New Israeli Law Forbids Palestinians From Mourning Or “Showing Signs Of Sadness”

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

So I will ask you directly,

Do you think in light of the information I posted, the Israeli government should fund it?


"The revised draft law now prohibits any government funds"

Someone help me, I thought it was a good question, lol

Depends. Why did they have to specifically NOT fund this? It implies they funded it before, after all; so does Israel fund demonstrations in general and made an exception for this one?

Thank you,

That is what I was asking ,

So they passed a law to not fund,

Which would lead me to assume they once funded, how can we find out?

I just get caught up in little details.

and why would they fund any demonstrations?


[edit on 022828p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Aha! Found it. It's small, but seems to answer concisely: samsonblinded.org...

Apparently , Arab-majority municipalities were using some of their government-alotted funding to fund these sort commemorations.

In light of that, I'm going to call the Israeli decision to ban this "wrong" - If a town wants to celebrate something with their funds, then they should be free to do so.

I say this as a member of a nation where states regularly use community funds to commemorate secession and the resultant deadliest war in my nation's history.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Well if funds are used to commemorate the creation of Israel then you can argue that they should be used to represent the large minority population living in Israel view's on the event. Or fund neither.

This shows the complete contradictory environment Israel lives in. It preaches itself as the only democratic state in the region yet regulary persecutes a large segement of it's population, Palestinian Israeli's, who make up around 20 % of their population i believe.

I have heard from Jewish friends that Jews and Arabs get on fairly well in places such as Tel Aviv. My crictisim is on the government of Israel, not it's peoples. But they (Jewish Israelis) have to stand up against this persecution too to have it stopped.

Read this article to enhance your knowledge about how the Israeli law system is stacked against the Palestinians both in Israel and Gaza and The West Bank.
www.counterpunch.org...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Aha! Found it. It's small, but seems to answer concisely: samsonblinded.org...

Apparently , Arab-majority municipalities were using some of their government-alotted funding to fund these sort commemorations.

In light of that, I'm going to call the Israeli decision to ban this "wrong" - If a town wants to celebrate something with their funds, then they should be free to do so.

I say this as a member of a nation where states regularly use community funds to commemorate secession and the resultant deadliest war in my nation's history.

That's odd and interesting, good find.

en.wikipedia.org...

I was reading this, I know it is wiki,

What a mess,

It is so darn complicated, I would like to read a historical document that was not slanted to one side or the other.

Anyone know the punishment for not obeying this new law?

Or is there any?

Or is it they can have the demonstration, but cannot fund them?

Would anyone be interested in a topic researching the history of this area from prehistoric to the present?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Would anyone be interested in a topic researching the history of this area from prehistoric to the present?

There are these things called "books" You can get them from a book store or library. Hundreds of people who have lived in the Middle East, done decades of first hand research, talked with thousands o people with knowledge, read hundreds of other books, have written
on 20th Century history.

They are recommended to anyone who wants to know about a subject in any depth.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by mmiichael]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I am typing my Dissertation on Britain's mandate in Palestine from 1920-1922. Specifically i am focusing on 3 British individuals involved in it. Winston Churchill, who was Colonial Secretary from 1921-1922, Herbet Samuel who was the first High Commissioner from 1920-1925 and Ronald Storrs who was both Military and Civilian Governor of Jerusalem 1918-1925.

I am looking at their policies in Palestine during these years, and their relationship with the Zionist Organisation plus their attitudes towards the Balfour Declaration.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Or is it they can have the demonstration, but cannot fund them?

