Israel: Give Me A Motive!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
I agree, however they have always been attacked since it’s inception over religion. We simply cannot “negotiate” or “debate” their issues. Truces NEVER hit the actual issue, which is Anti-Semitism.

I for one, fear that Hezzies will start up from the North, and then we will have the media blitz of civilian casualties that will be blamed on the Isralis by defending itself.

See, the world wants to understand this all and just talk. This can not work because of the simple nature of the religious issues does not allow for anyone to logically come up with solutions.

Isreal, in order to protect itself from the rockets will need to occupy a lot of territory outside it’s borders once again.

Occupation is the only way to protect themselves. I say go get it done.

Yea, because using force has worked out so well for the region in the past.

Force has worked well, but the benefits derived have been negated by naive do-gooders like Jimmy Carter.

Force hasn’t worked well- the entire Arab world hates them, and their hate increases with every one of these wars that come on. A lasting peace will only be achieved through diplomacy. [/quote]

Force has worked very well for the Israelis. The combined ass-kickings of the 1967 and 1973 wars put the Arab countries in check, none of them want a repeat.

Diplomacy is way overrated. In our modern era, diplomacy has become so badly misunderstood and misused that instead of being a peaceful solution it is a dangerous problem.

In order for diplomacy to work there must be conditions on the ground that favor it’s success. Today very few people are realistic enough to accept this fact.

In some ways diplomacy is just like boxing, a good boxer will use timing to look for or create openings. If you just go wildly flailing in you might connect with something, but you are also likely to run into something and get knocked out.

Diplomacy works best when it is used strategically and with timing. Timing is the most maligned aspect of diplomacy today. Whenever there is a crisis in the world there is a kneejerk reaction of “send in the diplomats” with absolutely no regard as to whether they will make things better or worse. In fact the prevailing mentality is the diplomats can’t make things worse so there is no harm in sending them immediately.

[quote]
If they can do it in Northern Ireland, they can do it in Israel. However, both sides must make concessions. Until they are willing to do that, America should have nothing to do with it, and support neither side. Fuck Israel- they are the bullies on the block. And fuck the Palestinians, because they never listen to cease fires, and won’t leave Israel alone.

As difficult and intractable as they were, the Irish troubles were nowhere near as bad as what the Jews have to deal with from the Muslims.

Says who? And I’m not just talking about the Troubles, I’m talking about the entire Irish conflict.

There were generations upon generations of hatred stacked up in Northern Ireland, based not only on religious differences, but also the political differences of those involved.

On top of that, you had GB pulling strings and triggers all the time, provoking more hatred and anger.

The Northern Ireland issue had been going on for far longer than the Israeli conflict with the Arab world. If you’re looking at strictly death tolls from the last 100 years, than of course the Israeli-Arab conflict is worse.

If you’re looking at it through the lens of history, then the Ireland/Great Britain one is far worse. From the initial wars for Irish freedom all the way to now, it’s 800 years of hatred and anger.

And yet, somehow, they live in relative peace now, with the situation getting better instead of worse (finally). [/quote]

The Muslims have had it in for the Jews ever since the time of Mohammad. Hatred for the Jews is written into the Koran.

The Protestant and Roman Catholic bibles are essentially the same and don’t teach hatred for one another.

The conflicts between the Irish, Scots and English go back to when they were Saxons and Celts, then Normans and Saxons then Normans and Celts that is true. But the Irish ruled Ireland up until Cromwell invaded in the 17th century. It was more like 400 years and the loyalists Irish were actually Scots who are Celts just like the Irish. That is why Scottish and Irish family names are the same except for being a Mac or a Mc.

There is a different dynamic between the Jews and Muslims that makes it a lot more intractable.

[quote]
The only concession the Jews can make that will fully satisfy the Arabs is to give the entire country to them and go back to being the wandering Jews.

Maybe for some. But there are more level headed minds that will eventually prevail, if only because they have to. I’m not saying when or how it will happen, but as I said before, a lasting peace can only be negotiated. [/quote]

Level headed minds have rarely (if ever) prevailed in the Islamic world. You are engaging in wishful thinking that ignores history.

[quote]
No the Israelis are not the bullies. It was the Arabs who invaded Israel in 1948 because the UN recognized it as a country.

Right. But one could say it was rightfully so- who the fuck gets to just take land and make it a country based on the ramblings of novel? [/quote]

What novel is that? The Jews have a history on that land that goes all the way back to when they were Canaanites. Ottoman census records from the 19th century show that even then the majority of people in Jerusalem were Jewish. If the ethnic cleansings of Mohammad hadn’t happened the Jews probably would have reestablished the state of Israel long ago.

[quote]
That’d be like if the British came and said, “We’re taking New Jersey back. We know you live here, but we used to own it, and there’s this mass of people who need somewhere to live, and their magic book said that NJ was the place. Sorry.”

See how many wars would come of that. [/quote]

Your analogy is flawed. The Indians asking for New Jersey back would be much more accurate. I think they would have a legitimate case. Especially if the were driven out of America entirely and had to wander the world stateless and preyed upon while New Jersey sat empty and unoccupied.

[quote]
And who pays the price? Us, for supporting this little shitbag country.

Again- until both make concessions, we shouldn’t support either side.

America would not be a country if it wasn’t for the Jews financing the revolution. It is sad that many Americans are such ingrates.

Haym Solomon (or Salomon) (1740?1785) was a Polish Jew who immigrated to New York during the period of the American Revolution, and who became a prime financier of the American side during the American Revolutionary War against Great Britain.

Simply put, I don’t give a fuck. It took many generations of people many years to make America what it is. It wouldn’t be what it is without the influence of slaveholding WASPs, the poor working Irish, Polish dockworkers, German steel workers, etc. [/quote]

Irish didn’t start coming here in great numbers until the middle of the 19th century, when the United States was already a country.

[quote]
Do the Jews have a part in that? Of course. But the financing of the Revolution would have meant nothing without the American men who laid their lives down to make something of it.

Lafayette and Von Steuben had a big part in the Revolution to. That doesn’t mean we unequivocally support the French, and it didn’t stop us from having two wars with Germany. I’m not sure where that argument is going- one man doesn’t dictate the foreign policy of a country 250 years later. [/quote]

Haym Solomon organized fund raising in synagogues all across Europe. He was just one man but he organized the support of the Jewish people. Without that money there would not have been supplies for the patriots to fight.

Well we certainly did repay the French in kind.

[quote]
And I do hope that you’re not calling me an ingrate. [/quote]

I won’t call you names, I think you are one of the cooler people here.

However you did express a common sentiment that ignores the tremendous support the Jews gave to getting the American project off of the ground. It does come across as ingratitude.

