|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 24, 2004 11:59:43 GMT -5
What is forgotten here is that the state of Israel is a bastard, born out of terrorism (Likud) with the assistance of foreigners. Israel was built primarily by socialists. The Likud party was founded in 1973, as a union of formerly minor nationalist parties and liberal-capitalist factions. Actually, 'Likud' means 'Union' in Hebrew. You're contradicting yourself now. How is it 'racism' if Israelis are multi-racial and have nothing to do with each other?
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Mar 24, 2004 14:01:59 GMT -5
What is forgotten here is that the state of Israel is a bastard, born out of terrorism (Likud) with the assistance of foreigners. The Jews are Europeans or Moroccans or Indians or whatever and should have stayed in their own countries. Afterall they hate each other, Sephardim, Askenazim, Oriental, Ethiopian, Russian etc they have nothing except a lot of shared BS to bind them together. Zionism is racism. And who helped the Palestinians when they were forced to leave their country and live as unwanted refugees in Arab countries? No one. Terrorism was their last and only way to fight. If foreigners invaded my country I would use guerilla tactics against them just as the Iraqis are doing to the foreigners invading their country today. And I wouldn't care who I killed. There are two sides to every issue and the Jews in "Israel", they should have called it Judea since they are not Israelites, started it all with terrorism and violence. And some of you blame them for wanting their country back and not kissing Jewish arse. Your post doesn't make any sense, but I will still give you my opinion 1 - If Israel is a "bastard" state because it was born out of terrorism, so are all the countries in Africa, most countries in Asia (India is the exception), and all the countries in North, Central and South America. 2 - Israel's fight for independance (survival, actually) involved two distinct groups: the Hagannah (sp?) and the Irgun. You can acuse the Irgun of terrorism, but the same does not apply to the Hagannah, whose defensive actions saved the lives of millions of Israelis from being butchered by the Arab invaders. The Hagannah militias sometimes fought Arab tanks with nothing more than rifles, and in some places they held, and in others they didn't (guess what happened in the later?) 3 - No one wanted to help the Israelis. Most of their weaponry and funds came from American Jews, and most of their manpower came from the Holocaust refugees. Do you know about the British concentration camps in Cyprus? Obviously not. 4 - The responsibility of the middle east mess goes all to the British. Originally, the state of Israel should include modern Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Later, it was decided that Jordan would be given to the Palestinians - that's why a huge number of Jordanians are ethnic Palestinians. 5 - The Jews were never seen as "one of us" nowhere in Europe - not even in Britain or in Holland. They are entitled to their ancestral lands. 6 - Zionism is racist, but it is also the only thing between the destruction of the Jewish state. In any case, if the Jewish state was as racist as you imply, there wouldn't be Muslim Arab MPs in the Knesset. 7 - Terrorism is not a valid way to do warfare. The indiscriminate assassination of civilians is not tolerable. Don't worry: we Westerners Europeans have only started to taste terrorism since 2001... The Israelis have been tasting this since 1948. Let's see if in 2050 "we" will be so judgemental. 8 - Do you have children Graeme? Right now, someone could be killing all of them while they eat a slice of pizza, and when you got there, you wouldn't even be able to recognise their bodies. This fear is what faces every Israeli parent, and what faced their own parents before them. This is terrorism. Stop glorifying terrorists as some sort of freedom fighters when they are nothing more than mass murderers. You end up sounding like the radical which you obviously are, judging from what you just said.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Mar 24, 2004 16:34:43 GMT -5
"Terrorism" is a convenient label to describe certain acts of violence. Its application depends on the context, and usually acts of violence against one own's group are called "terrorism" while acts of violence by own's group are not.
I have no problem with the word, provided that it is applied consistently - which it is usually not.
|
|
|
Post by ramsharma on Mar 27, 2004 7:37:51 GMT -5
I personally think that Israel shouldn't even have existed in the first place because it was created with the belief that Israel was a God-given and historical right to the Jewish people. What I don't understand is the hypocisy of Western nations, since when it comes to Tibet, Westerners are against Chinese occupation even though China claims Tibet to be theirs historically also. Europe and America feel that they have to make amends for their anti-semitic past by giving Israel their own homeland, but all it has done now in hindsight is to make the middle east an even more unstable region than it was before. Arabs will always view Jews as foreigners, and frankly I do see a reason why. Western nations(particularly USA) needs to realize that two wrongs don't make one right. First wrong was that anti-semitism existed in Europe. Second wrong was that Europe tried correcting the first wrong by forcefully building a Western nation--a nation of immigrants from Europe, purportedly of "Middle Eastern" origin--where it shouldn't exist in the first place. As Chomsky once said, almost all of world problems can be traced to Europe in one way or another, which to me seems right on the money.
Europe did create artificial boundaries in every nation they stepped on; most of the world did not share Europe's view of nations with clearcutborders--and many in the Arab world still don't-- and people were moving from one place to another very freely, without any impasse, roadblocks or hindrances. Many nations are in war today due to border issues: one example is the volatile region of Kashmir. Religious differences only exacerbates the core reason of war(mosty border issues) by adding salt to the wound, IMHO.
In the near future, I predict even more mayhem and chaos in the Middle East due to this artificial country called Israel. Of course, fact is Israel(an illegal entity) will always be there to destabilize the middle east, thanks all due to supposed "Western empathy" towards Jews. I am however not blind. I do see that there are a growing number of people in Europe who are against Israel's poor handling of the situation.