From the text of the law ministry of finances can cut down funding to government institutions/organizations that act against the law. It is an impossibility in my opinion. This law suggestion was born in the elections time and Israel Beyteinu party wanted to appear as right wing as it could so original text was much much more absurd and close to source in the OP (there was even suggestion to force all Israeli citizens tot take an oath of loyality to state but it gladly failed completely).Naturally it could not be voted through in Knesset and be allowed by High Court so law was changed into something much more acceptable. Still it will not work. I would like to see how anyone will stop funding to school or municipality, especially when ethnic minorities are involved. And what will be done with ultra-right sector of Israeli settlers who also can be described as undermining Israeli democracy? Purely political demagogue law. In next elections Lieberman will be able to say - see,we promised law and we delivered. His party is the only one to gain from it all - well, if not to take into account anti-Israeli propaganda machine.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Israel was legally created out of British Territory. A Palestinian State was created. It's called Jordan.
But of course Israel is always guilty of anything they do. Because it is a Jewish State.



[edit on 28-2-2010 by mmiichael]

You have precisely identified the problem here. Britain had absolutely no right to divide territory, especially along ETHNIC lines. They deliberately created an ethno-political division so that they could enflame tensions in the region, which gives them a permanent pretext for war and intervention. Remember that aggressive foreign wars are NEVER popular in democratic states like the UK; they need some 'humanitarian' excuse. For further examples, look at the British partition of India, which went against the interests of the national leaders of the time by deliberately creating separate Muslim and Hindu states, thus creating six decades of subsequent warfare and conflict. Look at the division of Yugoslavia by ethno-political forces friendly to the UK and NATO.

This was NOT justifiable just because the League of Nations gave Britain its assent; Britain CREATED the League of Nations in order to justify its imperial ambitions and globalize European imperial politics.

It has always been the policy of British imperial power to divide and conquer along tribal, racial lines.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap

You have precisely identified the problem here. Britain had absolutely no right to divide territory, especially along ETHNIC lines. They deliberately created an ethno-political division so that they could enflame tensions in the region, which gives them a permanent pretext for war and intervention. Remember that aggressive foreign wars are NEVER popular in democratic states like the UK; they need some 'humanitarian' excuse. For further examples, look at the British partition of India, which went against the interests of the national leaders of the time by deliberately creating separate Muslim and Hindu states, thus creating six decades of subsequent warfare and conflict. Look at the division of Yugoslavia by ethno-political forces friendly to the UK and NATO.

This was NOT justifiable just because the League of Nations gave Britain its assent; Britain CREATED the League of Nations in order to justify its imperial ambitions and globalize European imperial politics.

It has always been the policy of British imperial power to divide and conquer along tribal, racial lines.

Britain divested itself of it's Empire in the first half of the 20th Century. There were dozens of ethnic groups in this region viying for a separate state they controlled. The Kurds are just one example of a people with a heritage who lost out in the shuffle.

Certain Arab dynasties, like the Saud family, politicked successfully and were given what they wanted - control of the Arabian peninsula.

Originally the portion allocated to the Jews was to be 4 times larger than what they received. The Arabs pressured Britain into depriving the Jews of their allocation so 77% of what was Transjordan-Palestine went to create the new country Jordan. The Hashemite kings were overlooked when the Sauds got the best deal from Britain,were given barren Jordan as a consolation prize. The British did maintain control of the West Bank and Gaza. Jordan and Egypt occupied these by force in 1949-50. No was no complaint of Palestinians being deprived of a homeland.

The dynamics of the region had been totally transformed in the 30s when it became apparent there were vast amounts of oil and gas reserves in the region. Some of the newly created states would become super-rich. The Arab clansmen and kings who drove the hardest bargain benefited most.

It's easy to criticize but there is no divisions that anyone could have made that would have satisfied everyone. Even now this problem of minorities living under the rule of others plagues Europe, Asia, and Africa. Look how the former Yugoslavia was torn apart by conflicting ethnic and religious lines. Russia alone has a hundred submerged ethnicities like Chechens.

The Israel problem comes down to intolerance. Though they control 99.7% of the lands from North Africa to Central Asia, and 100% o the oil, the Muslims are traumatized that they do not also control the barren strip of land the British allowed the Jews to have. They are further miffed that they launched a series of massive wars against the Jewish state and lost each time.

