why can't the Palestines just MOVE from that place?

I mean, if your country is in the shitty, whether it is dictatorship or constant civil wars, people usually move. My family moved from Poland to Canada 20 years after World War 2 (Poland I believe was communism). Poland, even today, is still pretty shitty. Why am I comparing the two?

Palestines had their taken away due to treaties and because of horrible mistreatment of the jews. Either way, the country is down the shitty just like Poland was. They could...oh...I don't know, move to another area (they can literally go anywhere else but Israel because they were Muslims) and leave the 'evil jewish beast' alone.

Instead they try to martyrs by blowing themselves up and wondering why they keep losing. Both sides don't need to fight, but the Palestines insist otherwise. Israel are merely defending themselves.

As for that lunatic who says that 9/11 was fabricated, do you read Infowars.com also?

---

At 1/6/06 06:05 AM, Lidov wrote: Lets start off with the fact that it is, as I said before, a lot more connected to the Israel thread, it is about Zionism no more.

Bweh, it is now. But I just had to say something about Quanze13's statements, it would have been a shame to just direct him back to the Official Thread.

Since when is the fact that you settle in a land, which is not yours and don't let the rightful owners of it the chance to go there makes the land yours?

So let me get this straight: if the Greeks mass-migrate back to Turkey then they have a perfectly justified claim to the land according to you? Maybe the Turks were wrong when they took the land from the Greeks back in the renaissance period but that's too long ago. At this time, the Turks have been the majority for the longest period of time so they deserve to have legal ownership of the land. Like the Palestinians did when their land was given away.

They did not settle in most of the places which were given to the Jews by the UN, they didn't even do anything there.

If you neglect your back yard then that's up to you. It doesn't give anyone the right to claim it as their own. Besides the Negev was given to the Jews while they hadn't settled there. The UN might as well have given the northern half of Baffin Island in Canada to Israel because there are hardly people living there either. And the Jews also got large parts of Galilee, a fertile province with a considerable Arab population.

Firstly, the UN, which was the rightful owner of this land, was the one to say that the two nations (if you can call the Palastinians a nation) should share the land.

The UN was not the rightful owner of the land, the diplomats who made the decision didn't live there so they had no right to take the land from the original population and give it to migrants. The analogy with the Tordesillas treaty still holds, it was ratified by the pope so would could argue with it? One however might doubt if the natives whose loss of land was made legitimate with the treaty didn't have as much of a right to decide who should get the land they inhabited as some faraway living pope.
The same goes for the Turks.

calling it a crime makes baby Jesus cry

Then baby Jesus is a little pansy.

We were given Swamps and deserts which no Arab ever settled in or thought of doing it even as a joke.

Galilee doesn't fit this description. And the Jews also got the outskirts of Jaffa, with Jaffa itself made an enclave according to the partition plan. Don't tell me Arabs didn't want to settle there.

Fourhtly, the Arabs blew up their chance for a country, it is their fault, we said yes, they are the criminals for starting a war and refusing a UN law

When the law is wrong then you're not morally wrong when you break it. Nelson Mandela also technically broke the laws in South Africa under apartheid. Was his imprisonment justified?

Well, I now see what confused you all this time, you see the palastinians here now and you think that it has been like that for "hundreds of years". well, I hope that by hunderds you mean a very few hundreds of years. In fact, Israel conained more Jews than Arabs most of the time, the Arabs only came and were a majority for less than 400 years (as it was in 1947).

Crusaders ethnically cleansed the land so it's safe to say that Arabs were a majority after muslims reconquered the land. That gives us about 700 years of majority. But 400 years is also plenty.

And yet, the Jews were still a big majority in some places, like Tveria, Tzfat, Hevron etc. so why giving those to them?

Certainly not Hebron. And a majority in two towns does not give you the right to claim the entire land as your own. If they wanted two small city states in Tiberias and Tzfat then so be it; that's not what they claimed and these city states were hardly practically feasible.