[quote]
The concession that needs to be made is the Muslim Arabs need to concede that violence is not getting them anywhere. Which is not going to happen because violence and hatred is too deeply ingrained into their religion.

If you believe that it’s a problem with their religion, then I don’t know what to tell you. No religion is inherently violent- it’s only violent men that get their hands on it and twist it to meet their needs. [/quote]

Now you are starting to come around. Until the rest of the world faces up to the fact that Islam is the most important factor driving Arab hatred the international community will be unable to come up with any answers.

You are projecting what you want to believe about religion onto the Muslims. There is no reason why a religion cannot be inherently violent. Just look at what the Aztecs or Mayans used to do with their prisoners of war.

Islam is what is driving the violence. Believe it or not there actually are or at least were a lot of Christian Palestinians. Christian Palestinians have been attacked and killed by the Muslims Palestinians. So wake up and realize that it isn’t just the Jews they hate.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0905/pipes2005_09_13.php3

World silent after Muslim gang attacks ?Palestinian? Christian village

http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jul2007.htm

Christian monastery attacked in Gaza

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook - June 19, 2007

During the recent fighting in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah, the Christian community in Gaza was also targeted. The Palestinian paper Al-Ayyam reported that ?Armed masked men? stole, destroyed and burned down a monastery and a church school in Gaza, after they bombed the main gate with RPG shells? they destroyed the main gate of the monastery with an RPG shell, and then entered the church and destroyed everything in the monastery: The crosses, the holy books, computers and photocopy machines." They appeared to be members of Hamas? Al-Qassam Brigades, however, the Hamas has directed the blame at the Palestinian Authority police.

It should be noted that while this may have been a Hamas attack on the church, the Christian community has been suffering under Fatah rule as well. Ever since the West Bank cities were given over from Israel to the Palestinian Authority the Christian population has been living under very difficult conditions.

Palestinian writer Khaled Abu Toameh recently reported in The Jerusalem Post on the ruin of the Christian community of Bethlehem:

"The conditions of Christians in Bethlehem and its surroundings had deteriorated ever since the area was handed over [from Israel] to the PA in 1995?. 'Every day we hear of another Christian family that has immigrated to the US, Canada or Latin America? The Christians today make up less than 15 percent of the population'? "Samir Qumsiyeh [said]: "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem."

When the West Bank was under Israeli administration the Christian population of Bethlehem was over 60%.

This attack on the Gaza church, though more aggressive than the actions in Bethlehem, seem to be part of a Palestinian pattern of marginalizing the Christian community.

The article from Al-Ayyam appears below. As the story of the Christian community in Bethlehem is important for the understanding of the Christian predicament under the Palestinian Authority, The Jerusalem Post article has likewise been reprinted below.

Al-Ayyam, June 18, 2007
Armed masked men, said to be part of Al-Qassam [Hamas] Operational Force, stole, destroyed and burned down a monastery and a church school in Gaza, after they bombed the main gate with RPG shells?

Father Manuel Muslem, the leader of the Latin community in Gaza, said that the armed men who carried all sorts of weapons, including machine guns and RPG launchers, burst in to the monastery and the Al-Wardiya Church school yesterday after they destroyed the main gate of the monastery with an RPG shell, and then entered the church and destroyed everything in the monastery: The crosses, the holy books, computers and photocopy machines? And he explained that the damage caused to the monastery, only on the inside, will require over 100,000 Jordanian Dinar to restore, all the more so the walls and the outer gates which were damaged by the shells and were entirely destroyed.

Muslem indicated that he got a phone call from President Mahmoud Abbas, who expressed his identification and his love for the people of the Christian community? similarly, President Abbas promised the church that the [Palestinian] Authority will be the faithful protector to its people, without differentiating between a Christian and a Muslim.

In a response to the blame directed at the [Hamas] Al-Qassam Brigades and the Operational Force? the spokesman of the Operational Force, Islam Shahwan, said that the events of theft, destruction and burning of some of the institutions are absolutely not part of the values and measures of our people?

[That] those who attacked the Al-Wardiya Church school wore the clothes of the Operational Force and bore symbols saying ?Al-Qassam,? Shahwan explained that, concerning the Al-Qassam Brigades, since there was a agreement with them, and they completely left the street, only men of the Operational Force and of the Palestinian police stayed there. He denied [the claim] that this destructive way is the way of the Operational Force.
[Al-Ayyam, June 18, 2007]

The Jerusalem Post
Bethlehem Christians claim persecution
Jan. 25, 2007
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

A number of Christian families have finally decided to break their silence and talk openly about what they describe as Muslim persecution of the Christian minority in this city. The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears. According to the families, many Christians have long been afraid to complain in public about the campaign of "intimidation" for fear of retaliation by their Muslim neighbors and being branded "collaborators" with Israel. But following an increase in attacks on Christian-owned property in the city over the past few months, some Christians are no longer afraid to talk about the ultra-sensitive issue. And they are talking openly about leaving the city.

"The situation is very dangerous," said Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the Beit Sahur-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station. "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here. This is a very sad situation." Qumsiyeh, one of the few Christians willing to speak about the harsh conditions of their community, has been the subject of numerous death threats. His house was recently attacked with fire-bombs, but no one was hurt.

Qumsiyeh said he has documented more than 160 incidents of attacks on Christians in the area in recent years. He said a monk was recently roughed up for trying to prevent a group of Muslim men from seizing lands owned by Christians in Beit Sahur.

Thieves have targeted the homes of many Christian families and a "land mafia" has succeeded in laying its hands on vast areas of land belonging to Christians, he added.

Fuad and Georgette Lama woke up one morning last September to discover that Muslims from a nearby village had fenced off their family's six-dunam plot in the Karkafa suburb south of Bethlehem.

"A lawyer and an official with the Palestinian Authority just came and took our land," said 69-year-old Georgette Lama.

The couple was later approached by senior PA security officers who offered to help them kick out the intruders from the land. "We paid them $1,000 so they could help us regain our land," she said, almost in tears.

"Instead of giving us back our land, they simply decided to keep it for themselves. They even destroyed all the olive trees and divided the land into small plots, apparently so that they could offer each for sale."

When her 72-year-old husband, Fuad, went to the land to ask the intruders to leave, he was severely beaten and threatened with guns. "My husband is after heart surgery and they still beat him," Georgette Lama said. "These people have no heart. We're afraid to go to our land because they will shoot at us. Ever since the beating, my husband is in a state of trauma and has difficulties talking."

The Lamas have since knocked on the doors of scores of PA officials in Bethlehem seeking their intervention, but to no avail. At one stage, they sent a letter to Abbas, who promised to launch an investigation. "We heard that President Mahmoud Abbas is taking our case very seriously," said Georgette Lama. "But until now he hasn't done anything to help us get our land back. We are very concerned because we're not the only ones suffering from this phenomenon. Most Christians are afraid to speak, but I don't care because we have nothing more to lose."