The self-declared Palestinians are largely people form neighbouring countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, who came to Israel between WWI ans WWII because Jews there, having bought land from Arab owners and creating a progressive agricultural economy, were paying salaries 4-5 times the regional going rate for non-skilled labour.

In the 1940s 100 million people were displaced or forced to move due to wars, shifting borders, etc. Many new countries were created or had their borders altered significantly.

850,000 Jews who had occupied the region for millenia were expelled from a dozen Muslim countries after the unsuccessful 1948 Arab war. They were never reimbursed or lost property, the UN never intervened. They ended up forming a base of Israel's population.


[edit on 28-2-2010 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


What Smedley is telling you was that the British purposefully created "powder keg" situations in their former colonies.

Iraq; as you no doubt know, this was a state created out of a few ottoman provinces, with Kurds in the north, Shias in the south and east, and the Sunni minority in the north; The Sunni were put in charge. As a result, we have... Well, Iraq.

India; Under the British Raj, the subcontinent was undivided. There was just "India". Moving out though, the British split it into a Hindu India, and a Muslim Pakistan - and similar to the near East situation, the single Pakistan was actually two far-flung sections of land, which led to the Pakistan civil war and the creation of Bangladesh. This situation also led to the conflict over Kashmir and Punjab.

Sudan; Originally Sudan was going to be two states - the black southern portion of the country would be one country, the Arab north would be another. The british "never got around to it" and left the black minority with all the apparatus of government... but formally handed power over to the Arab majority. This leads to a civil war as the southern portion of the country decides to take nationality for itself. The fight has degenerated to its current state since.

Kenya: A collection of tribes and ethnic groups, Kenya is like most African states, very "artificial", an attempt to impose a system of statehood foreign to the culture on the region. At any rate, this is another place where a minority party is handed the reigns and essentially feels forced to oppress the majority parties just to stay in power. Kenya as a result has a rather bloody history; Not the worst of the former empire, but still messy.

Palestine: The British Empire gives 30% of the population 60% of the land, including the majority of arable farmland, the headwaters of the Jordan, and all the areas thought to hold oil reserves at the time. The 60% majority is expected to live in the Gaza desert, and the rocky highlands of the East. This is of course regarded as unacceptable, and so the Israel / Palestine gets started in typical British fashion.

Also the Empire had a funny habit off selling things that didn't belong to it; Hawai'i and China, for instance.

As for the rest of your post... Typical racist trash. I find it amazing how Israel's supporters appropriate classic antisemitic claims, file off the serial numbers, and present it as claims against Palestinians.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
What Smedley is telling you was that the British purposefully created "powder keg" situations in their former colonies

Palestine: The British Empire gives 30% of the population 60% of the land, including the majority of arable farmland, the headwaters of the Jordan, and all the areas thought to hold oil reserves at the time. The 60% majority is expected to live in the Gaza desert, and the rocky highlands of the East. This is of course regarded as unacceptable, and so the Israel / Palestine gets started in typical British fashion.

Also the Empire had a funny habit off selling things that didn't belong to it; Hawai'i and China, for instance.

As for the rest of your post... Typical racist trash. I find it amazing how Israel's supporters appropriate classic antisemitic claims, file off the serial numbers, and present it as claims against Palestinians.

I've heard the argument the British made their divisions based on creating unstable situations. There's an element of truth to it I'm sure, but probably more attributable to the inability to foresee future developments, expediency, but mostly political manouevering like we saw with the Saudi and Hashemite kings.

We see the same phenomena happening in non-European controlled arbitrary country divisions in Asia. China and Russia are filled with conflicting ethnic groups. Whatever boundaries are set somewhere some will feel disenfranchised. The trick is setting aside differences and mutual co-operation. It happened in Europe more or less, and now Asians have picked up on the advantages of common goals as opposed to perpetuating tribal enmities. The trick is to overcome adversity by improving one's lot not letting old wounds fester.