It was the Palastinians who didn't welcome new comers,

Newcomers who claimed an independent Zion on the land they inhabited.

---

At 2/15/04 09:07 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote: Who hates it? Lol, this should be good. And of course, I do.

Rephrase the question, "You likes it?" You would get a better outcome. +)

---

At 1/6/06 10:48 AM, lapis wrote: Bweh, it is now. But I just had to say something about Quanze13's statements, it would have been a shame to just direct him back to the Official Thread.

It doesn't matter what was back then,i am saying that now it is a lot more related to the Israel related, thus it should move there. Besides, we already had this debate before, and remember where it was?

So let me get this straight: if the Greeks mass-migrate back to Turkey then they have a perfectly justified claim to the land according to you? Maybe the Turks were wrong when they took the land from the Greeks back in the renaissance period but that's too long ago. At this time, the Turks have been the majority for the longest period of time so they deserve to have legal ownership of the land. Like the Palestinians did when their land was given away.

Well, you have a lot of mistakes in the comparison between the two situations. First of all, the Turkish have an independant state in Turkey for hundreds of years. Second of all, the Greek has a country in Europ already, they don't need Turkey in order to settle somewhere. Third of all, I am sure that the UN will not approve that the land rightfully should get back to the Greeks. Fourth of all, the turks already settled most of the places in the country and worked in order to make them livable, something which the Palastinians did not do to the lands in which we settled in. Fifth of all, the Greek are not bothered for their race and weren't mass slaughtered. Also, i would like to say that they already have a state again.

If you neglect your back yard then that's up to you. It doesn't give anyone the right to claim it as their own. Besides the Negev was given to the Jews while they hadn't settled there. The UN might as well have given the northern half of Baffin Island in Canada to Israel because there are hardly people living there either. And the Jews also got large parts of Galilee, a fertile province with a considerable Arab population.

Well, this is different. As i said before, you see Israel on the map now and you think that this was it's shape back then also. It wasn't! Israel didn't have clear limits back then, something that a house clearly has. The fact that they settled in one part of a land doesn't give them the right to claim the other parts around it, because there is something to connect their land with this one. The negev was given to the jews because they had to give them something, the fact was that the Arabs didn't settle there either, they didn't show any interest, so what is the big deal? Giving them an island in Canada is maybe the most stupid suggesting I have ever heard.

The UN was not the rightful owner of the land, the diplomats who made the decision didn't live there so they had no right to take the land from the original population and give it to migrants. The analogy with the Tordesillas treaty still holds, it was ratified by the pope so would could argue with it? One however might doubt if the natives whose loss of land was made legitimate with the treaty didn't have as much of a right to decide who should get the land they inhabited as some faraway living pope.
The same goes for the Turks.

The UN, or in other words, the world, was the rightful owner of this piece of land. Britian took over this land after WW2, then she gave the land to the UN to decide what to do with it. Let me remind to you that it was a time when every country in Europ had a 100 times bigger land somewhere else. Anyway, the UN decided to give the British a mandate on this place etc. etc. So, not even mentioning morally, the UN was legally the rightful owners of this land, calling it a crime reflect ignorance.

Then baby Jesus is a little pansy.

I mock baby Jesus!

Galilee doesn't fit this description. And the Jews also got the outskirts of Jaffa, with Jaffa itself made an enclave according to the partition plan. Don't tell me Arabs didn't want to settle there.

As I said, the only good part we got was this small, thin stripe next to the sea. Besides, the Galil (the way it is supposed to be pronounced) was full of swamps, that is of course before the Jews came and drained them. Not only that the Galil was full of swamps, but also a lot of parts in this stripe next to the sea. Ever heard about the story of Petach Tiqva? Anyway, the stories of how the Jews drained the swamps in Hahula (Galil) and in Petach Tiqva are very well known to every child in Israel.

When the law is wrong then you're not morally wrong when you break it. Nelson Mandela also technically broke the laws in South Africa under apartheid. Was his imprisonment justified?