The couple's Christian neighbor, Edward Salama, said the problem in the city was the absence of law and order. "We are living in a state of chaos and lawlessness," he said. "The police are afraid of the thugs who are taking our lands." Salama expressed deep concern over the conditions of Christians in Bethlehem, noting that many were leaving the country as a result of the deterioration. "When I see what's happening to Christians here, I worry a lot for our future," he said. "They are targeting Christians, because we are seen as weak."

The Lamas said they decided to go public with the hope that the international community would intervene with the PA to halt the land-grab. "We will fight and fight until we recover our land," Fuad Lama said. "We will resort to the courts and to the public opinion for help.

"Unfortunately, Christian leaders and spokesmen are afraid to talk about the problems we are facing. We know of three other Christian families - Salameh, Kawwas and Asfour - whose lands were also illegally seized by Muslims."

A Christian businessman who asked not to be identified said the conditions of Christians in Bethlehem and its surroundings had deteriorated ever since the area was handed over to the PA in 1995. "Every day we hear of another Christian family that has immigrated to the US, Canada or Latin America," he said. "The Christians today make up less than 15 percent of the population."

People are running away because the Palestinian government isn't doing anything to protect them and their property against Muslim thugs. Of course not all the Muslims are responsible, but there is a general feeling that Christians have become easy prey."

[quote]
In this case (similar to that of Northern Ireland again) religion and nationalism has been twisted together to form the backbone of the Arab resistance to Israel. That’s a strong bond that will be difficult to break. However, eventually, reasonable people will come together to fix this- until then, blood will be shed.

But to pretend that Israel is the innocent weakling cowering in the corner is hard to believe, especially when they’re rolling on Palestinians with tanks and aircraft strikes. [/quote]

I am not pretending anything, you are the one who is pretending. You are pretending that somehow it is the fault of the Jews that Muslims have so much hatred. The weaponry the Israelis have available in no way incriminates them. Your assumption that the Israelis having tanks automatically makes the guilty is baseless and irrational.

Christian Palestinians don’t have tanks or F-16’s but they get attacked by Muslim Palestinians too. So your assertion is refuted.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sifu wrote:

More historical perspective

Good post.

Not a knock on Irish because I consider him an e-friend but I’ve mentioned before about the dire need to have a firm grounding in history in order to credibly post on a thread that discusses a matter like this one. It’s critical to understanding such a complex situation.[/quote]

Push, SIfu, even Irish: More historical perspective:

On this one page from The Times, note:
–In the announcement of independence, the promise of Israel to offer all residents–regardless of religion or culture–citizenship and equality,
–ethnic cleansing–oh, yes, Jews killed as they fled their homes near Hebron–
–Eqypt started its invasion of Palestine–via Rafaa, even before the Declaration, in order to “restore order,” and fomenting the panic, by which Arabs would flee
–the planned encirclement and destruction of Israel by the Arab nations, which dysLixy (aka The Lying Sack of Shit, all credit to hedo) says were under the thumbs of colonial powers,
etc.

History never leaves.

Incorrect. The theft of land began since the foundation of the state, from the June the 30th 1948 decree and the 15th of November 1948 decree concerning the indigenous people’ s lands. Somebody had to live there before the foundation of the zionist state if it wanted those lands desperately and those inhabitants certainly were not Jewish.

In 1975, Israel Shahak compounded a list of 385 arab villages destroyed out of the existing 475 villages in 1948.

The British Empire’ s records also contradict you. In 1922 ( december the 31st ) 757 000 inhabitants have been recoded in Palestine, 663 000 of them being Arabs. Let’ s not add that this " barren and un populated land " has been a major wheat- and fruitexporter.

In 1891 Asher Guisberg ( one of the first zionists ) wrote that in fact, " Eretz - Izrael " is not barren at all.

During British rule the arabs used to export 30 000 tons of wheat/ year and the territory of their orchards tripled between 1921 - 1924, the orange - orchards septuple until 1947 and the production grows tenfold between 1922 - 1938.

According to Mr. Peel’ s report to the Parliament, because of the rapid groth of orange - orchards in Palestine, Palestine becomes the top exporter in the world, with a nomber of 15 000 000.

And so on…

Not bad for a barren and unpopulated land…

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24866318-7583,00.html

ISRAEL’s actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defence against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defence against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Force has worked very well for the Israelis. The combined ass-kickings of the 1967 and 1973 wars put the Arab countries in check, none of them want a repeat.
[/quote]

That’s fair, especially the 1967 war. Believe me, I’m not one of those people that all problems can be worked out. You know me from the combat sports forum, and I truly believe that one line from the Dark Knight spoke volumes about humanity- some men just want to see the world burn.

However…

I disagree.

I read something in Men’s Health that I thought was very true. It was about deal hunting in stores, and the guy said at one point, “People will only make a deal with you if they think you can help them or hurt them.”

Being America, we hold all the cards. We could severely hurt Israel by not supporting them as we do, and at least draw down one violent part of this equation. The Arabs, I believe, would be far more likely to negotiate if they thought that the playing field, and the negotiating table, as tipped towards the Israelis.

ALthough I understand the boxing analogy, I think that it relates far better to war than diplomacy. That “going in flailing and then getting knocked out” sounds like every war we’ve fought in since 1968.

Diplomacy is more like Bob Arum and DLH sitting down to make a fight. Sometimes they disagree over whether it will be in Vegas or AC, or whether the purse will be 60-40 or 70-30. Sometimes they will get so frustrated that they will leave, angry and swearing, and vow to not do business with each other again. However, everyone knows that if the public REALLY wants the fight to happen, and the money is there, that the fight will probably somehow, some way, be made.

However, neither of those men would even sit down at the table if the WBA declared that they were fully and unequivocally supporting one fighter over the other, and that they’d watch any negotiations to make sure they were “Fair” but everyone really knew what “fair” meant.

Get my drift?

Show me.

And also- everyone has had it out for the Jews at some point. Everyone.

Really? The stories in there can be interpreted to fit all kinds of beliefs. People used to use the Bible to justify slavery for Christ’s sake.

The Spanish Inquisition was done by Catholics. Hitler, as I recall, was a Protestant who prayed for victory before every battle. I bet even Stalin believed in something.

My point is that it’s not an inherent religious trait- it’s the people who lead and interpret the religion who can twist it for whatever purpose they wish.

It’s like saying that black people are better at sports just because they’re black.

The complete conquest of Ireland didn’t happen until the 17th century.

However, the English ran most of the country from the 12th century.

The Irish were essentially slaves, held to property, deported to Australia if they committed a “crime”, not allowed any form of education…

Essentially, they were in the same boat of being considered “The Oppressed” that the Jews have been.