The Middle East tribal enmities became magnified a thousandfold when the largest resources in human history came onto the market after WWII. There was a strong Arab nationalist movement . Yet with a pool of trillions in cash assets, the area is still undeveloped industrially, educationally, infrastructurally. IT should be as developed as Europe given the vast windfall and access to modern technology. But it's still like an extension of North Africa.


As to your reflex accusation of my racism. Get real. Arabs don't like Jees unless thery're in complete dhimmitude. Period.

The British allocated a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan. The West Bank Arabs, mostly 20th Century impoverished immigrants from neighbouring states, want a second Palestinian state. They fled after their attempt to destroy Israel in 1948 and were talked into waiting patiently for Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon et al to eventually destroy the nascent Jewish state. Rather than moving on as hundreds of millions of victims of bad leadership have had to, they've retained a victim mentality that has benefited no one.

Please don't bother to reply to this. I'm sure you can pick out a few historical factoids to bolster your biased argument. I feel deeply for the Palestinians. But as history has shown they are the victims of immensely bad leadership misdirection and their own rigidity.

Moving forward means tying to become more constructive, not destructive.


[edit on 28-2-2010 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Your arguments are so typical of Western/Israeli Zionist views.

First and foremost, Jerusalem was never a British territory.

Jerusalem had been OCCUPIED on and off by the British since the crusades, and so they CLAIMED it as theirs (at the end of a gun).
The reality is that the Muslim people have been living there peacefully among Jews and Christians for nearly a century until Rothschild and Balfour.

Even if it was "malaria ridden swampland"....
It was PEACEFUL malaria ridden swampland.

The current map of the middle east was NOT recognized by Turkey at the end of the war. The redrawing of the middle east was simply the division of the spoils of war and since Baron Rothschild decided that the Jews should have the holy land, the Balfour Declaration was waved in the face of the Brits, and the war machine saw an inch and took a mile.

I do not care what you say about the creation of Israel because it is mostly deception.
The only reason that it exists is because of the Western Empire known as the US and Great Britain.
Thus, the reason that Israel has a Prime Minister.
That would be a Prime Minister to the CROWN of England.

Pieces of paper and military decrees are no legitimate reason to dispossess a people of their land, and this is EXACTLY what the British Empire did in establishing Israel.

I notice that you didn't comment on any of the true Torah Jews to whom I provided links.
It would do more people in the West some good to understand the nature of the Torah and Talmud, and the differences between the two.

True Torah Jews do not wish to have a country.
They understand the folly of international law relative to their RELIGIOUS beliefs; however,

I fully expect someone who defends Israel so adamantly to engage in deception and only discuss what they can attempt to defend and ignore the rest.
If you were to speak the truth, then you would have no defense.

Israel has a right to statehood according to international law, in which the US has the ultimate trump card, but they do not have the right to dispossess a people of their land and conduct mass genocide in the process.

And PLEASE stop talking about the history of the repression of the Jewish people (Most of what you are trying to sell as repression is historically inaccurate.)
I could name SEVERAL other ethnic groups that are on the brink of extinction and have endured much worse treatment.
I don't see any Israeli's stepping up to bat for the Native Americans, or the Aboriginal people, or the indigenous people of the amazon, etc......

Your propaganda does not fly here.

Originally posted by Josephus23

Your arguments are so typical of Western/Israeli Zionist views.

First and foremost, Jerusalem was never a British territory.

Jerusalem had been OCCUPIED on and off by the British since the crusades, and so they CLAIMED it as theirs (at the end of a gun).
The reality is that the Muslim people have been living there peacefully among Jews and Christians for nearly a century until Rothschild and Balfour.

Even if it was "malaria ridden swampland"....
It was PEACEFUL malaria ridden swampland.

The current map of the middle east was NOT recognized by Turkey at the end of the war. The redrawing of the middle east was simply the division of the spoils of war and since Baron Rothschild decided that the Jews should have the holy land, the Balfour Declaration was waved in the face of the Brits, and the war machine saw an inch and took a mile.

