Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/3/07 12:33 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:31 PM, DeadSun wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:23 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:02 PM, DeadSun wrote:

At 6/3/07 11:59 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 11:45 AM, DeadSun wrote:

that or stock up on guns

why? may I ask?

because guns and money rule the world

At 6/3/07 12:38 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:36 PM, DeadSun wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:33 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:31 PM, DeadSun wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:23 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

because guns and money rule the world

thats a very narrow minded way of thinking

guns and money are the corperations of the world.
but it would be funny is that woman went all rambo.

devil may cry sucks

At 6/2/07 01:35 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hamas's official policy is to kill ALL JEWS.

That could be argued as being not true now as they have begun to politicize now and have negotiated with Israel in limited amounts. Also have had some form of limited cooperation with Israel now. But yes, they have written they want to destroy Israel (not Jews).

It's not about stealing land, they just want to destroy Israel because it allows Jews to have an equal place in society.

Errr, no. Im not sure what logical fallacy that is but it is whatever one is that makes up an argument that is not true at all. Straw man maybe?

In the non-Palestinian authority regions of Israel Arabs and Jews can live side by side with no problems, but it is the hate-mongering Islamist extremists who break every treaty and ceasefire they are offered and continue to extend the cycle of violence who should be fought against, not the State of Israel which is just trying to protect its people.

Nope. Besides, it was Barak who stopped negotiating, not Arafat.

It may make its fair share of poor decisions in handling the conflict but this does not mean that the PLO or any of its hateful Islamist anti-peace groups are any better.

Ignoratio elenchi

When the BRITISH Mandate of Palestine was given the 1948 U.N. Partition Plan that gave Israel only a tiny piece of land, it was not good enough for some arab states' leaders. Instead they started a war to make sure that Jews could never be equal in the society they live in.

Jews were equal long before the British Mandate. There were large Jewish communities all across the Middle East. What suddenly changed? Colonialism and talk of creating a Jewish homeland in Arab land.

And let me propose this scenario, lets say you own a big piece of property in the boonies somewhere. You have 5 houses on this property, 3 of them are so important to you they could be considered almost holy ground. The other two you love because they are part of your land but not as much as the other 3. Now some investor comes in and buys out your land because you made some bad business decisions in the past. You and your family and friends still live in this area and have nominal control over day to day decisions but they can be overridden by the investor who lives far away. The investor overrides some decisions you make and you do not like this and you start resenting the new person in town that is running the show now. To make matters worse, they decide they are going to start leasing one of your favorite houses on this land to complete strangers, displacing some of your family and friends in the process and removing them from decision making capacity. You dont know these new people, dont understand them, dont understand what they are like, and you are quite distrustful of outsiders as a result of the investor so you decide to try to force the new people out of their house by whatever means necessary to reclaim it as your own. Get the picture?

Does that justify anyones behavior? Not by a longshot. Does it make more sense than some vengeful Arab leaders just deciding to start a pissing contest for no reason, like you have proposed? Fuck yes it does.

This conflict is born out of anti-Semitism.

It is born out of colonialism. Anti Semitism is an excuse to destroy debate on a legitimate debate topic. A paper that comes immediately to mind highlighting this is John Mearsheimer and Steven Walts paper on the Israeli lobby. Which, of course, Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard attack dog for all things that even remotely criticize Israel, did not waste a second to whip out the anti-Semite label and accused them of shoddy scholarship to boot. Now if you have ever read much on International Relations, you would know John Mearsheimer is one of the golden boys in the field now. He was big in the field long before he penned that paper with Stephen Walt. And if you know anything about Dershowitz, you know he is raving pro-Israeli, raving to the point beyond fanaticism. Who to believe? The crazy labeling people anti-Semites because he doesnt like what they are saying or the people calling it as they, and many others, obviously see it? Take a step back and consider things before you label, bro.

Look at how far the state has come, it is a developed first world nation.

$135 Billion in official American aid over the years and a continuing $5-$10 billion a year, it would be damn hard for that country to have any excuse to not be first world. Not to mention the estimated $1.5 billion in private donations to Israel each year from the US alone.

not another one ruled by corrupt anti-Semites

Arabs are easily more Semitic now than the majority of Jews. I would have a tough time justifying the label "Semite" for Jews, now, other than using it in its historical connotation. Just FYI.

At 6/3/07 11:45 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:24 AM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/2/07 11:05 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: stfu mat that post was made before I became a athiest.