“Other people have a nationality. The Irish and the Jews have a psychosis.”
–Brendan Behan

Something interesting I found about the similarities.
[i]
In the struggle which always follows on the trail of frustration some substitute is found whose excesses measure the pathology. A nation, for example, in striving to be free, say the Irish; under the present economic and political conditions their struggle does not succeed. It has been the error of states to think that if the national aspiration was prevented from accomplishment their end was achieved. The Irish, however, have succeeded so well in demonstrating to the world that this is not true, that their case maybe taken as a generic illustration for the oppression psychosis. In spite of this we still find the tendency to talk about the Irish as though they were normal; just as, before Carleton Parker, the I. W. W. were considered perverse instead of psychopathic. The reason for this is that their abnormality has not yet been objectively analyzed. On all such problems we get confused by talking about justice and rights as abstract principles when the evidence of them is found in the attitudes of people themselves. We have even come to attribute certain biological and racial characteristics to the Irish and to the Jews when their peculiarities are nothing but injustice frozen into psychology.

In the diagnosis of national traits, of all people who have not been sovereign, we must always look for some oppression resultant of which there are certain outstanding symptoms that are amazingly uniform. “Americanization” must be largely psychiatry directed towards the outstanding facts or psychoses. An oppressed group is abnormally subjective. Its inability to realize itself freely has turned back attention to itself until its self-consciousness becomes entirely out of focus. In other words, an oppressed group is hyperaesthetic to itself. There is a complete incapacity to view its own problems objectively. Women have through long history belonged to an oppressed group and a prevailing psychosis is illustrated by the reply of the woman whose husband said to her, “The trouble with women is that they take everything personally.” "That isn’t so,"she said, "I don’t."Any one who has known Irish, Jews, Poles or any other people who have long been dominated is familiar with this tendency to personal interpretation. There is always a chip on the shoulder to which the slightest jar calls attention.[/i]

http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Miller/Miller_1921a.html

I’m not saying that they have. What I am saying is that if peace is ever to come, they will have to. It will take the right combination of leaders, the right American president, the right conditions… but it will be possible.

What, honestly, is the alternative? The annihilation of Palestine? A genocide against the Arabs?

Does that mean in ten years when we figure out that it was a horrific thing, we’ll carve out a piece of, say Great Britain, and say, “Here, this land is for your troubles?”

The alternative is blood. Eventually, they will tire of it.

It wasn’t unoccupied. There wasn’t the amount of people there that there is now, but it sure as hell wasn’t empty. And, as someone else said, its OK to steal the land from them… why? Even if they were nomads, or villagers, or whatever- it still gives no right to simply take land and move in.

And sure, the Indians could ask for NJ back. And I’d tell them to fuck themselves- I’ve lived here my whole life, and that’s all I care about. If they moved in and began agitating, violence would ensue as it normally does in those situations.

And my point was that the creation of Israel is artificial. You don’t get a special lease on the land because you lived there once- that’s like trying to get your old house back 50 years after you moved. It don’t matter why you moved, or who made you move, but the fact is that you weren’t there, and someone else lives there now.

And the novel is the Bible, which, as far as historical references goes, means dick.

So? When did the Jews start coming en masse? In 1750? I think not.

How many presidents were descended from Irishmen? Both of Andrew Jackson’s parents were Irish. How about John Barry, the father of the US Navy. My point is that it was a collection of people from all countries over the world that made this county, and the debt we owe is to those individuals, not to the races and countries they came from.

Ingratitude? Please. We owe them nothing, just as we owe the French and the Germans and the English nothing. You don’t get support for things done 300 years ago.

We live in America homey. It’s all about “What have you done for me lately?” And they’ve done nothing good except get earn a whole mess of hatred for America in the Arab world.

And yet they manage to come here, and many of the Muslims I meet are very affable and just looking to earn a living like anyone else in America.

So if this is an all encompassing hatred, how come many seem to forget about it when they arrive in America? It’s not the religion- it’s the times, the place, and the situation there that promotes the acceptance of violence to achieve any means, be it personal or political.

That shit doesn’t fly in America… so miraculously it stops. Funny how that works.

Again- it’s a culture of violence supported by the massive political upheavel that constantly goes on, the wars being fought, etc. etc.

Muslims don’t swoop down on American villages and beat Christians… ever. They don’t start fights at bars over religion, they don’t beat Jews where they see them.

If this is the religion, like you say, then why wouldn’t it continue no matter where they go? Simple- because the violence is a product of its environment. When you take people out of that situation, they will not be nearly as violent as they were when they feel that they have to be to survive.

[quote]
In this case (similar to that of Northern Ireland again) religion and nationalism has been twisted together to form the backbone of the Arab resistance to Israel. That’s a strong bond that will be difficult to break. However, eventually, reasonable people will come together to fix this- until then, blood will be shed.

But to pretend that Israel is the innocent weakling cowering in the corner is hard to believe, especially when they’re rolling on Palestinians with tanks and aircraft strikes.

I am not pretending anything, you are the one who is pretending. You are pretending that somehow it is the fault of the Jews that Muslims have so much hatred. The weaponry the Israelis have available in no way incriminates them. Your assumption that the Israelis having tanks automatically makes the guilty is baseless and irrational.

Christian Palestinians don’t have tanks or F-16’s but they get attacked by Muslim Palestinians too. So your assertion is refuted. [/quote]

I’m not saying that the Palestinians are blameless- far from it. But there’s equal shares of guilt for both sides. Both antagonize the others, both murder civilians, and both are, in my opinion, scummy fucking people with no concern for anyone but themselves.

Hence why I say that we should support neither side.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
Over the years how many Palestinians have died in comparison with Israelis?

I don’t know for sure but we could start with six million dead Jews and go from there. I would have to say the Muslims are way ahead…[/quote]

You’ve had very good comments in this thread. But don’t be disingenuous. As much as many Muslim groups would like to see the utter destruction of the Jews, they were not the instigators of the Holocaust. Not that there weren’t strong connections between Muslim governments (and some Muslim people)and the Nazis. But that holds equally true for many Nazi supporters and sympatizers at the time.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Force has worked very well for the Israelis. The combined ass-kickings of the 1967 and 1973 wars put the Arab countries in check, none of them want a repeat.
[/quote]

Yes and no. For someone who rides on the high horse of history, you should know 1973 was a near run thing (Israel even considered the “Samson Option”). And Egypt basically won, in the Clausewitzian sense that it achieved its political objectives (got the Sinai back eventually). Never mind the unintended consequences of 1967, like say, Hamas rockets.

As for more recent wars: how did 1982 work out? How about 2006? Neither of those solved anything. In fact, they made Israel’s problems on her northern border far worse.