I do not care what you say about the creation of Israel because it is mostly deception.
The only reason that it exists is because of the Western Empire known as the US and Great Britain.
Thus, the reason that Israel has a Prime Minister.
That would be a Prime Minister to the CROWN of England.

You've obviously looked at a lot of online hate lit sites and videos and never read a history book.

The Ottoman Turks took full control of Jerusalem in 1517 and controlled it for the next 400 years. For a period in the 1800s the city state was annexed by Muhammad Ali of Egypt. According to all the census figues of the period Jews outnumbered Muslims about 2 to 1. There were also huge influxes of Christians at Easter.

Your fantasy version of British imperial control, Rothschild manipulations, don't even justify commenting on. You probably aren't even aware the US opposed the formation of Israel. The first sponsor, at the height of the Cold War, was the Soviet Union, then later the France.

The 20th Century political complexities of the Middle East were totally redefined by the discovery of oil. Ignoring such a prime component renders the usual simplistic religious and cultural analysis useless.

There's a reason the region is no longer like adjacent North Africa. The oil and gas reserves that Westernized industrialization has become dependent on imposed a very new self image and positioning on the international stage. The much publicized Israeli-Palestinian aspect is one of the sideshows.

The British could see this coming with early Persian oil discoveries and how Germany immediately allied itself with the Iran in WWII.

If you or anyone else reading this actually has a genuine interest in real Middle Eastern history - beyond finding excuses to shriek "Evil Jews" "Evil British" "Evil Americans" I strongly recommend picking up one of the many objective books by written objective historians. You might even learn about the subjects you profess to know something about.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Has this been proven without a shadow of a doubt?

Yes it has. Last year the Israeli Supreme Court had to overturn a decision by the CEC (backed by the IDF), to prevent Israeli Arab political parties from taking art in the elections. And I believe it was Avigdor Lieberman who stated later that letting Arabs run for political office was tantamount to killing the state of Israel. He also stated that they would attempt to introduce new laws to prevent "disloyal" Israeli Arab citizens from running for political office. It would seem that the State only likes democracy when it's voting in Jewish representation. If they could get away with it the only people who would be able to vote in Israel would be Israeli Jews. State sponsored racism at its finest.

Originally posted by mmiichael
You've obviously looked at a lot of online hate lit sites and videos and never read a history book.

The Ottoman Turks took full control of Jerusalem in 1517 and controlled it for the next 400 years. For a period in the 1800s the city state was annexed by Muhammad Ali of Egypt. According to all the census figues of the period Jews outnumbered Muslims about 2 to 1. There were also huge influxes of Christians at Easter.

Your fantasy version of British imperial control, Rothschild manipulations, don't even justify commenting on. You probably aren't even aware the US opposed the formation of Israel. The first sponsor, at the height of the Cold War, was the Soviet Union, then later the France.

The 20th Century political complexities of the Middle East were totally redefined by the discovery of oil. Ignoring such a prime component renders the usual simplistic religious and cultural analysis useless.

There's a reason the region is no longer like adjacent North Africa. The oil and gas reserves that Westernized industrialization has become dependent on imposed a very new self image and positioning on the international stage. The much publicized Israeli-Palestinian aspect is one of the sideshows.

The British could see this coming with early Persian oil discoveries and how Germany immediately allied itself with the Iran in WWII.

If you or anyone else reading this actually has a genuine interest in real Middle Eastern history - beyond finding excuses to shriek "Evil Jews" "Evil British" "Evil Americans" I strongly recommend picking up one of the many objective books by written objective historians. You might even learn about the subjects you profess to know something about.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by mmiichael]

You must be very ignorant about history if you think that any given history book can contain every part of every story (never mind how naive you must be to think that the popular history is accurate). Have you ever heard the saying, "history is written by the victors"? All official history is state-sponsored propaganda. Read Nineteen-Eighty-Four if you want a manual for totalitarianism/statism. Sometimes, the only way to get the hidden facts about history is to go to subversive websites - like this one, or even ultra-politically-incorrect ones.

