Israeli settlers reaction to Palestinian bid for statehood
This topic is locked from further discussion.
"Friday afternoon, Abbas said he is adamant about not recognizing Israel as the Jewish state.
"They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state," Abbas said in a meeting with some 200 senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the US, shortly before taking the podium and delivering a speech at the United Nations General Assembly."
Nothing worse than a bunch of rampaging Jewish people lol.
lol , this is actually a link to Iran's state run english language news service, asking for any sort of fair reporting here is silly.
people forget that it was palestine that started this fued between the 2 nations. palestine kept on firing off missles into israel, what do you expect them to do?
[QUOTE="Redinko"]Rampaging Jewish settlers destroyed trees in a Palestinian grove.tbf2Nooo, why the trees! What did the trees ever do to them!? its vandalism , frankly I have my own criticism to the settlers , mostly that they basically have too much power in Israel. heck alot of times they don't even do what the governemnt and supreme and court in Israel say. that is my criticism of them.
why even want to live there?
if it's about holy land then we can just dig up the top 6 inches of topsoil and drop it in arizona and be done with the whole problem.
i'm pretty sick of you guys killing each other over your imaginary friends.
its known as politics. the settlers consider that land the historic land of Israel , heck , deep down , I would have wished it was all mine. the difference is, the settlers think with their hearts, while most people in Israel think with their heads. I would imagine most Arabs/Palestinians are very much the same. of course I could go into the settler's place in Israeli society or security matters, but thats something else. If the settlers consider the entire land historic Israeli, do they also believe Americans should return its land to the natives?? The problem begins when one begins to see the Torah as a land deed.[QUOTE="tbf2"][QUOTE="Redinko"]Rampaging Jewish settlers destroyed trees in a Palestinian grove.Darkman2007Nooo, why the trees! What did the trees ever do to them!? its vandalism , frankly I have my own criticism to the settlers , mostly that they basically have too much power in Israel. heck alot of times they don't even do what the governemnt and supreme and court in Israel say. that is my criticism of them. Yet the government consistently protects them with military and checkpoints while approving evermore expansion.
why even want to live there?
if it's about holy land then we can just dig up the top 6 inches of topsoil and drop it in arizona and be done with the whole problem.
i'm pretty sick of you guys killing each other over your imaginary friends.
its known as politics. the settlers consider that land the historic land of Israel , heck , deep down , I would have wished it was all mine. the difference is, the settlers think with their hearts, while most people in Israel think with their heads. I would imagine most Arabs/Palestinians are very much the same. of course I could go into the settler's place in Israeli society or security matters, but thats something else. If the settlers consider the entire land historic Israeli, do they also believe Americans should return its land to the natives?? The problem begins when one begins to see the Torah as a land deed. there is an old Arab saying "the enemy of my enemy , is my friend" , that should answer the first part. like I said, the settlers are a minority, most people in israel think with their head on this matter. though again , people also have their own reservations about the whole affiair, and some of those issues are hard to understand unless youve been to Israel.[QUOTE="Redinko"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its known as politics. the settlers consider that land the historic land of Israel , heck , deep down , I would have wished it was all mine. the difference is, the settlers think with their hearts, while most people in Israel think with their heads. I would imagine most Arabs/Palestinians are very much the same. of course I could go into the settler's place in Israeli society or security matters, but thats something else.Darkman2007If the settlers consider the entire land historic Israeli, do they also believe Americans should return its land to the natives?? The problem begins when one begins to see the Torah as a land deed. there is an old Arab saying "the enemy of my enemy , is my friend" , that should answer the first part. like I said, the settlers are a minority, most people in israel think with their head on this matter. though again , people also have their own reservations about the whole affiair, and some of those issues are hard to understand unless youve been to Israel. I take issue not with you personally or the people of Israel but the logic of Zionism.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"] If the settlers consider the entire land historic Israeli, do they also believe Americans should return its land to the natives?? The problem begins when one begins to see the Torah as a land deed. Redinkothere is an old Arab saying "the enemy of my enemy , is my friend" , that should answer the first part. like I said, the settlers are a minority, most people in israel think with their head on this matter. though again , people also have their own reservations about the whole affiair, and some of those issues are hard to understand unless youve been to Israel. I take issue not with you personally or the people of Israel but the logic of Zionism. well in order to define the logic of Zionism , one has to point to a certain branch of Zionism , and then to a specific part of the ideology. Zionism is a very wide ideology with plenty of differing views, heck at one point, the Irgun and Palmach movements were shooting each other.
