BA flights cancelled by refusal of...

[surplus1]

I don't want to highjack this thread and turn it into a debate on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but some of the ideas you express challenge intellect.

They have allowed an Egyptian to live and murder at will in their country far too long. They have bowed to outside pressure not to put this murderer on trial.

It is true that Mr. Arafat was born in Egypt but to call him an Egyptian defies reason. The current Israeli prime minister was born in what we call Israel, but do not overlook the fact that a majority of Israeli leaders were born in places like Germany, Russia and a plethora of European countries. The place of their birth does not make them foreigners to Israel and the place of Arafat's birth does not make him Egyptian.

You simply cannot ignore the fact that the Zionist movement that ultimately established the Israeli State, began at a time when the Jewish population of Palestine was less than 10,000. Millions of Palestinians, native Palestinians, have been displaced by immigrant European Jews, there land confiscated, their homes destroyed, there children killed over a period of more than 50 years.

The truth is that the Israeli nation was not established by jewish people from Palestine. It was created by a consortium of Europeans who did not want the "jews" living in their respective countries. The displacement of the Palestinian peoples was the consequence. The tool was military power, provided and supported by "western" nations.

When the jewish population of Palestine was outnumbered more than 10-1 by "Palestinian arabs", the jews were living in peace. They were not being murdered by arabs, nor was their land being stolen or their homes destroyed. That isn't my opinion, it is history and can be studied and verified by anyone who chooses to give a dam*. The Balfour agreement is a European product and most of the people that supported Zionism were not Jews. They were people who didn't want jews around them and who "invented" a Jewish homeland by taking from others by force. Again, that is history, not my opinion.

I don't want to eliminate Israel and believe that it has a right to exist, but so do the Palestinians. Until the rights of the Palestinians are restored in a form acceptable to THEM, the conflict will continue.

They (the Palestinians) use what WE, the foreigners, define as terrorism because it is their only means of resistance. The Jews, befor they got their State (given to them by Europeans and the UN) used terrorism to remove the occupying British. How quickly we forget.

With all due respect, I think your view of the situation is a byproduct of your prejudices, coupled with a lack of information. I don't mean to offend you, but I have to ask ... how can you be so shallow?

 

[Swass]

350 sounds like an anti-semite, liberal, left winger to me (is that a contradiction?) Thank God you have zero chance of holding a position of power in our government. The administration will be the same for another 4 years, get used to it.

 

[bart]

It is true that Mr. Arafat was born in Egypt but to call him an Egyptian defies reason.

What type of reason does it defy? Please help us all understand your logic better. You obviously understand the motivations of killers much better than the rest of us, so please enlighten us.

Kill Arafat and those that come to stand in his stead, and half the problem is solved, secondly, you pressure Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to assimilate the so-called Palestinian refugees living in their country. Those two things, and in 5 to 10 years, no more problem.

Let me ask you this too. Since you are so knowledgeable on the situation in the Middle East, when was the last time the Palestinian government ruled Palestine?

I await your answer eagerly...

 

[350DRIVER]

Kill Arafat and those that come to stand in his stead, and half the problem is solved, secondly, you pressure Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to assimilate the so-called Palestinian refugees living in their country. Those two things, and in 5 to 10 years, no more problem.

I love it, a typical response from someone with the cowboy mentality and who is quite biased and twisted with personal opinion/belief. What is even more comical is that you allow your feelings to overshadow the reality of the conflict and situation that has been taking place for many years. Even though Sharon is a jew he surely is not that dumb since he knows not to touch/harm Arafat. Most people understand that if he is killed a martyr would be created and Israel would probably go up in smoke. There are many reasons why most countries in the Middle East are pro-Palestine, Israel has very few friends/supporters and rightfully so.

What I even love more is that the support for Palestine will only grow stronger and that surely must pi$$ you off beyond belief because there is not a single thing that you can do about it other than moan, pout about it, and inject ridiculous opinions into the matter.

3 5 0

>>swassy, keep drinking that kool aid with chas- such big words from such a small guy....

 

[surplus1]

What type of reason does it defy? Please help us all understand your logic better.

I will try. You said that Arafat was an Egyptian because he was born in Egypt. I said that defies reason. Here is my logic.

Since the country of Israel was establish by the UN partition of 1947 and declared its "Independence" in 1948, the Israeli Government has had 15 Prime Ministers. Since some of the individuals have served more than once, there have been 12 persons who served in that capacity.

Five (4) of the twelve (12) were "born" in the region. They are: Yitzahk Rabin - Jerusalem, Yigal Allon - Kfar Tavor (Palestine). Ehud Barak - Kibbutz Mishmar Hasharon (Palestine), Ariel Sharon - Kfar Malal (Palestine). Only one (1) - Benjamin Netanyahu - Telaviv, was "born" in the State of Israel.