Um... Well, i guess that you are right, but I really do not see how it is related to what I have said, the law I was speaking about was the seperation program, a perfectly moral law. Besides, the laws are not about Morallity, but about the rules themselves. You cannot call a person a criminal for following a law which is not moral. I am not even mentioning the fact that the law was perfectly moral and that it was the most reasonable thing to do. Not only that, if you break any law there is, whether you think it is moral or not, you are a criminal. There are a lot of families of Arabs in Israel which are killing each other because one family caused the death of a member of their family. They think that it is moral to kill them, but the law says it is not, and I think that you would agree with the law.

Crusaders ethnically cleansed the land so it's safe to say that Arabs were a majority after muslims reconquered the land. That gives us about 700 years of majority. But 400 years is also plenty.

Well, when the crusades began the Jews were still a majority, but they were all very very religious and they were bothered by the war. They stayed at home, learned Torah and did their religious stuff, not connected to the outside world and for what is going on around.

And a majority in two towns does not give you the right to claim the entire land as your own. If they wanted two small city states in Tiberias and Tzfat then so be it; that's not what they claimed and these city states were hardly practically feasible.

EXACTLY! A majority in small parts doesn't give the the full right to claim all the land yours. The Arabs didn't settle in all of the land but only in small parts of it and claimed the whole land to themselves.

---

Continue from the last post

I will use what you said which is so right, the fact that they settled a long, long time in some places doesn't give them the right to claim the rest of the land theirs. In the seperation program, the Arabs were given the places which they settled in and the Jews the places which the Arabs did not settle in.

At 1/6/06 10:48 AM, lapis wrote: Newcomers who claimed an independent Zion on the land they inhabited.

They never told the Arabs "Look, we are going to found a new state on this land, get the hell out of here". Besides, as I mentioned many times before, the seperation program gave the Jews parts which the Arabs did not inhabited in.

---

At 1/6/06 11:52 AM, Lidov wrote: Well, you have a lot of mistakes in the comparison between the two situations.

What you mentioned is hardly relevant for a comparison. 'The Jews were right because of their heritage' is a wrong argument. All the other ones are also wrong arguments. A sum of wrong arguments doesn't make a right argument:

First of all, the Turkish have an independant state in Turkey for hundreds of years.

And the Indians hadn't had an independent state in India either when they claimed independence after WW2. Unjustified claim?

Second of all, the Greek has a country in Europ already, they don't need Turkey in order to settle somewhere.

Gypsies don't have a country either, so they can parts of claim India due to ancestry. Justified claim?

Third of all, I am sure that the UN will not approve that the land rightfully should get back to the Greeks.

The UN is not the one who should make the decision.

Fourth of all, the turks already settled most of the places in the country and worked in order to make them livable, something which the Palastinians did not do to the lands in which we settled in.

They didn't settle in the mountains of Kurdistan. And besides the Greeks can just get the suburbs of Istanbul and Ankara while the cities are reduced to enclaves. Like with the partition plan.

Fifth of all, the Greek are not bothered for their race and weren't mass slaughtered. Also, i would like to say that they already have a state again.

The Gypsies were. Hey let's kick out some Indians to get them a state.

Giving them an island in Canada is maybe the most stupid suggesting I have ever heard.

Heh, I don't think it's that much less stupid then giving them the Negev. I mean the Canadians haven't shown much interest in living there either, so who are they to claim the land?

So, not even mentioning morally, the UN was legally the rightful owners of this land, calling it a crime reflect ignorance.

Right, but our previously mentioned good friend Stalin also legally owned Eastern Europe. That doesn't mean that what he did to the region was not a crime. A crime isn't necessarily legal; "A crime in a broad sense is an act that violates a political or moral law of any one person or social grouping. "

Not only that the Galil was full of swamps,

it was also full of Arabs. And it wasn't just swamps.