You are obviously buying into the myth that ANY person who criticises ANY Jew must associate with Nazis and hate ALL Jews. This was the successful propaganda campaign of the Nuremberg Trials, to associate all things evil and anti-semitic with the Nazis, and vice versa. It is perfectly possible for some Jews to ACTUALLY BE GUILTY OF THE CRIMES THEY ARE ACCUSED OF, just the same as some gentiles are guilty of their awful crimes.

Your second major historical fallacy is to think that the Jews of the Middle East are the same as the Jews of Europe are the same as the Jews of the Bible.

The original tribes of Israel were black.
wiki.answers.com...
blacksinthebible.net...

The middle-eastern Jews are and were ethnic Arabs who had converted. See especially the case of medieval Yemen.

The European Jews are and were white Caucasian converts to Judaism.
www.khazaria.com...
www.apfn.org...

How can the Caucasian Jews deserve the land of Israel by a birthright that is not theirs?

You are right. The Israel-Palestina conflict is a sideshow to the resource and population exploitation in the area. It is a sideshow specifically created by the British to draw Arab attention away from the men behind the curtain (British Petroleum) and to rally the Western World behind their spiritual brothers, the beleaguered Jews of Israel. Zionism is, was, and always shall be a scheme by the powers that be to control the middle east through diversionary ethnic warfare. It is tragic that so many people, Jew and Arab alike, must suffer.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap

You are obviously buying into the myth that ANY person who criticises ANY Jew must associate with Nazis and hate ALL Jews. This was the successful propaganda campaign of the Nuremberg Trials, to associate all things evil and anti-semitic with the Nazis, and vice versa.

...

Your second major historical fallacy is to think that the Jews of the Middle East are the same as the Jews of Europe are the same as the Jews of the Bible.

The original tribes of Israel were black.

The middle-eastern Jews are and were ethnic Arabs who had converted. See especially the case of medieval Yemen.

The European Jews are and were white Caucasian converts to Judaism.

How can the Caucasian Jews deserve the land of Israel by a birthright that is not theirs?

Oh my! I'll try to be civil here.

You really buy into agenda-driven pseudo-history garbage. Like original Jews being African and Khazars being modern fake Jews.

For sure, Ethiopia and surrounding African Jews are black, they're called 'falashas'. Way back when the Khazar kings briefly flirted with Judaism. Not that it really matters, but the vast majority of today's Jews are demonstrably from the same genetic stock in places like Egypt and Syria. Not that it should matter, really. This has been rigorously demonstrated by anthropological DNA studies.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you should try reading properly research material. One of the first things anyone learns especially online is that there is a lot of malign disinformation on many subjects.

You've been conned.

www.yourish.com...
The actual details of the Khazar theory concerning European Jewry are simply pseudo-history and crackpot poppycock.

Jews already lived in Europe a thousand years before the Khazar kingdom was formed. There are no genetic markers or indicators at all showing that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Turkic tribes. In fact, there exists considerable genetic evidence showing that European Jews are closer to Levantine and Syrian Arabs than to Central Asians.

After the Mongol invasion most Khazars probably assimilated into the Jewish communities of Iran and Iraq, which of course eventually emerged as important Sephardic centers, formed mainly of Jews with Semitic racial characteristics, descended from migrants and exiled Jews from the Land of Israel. In any case, there are more “Semitic” Sephardic Jews in Israel today than there are European Ashkenazi Jews. And if the Khazars looked Turkic, how on earth could they give Ashkenazi Jews a European complexion?

There are other problems. If all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from converted Khazars, why are there Cohens and Levis among them? One inherits the status of a Cohen (priest) or Levite from one’s father. Descendants of converts through the male line can never be a Cohen or a Levite.

And why are there no Khazar surnames among Ashkenazim, or Khazar names for towns in Europe where Jews lived? And why did most Ashkenazi communities speak variations of Yiddish rather than Turkic?