[QUOTE="Redinko"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] there is an old Arab saying "the enemy of my enemy , is my friend" , that should answer the first part. like I said, the settlers are a minority, most people in israel think with their head on this matter. though again , people also have their own reservations about the whole affiair, and some of those issues are hard to understand unless youve been to Israel.Darkman2007I take issue not with you personally or the people of Israel but the logic of Zionism. well in order to define the logic of Zionism , one has to point to a certain branch of Zionism , and then to a specific part of the ideology. Zionism is a very wide ideology with plenty of differing views, heck at one point, the Irgun and Palmach movements were shooting each other. To be more specific then, anyone who feels entitled to a land simply because they believe their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago or, they believe a religious text entitles them to that land. This is especially true when the land is taken at the expense of others.
lol , this is actually a link to Iran's state run english language news service, asking for any sort of fair reporting here is silly.
still is pretty widely known the settlers aren't nice people in the west bank. There were leaked plans to attack any protests using weapons given to them by Isreal. Not what I'd call peaceful. Even then every year the same thing happens durring the olive harvest so... really it isn't much news to me.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"] I take issue not with you personally or the people of Israel but the logic of Zionism. Redinkowell in order to define the logic of Zionism , one has to point to a certain branch of Zionism , and then to a specific part of the ideology. Zionism is a very wide ideology with plenty of differing views, heck at one point, the Irgun and Palmach movements were shooting each other. To be more specific then, anyone who feels entitled to a land simply because they believe their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago or, they believe a religious text entitles them to that land. This is especially true when the land is taken at the expense of others. well, the core belief of every branch of Zionism is that the Jews should have their own state. at the same time, every main political party in Israel is Zionist , even the Labour party, which is frankly very dovish on these things (unless you count some of the Arab parties in the Knesset , or Meretz) , Even the Likud recognises the two state solution , albeit not with the greatest enthusiasm. who are uncompomisingly against the two state solution are the settler movement, ie religious zionism , they combine the " the Jews must have a state " clause with "the Land of Israel belongs to us by biblical rights" clause. the Labour party for instance, while it does adhere to both of those , places far greater importance on the former , as opposed to the latter. at the same time, there are security and demographic concerns that no party in Israel will accept, at least nobody with any sort of public respect.
lol , this is actually a link to Iran's state run english language news service, asking for any sort of fair reporting here is silly.
still is pretty widely known the settlers aren't nice people in the west bank. There were leaked plans to attack any protests using weapons given to them by Isreal. Not what I'd call peaceful. Even then every year the same thing happens durring the olive harvest so... really it isn't much news to me. actually the weapons were given to them due to a fear that they will be attacked, it wasn't given to them in order to attack anybody. what they do with those weapons is something else , even though the settlers are almost a law onto themselves at times.[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]still is pretty widely known the settlers aren't nice people in the west bank. There were leaked plans to attack any protests using weapons given to them by Isreal. Not what I'd call peaceful. Even then every year the same thing happens durring the olive harvest so... really it isn't much news to me. actually the weapons were given to them due to a fear that they will be attacked, it wasn't given to them in order to attack anybody. what they do with those weapons is something else , even though the settlers are almost a law onto themselves at times. I know that, doesn't really change the fact that settlers aren't very nice people. actually I typed in palestine news and its just full of clashes and attacks by settlers on google. Also refering to the zionism post, I don't get that religious ideology. I mean a lot of Jews in Isreal are European Jews that are not the hebrews that followed Moses into the land so If the land was promised to the followers and the decsendents wouldn't that mean that European Jews are basicly the same as arabs in asense? so I mean that Ideaology is flawed from a religious standpoint let alone a moral stand point.lol , this is actually a link to Iran's state run english language news service, asking for any sort of fair reporting here is silly.