Well, when the crusades began the Jews were still a majority

Right, but they weren't afterwards.

The Arabs didn't settle in all of the land but only in small parts of it and claimed the whole land to themselves.

The Arabs had a lot more right to claim the land than immigrants. Besides, you haven't said anything about the example of Jaffa. Why did the Jews get the outskirts of the city reducing Jaffa itself to a mere enclave? Did the Arabs not want the outskirts? Or maybe did not have the means to start inhabiting the land?

They never told the Arabs "Look, we are going to found a new state on this land get the hell out of here".

Zionism (great, we're back on topic) implies little else.

---

Lapis, look at it this way. There was no country at the time. Correct?

yes/no

Both sides because there were equivalent populations at the time needed land. Correct?

yes/no

Both sides were offered land. Correct?

yes/no

One side rejected offer. Correct?

yes/no

One side lost ensueing war started by them. Correct?

yes/no

Ok, so new government comes into being. Called Israel and technically a Jewish state. but it doesn't do anything against arabs such as limit their rights. They are still aloud to practice their religion and move and settle ect. Then they decide to use terrorist tacticts... thats the situation.

---

At 1/5/06 08:22 PM, lapis wrote:

At 1/5/06 07:58 PM, mackid wrote: Plus, Palestinians have no right to have what they haven't bought, weren't given by treaty or conquered.

Oh for fuck's sake, their ancestors lived there for at least 700 years until the land was conquered by or given to mere immigrants.
I mean what right did the Polish have to claim Poland after Adolf Hitler legally took their land? What right did the Kuwaitis have to claim Kuwait after Saddam's morally upstanding show of force? Why are the Tibetans still whining about China's righteous conquest of their land? Does this make sense to you?

Might does not make right.

yeah bullshit
our ancestors lived there for 3,000+ years.
we were PROMISED land from the mandate of palestine.
this was called the balfour declaration.
have you ever been to israel?
didnt think you have. Its a really nice place, and none of the palestinians i spoke with had anything bad to say about the israelis. and on the topic of the lack of compromise between the two peoples, we offered the palestinians a great amount of what they wanted, but we have to keep jerusalem.

---

At 1/6/06 07:19 AM, Lidov wrote: I just have to tell you how funny this joke is!
Seriously, no brain, no opinion!
>:-(

Why thank you!
Seriously, no sense of humor!
:D

---

At 1/6/06 12:32 PM, lapis wrote: What you mentioned is hardly relevant for a comparison. 'The Jews were right because of their heritage' is a wrong argument. All the other ones are also wrong arguments. A sum of wrong arguments doesn't make a right argument:

Well, what I mentioned is very relevant for the comparison. I wasn't saying a lot of the jews' heritage, in spite of the fact that it is a good argument. All the other ones are also right arguments. A sum of right argument doesn't make a wring argument:

And the Indians hadn't had an independent state in India either when they claimed independence after WW2. Unjustified claim?

i really can't see anything in common between the two. I said that the Turks had had an independant state there for hundreds of years. You said that the Indians hadn't had an independant state? Are you just trying to show me that you know things about India without any relation to the original point?

Gypsies don't have a country either, so they can parts of claim India due to ancestry. Justified claim?

Um... The thing is that the Gypsies do not want an independant country. If they do, they are not publishing it widely. Even if they are widespreading the fact that they want a country, they don't do anything about it. The Jews got off their arses and moved to israel, they made this place a place which could be a habitat for millions. I don't even remember a Gypsy saying that he he an idea for a place for the country he doesn't want...

The UN is not the one who should make the decision.

The UN is the only one who should make the decision. Because, you see, the UN represents the world and it has the rightful right to do anything he wants with this land, because it is rightully it's.

They didn't settle in the mountains of Kurdistan. And besides the Greeks can just get the suburbs of Istanbul and Ankara while the cities are reduced to enclaves. Like with the partition plan.