You're just going through a phase (most teenagers do).

but Im a adult.

...and yet you continue to act like a child.

At 6/3/07 04:51 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 04:00 PM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/3/07 11:45 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:24 AM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/2/07 11:05 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

...and yet you continue to act like a child.

well its newgrounds wade is a perfect example.

In the 'General' section perhaps. Not in 'Politics'

At 6/3/07 07:57 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 04:58 PM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/3/07 04:51 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/3/07 04:00 PM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/3/07 11:45 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

In the 'General' section perhaps. Not in 'Politics'

so a ridiculous comment or two every so often doesnt hurt

It's just about the equivalent to trolling and spamming, both of which could get you banned.

If it were up to me I would have had you banned long ago, not because I personally dislike you (which I do) but because you are a bothersome asshole who isn't contributing anything worthwhile or constructive to the BBS.

If you want to piss people off, we do have something called 'private messaging' nowadays.

At 6/1/07 03:21 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Malaysian Christian convert loses battle

Shit. That sucks. I don't get why what you believe is such a big damn deal. I know Jews and a Muslim. I never thought anything of that. As far as I'm concerned they're just my fellow countrymen, and ordinary friends. It seems the most mature are actually the most childish.
Nice sig change btw. :)

did u know in some countries converts from islam get executed?

Okay, I'm gonna have to spread this out over two posts. (sorry.)

At 6/3/07 02:45 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 6/2/07 01:35 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hamas's official policy is to kill ALL JEWS.

That could be argued as being not true now as they have begun to politicize now and have negotiated with Israel in limited amounts. Also have had some form of limited cooperation with Israel now. But yes, they have written they want to destroy Israel (not Jews).

I admitted that statement of mine was more hyperbole than fact. (I am not an expert on Hamas official policy) However, just having looked up some more information about Hamas, I'd have to say they're quite anti-Semitic.

From the Hamas Charter:
"Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him

"The clandestine organizations which it has established strive to demolish societies, to destroy values It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

Against peace: "The clandestine organizations which it has established strive to demolish societies, to destroy values It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

Here's some quotes from Hamas :

Here's something they have to say about the Taliban in comparison to the U.S.: " "The Taliban are 1,000 times more honorable than the American occupation and its collaborators We are not a copy of the Taliban... Judge us according to what we are. Everyone must stop blaming the Taliban for things that in fact characterize the people of the West, who seek to turn the international community into a swamp of corruption and destruction, and to spread abomination and disease in the name of absolute freedom.

"We are part of Allah's promise that Islam will enter Palestine and every home in the world, with a revelation of the power of Allah the Omnipotent, and a revelation of the inferiority of the infidels. Hamas is leading this plan in Gaza, the West Bank, and the 1948 territories, and the Muslim Brotherhood is leading it everywhere else. This is part of Allah's predestination.""- (Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, interview in Arabic with elaph.com, October 11, 2005, MEMRI)

"This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our nation was tested by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation Be certain that America is on its way to utter destruction, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine Make us victorious over the community of infidels Allah, take the Jews and their allies, Allah, take the Americans and their allies Allah, annihilate them completely and do not leave anyone of them."

Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, April 20, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007)

"the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: 'I kill, therefore I am' Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs]."

Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, Hamas representative, April 12, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007)

Sure, Hamas makes very forward-thinking statements of peace and tolerance when the guys they preach hate against are there, but when they're not, you can see they do have much more than their fair share of bigotry and war-mongering.

It's not about stealing land, they just want to destroy Israel because it allows Jews to have an equal place in society.

Errr, no. Im not sure what logical fallacy that is but it is whatever one is that makes up an argument that is not true at all. Straw man maybe?

Not straw man, more like excessive hyperbole; I was a bit too incensed when I typed that, I admit. But you can see that many of the anti-Israel groups are angry because Israel allows Jews to have the ability to have power as well, and not just be second-class citizens as they are in many other Arab nations. The fact that they are Jews and not Muslims does make up a fair share of the anger, despite the fact that Jews had been living there before.

In the non-Palestinian authority regions of Israel Arabs and Jews can live side by side with no problems, but it is the hate-mongering Islamist extremists who break every treaty and ceasefire they are offered and continue to extend the cycle of violence who should be fought against, not the State of Israel which is just trying to protect its people.

Nope. Besides, it was Barak who stopped negotiating, not Arafat.