... the popularity of the Khazar myth among anti-Semites represents a return of modern anti-Jewish bigotry to the racialism of the 1930’s and earlier.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
I've heard the argument the British made their divisions based on creating unstable situations. There's an element of truth to it I'm sure, but probably more attributable to the inability to foresee future developments, expediency, but mostly political manouevering like we saw with the Saudi and Hashemite kings.

No, I assure you, it was intentional. All the colonial powers engaged in methods of sabotage when they were made to give up their colonies; the Portuguese filled up as many sewers with concrete as they could when they relinquished Mozambique, the Dutch did the same as England and put tiny minorities in charge of their very large and diverse colonies, and the French... Well, look at Algeria.

I think you're underestimating the human capability for spite.

We see the same phenomena happening in non-European controlled arbitrary country divisions in Asia. China and Russia are filled with conflicting ethnic groups. Whatever boundaries are set somewhere some will feel disenfranchised. The trick is setting aside differences and mutual co-operation. It happened in Europe more or less, and now Asians have picked up on the advantages of common goals as opposed to perpetuating tribal enmities. The trick is to overcome adversity by improving one's lot not letting old wounds fester.

Actually no, Europe is starting to fray at the edges. the EU won't last long because of resurgent nationalism. Asia? Ever seen the state of Korean immigrants to Japan? How's that whole Tibet and Ughyer thing going? Is North Korea still at war? How are the Hmong doing? Why does India continue to persecute both its lower castes and those outside the caste system such as Sikhs and Muslims?

The Middle East tribal enmities became magnified a thousandfold when the largest resources in human history came onto the market after WWII. There was a strong Arab nationalist movement . Yet with a pool of trillions in cash assets, the area is still undeveloped industrially, educationally, infrastructurally. IT should be as developed as Europe given the vast windfall and access to modern technology. But it's still like an extension of North Africa.

Never been to any part of the Middle East, have you? it is not industrially underdeveloped, except in places such as Iraq or Palestine that have seen decades of nonstop warfare. The infrastructure is largely dependent on water, which Europe has in abundance but the Middle East is famously short on. As for educational standards, I assure you that the average Iranian off the street has a better education than a similar American or Brit.

You want to talk about places like Saudi Arabia? Are you aware that the Arabian people WANT reform, WANT restructuring, WANT a more democratic government (frankly ANYTHING would be "more democratic" than the Saud regime, but still). So what's stopping htem?

We are. I mean that literally, us. Americans. We supply Saudi Arabia almost as much military goodies as we do Israel. They use this stuff for their police to crush ANY hint of revolt or rebellion or demonstration. We do this becuase a change in Saudi government might hurt our pocketbooks. It's the same reason we let Saddam do his thing for twenty years. it's the reason we're happy to let Egypt oppress its people; it's profitable to us.

I'm sure you think it's just that Arabs are genetically inferior to the aryan ubermensch that rule Europe and America and Israel. It's not. You don't even have to study very deep to see the root of problems in the middle east - most of it hinges around western support for kleptocratic, inhumane despots like Saddam, the Sauds, and yes, Arafat before he turned into a blob of jiggly jello.

As to your reflex accusation of my racism. Get real. Arabs don't like Jees unless thery're in complete dhimmitude. Period.

I am real. "ARABS DON'T LIKE JEWS UNLESS..." Really. You're slathering an entire ethnic group with unproven negative stereotypes portraying them as savage and bestial... in the same breath you're denying being a racist.

The British allocated a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan. The West Bank Arabs, mostly 20th Century impoverished immigrants from neighbouring states, want a second Palestinian state. They fled after their attempt to destroy Israel in 1948 and were talked into waiting patiently for Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon et al to eventually destroy the nascent Jewish state. Rather than moving on as hundreds of millions of victims of bad leadership have had to, they've retained a victim mentality that has benefited no one.

