egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:
> Arabs have no historical ties with the Palastinians. It pisses
> me off that Arabic hate for the Jews is brought out by Islamic
> extremists, geared toward secret political objectives, and
> their peoples can't see that. A muslim suicide bomber is
> killing himself -and others- for an Islamic foothold on Europes
> doorstep, while he thinks it's for the cause of the
> Palastinians to regain their land.

As a Jew who has been to various Arabic/Islamic countries, I've never seen the supposed hatred of Jews by Arabs. The one exception was when I accidentally drove through the West Bank in an Israeli car and got a few stones chucked as I passed (I've worked on my map-reading skills since).

The Israeli people have become some of the most racist on earth. You can say that terrorism is an excuse, but the level of sheer loathing for the Palestinians isn't justified by that. I think a large part of the problem is that the racist Israelis originate from highly racist countries. The worst Zionists typically come from the USA and Eastern Europe, and arrive armed with hatred of foreigners. Yet they believe they have the right to start a settlement on some Palestinian's farm. Don't forget that Israeli is STILL illegally expanding into the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

[quote]As a Jew who has been to various Arabic/Islamic countries, I've never seen the supposed hatred of Jews by Arabs.[/quote]

Thats so true! Living in the middle of a large muslim community since I was seven, I'd say that muslims who've just entered the UK from Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Yemen haven't much hatred of the Jews. However when you ask them 12 months after living here, they've changed their minds. Could this be due to constant UK news channels?

Living next door to a Yemeni family they tell me that the average Arab doesn't care too much for the Palastinian cause. It's the Arabs with money that seem to care and spread the animosity toward Israel. They feel that in the presence of other Arabs they have to condmn the Jews, or they are looked upon as un-patriotic, or 'bad Muslims'. It's obvious that the average muslim is brainwashed by the extremist & more powerful Muslims.

[quote]The Israeli people have become some of the most racist on earth. You can say that terrorism is an excuse, but the level of sheer loathing for the Palestinians isn't justified by that. I think a large part of the problem is that the racist Israelis originate from highly racist countries.[/quote]

As an Israeli growing up, watching people you know getting blown up standing at bus stops, or socialising in a nightclub, I'd say it would be hard to have any sympathy -or trust- in Palastinians. It's also true of the Palastinians view of Israeli's I suppose. You only have to look at the views of Irish/Welsh/Scottish towards English people sometimes. Things that happened 2-300 years ago are never forgotten, and resentment still lingers from each generation to the next.

If you take away Israel from the Jews, there'll be militant Jews and the problem will still remain, but with extremist Jews targeting Palastinian authority. Palastinian governments will then be seen as 'right wing' and 'coming down too hard' against these Jewish militia. Palastinians will be looked upon as the occupiers. Taking Israel back away from Israeli's won't solve anything.

[quote]Don't forget that Israeli is STILL illegally expanding into the West Bank and East Jerusalem.[/quote]

The West Bank was originally part of Israel. Palastinians migrated northeast across Israel during periods when Muslim warriors conquered the region, and Israelis either fled, or were enslaved. The Philistines lived alongside the Muslims who had moved into the area and eventually were converted to Islam. Once converted they were probably given larger territories by their Muslim governers and thus 'gained' Israeli land.

Of course, I don't agree with the expansion eastwards into the West Bank, which is what Israel seems to be doing. They should stick to the land that was drawn up when Israel was re-created. I only made the above points to reiterate that Israelis have 'lost' land to Palastinians, and Palastinians have 'gained' land which was always part of Israel. If Palastinians hadn't converted to Islam, they would still be confined to the Gaza Strip, or wiped out completely by Muslim invasions.

Looking at the last 100 years, you would say the Israelis are occupying Palastinian land. Looking at the last 1000 years you'd say Israelis still haven't reclaimed all of it back. Who are we to say that land cannot be reclaimed after 500, 750 or 1000 years, but it can be reclaimed after 50 years? If we live by the 'we're the most recent occupiers so it belongs to us.' law, then Hong Kong should still be under British rule as we ruled it for over 100 years with 3-4 generations growing up under our rule. (Yes I know it was a 'lease' but the people of Hong Kong were not brought up in a communst enviroment, it wasn't their fault that China leased out the area.) So if we have no rights to decide when, and there are no written laws on this, we can only criticize what's happening right now: and right now Israel should stop moving into the West Bank, Palastinians should agree that the land they already have wasn't really theirs to start with, and Arabs should stop using the Palastinian cause for their own idea's of Islamic expansion into Europe.

It's a sad tale...

I didn't know that warren, thanks. Though that had nothing to do with my point. My actual point was that the last 3 generations of Hong Kong residents weren't brought up in a communist society, so when Hong Kong was handed back to -the now communist- China, they're 'forced' into becoming part of a communist society. Since China agreed to lease the land to Britain, it's through no fault of the last 3 generations that it now has to be handed back.

Does that mean that Britain has any rights to lay claim on the land just because they've governed it for the last 101 years? Or is it rightfully China's because 'historically' it belonged to them?

The point the Palastinians make, is that they've held Israeli land over the recent past, so they have a right to the 'West Bank' (for example). Where as Israeli Jews lay claim to the land from a more distant past, and because Israel, originally belonged to the Israelites. Originally the Israelites governed land including all the West Bank and beyond.

Now, if the world agree's that the West Bank is Palastinian land, due to them residing there last, then Britain had a right to keep hold of Hong Kong, due to the same rule. Britain however stuck to their agreement with China and handed the land back to the original owners. If this is the right thing to do then Palastinians should 'give up' the West Bank, and return it to the Jewish israelis.

Lots of people seem to call Israel an occupying force, and if thats the case then China is now an occupying force in Hong Kong. My arguement is that Palastinians have been the occupying force for hundreds of years, and on more than one occasion in the last 2000 years. They were handed the land during repeated muslim invasions, and probably would never have been handed the land if they had kept their Greek 'Pegan style' Gods. They of course converted to Islam, and the rest -as they say- is history.

Original Philistine land centred around the Gaza strip, reaching into northern Egypt. Palastinians don't seem to have a problem with Egyption occupation on land that they can claim 'is' rightfully theirs, but are terrorising the west, over land thats not theirs originally. This is just because Egypt are fellow muslims, so it's no problem. If Israelites were muslims, then we'd have a minor spat. It's because Israelites are mainly Jewish thats the main problem with the Arab/Islamic world and has nothing to do with the actual -supposed- occupation.

Since it's more about religion, than the Islamic world are just committing religious hatred. Pure & simple.

[quote]One can't really use the "we were here here first" argument for any part of the world, as every area in the world has seen successive waves of migration, and all places were initially empty of humanity if you choose to go back far enough.[/quote]

Exactly, the 'we were here first' arguement isn't the best excuse to fight for land, but neither is the 'we were here last' arguement that the Palastinians use.

No one's 'in the right' when it comes to this conflict, but Israel is always reffered to as the 'occupying force', by almost everyone. This is an ignorant assumption because if land was classed as property, and property is stolen on numerous occasions, then 2, 3, 4 or 5 'wrongs' don't make a 'right' and the original owners -or decendants of original owners- should be allowed that property back. I know there were a few tribes that dwelled on this land before the Israelites, but as far as I know, the Israelites founded Israel, and that Israel the was founded, included the West Bank, and further east, past the River Jordan.

I would never condone Israeli war crimes against Palastinians, and vice versa, but I take exception to people always assuming it's Israel as the occupying force, taking away Palastinian land; without reading up on the history.

Sorry, you lost me warren!

In reality, thats true, but in this world of political correctness; people will flame you for that assumption!

Be carefull: I won't tell a soul!