Of the other seven (7), four (4) were born in Poland - David Ben-GUrion, Yitzahk Shamir, Menachem Begin and Shimon Peres. One (1) was born in Russia - Golda Meir. Two (2) were born in the Ukraine - Moshe Sharett and Levi Eshkol.

I respectfully submit it would "defy reason" to call David Ben-Gurion a Pole, Golda Meir a Russian or Areil Sharon a Palestinian. It therefore "defies reason" to call Yassar Arafat an Egyptian.

Hopefully you now understand my logic.

Let me ask you this too. Since you are so knowledgeable on the situation in the Middle East, when was the last time the Palestinian government ruled Palestine?

I await your answer eagerly... [/B][/QUOTE]

I think we both know that Palestine is an occupied territory not a nation State. The question is therefore ludicrous.

 

[bart]

350:

Just who would send Israel up in smoke? Name the country or group of countries...

Surplus:

Read your history, palestine is a regional name like west coast. It has never existed as a country, period. It has never been ruled by a government that allowed its residents any say over their fate. It has been ruled by various countries over the last 2,000 years. The Israelis have as much claim to rule it as anyone else, seeing as they were the principal occupants until the Arab invasion and occupation in and around 650 AD.

Treating Arafat and his minions like anything other than thugs is what is ludicrous. The neighbors of Israel have kept this struggle alive Orwellian style for years to distract their people from the generally piss-poor job they are doing of running their own countries. That is why there have been "palestinian" refugee camps in operation in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt since 1948. The Arabs refuse to assimilate these people or offer them anything other than DP status to keep this whole distraction alive.

The political history of this area makes a particularly interesting study for those willing to research beyond the evening news and USA Today. I would recommend that you read "A Short History of the Arab Peoples" by Sir John Glubb for an overview of the history of the region. If you want an in-depth history, I can recommend several other books.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus:

Read your history, palestine is a regional name like west coast. It has never existed as a country, period. It has never been ruled by a government that allowed its residents any say over their fate. It has been ruled by various countries over the last 2,000 years. The Israelis have as much claim to rule it as anyone else, seeing as they were the principal occupants until the Arab invasion and occupation in and around 650 AD.

Bart,

Thanks for your very civil reply. It makes it much easier to discuss controversial issues when messeages are not loaded with personal vitriol. We differ on some issues and agree on others. Reading your perspective helps to "educate" me and I do not resent difference of opinion. I can only hope your attitude is similar.

Your recommendation that I read history is a valid one. I try to do that and trust that you do the same. In your study, I would recommend further that you give consideration to the perspective of the writer. History texts record very different accounts of events depending on where they are written and who does the writing. Do keep that in mind as you read and study.

Somewhere I came across a quotation whose author I can't recall, but I do remember what was said. It goes like this:

"History - An account, mostly false, of events, unimportant, brought about by soldiers, mostly fools, and rulers, mostly knaves." While there may have been a better choice with respect to the term "unimportant", the quote embodies most of the reality of History. Think about that.

I take issue with one thought you advance above, this one - "The Israelis have as much claim to rule it as anyone else, seeing as they were the principal occupants until the Arab invasion and occupation in and around 650 AD."

If we are to assess the claims of Israelis on that basis, how would you assess the claims of American Indians? Seeing as they were the principal occupants of the North American Continent for centuries before the first "white man" ever set foot on it, would you be willing to say they have "as much claim" and as a consequence justify their "right" to displace the current occupants? I think the practical application of that thought process would not sit well with many Americans, Canadians or Mexicans. That is why the Palestinians do not embrace the claims of the Israelis to territory that they once held, more than 2000 years ago.

Treating Arafat and his minions like anything other than thugs is what is ludicrous. The neighbors of Israel have kept this struggle alive Orwellian style for years to distract their people from the generally piss-poor job they are doing of running their own countries. That is why there have been "palestinian" refugee camps in operation in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt since 1948. The Arabs refuse to assimilate these people or offer them anything other than DP status to keep this whole distraction alive.

I don't attempt to justify the behavior of Arafat, but neither can I justify the behavior of many Israeli leaders and their "minions". I also cannot "justify" the British and French "occupations" of the Middle East nor the assorted "nations" they created in their own interest. Likewise, I cannot justify the current occupation of Iraq by the United States and its so-called coalition.