Well, now in the modern times, every country has clear limits, the Kurdistan mountains is a part of Turkey. Palasine, at the time, wasn't only the current Israel, but also Jordan, it didn't have clear limits. The fact that the Palastinians settled in Gaza and the west bank doesn't give them any right for the Galil, the Negev and a lot of other places which were always settled by jews.

The Gypsies were. Hey let's kick out some Indians to get them a state.

As i said before, the Gypsies didn't do anything political, like the Jews did (the zionist Congress in Bazel), they didn't do anything practical, like the Jews did (to come to israel). Hell, they don't even want a country!

Heh, I don't think it's that much less stupid then giving them the Negev. I mean the Canadians haven't shown much interest in living there either, so who are they to claim the land?

It is much less stupid. Don't make yourself naive, firstly, it is a lot more far than the other places in Israel which they settled in. Secondly, the jews wouldn't exept any land there, who wants this island anyway. Thirdly, I don't really know much about this island, but as you present it, they really don't have any right to claim it for themselves, besides of the fact that no one else wants it...

Right, but our previously mentioned good friend Stalin also legally owned Eastern Europe. That doesn't mean that what he did to the region was not a crime. A crime isn't necessarily legal; "A crime in a broad sense is an act that violates a political or moral law of any one person or social grouping. "

Well, here you are faced in front of a Dilema (lets leave this subject for a moment and get back toit afterwards). You can either follow the laws of the country and be morally wrong, or follow the laws of morallity and be called a criminal by the country which would chase you and put you in prison. So, the Arabs chose to violate a law from the authority (UN) and to violate an other law and start a war. All of this just because of the fact that they think it is immoral.

it was also full of Arabs. And it wasn't just swamps.

It wasn't full of Arabs, it is full of Arabs now, but it wasn't back then.

Right, but they weren't afterwards.

I am not sure they weren't afterwards, they slaughtered more Arabs than Jews.

The Arabs had a lot more right to claim the land than immigrants. Besides, you haven't said anything about the example of Jaffa. Why did the Jews get the outskirts of the city reducing Jaffa itself to amere enclave? Did the Arabs not want the outskirts? Or maybe did not have the means to start inhabiting the land?

I didn't say anything about Jaffa because of the fact that Jaffa, by the seperation program was given to the Arabs, check things before saying them.

Zionism (great, we're back on topic) implies little else.

Well, in some point the Arabs knew that they were trying ton get an independant state in Israel, I wasn't denying it. However, they should have had more trust in the Brittish to do the right thing, which they did. It was their greed that blew everything up for them.

---

Im putting this out there.

Lidov. Your not a moderator. Stop trying to direct people to the Israel thread. This thread is not locked, leave it be. OK, we know you think it should be there. Great. Whoopie.

---

At 2/16/04 04:26 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

"Zionism is the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the land of Israel - the historical birthplace of the Jewish people"

So... Basically it's the KKK for jews?

---

At 1/7/06 01:11 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Lidov. Your not a moderator. Stop trying to direct people to the Israel thread. This thread is not locked, leave it be. OK, we know you think it should be there. Great. Whoopie.

Yes, I already stopped doing it before you said so, I don't remember directing him to the Israel Related in my last post. I just didn't notice that this is a very old topic in the first time I saw it, thought it was something new. the thing is that I am having an easier time debating about Israel in one thread and not in many, but whatever.

---

At 1/6/06 01:15 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Lapis, look at it this way.

Right, but you're oversimplifying the problem. There are more facets to the story, more ins and outs.

Ok, so new government comes into being. Called Israel and technically a Jewish state. but it doesn't do anything against arabs such as limit their rights. They are still aloud to practice their religion and move and settle ect.

But they didn't have formal control over their country. If a bunch of Moroccans founded a Muslim state in my country then I'd be pissed even if I wasn't directly persecuted.

At 1/6/06 03:24 PM, Joodah wrote: we were PROMISED land from the mandate of palestine.
this was called the balfour declaration.