Darkman2007
EDIT: grammar
[QUOTE="Redinko"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well in order to define the logic of Zionism , one has to point to a certain branch of Zionism , and then to a specific part of the ideology. Zionism is a very wide ideology with plenty of differing views, heck at one point, the Irgun and Palmach movements were shooting each other.Darkman2007To be more specific then, anyone who feels entitled to a land simply because they believe their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago or, they believe a religious text entitles them to that land. This is especially true when the land is taken at the expense of others. well, the core belief of every branch of Zionism is that the Jews should have their own state. at the same time, every main political party in Israel is Zionist , even the Labour party, which is frankly very dovish on these things (unless you count some of the Arab parties in the Knesset , or Meretz) , Even the Likud recognises the two state solution , albeit not with the greatest enthusiasm. who are uncompomisingly against the two state solution are the settler movement, ie religious zionism , they combine the " the Jews must have a state " clause with "the Land of Israel belongs to us by biblical rights" clause. the Labour party for instance, while it does adhere to both of those , places far greater importance on the former , as opposed to the latter. at the same time, there are security and demographic concerns that no party in Israel will accept, at least nobody with any sort of public respect. You mention security and demographic concerns which points out the circular nature of the problem. As times goes on these settlers are constantly expanding, so these debates and negotiations really seem like a ploy to run the clock and give the settlers more time. Anyone who has studied the European colonialism of the Americas can draw clear parallels.
actually the weapons were given to them due to a fear that they will be attacked, it wasn't given to them in order to attack anybody. what they do with those weapons is something else , even though the settlers are almost a law onto themselves at times. I know that, doesn't really change the fact that settlers aren't very nice people. actually I typed in palestine news and its just full of clashes and attacks by settlers on google. Also refering to the zionism post, I don't get that religious ideology. I mean a lot of Jews in Isreal are European Jews that are not the hebrews that followed Moses into the land so If the land was promised to the followers and the decsendents wouldn't that mean that European Jews are basicly the same as arabs in asense? so I mean that Ideaology is flawed from a religious standpoint let alone a moral stand point.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="mayceV"] still is pretty widely known the settlers aren't nice people in the west bank. There were leaked plans to attack any protests using weapons given to them by Isreal. Not what I'd call peaceful. Even then every year the same thing happens durring the olive harvest so... really it isn't much news to me.mayceV
EDIT: grammar
in regards to the ancenstry thing, Jews are an ethnic group , there were various studies on the subject, but the simple fact, is that even after being exiled around 70-135AD from Judea, the Jews didn't really intermarry with non Jews, not to a great extent (it was basically forbidden until 150 years ago), so for the most part, we are not that different from what we were 2000+ years ago, there was also very little in the way of conversions to Judaism , since Judaism makes conversions very difficult, especially in the past.
if youre wondering why some Jews are brighter skinned than others there would be 2 main reasons.
1) climate, and what mixing in with non Jews there was.
2) there are variations in ethnic groups that are spread over a large area, even between Arabs, there is a difference, Egyptians for instance seem to be quite a bit darker than Syrians or Lebanese for instance.
as for Jews being the same as Arabs, well, both are semetic, so both beong to the same group of ethnic groups , but not the same as such.