The original 1948 Arab-Israeli war was created by aggression not by Israel but by aggression from hostile Arab forces.

"The UN declared a truce on 29 May which came into effect on 11 June and would last 28 days. The cease-fire was overseen by the UN mediator Folke Bernadotte. An arms embargo was declared with the intention that neither side would make any gains from the truce. At the end of the truce, Folke Bernadotte presented a new partition plan that would give the Galilee to the Jews and the Negev to the Arabs. Both sides rejected the plan. On 8 July, before the expiration of the truce, Egyptian General Naguib renewed the war by attacking the Negba position"

Israel even was prepared to offer back the lands it had taken in 1967, but the Khartoum Resolution kind of messed that up.

Doesn't seem like Israel started the "no-negotiation" thing. Regardless, it's not like that anymore; the last time I checked Israel was still open to negotiation. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

It may make its fair share of poor decisions in handling the conflict but this does not mean that the PLO or any of its hateful Islamist anti-peace groups are any better.

Ignoratio elenchi

Not quite. I think you're trying to say that I'm trying to justify some of the bad actions by Israel because the PLO do bad things. I'm not saying those actions were justified; I'm saying that because that while Israel has made its mistakes the PLO is worse and therefore should not be given control of the land (Israel). It's less like saying Person A has control of Land 1 and is doing bad things to Person B, but that's okay because Person C does bad things to Person D. It's more like saying Person A has control of Land 1, but Person B wants control of Land 1 too. Person A has made some mistakes in Land 1 but Person B will make it worse in Land 1 and therefore should not be given Land 1.

Part 2:

When the BRITISH Mandate of Palestine was given the 1948 U.N. Partition Plan that gave Israel only a tiny piece of land, it was not good enough for some arab states' leaders. Instead they started a war to make sure that Jews could never be equal in the society they live in.

Jews were equal long before the British Mandate. There were large Jewish communities all across the Middle East. What suddenly changed? Colonialism and talk of creating a Jewish homeland in Arab land.

Except the land wasn't just owned by Arabs, as you said, there were Jews living there too.

You dont know these new people, dont understand them, dont understand what they are like, and you are quite distrustful of outsiders as a result of the investor so you decide to try to force the new people out of their house by whatever means necessary to reclaim it as your own. Get the picture?

I wouldn't describe the Jews as being "complete strangers". Like you said, there were Jewish settlements in the Middle East before so many migrated in the 40s. Why should legally immigrating Jews who legally acquired land be given any less claim to the land than Arabs who legally acquired land?

This conflict is born out of anti-Semitism.

It is born out of colonialism. Anti Semitism is an excuse to destroy debate on a legitimate debate topic. A paper that comes immediately to mind highlighting this is John Mearsheimer and Steven Walts paper on the Israeli lobby. Which, of course, Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard attack dog for all things that even remotely criticize Israel, did not waste a second to whip out the anti-Semite label and accused them of shoddy scholarship to boot. Now if you have ever read much on International Relations, you would know John Mearsheimer is one of the golden boys in the field now. He was big in the field long before he penned that paper with Stephen Walt. And if you know anything about Dershowitz, you know he is raving pro-Israeli, raving to the point beyond fanaticism. Who to believe? The crazy labeling people anti-Semites because he doesnt like what they are saying or the people calling it as they, and many others, obviously see it? Take a step back and consider things before you label, bro.

I'm not just trying to play the race card like some people abuse it (you are right that the label is abused sometimes), but as with the stuff I presented above, anti-Semitism is a big part of the agenda of some anti-Israel organizations. I think a lot of hatred that Israel gets would not be there if it weren't founded by Jews and Muslims instead. There is plenty of prejudice, but it is true that sometimes people abuse that to cover any argument as you said.

Look at how far the state has come, it is a developed first world nation.

$135 Billion in official American aid over the years and a continuing $5-$10 billion a year, it would be damn hard for that country to have any excuse to not be first world. Not to mention the estimated $1.5 billion in private donations to Israel each year from the US alone.

It takes more than money to become a democratic and free (by today's standards) nation. Israel just turned out particularly well because it had a greater focus on democracy than some new countries. But you are right that the donations are a big help.

not another one ruled by corrupt anti-Semites

Arabs are easily more Semitic now than the majority of Jews. I would have a tough time justifying the label "Semite" for Jews, now, other than using it in its historical connotation. Just FYI.