That does not mean that I support Saddam Hussien's oppression of the Iraqi peoples. There is no question that he was and is a despot. However, I also cannot overlook the fact that he recieved support, technology and materials for the manufacture of WMD, etc., from the United States and other European nations. We turned our heads the other way, when it suited our purpose to have him wage war on Iran. We turned our heads again when he murdered the Shiites and the Kurds, after WE encouraged them to revolt ... and then abandoned them. Somewhat similar to the way we "turned our heads" (initially) when it became known what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.

I have never viewed the Ayotollah Kohmeni as a "great religious leader". I see him as just another despot, who used his religion as a means to achieve political ambitions. At the same time, one of our "dearest friends" was the Shah of Iran whose opression of Iranians was no less than that of the Ayatollah.

On the basis of all that "history", I find it somewhat difficult to embrace the "pot calling the kettle black" and subsequently support a modern-day "Crusade" (a term used by our current President ... until he was quieted by his more politically correct advisers).

History is unpleasant more often than not and there are few who rise above the subjectivity of adjusting it as necessary to obscure the realities of their activities. I would hope that one day my country would rise above that. That day has not yet come and I doubt that it will in my lifetime. That we are not "alone" in our bad behavior does not satisfy me.

The political history of this area makes a particularly interesting study for those willing to research beyond the evening news and USA Today. I would recommend that you read "A Short History of the Arab Peoples" by Sir John Glubb for an overview of the history of the region. If you want an in-depth history, I can recommend several other books.

Thank you for the recommendation. It's a good book no doubt. So is the Torah/Tanakh, the Bible and the Holy Qur'an/Koran. Like all other books, the extent to which these writings are infallible, truthful or fiction is, in the final analysis, a matter of opinion.

History my friend is not Science. By all means we should read everything that we can. We should however, not believe everything we read. [That applies to this post as well.]

Thanks for your comments.

 

[DoinTime]

Surplus,

Your postings give my dictionary a workout. Thanks for putting some civility into a topic that is generally characterized by extremists.

 

[surplus1]

DoinTime,

Thank you for noticeing. I have enjoyed the dialogue even though the "thread creep" has developed into a marathon run.


Edited to correct spelling error. "threat" canged to "thread".

 

[bart]

One last note: On the qoran or koran, whatever your preferred spelling. It is interesting to note that all of Maohammed's teachings fell right into line with the teachings of Christianity (turning the other cheek, tolerance, love of neighbor) until Mohammed was run out of Mecca by the merchant's. It was then that he began teaching of jihad, and allied with the Jews, took Mecca by force and murdered the merchants that had run him out.

Guess God changed his messages to Mohammed when things didn't go his way.

 

[DoinTime]

One last note: On the qoran or koran, whatever your preferred spelling. It is interesting to note that all of Maohammed's teachings fell right into line with the teachings of Christianity (turning the other cheek, tolerance, love of neighbor) until Mohammed was run out of Mecca by the merchant's. It was then that he began teaching of jihad, and allied with the Jews, took Mecca by force and murdered the merchants that had run him out.

Guess God changed his messages to Mohammed when things didn't go his way.

So Bart, would you say that George W. Bush followed the later teachings of Mohammed when things didn't go his way?

 

[surplus1]

One last note: On the qoran or koran, whatever your preferred spelling. It is interesting to note that all of Maohammed's teachings fell right into line with the teachings of Christianity (turning the other cheek, tolerance, love of neighbor) until Mohammed was run out of Mecca by the merchant's. It was then that he began teaching of jihad, and allied with the Jews, took Mecca by force and murdered the merchants that had run him out.

Very true.

[

Guess God changed his messages to Mohammed when things didn't go his way.

I of course do not know if God changed his messages to Mohammed. Personal beliefs tell me that God never changes His messages but we humans often interpret them erroneously.

If we choose to use Mohammed's behavior as an analogy, it begins to jet interesting. Would we equate the Palestinians to the merchants or would we equate the Jews to the merchants (in the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict)? Perhaps the "merchants" are neither the Jews nor the Palestinians, but the Europeans and Americans that promoted the plan to run the Palestinians out of Palestine and replace them with the Jews, thus triggering the jihad.

Regardless, violence and murder, no matter the perpetrator, has to date never truly resolved disputes among mankind. That is why we have been at war with each other for centuries, with no end in sight.

Your remarks bring to mind the biblical story of the Christ entering the temple and overtuning the table of the money changers and running them off. He was angry and took action. Notably, He did not resort to killing or murder. One might say that He, unlike Mohammed, did not misinterpret God's message.

Perhaps the world might be a better place for all of us if the Jews had recognized the errors of Moses' law (an eye for an eye) and embraced the teachings of the Christ. Mohammed might also have faired better had he done the same.

In my perhaps controversial view, religion (in whatever form or doctrine) is the creation of man and more often than not misinterprets the message of God with alarming frequency.

Regards. Nice exchange.