No, it was called Palestine. it's on the goddamned MAPS FROM THE PARTITION. You can be ignorant if you want. You can be racist if you want. You'll have plenty of company. But don't lie. You are a liar. A stupid, racist liar. You can't help the first two, I suspect they're genetic for some people - but you CAN help the third, by not telling lies.

Please don't bother to reply to this. I'm sure you can pick out a few historical factoids to bolster your biased argument. I feel deeply for the Palestinians. But as history has shown they are the victims of immensely bad leadership misdirection and their own rigidity.

Yes, I understand that you wouldn't want someone with a far more informed education about the subject than you can conceive of replying to your ignorant dribbles. You feel deeply for the people you just claimed do not exist and by their ethnic background hate Jews? You're lying again.

Moving forward means tying to become more constructive, not destructive.
[edit on 28-2-2010 by mmiichael]

Take a gander at what Israel does to people seeking peaceful resolutions. Both Israelis and Palestinians suffer abuse, imprisonment, even murder from Israel's government when they try to seek peace. When Israelis and Palestinians living close together have engaged in trade, or even forged bonds close enough to lead to marriage, the Israeli state jumps right in to try to do a hatchet job.

There's no shortage of actual information out there. The website you're using as a source is not one of them. It's an ahistorical hate site, the Zionist version of Stormfront, and it is doing you no favors.

Might I suggest reading some pf Robert Fisk's writings such as "The Great War for Civilisation"? Michael B. Oren's "Power, Faith, and Fantasy" is an excellent resource for the region as well. Albert Hourani's "A History of the Arab peoples" could go a long way to purging your brain of the "ALL ARABS ARE LIKE THIS!" racist mentality you've demonstrated. Reading through the autobiography of Sari Nusseibeh, "Once Upon a Country" could give you a lot of good perspective on the Israel / Palestine "peace Process", the origins of Hamas, what made the two Intfadas so very different, and just provide a generally good view of the area and its history.

I understand that since most of these will tell you a very different narrative than your little hate site there, you may be reluctant to look at them. Do it anyway. Even if you refuse to believe them, you'll be able to see the information at hand to people such as myself, who prefer educational materials that have big, thick bibliographies, citations of sources, historical references, and actual perspectives from the people being discussed rather than assumptive declarations about them by those who hate them.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you should try reading properly research material. One of the first things anyone learns especially online is that there is a lot of malign disinformation on many subjects.

You've been conned.

A Jewish dude once said, "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

[edit on 1-3-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


It is refreshing to see another individual post on this board with an understanding of what has actually happened regarding the history of the Middle East, versus sifting through the many lies and propaganda regarding the history of the Middle East.

You are correct and right on the money regarding the Nuremberg Trials.
First and foremost, international law did NOT exist pertaining to that which the Nazis were accused of engaging.

The "winners" of WWII (allied powers) not only accused and tried them according to what amounts to an ex-post-facto set of laws, but they acted as the jury, the prosecutor, the defendants representation, and the judge in the case.

The Nuremberg Trials were a complete travesty of justice.
(Btw...Whatever happened to the Americans involved in the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment)

And what is so ridiculous about this issue, is that if someone speaks out regarding what is, and what is not, factual history regarding WWII and the state of Israel, then said individual is IMMEDIATELY LABELED an anti-smite.
This is SOOOOO not true in my case, and I feel confident that this is not true in your case as well, from what I have read.

The reality of the state of Israel is that they exist as a part of the British Empire, solely because of war debts.
No, the US and the Brits were not happy about carving this piece of land out for the Khazar Jews, but they were bound by war debts.
This area is so rich in natural resources that the US and the Brits did not want to give it up.

And you are once again 100% right on the money regarding the original Jews being what we would now call African-American. The Khazars intermarried into the Pharaohonic bloodline and created the Ashkenazim.

Egypt is in Africa, and the original pharaohs were dark skinned Africans.
This is a hard pill for most to swallow.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Excellent reply.

Your knowledge of the Middle East is impressive.
Star for you.