Technically, yeah, but I'm using "anti-Semite" in the common usage, which refers specifically to Jews; but you're right about the Arabs being Semitic people. It's just nowadays when people use "anti-Semitic" they usually mean "anti-Jewish". Didn't mean to cause any confusion.

Given time to think about this more, I suppose the bottom line on this issue for me is: Yes, the Palestinian people have gone through a lot of terrible things, some the fault of Israel, more the fault of the PLO and other militants, but the current state of intifadas and violence are not helping them or the people of Israel. Violent revolution is not the answer here, it is only causing more trouble and more oppression. It is bad for the people of Palestine because it's just causing Israel to crack down more (causing hassles and more injustice, bulldozing, etc.), and because some(most?) are so nuts about their cause they'll kill their own people and innocent civilians from both Israel and Palestine to prove it. It's bad for the people of Israel because if the PLO ever did take the whole land of Israel, the number of military and casualties from the fighting would be absolutely obscene. It's not going to be given up easily. And if the PLO did take control, what are the chances of it giving anywhere near the amount of free press and civil liberties that the citizens of Israel had before? (Look at the statistics I posted, they're better than any other Middle Eastern nation) Every other Middle Eastern state is ranked Partly Free or Not Free... I think it's highly doubtful after such a huge and bloody war that ANY part of Israel would be free like a First World nation anymore; the violence and struggle of a conflict erodes civil liberties, as we are seeing in the West Bank and Gaza strip. In my opinion, the best solution for this crisis is peaceful democratic change, not violence.

At 6/3/07 03:21 AM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/3/07 01:54 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Right, the guy who came up with the idea of a Jewish homeland wasn't Jewish.

Unless one considers Judaism an ethnicity.

I think you're just confused. Herzl personally didn't want to actually live in the new Jewish homeland, but he wanted to make it for Jews who did want to live there.

There was nothing to stop them from doing so.

Israel is completely a Jewish state,

The Neturei Karta (a mostly Jewish organization) says otherwise.

only unlike other Middle Eastern countries, they let other religions live there, too.

Other Middle Eastern countries such as Turkey, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia?

Also, the Qur'an states that "there should be no compulsion in religion." (Qur'an 2:256)

The actual words of their own scripture hasn't stopped people from using their religion as a tool of oppression; the Spanish Inquisition and "Do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you" comes to mind. And Saudi Arabia is an extremely oppressive nation.

You're trying to tell me that these countries aren't based on extremist Muslim belief

"Allah loveth not aggressors." (Qur'an 2:190)

and Sharia law.

What's wrong with laws that prohibits and punishes murder, theft, rape, vandalism, and other things that are particularly looked down upon in just about all other nations?

That also forces women to cover themselves up whether they want to or not or whether they're Muslim or not (in the more oppressive regimes, some are more progressive, but see Yemen or Saudi Arabia and it's still very backwards), and that limits sexual freedoms, allows stoning as a method of execution and continues violent persecution against homosexuals? Regardless of what the actual Qu'ran says, people can still pick and choose the passages that support their own methods of oppression, and that's what they do in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, etc.

And you're damn right it's a direct contradiction. The Qu'ran considers the Torah and Bible to be holy books and Abraham, Moses, and Jesus to be prophets. These leaders aren't real Muslims, they're just power-hungry radical maniacs.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

It is indeed.

At 6/3/07 02:07 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Then could you cite where exactly it does refute each argument?

Just about everything provided in the link refutes your claims.

Well, if it does, could you point out where, please?

Alright, then what is Zionism!? AskOxford.com defines it as "a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel."

AskOxford also defines 'jihad' as "holy war", which is not true. Jihad is the Arabic word for "struggle". Just about anything could be labled as jihad: from doing homework to climbing a tall mountain.

That's the common usage these days, however.

And if you ask me, there is nothing "holy" about war. Most Muslims (and non-Muslims) hopefully can agree on this. The only time a war should be fought would be in defense.

And hopefully only violence would be used when it's necessary and actually useful, which in many of the cases it is being used these days, it is not. Such as burning public buildings to protest something some Danish cartoonist made. :\

What do you define it as (minus all the hyperbole)

Pretty much the same way the Neturei Karta defines it.

? How is that?

Apparently I'm not so naïve that i can't explain my own side of the argument with actual statistics

...without any sources to back them up?

I cited the Freedom House Freedom in the World Report and Reporters Without Borders Freedom in the Press; Wikipedia has their
current statistics
,check them out.

and rational thought

That mostly depends on the viewer's perspective, not the writer's.