No, Hitler was an occultist who hated Christianity. But Stalin was once a seminary student.

[quote]
Hence why I say that we should support neither side.[/quote]

Exactly. And 70% of Americans want us to remain neutral in this conflict. And are completely ignored by both major parties, whose statements on Israel could literally be exchanged word-for-word with one another. No Israel Lobby huh?

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

No, Hitler was an occultist who hated Christianity.
[/quote]

Not true. There are many conflicting accounts of what Hitler believed, but I think he used whatever he could for political gain at the time.

[quote]Terrace Lad wrote:
Sifu wrote:Actually you are incorrect about the barrenness of the land and missing some important history.

Incorrect. The theft of land began since the foundation of the state, from the June the 30th 1948 decree and the 15th of November 1948 decree concerning the indigenous people’ s lands. Somebody had to live there before the foundation of the zionist state if it wanted those lands desperately and those inhabitants certainly were not Jewish.

In 1975, Israel Shahak compounded a list of 385 arab villages destroyed out of the existing 475 villages in 1948.

The British Empire’ s records also contradict you. In 1922 ( december the 31st ) 757 000 inhabitants have been recoded in Palestine, 663 000 of them being Arabs. Let’ s not add that this " barren and un populated land " has been a major wheat- and fruitexporter.

In 1891 Asher Guisberg ( one of the first zionists ) wrote that in fact, " Eretz - Izrael " is not barren at all.

During British rule the arabs used to export 30 000 tons of wheat/ year and the territory of their orchards tripled between 1921 - 1924, the orange - orchards septuple until 1947 and the production grows tenfold between 1922 - 1938.

According to Mr. Peel’ s report to the Parliament, because of the rapid groth of orange - orchards in Palestine, Palestine becomes the top exporter in the world, with a nomber of 15 000 000.

And so on…

Not bad for a barren and unpopulated land…[/quote]

Good points.
But watch the details. Most orchards during the Mandate were operated by Jewish National Fund or by kibbutzim which had purchased the land–quite legally. (Those Jaffa oranges were not stolen. Orchards planted before WWI would have become productive in the 1920s.) Wheat farming?–I do not know.
The Ottoman census is always an iffy affair. (To count people was to tax them.) But the consensus is that a large number of Arabs moved in and stayed between 1890s and 1920s.

As for the “theft of land” comments, the decree dates you gave in 1948 were after the reality of the nakhba. Whether by force or by fear, those villages were emptied, and the Arab states, UN relief organizations would not allow the repatriation of the refugees, either. The land, whether “owned” by the Ottoman Crown, the Mandate, the absentee landlords, or the tenants, was then emptied, and the decrees followed.

Jews have poretty mutch been a minority in that region since the revolt of Simon Bar Kokhba.

[quote]Terrace Lad wrote:
Jews have poretty mutch been a minority in that region since the revolt of Simon Bar Kokhba.[/quote]

How fortunate for their usurpers.

Jews That Lived In Palestine Tell Their Story - YouTube - interesting…

The way I see it, the state of Israel is an extreme and Hamas is an extreme. Both are no good.

[quote]Terrace Lad wrote:
Jews That Lived In Palestine Tell Their Story - YouTube - interesting…

The way I see it, the state of Israel is an extreme and Hamas is an extreme. Both are no good.

[/quote]

and this is not an extreme position?
“…if it were up to me, both sides should perish, as long as both polarities ( Israel - Islamist organisations ) exist, peace shall never exist.”

–You, in another thread.

So let’s see: Recently joined, 10 posts, all with, shall we say, a biased point of view, with a meager attempt to veil your hostility?

Good-bye, junior. Catch you later on Aryan Nation.


UPATE: (1/2/2009)

IDF Ground Forces are moving into Gaza…

Mufasa

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:So let’s see: Recently joined, 10 posts, all with, shall we say, a biased point of view, with a meager attempt to veil your hostility?

Good-bye, junior. Catch you later on Aryan Nation.[/quote]

Nice label there. When one has nothing to say, concentrating on the person behind the statements is always fun, I know, expecially on the internet. Your opinion is just as biased as anybody’ s .

I’ ve only started lifting weights for six month, so there is nothing to show and demonstrate, however I have been reading the specialized sections for quite a time.

Shalom!

?Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, ?Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all ? old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple?.?

Ezekiel 9:5-7

[quote]Terrace Lad wrote:
Sifu wrote:Actually you are incorrect about the barrenness of the land and missing some important history.

Incorrect. The theft of land began since the foundation of the state, from the June the 30th 1948 decree and the 15th of November 1948 decree concerning the indigenous people’ s lands. Somebody had to live there before the foundation of the zionist state if it wanted those lands desperately and those inhabitants certainly were not Jewish. [/quote]

The history of Jews on that land did not begin in 1948! From 1890 to 1948 there were changes going on in that land that you have chosen to ignore or deliberately misrepresent.

[quote]
In 1975, Israel Shahak compounded a list of 385 arab villages destroyed out of the existing 475 villages in 1948.

The British Empire’ s records also contradict you. In 1922 ( december the 31st ) 757 000 inhabitants have been recoded in Palestine, 663 000 of them being Arabs. Let’ s not add that this " barren and un populated land " has been a major wheat- and fruitexporter. [/quote]

The British mandate of Palestine included Palestine and TransJordan. The Arabs weren’t growing food either. Here is what Churchill had to say.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_impact.php

Winston Churchill was British Colonial Secretary when he visited the Middle East in the winter of 1920-1921. Anti-Semitic elements in the British government tried to assert that the Jews were not needed to develop Palestine. Churchill replied:

* Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not in a thousand years have taken effective steps towards the irrigation and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell?a handful of philosophic people?in wasted sun-drenched plains, letting the waters of the Jordan flow unbridled and unharnessed into the Dead Sea."

Then there is Elwood Mead.

In 1924, a few months after becoming Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Elwood Mead (namesake of Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam) published a highly favorable review of Jewish settlements in Palestine based on his visits there in 1923. His article, “New Palestine,” praised the Zionists accomplishments and plans, a publicity coup. Mead blamed Islam, Ottoman governance, and Arab culture for the demise of Roman irrigation systems that, according to Mead, once supported “lands flowing with milk and honey.” Mead was a consultant to Chiam Weizman offering his expertise to maximize the return on investment of the extensive investments in irrigation, land reclamation, and water supplies in the Zionist areas based on Mead’s extensive experience in the American West.

After the Arab riots in 1929, Mead wrote to the British High Commissioner that Jewish colonists had produced “a marvelous transformation” in the Palestinian landscape. Mead noted that in his visits to Palestine he had seen nothing “to indicate that the Arab was injured.” Moreover, the Jewish example of "what modern finance and equipment can do, coupled with the sympathetic interest of the government is bringing him out of the hopeless inertia that misgovernment and oppression of centuries past have created … " Jewish settlers in Palestine were not only reclaiming the land, they were elevating living standards for the Arab population and assisting the British government.