This does not mean that I condone terrorism. Palestinians are resorting to murdering and maiming Israelis by going on suicide missions and blowing themselves to smithereens, but what they need to realize is that were they to peacefully oppose Israeli occuption, they would have a much better chance of being heard by the international community.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 27, 2004 9:47:01 GMT -5
Likud, schnikud. What's in a name. How about schlemial? There was a terrorist group of Jews in Palestine when it was badly controlled by the Brits. The Jewish terrorists did use bombs.
Israel is illegitimate. The Jews are following national socialist practices in Israel against anyone who does not like what it does. Invading Lebanon, similar to the invasion of Poland in the 1939 by the Nazi Germans. The Nazis believed that they had a God given right to the East and to control inferior types. What's the difference between you lot. Oh yes, I forgot, you are the chosen!
Frankly I don't care about the Middle East; Palestinians, Iraqis, Israelis, whatever. None of you are worth fighting for or worth keeping alive. You are all of no consequence to me and my life. Now what happens in Europe is another matter. The Middle East is just one big cesspit to me. There is nothing sacred or profound there, though I would be sad to see Petra destroyed. In fact I am more interested in buildings and artifacts than in any human in that part of the world. So the sooner you all kill each other the better for the world. Get to it.
If you Israelis did not have an external enemy you "Jews" would exterminate each other. You lot need those Palestinians to keep you away from each others' throats. Israel is the name of the state that contained the northern tribes. You lot are Jews, people supposedly from Judah. You are not entitled to the name of that extinct state or extinct peoples.
The most anti semitic people are Jews. Your forebears should have tried harder to get along with your fellow Europeans, because that is your homeland not some stinking piece of the ME. Now you want to strew up that part of the world with your machinations. As I said, schemials.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 27, 2004 10:08:26 GMT -5
Likud, schnikud. What's in a name. How about schlemial? There was a terrorist group of Jews in Palestine when it was badly controlled by the Brits. The Jewish terrorists did use bombs. Yes, about 3500 men total. They were more like an IRA or an ETA than a Hamas or an Al-Qaeda, though. They bombed symbolic targets and gave warnings. Lebanon was invaded to get at the PLO, occupied to keep terrorists at bay, and ( belatedly ) evacuated years ago. Territorial claims had nothing to do with it. No thanks! Europe is for Europeans, not for Middle Eastern Sephardic darkies such as myself. ;D
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Mar 27, 2004 11:20:01 GMT -5
I don't see an end to the Middle East conflict. I foresee an endless string of attacks and counter-attacks.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 27, 2004 14:33:17 GMT -5
If you Israelis did not have an external enemy you "Jews" would exterminate each other. You lot need those Palestinians to keep you away from each others' throats. Israel is the name of the state that contained the northern tribes. You lot are Jews, people supposedly from Judah. You are not entitled to the name of that extinct state or extinct peoples. They aren't an extinct people, whatever else you mignt want to say about the Jews, that isn't justified. They can trace themselves back for thousands of years like the Copts (Egyptians) and the Marsh Arabs (Sumerians). The Jewish identity is a real ethnic one.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 27, 2004 14:56:58 GMT -5
The Jewish identity is a real ethnic one. Well, personally, I don't think it's possible to prove that modern Jews are descended from 'Israelites' or from the 'Kingdom of Judah', but it's almost certain that they are descended from the Jews of Roman times. As for Graeme, I think he's been reading too many out-of-date articles about how Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews hate each other, or something like that.
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Mar 27, 2004 15:20:12 GMT -5
Well, personally, I don't think it's possible to prove that modern Jews are descended from 'Israelites' or from the 'Kingdom of Judah', but it's almost certain that they are descended from the Jews of Roman times. ....and the jews of the roman times are descended from the jews of Israel & Kingdom of Judah... . I think that the jews community were always a closed group: unlike Islam and Christianism who claimed to be universal, Judaism was religion of a specified group...the chosen people!...
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 27, 2004 15:32:36 GMT -5
....and the jews of the roman times are descended from the jews of Israel & Kingdom of Judah... . I think that the jews community were always a closed group: unlike Islam and Christianism who claimed to be universal, Judaism was religion of a specified group...the chosen people!... I doubt they were ALWAYS a closed group.
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Mar 27, 2004 15:49:01 GMT -5
I doubt they were ALWAYS a closed group. The more we go back in time, the more the jews community seems closed. It is therefore very likely that the jews of the Romans times are descended of the classical jews (+ few number of converted Greeks and peripheral Semites )....
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 27, 2004 16:04:30 GMT -5
Well, personally, I don't think it's possible to prove that modern Jews are descended from 'Israelites' or from the 'Kingdom of Judah', but it's almost certain that they are descended from the Jews of Roman times. Maternal lineages do suggest the continuity of most Jews, including the Palestinians, who converted to Islam. The exception I know is the Jews of the Arabian peninsula, but there is still an genetic Jewish component there, from the male ancestors. Maternal lineages also show something else about the other Jews. Jews have genetic links with the Kurds, which seems unexpected, since Kurds are Armenid and Indo-European speaking, while Palestine is Orientalid and tought of as Semitic speaking. But this can be explained by the Armenid (and Hurrian and Indo-European) element that contributed to the Apiru. Isn't this interesting?
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 27, 2004 16:08:22 GMT -5
I doubt they were ALWAYS a closed group. From the time of the Apiru onwards, I would think they were more or less genetically isolated.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Mar 27, 2004 16:13:19 GMT -5
But this can be explained by the Armenid (and Hurrian and Indo-European) element that contributed to the Apiru. Isn't this interesting? There is genetic, anthropological and Biblical evidence that links Jews and the Zagros mountains in Kurdistan. I think the original Jews were speaking a Caucasian language and were Semitized during their wanderings.
|
|