True.

and not just post a link to a website without defining where its information applies to the arguments being made.

It all looked so good I didn't really know where to begin.

Besides, I really don't want to cram the forums with walls and walls of text.

Would help to just to cite it and show part of it.

I have thought my argument out enough that I can respond without just dismissing your entire post, you apparently can't. Please prove me wrong by actually responding to my previous post with counter-arguments. If you're going to debate you should actually try to tell how your sources support your argument and not just post a link and just insult the other guy for the rest of your post. You are not changing my opinion by just calling me naïve and not explaining how you think I am wrong.

I'll try and do that next time.

And I do apologize for the put-down earlier (when I called you naive). It's just that I see so much injustice going on it makes my blood boil.

Again I apologize. It was totally uncalled for.

That's alright, I think where we differ most on the issue is the cause of the injustice and how to stop it.

I do not place all the blame on Israel, and most importantly, I do not believe that the violence of the PLO and the intifadas help to stop the injustice. Rather, I think the continuous wartime atmosphere and violence (against civilians AND military) have been keeping down the progress of civil rights by forcing Israeli crackdowns and preventing the enacting of new laws to help defend civil rights in the Palestinian Authority. Responding to atrocities with more atrocities does not help the Palestinian people; it just makes Israel push back more. I think peaceful democratic change is the best solution here.

At 6/1/07 11:01 PM, sexy-muslim-girl wrote:

At 6/1/07 08:17 PM, JakeHero wrote:
Muslims aren't a race.

LOL. humorous. Next thing you'll be telling me that jewish people didn't originate from israel at all, it was pure coincidence that most people in israel held the same political systems, same cultural systems, same belief systems and that the majority of jewish people come from israel as do the majority of muslims come from arabian areas- (because that's where our beliefs ORIGINATED from, just like other parts. so yes, being muslim can in part be a race)

But race is a biological trait, not a cultural trait. If you are an Arab, you may be Muslim, but that doesn't make all Muslims Arab or all Arabs Muslim. Race and religion are two different things, but that's not to say they don't have some sort of affiliation, as you pointed out when you mentioned that Arabia is where your beliefs originated from.

Oh shit, I just realized that post was on the first page. >_>

Sorry.

At 6/4/07 04:51 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The fact that they are Jews and not Muslims does make up a fair share of the anger, despite the fact that Jews had been living there before.

Its not the fact they are Jews, it is the fact they are outsiders in a region historically dominated by one ethnic group. It is the same when the Scots/Irish opposed British rule in their countries. The same as when Spanish/Portuguese opposed the Moor presence in their lands. The same as when the indigenous groups of North and South America opposed the Europeans coming from across the sea. The same as when Arab opposed the Crusader States. The same as when the Greeks opposed Persian rule in their territories. The same as when Mexico opposed American expansionism into their territories. The same as when India opposed British rule over their country. The same as when the Franks opposed the Moor's expansionism into southern France. The same as when Balkan people opposed Ottoman rule. The same as when the Hutu and Tutsi clashed in Rwanda. The same as when Jew opposed Roman rule in Israel way back in the day. The same as when Jew opposed Babylonian rule even farther back in the day.

It has nothing to do with their religious affiliation, it has everything to do with them being different and uninvited rulers over a historically homogenous ethnic population. I literally could continue this for page upon page. It is a fact of history that I believe has been demonstrated beyond any possible argument; outsiders seeking ruler ship and power are opposed by the natives of the area and ethnically diverse regions who hit hard times fall into ethnic disintegration. You are now seeing this play out in Iraq.

The original 1948 Arab-Israeli war was created by aggression not by Israel but by aggression from hostile Arab forces.

Why is it not considered an act of aggression for an ethnic group to move into an area with the expressed goal of self rule with themselves at the head of whatever state they would create when they have no historical claim to that land? When the colonial powers have stated in official documents the expressed goal of creating this ethnicities homeland in this region they have no legitimate claim to? When even the supposed arbiter of international disputes even hands the land over to them with no qualms?

Just for an example that would hit closer to home, lets say Mexicans have moved into California and now occupy 60% of the states population. They decide it is their time for self rule and the UN supports them. So they create the state of Nuevo Mexico with the full support of the UN. I do not care what fucking legal documents they have or who in the UN supports them, I would oppose it flat out and would be willing to fight for California back.