[quote]
In 1891 Asher Guisberg ( one of the first zionists ) wrote that in fact, " Eretz - Izrael " is not barren at all.

During British rule the arabs used to export 30 000 tons of wheat/ year and the territory of their orchards tripled between 1921 - 1924, the orange - orchards septuple until 1947 and the production grows tenfold between 1922 - 1938.

According to Mr. Peel’ s report to the Parliament, because of the rapid groth of orange - orchards in Palestine, Palestine becomes the top exporter in the world, with a nomber of 15 000 000.

And so on…

Not bad for a barren and unpopulated land… [/quote]

You are describing the effect of the Zionists on that lands productivity then attributing it to the Arabs who merely immigrated into the area to benefit from the industriousness of the Jews.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_impact.php

In his report to the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Transjordan for the year 1925, the British High Commissioner wrote:

* Fuel-power stations for the generation of electrical light and energy have been established at Haifa and Tiberias by the [Jewish] Palestine Electric Corporation, Limited. This increase in commercial activity, in building enterprise and new industrial developments is due almost entirely to Jewish capital and the entry during the year of an immigrant class with money to invest.

During this period a significant shift of population took place as Arabs and others from all over the Middle East moved to the areas of Zionist cultivation and development. The organizational and technical skills of the Jewish settlers, their access to outside capital, and their sheer hard work created an economic boom that created opportunity for Arab workers, particularly in contrast to the stagnant conditions elsewhere in the region. This has been documented by many, following the much-criticized but basically sound work of Joan Peters in her book From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab?Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. The central findings are that:

  1. As far back as 1893, the Jews not only were already far from being a small minority in the areas where they had settled, but were the largest single group there (if one divides the non-Jewish population into Muslim and Christian), and

  2. Substantial immigration of Arabs to Palestine took place during the first half of the twentieth century; from 1893 to 1947 while the Palestinian Arab population slightly more than doubled in areas where no Jews were settled, it quintupled in the main areas of Jewish settlement.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sifu wrote: [/quote]

Oi vie this is a long one. I am going edit some of it.

[quote]
Force has worked very well for the Israelis. The combined ass-kickings of the 1967 and 1973 wars put the Arab countries in check, none of them want a repeat.

That’s fair, especially the 1967 war. Believe me, I’m not one of those people that all problems can be worked out. You know me from the combat sports forum, and I truly believe that one line from the Dark Knight spoke volumes about humanity- some men just want to see the world burn.
However… [/quote]

I know are a good guy Irish. You are certainly one of the better people to deal with in the combat forum.

A saying that sticks in my mind is “if you can’t get along, get it on”. I think that one is relevant to Israel and Hamas.

[quote]
Diplomacy is way overrated. In our modern era, diplomacy has become so badly misunderstood and misused that instead of being a peaceful solution it is a dangerous problem.

In order for diplomacy to work there must be conditions on the ground that favor it’s success. Today very few people are realistic enough to accept this fact.

In some ways diplomacy is just like boxing, a good boxer will use timing to look for or create openings. If you just go wildly flailing in you might connect with something, but you are also likely to run into something and get knocked out.

I disagree.

I read something in Men’s Health that I thought was very true. It was about deal hunting in stores, and the guy said at one point, “People will only make a deal with you if they think you can help them or hurt them.”

Being America, we hold all the cards. We could severely hurt Israel by not supporting them as we do, and at least draw down one violent part of this equation. The Arabs, I believe, would be far more likely to negotiate if they thought that the playing field, and the negotiating table, as tipped towards the Israelis. [/quote]

Let me elaborate a little bit more about diplomacy in regards to what you wrote. Diplomacy is about negotiation. In order to negotiate one or both sides has to be willing and able to compromise. There are some things in this world that you cannot or should not compromise on. This is why diplomacy has become a problem.

People are putting too much value on a process that requires compromise to work, without ever thinking about how reasonable or realistic the compromises will be.

Hamas founding charter says it is a religious duty for Hamas members to destroy the state of Israel. There is no room for compromise in the Hamas charter.

Israel was founded so the Jews could have their own country where they could be safe from pogroms. Without their own country and the ability to raise an army to defend themselves they are vulnerable to extermination. This is something they cannot compromise. This is something they should not be expected to compromise on.

Hamas charter will not allow them to get along, so all the Israelis can do is destroy them. This is not something that can be negotiated away. All cease fires and diplomacy are doing is delaying the inevitable. [quote]

ALthough I understand the boxing analogy, I think that it relates far better to war than diplomacy. That “going in flailing and then getting knocked out” sounds like every war we’ve fought in since 1968.

Diplomacy is more like Bob Arum and DLH sitting down to make a fight. Sometimes they disagree over whether it will be in Vegas or AC, or whether the purse will be 60-40 or 70-30. Sometimes they will get so frustrated that they will leave, angry and swearing, and vow to not do business with each other again. However, everyone knows that if the public REALLY wants the fight to happen, and the money is there, that the fight will probably somehow, some way, be made.

However, neither of those men would even sit down at the table if the WBA declared that they were fully and unequivocally supporting one fighter over the other, and that they’d watch any negotiations to make sure they were “Fair” but everyone really knew what “fair” meant.

Get my drift? [/quote]

I understand. I refer you back to my previous statement about negotiations and compromise.

A problem with your analogy is this. When Arum and DLH negotiate they have a mutual goal, they both want to get paid so they eventually have to come together on something. Now if one of those guys was dirt poor and needed money right away to feed his family he might be much more willing to compromise.

Hamas wants a war to destroy Israel. Hamas has to lead the Palestinians into that war and get a let of them killed in order for the Palestinians to want to try something else.

[quote]
The Muslims have had it in for the Jews ever since the time of Mohammad. Hatred for the Jews is written into the Koran.

Show me. [/quote]

If you can’t be bothered to do your own research I am not going to spend all day on this.

It is in the Hadith, the Surrah and the Koran.

There were several Jewish villages where Mohammad went in and killed all the men and hauled off the women as slaves.

The Koran says the Jews are like apes and pigs.

The Surah say that when a Jew kills or causes mischief it is as if they have killed all of humanity.

If you need more why don’t you just go through PRCalDudes posting history and then come back with questions.

[quote]
And also- everyone has had it out for the Jews at some point. Everyone. [/quote]

Which is why they needed a homeland.

[quote]
The Protestant and Roman Catholic bibles are essentially the same and don’t teach hatred for one another.