I wouldn't even care if Sonic the fucking Hedgehog promised the land to the Jews. Neither the UN nor the British had the moral right to give away the land, plain and simple.

At 1/6/06 05:26 PM, Lidov wrote: Well, what I mentioned is very relevant for the comparison. I wasn't saying a lot of the jews' heritage, in spite of the fact that it is a good argument.

With the heritage argument I meant: "we deserve to have the land because we had a state there 2000 years ago and most of the time afterwards there were a few of us who stayed".

Are you just trying to show me that you know things about India without any relation to the original point?

I was pointing out how irrelevant the "Party A didn't have an independent state there for a long time" argument is. The Palestinians hadn't had a state there for a long time (counting some of the kingdoms of Syria founded after the muslims retook the land after the crusades as Palestinian Arab states in Palestine and therefore as "Palestinian states") and the Indians had neither. Mentioning that the Turkish had an independent state is a mentioning of details; maybe they did, maybe they didn't. They are the ones inhabiting the land so they're the ones who should own it.

Um... The thing is that the Gypsies do not want an independant country. If they do, they are not publishing it widely.

Right, right. But we're talking about justifying claims of land. If the Gypsies wanted a state in India and moved there, would they be right to claim an independent state?

The UN is the only one who should make the decision. Because, you see, the UN represents the world and it has the rightful right to do anything he wants with this land, because it is rightully it's.

The decision making of the UN is hardly infallable to say the least. Diplomats make mistakes and I've got every right to challenge the rightness of their decisions. And they don't "represent the world", if they did then a few dozen anti-Israel resolutions would have actually passed like the world wanted to.

As i said before, the Gypsies didn't do anything political, like the Jews did (the zionist Congress in Bazel), they didn't do anything practical, like the Jews did (to come to israel). Hell, they don't even want a country!

It doesn't matter whether or not they want to have a country! Are they right if they do? I can found my own Lapisist Congress in Bazel, claim some parts of Africa because my Homo Habilis ancestors lived there a million years ago, move there and work my ass of to do a better job in cultivating the land than the locals, it still doesn't make my claim right.

Thirdly, I don't really know much about this island, but as you present it, they really don't have any right to claim it for themselves, besides of the fact that no one else wants it...

It's practically their back yard. But look what I found: there were Arabs living in the Negev, namely the Bedouin nomads:

"Before 1948, when the state of Israel was created, the Negev was almost exclusively inhabited by Bedouin tribes, whose historic claims to the land had been recognized by the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate authorities."

So, the Arabs chose to violate a law from the authority (UN) and to violate an other law and start a war. All of this just because of the fact that they think it is immoral.

Okay we agree.

It wasn't full of Arabs, it is full of Arabs now, but it wasn't back then.

Yah it was. There's even a book written about it. And here's another something I dug up (this guy is accurate with his sources, see the bottom of the page):

"Even within the area designated for Israel under the U.N. partition plan, the population consisted of some 500,000 Jews and 330,000 Arabs."

I am not sure they weren't afterwards, they slaughtered more Arabs than Jews.

They slaughtered everybody. Jews and Muslims were equal enemies to christianity according to the Crusaders.

The Arabs had a lot more right to claim the land than immigrants. Besides, you haven't said anything about the example of Jaffa. Why did the Jews get the outskirts of the city reducing Jaffa itself to amere enclave? Did the Arabs not want the outskirts? Or maybe did not have the means to start inhabiting the land?

I didn't say anything about Jaffa because of the fact that Jaffa, by the seperation program was given to the Arabs, check things before saying them.

Read my post. Jaffa was made an enclave. The Jews got the outskirts. So they did settle in places where Arabs lived.

Well, in some point the Arabs knew that they were trying ton get an independant state in Israel, I wasn't denying it. However, they should have had more trust in the Brittish to do the right thing, which they did. It was their greed that blew everything up for them.

Lol, the British royally fucked them over. They did put their trust in the British during WW1, what a huge mistake that was.