The Arabs may have fired some of the first shots but it was the immigrating Jewish people who forced the Arabs hand. You might answer they had a choice not to fight but then again, the Jews had a choice not to force themselves on to a people, completely uninvited and completely unwanted.

Israel even was prepared to offer back the lands it had taken in 1967, but the Khartoum Resolution kind of messed that up.

That would be the same as if (continuing my analogy with California) the state of Nuevo Mexico offered all the lands north of San Francisco back to the United States. The fuck good does that do me if I opposed the entire ordeal from the beginning? It would not placate my anger, it would only disturb my pride and make my thirst for justice stronger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

The circumstances are not perfect, but the Lebanese Invasion of 2006 wouldnt exactly be a great proof of this, now would it?

Israel negotiates when it feels it will do them good, Palestine negotiates when it feels it will do them good, Lebanon negotiates when it feels it will do them good, Syria negotiates when it feels it will do them good, Egypt negotiates when it feels it will do them good. Lets not pretend they have any compunctions for peace unless it is peace on their terms that are profitable towards their goals.

I'm not saying those actions were justified; I'm saying that because that while Israel has made its mistakes the PLO is worse and therefore should not be given control of the land (Israel).

Thats like saying I could either choose to explode a grenade in my right hand or ignite a ton of TNT with my left. Why does which you choose when both scenarios leave you dead?

The lesser of two evils is no reason to support anything. I do not buy that in politics, I do not buy that in this case either. When both are ultimately bad, why bother to pick a side when there is no demonstrateable proof either will do you any good?

Except the land wasn't just owned by Arabs, as you said, there were Jews living there too.

They were subservient to the Muslim powers. They knew their place and made no claims on power or rule. They had numbers that could never justify self rule or a state of their own and were spread out all across the Middle East from Iran to Iraq to Trans-Jordan. Its the same as saying there are whites in South Africa or blacks in America, therefore they have a legitimate claim on self rule. That is bunk.

They immigrated in huge numbers starting at the end of the 19th Century with the expressed goal of self rule. I would consider that a hostile act if I was a ruler in these areas.

I wouldn't describe the Jews as being "complete strangers".

It has been 2000 years since there has been a Jewish state in the Middle East. I would say it is more than fair enough to call them complete strangers, especially considering the Jews immigrating to the Trans-Jordan area were of European or Slavic origin.

Why should legally immigrating Jews who legally acquired land be given any less claim to the land than Arabs who legally acquired land?

A piece of paper signed by the UN and Great Britain does not all of a sudden nullify all claims or resentment by the historically dominant ethnicity in a region. "Legally" is a weaselly term that has been used to justify some of the most brutal shit in the history of the world. Pol Pot with Cambodia, Mao Zedong in China, Stalin in the USSR, Hitler with Germany, even America with our anti-immigration acts like the Chinese Exclusion Act or treatment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. A piece of paper means nothing to me and absolves no guilt or wrongdoing.

I think a lot of hatred that Israel gets would not be there if it weren't founded by Jews and Muslims instead.

Muslims wouldnt exactly be outsiders then, would they?

It takes more than money to become a democratic and free (by today's standards) nation.

A nation runs on money. A poor nation is destroyed because it cannot feed itself, police itself, and protect itself. All of Africa is living proof of this. A rich nation survives because it can do every single one of those. The nations that are working in Africa are also proof of this; Botswana, South Africa, Angola, Nigeria. Many more have the potential to be stable nations but civil wars have ripped apart their countries at the seams. So lets not pretend this world runs on anything else other than the bottom line. If you cannot pay for your nations needs, you have no chance for stability.

Violent revolution is not the answer here, it is only causing more trouble and more oppression.

No, it is not. But babying the people of Palestine and acting as if they do not have legitimate concerns and claims of wrong doing by the state of Israel both in the past and now will get no one no where fast.

Israel is going nowhere, I have no illusions about that. Nor do I think it should now, it is these peoples homes and they have made them their country. But they cannot continue to act like they have some moral highground when they do not and continue to ignore Arab concerns like they have.

At 6/1/07 06:28 PM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/1/07 06:16 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: no religon of any type is trouble and my Name is Sparda google it is a name of a videogame charachrter

Have you ever met a man named Tom Metzger?

You too were made for eachother.

Have you ever met a man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

You two were made for eachother.

At 6/6/07 03:29 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: Have you ever met a man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

No but I am familiar with his work.

A good man.

You two were made for eachother.

Aww, thanks hon.