Really? The stories in there can be interpreted to fit all kinds of beliefs. People used to use the Bible to justify slavery for Christ’s sake. [/quote]

Now you are talking about different interpretations of the same book. That is not the same as having an altogether different holybook.

[quote]
The Spanish Inquisition was done by Catholics. Hitler, as I recall, was a Protestant who prayed for victory before every battle. I bet even Stalin believed in something. [/quote]

The inquisition was done by Catholics acting completely contrary to everything that Jesus said or did.

Hitler was a satanist who wanted to restore the Nordic gods.

The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church saved Stalin’s ass by rallying Russians to save Mother Russia from the German invasion because Stalin was dumbfounded at what had happened. Other than that Stalin had no use for religion.

[quote]
My point is that it’s not an inherent religious trait- it’s the people who lead and interpret the religion who can twist it for whatever purpose they wish. [/quote]

I fully understand your point. A lot of people raise this issue. I think one important factor that you are missing is that some religions lend themselves to violence more than others.

For Hamas it is very easy for them to look at all the violence in Mohammads life and calls to violence in the Koran to justify what they are doing. ie When Mohammad was on his death bed his last command to the faithful was that there should be no other religion in Arabia, so all the Jews and Christians in Arabia had to go.

[quote]
It’s like saying that black people are better at sports just because they’re black. [/quote]

That is probably something for another discussion. But I will briefly address it. Blacks are genetically optimized for life on the African Savannah while Whites are optimized for life in northern Europe. Blacks tend to carry less body fat so they can cool their bodies, while whites tend to carry insulating body fat.

Fat cells play an important role in estrogen metabolism. Fat cells aromatize testosterone into estrogen and store estrogen which keeps the levels in the bloodstream higher. The higher estrogen shuts down the HPT axis lowering testosterone levels. I’ll leave you to figure out the rest.

[quote]
The conflicts between the Irish, Scots and English go back to when they were Saxons and Celts, then Normans and Saxons then Normans and Celts that is true. But the Irish ruled Ireland up until Cromwell invaded in the 17th century. It was more like 400 years and the loyalists Irish were actually Scots who are Celts just like the Irish. That is why Scottish and Irish family names are the same except for being a Mac or a Mc.

There is a different dynamic between the Jews and Muslims that makes it a lot more intractable.

The complete conquest of Ireland didn’t happen until the 17th century.

However, the English ran most of the country from the 12th century.

The Irish were essentially slaves, held to property, deported to Australia if they committed a “crime”, not allowed any form of education…

Essentially, they were in the same boat of being considered “The Oppressed” that the Jews have been.

“Other people have a nationality. The Irish and the Jews have a psychosis.”
–Brendan Behan
[/quote]

Thanks a lot buddy, you are a real Jobs comforter!

One of the few delusions I had to feel good about in this life is my moms mostly Irish side of my family isn’t as crazy as my dads mostly English side. You’ve ruined that for me.

[quote]
Something interesting I found about the similarities.
[i]
In the struggle which always follows on the trail of frustration some substitute is found whose excesses measure the pathology. A nation, for example, in striving to be free, say the Irish; under the present economic and political conditions their struggle does not succeed. It has been the error of states to think that if the national aspiration was prevented from accomplishment their end was achieved. The Irish, however, have succeeded so well in demonstrating to the world that this is not true, that their case maybe taken as a generic illustration for the oppression psychosis. In spite of this we still find the tendency to talk about the Irish as though they were normal; just as, before Carleton Parker, the I. W. W. were considered perverse instead of psychopathic. The reason for this is that their abnormality has not yet been objectively analyzed. On all such problems we get confused by talking about justice and rights as abstract principles when the evidence of them is found in the attitudes of people themselves. We have even come to attribute certain biological and racial characteristics to the Irish and to the Jews when their peculiarities are nothing but injustice frozen into psychology.

In the diagnosis of national traits, of all people who have not been sovereign, we must always look for some oppression resultant of which there are certain outstanding symptoms that are amazingly uniform. “Americanization” must be largely psychiatry directed towards the outstanding facts or psychoses. An oppressed group is abnormally subjective. Its inability to realize itself freely has turned back attention to itself until its self-consciousness becomes entirely out of focus. In other words, an oppressed group is hyperaesthetic to itself. There is a complete incapacity to view its own problems objectively. Women have through long history belonged to an oppressed group and a prevailing psychosis is illustrated by the reply of the woman whose husband said to her, “The trouble with women is that they take everything personally.” "That isn’t so,"she said, "I don’t."Any one who has known Irish, Jews, Poles or any other people who have long been dominated is familiar with this tendency to personal interpretation. There is always a chip on the shoulder to which the slightest jar calls attention.[/i]

Herbert A. Miller: The Oppression Psychosis and the Immigrant [/quote]

The Jews and Irish have been molded by centuries of having shit dumped on them. The Israelis do have their faults as a result. The bad actions of the Palestinians however make it difficult if not impossible to put the Israelis on the spot.

A more Ghandi or Martin Luther King like approach from the Palestinians would put the Israelis on the spot. Just look at how bad things were for African Americans in 1948 then look at where they are at today. What they have been through is at least as bad as the Palestinians.

[quote]
Level headed minds have rarely (if ever) prevailed in the Islamic world. You are engaging in wishful thinking that ignores history.

I’m not saying that they have. What I am saying is that if peace is ever to come, they will have to. It will take the right combination of leaders, the right American president, the right conditions… but it will be possible. [/quote]

One of the conditions is the Muslims have to stop killing infidels.

[quote]
What, honestly, is the alternative? The annihilation of Palestine? A genocide against the Arabs? [/quote]

First thing is the Christian Arabs are not contributing to the cycle of violence. So a genocide on them is not necessary.

On the other hand there are the Muslims. Jesus said that those who live by the sword die by the sword. Jesus also told the Jews that if they tried to fight the might of Rome they would be killed and the Temple would be destroyed. Some people have to learn their lessons the hard way.

Hamas wants a war, so give it to them. Teach them a lesson.

[quote]
Does that mean in ten years when we figure out that it was a horrific thing, we’ll carve out a piece of, say Great Britain, and say, “Here, this land is for your troubles?” [/quote]

That is already happening.

[quote]
The alternative is blood. Eventually, they will tire of it.

What novel is that? The Jews have a history on that land that goes all the way back to when they were Canaanites. Ottoman census records from the 19th century show that even then the majority of people in Jerusalem were Jewish. If the ethnic cleansings of Mohammad hadn’t happened the Jews probably would have reestablished the state of Israel long ago.

That’d be like if the British came and said, “We’re taking New Jersey back. We know you live here, but we used to own it, and there’s this mass of people who need somewhere to live, and their magic book said that NJ was the place. Sorry.”

See how many wars would come of that.

Your analogy is flawed. The Indians asking for New Jersey back would be much more accurate. I think they would have a legitimate case. Especially if the were driven out of America entirely and had to wander the world stateless and preyed upon while New Jersey sat empty and unoccupied.

It wasn’t unoccupied. There wasn’t the amount of people there that there is now, but it sure as hell wasn’t empty. And, as someone else said, its OK to steal the land from them… why? Even if they were nomads, or villagers, or whatever- it still gives no right to simply take land and move in.

And sure, the Indians could ask for NJ back. And I’d tell them to fuck themselves- I’ve lived here my whole life, and that’s all I care about. If they moved in and began agitating, violence would ensue as it normally does in those situations.

And my point was that the creation of Israel is artificial. You don’t get a special lease on the land because you lived there once- that’s like trying to get your old house back 50 years after you moved. It don’t matter why you moved, or who made you move, but the fact is that you weren’t there, and someone else lives there now. [/quote]

The Jews did not move off of that land. They were invaded by Rome and made second class citizens in their homeland. When they stood up for themselves they were slaughtered by the Romans and driven off of the land.

Then later right before Rome fell, Mohammad came along and destroyed the remaining Jewish settlements and hauled off the women as slaves and used them to breed an army which he used for further pogroms against the Jews.

This struggle has been going on for a long time.

[quote]
And the novel is the Bible, which, as far as historical references goes, means dick. [/quote]

There is a lot variety to the Bible. ie Some of it is cautionary tales that meant to teach a lesson rather than be taken literally. But there also is a good deal of history that has been borne out in archeological research.

[quote]
Simply put, I don’t give a fuck. It took many generations of people many years to make America what it is. It wouldn’t be what it is without the influence of slaveholding WASPs, the poor working Irish, Polish dockworkers, German steel workers, etc.

Irish didn’t start coming here in great numbers until the middle of the 19th century, when the United States was already a country.

So? When did the Jews start coming en masse? In 1750? I think not. [/quote]

They didn’t come here till in large numbers till the end of the 19th century. But European Jews did give Haym Soloman a lot of the money that was used to finance the American revolution. That counts for something.

Much more recently Israel was the only country in that part of the world that the US could militarily count upon during the cold war.

[quote]
How many presidents were descended from Irishmen? Both of Andrew Jackson’s parents were Irish. How about John Barry, the father of the US Navy. My point is that it was a collection of people from all countries over the world that made this county, and the debt we owe is to those individuals, not to the races and countries they came from. [/quote]

Jews who weren’t even living in this country sent money to help the US become a country.

[quote]
However you did express a common sentiment that ignores the tremendous support the Jews gave to getting the American project off of the ground. It does come across as ingratitude.

Ingratitude? Please. We owe them nothing, just as we owe the French and the Germans and the English nothing. You don’t get support for things done 300 years ago.

We live in America homey. It’s all about “What have you done for me lately?” And they’ve done nothing good except get earn a whole mess of hatred for America in the Arab world. [/quote]

So being an American means you get to forget your friends who helped you in your time of greatest need just because they haven’t done anything for you lately?

That is ingratitude homeboy.

[quote]
Now you are starting to come around. Until the rest of the world faces up to the fact that Islam is the most important factor driving Arab hatred the international community will be unable to come up with any answers.

You are projecting what you want to believe about religion onto the Muslims. There is no reason why a religion cannot be inherently violent. Just look at what the Aztecs or Mayans used to do with their prisoners of war.

Islam is what is driving the violence. Believe it or not there actually are or at least were a lot of Christian Palestinians. Christian Palestinians have been attacked and killed by the Muslims Palestinians. So wake up and realize that it isn’t just the Jews they hate.

And yet they manage to come here, and many of the Muslims I meet are very affable and just looking to earn a living like anyone else in America.

So if this is an all encompassing hatred, how come many seem to forget about it when they arrive in America? It’s not the religion- it’s the times, the place, and the situation there that promotes the acceptance of violence to achieve any means, be it personal or political.

That shit doesn’t fly in America… so miraculously it stops. Funny how that works. [/quote]

It is all a matter of percentages with Islam. As the percentage of Muslims in a country increases they become increasingly violent. There is a trend that has been repeated in country after country. Right now the percentage is low so they have only killed a few thousand, but as their percentages go up it will get worse.

I edited out the section on Christian Palestinians being attacked by Muslim Palestinians.

[quote]
Again- it’s a culture of violence supported by the massive political upheavel that constantly goes on, the wars being fought, etc. etc.

Muslims don’t swoop down on American villages and beat Christians… ever. They don’t start fights at bars over religion, they don’t beat Jews where they see them. [/quote]

You are right about American villages. Armenian villages on the other hand was a very different story. The reason for the difference is because unlike Turkey, America hasn’t reached the 80 percent threshold where Muslims resort to genocide.

[quote]
If this is the religion, like you say, then why wouldn’t it continue no matter where they go? Simple- because the violence is a product of its environment. When you take people out of that situation, they will not be nearly as violent as they were when they feel that they have to be to survive. [/quote]

What are you talking about? Wherever Muslims go they bring violence with them. Do you remember when they blew up a Jewish community center in Argentina? When that first happened my first thought was it must have been because of all of the escaped Nazis living there. Then when it turned out to be the Iranians who were responsible my first thought was what the fuck are they doing setting bombs off in Argentina?

[quote]
In this case (similar to that of Northern Ireland again) religion and nationalism has been twisted together to form the backbone of the Arab resistance to Israel. That’s a strong bond that will be difficult to break. However, eventually, reasonable people will come together to fix this- until then, blood will be shed. [/quote]

Not at all. This is a case of nationalism being used as a cover for religiously motivated violence.

The Irish never had a goal of invading England and forcing everyone to convert to Catholicism or die.

[quote]
But to pretend that Israel is the innocent weakling cowering in the corner is hard to believe, especially when they’re rolling on Palestinians with tanks and aircraft strikes.

I am not pretending anything, you are the one who is pretending. You are pretending that somehow it is the fault of the Jews that Muslims have so much hatred. The weaponry the Israelis have available in no way incriminates them. Your assumption that the Israelis having tanks automatically makes the guilty is baseless and irrational.

Christian Palestinians don’t have tanks or F-16’s but they get attacked by Muslim Palestinians too. So your assertion is refuted.

I’m not saying that the Palestinians are blameless- far from it. But there’s equal shares of guilt for both sides. Both antagonize the others, both murder civilians, and both are, in my opinion, scummy fucking people with no concern for anyone but themselves.

Hence why I say that we should support neither side. [/quote]

This is not a case of apples and oranges. The Israelis are a target of the Jihad just like the rest of us. We must stand with the Israelis because the Jihad will not end with the extermination of the Jews.