though in the end, a European Jew has more in common genetically with a Jew from Egypt, than he does with non Jewish Europeans in this regard.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"] To be more specific then, anyone who feels entitled to a land simply because they believe their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago or, they believe a religious text entitles them to that land. This is especially true when the land is taken at the expense of others. Redinkowell, the core belief of every branch of Zionism is that the Jews should have their own state. at the same time, every main political party in Israel is Zionist , even the Labour party, which is frankly very dovish on these things (unless you count some of the Arab parties in the Knesset , or Meretz) , Even the Likud recognises the two state solution , albeit not with the greatest enthusiasm. who are uncompomisingly against the two state solution are the settler movement, ie religious zionism , they combine the " the Jews must have a state " clause with "the Land of Israel belongs to us by biblical rights" clause. the Labour party for instance, while it does adhere to both of those , places far greater importance on the former , as opposed to the latter. at the same time, there are security and demographic concerns that no party in Israel will accept, at least nobody with any sort of public respect. You mention security and demographic concerns which points out the circular nature of the problem. As times goes on these settlers are constantly expanding, so these debates and negotiations really seem like a ploy to run the clock and give the settlers more time. Anyone who has studied the European colonialism of the Americas can draw clear parallels. the only difference is that the settlers at least have something truthful , in that the Jews really were there, its not as though the Europeans were ever in the Americas before they colonised it. that doesn't mean its necessarily right, but thats the fact. and the settlers will be removed once there is peace, there is very little otherwise to say, in Israel the view is that until our demograpic , security, and frankly, economic/diplomatic concerns are dealt with (though the last 2 are almost solved), we would rather side with the settlers than with anyone else. again , its the enemy of an enemy is a friend mentality , I may not agree with them on every level , but when it comes down to it, I have to side with who will watch my back when times are tough , until an alternative is found.
[QUOTE="Redinko"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well, the core belief of every branch of Zionism is that the Jews should have their own state. at the same time, every main political party in Israel is Zionist , even the Labour party, which is frankly very dovish on these things (unless you count some of the Arab parties in the Knesset , or Meretz) , Even the Likud recognises the two state solution , albeit not with the greatest enthusiasm. who are uncompomisingly against the two state solution are the settler movement, ie religious zionism , they combine the " the Jews must have a state " clause with "the Land of Israel belongs to us by biblical rights" clause. the Labour party for instance, while it does adhere to both of those , places far greater importance on the former , as opposed to the latter. at the same time, there are security and demographic concerns that no party in Israel will accept, at least nobody with any sort of public respect.Darkman2007You mention security and demographic concerns which points out the circular nature of the problem. As times goes on these settlers are constantly expanding, so these debates and negotiations really seem like a ploy to run the clock and give the settlers more time. Anyone who has studied the European colonialism of the Americas can draw clear parallels. the only difference is that the settlers at least have something truthful , in that the Jews really were there, its not as though the Europeans were ever in the Americas before they colonised it. that doesn't mean its necessarily right, but thats the fact. and the settlers will be removed once there is peace, there is very little otherwise to say, in Israel the view is that until our demograpic , security, and frankly, economic/diplomatic concerns are dealt with (though the last 2 are almost solved), we would rather side with the settlers than with anyone else. again , its the enemy of an enemy is a friend mentality , I may not agree with them on every level , but when it comes down to it, I have to side with who will watch my back when times are tough , until an alternative is found. Will the settlers be removed? Or will they change the facts on the ground making peace impossible? I think we both know the answer to that. How can there be peace when another group of people are building on the land you plan to use as a nation state? Do you take the Palestinians as complete fools? Because only a fool would sit around and wait for negotiations while settlers are expanding around them like a noose around their collective necks.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"] You mention security and demographic concerns which points out the circular nature of the problem. As times goes on these settlers are constantly expanding, so these debates and negotiations really seem like a ploy to run the clock and give the settlers more time. Anyone who has studied the European colonialism of the Americas can draw clear parallels. Redinkothe only difference is that the settlers at least have something truthful , in that the Jews really were there, its not as though the Europeans were ever in the Americas before they colonised it. that doesn't mean its necessarily right, but thats the fact. and the settlers will be removed once there is peace, there is very little otherwise to say, in Israel the view is that until our demograpic , security, and frankly, economic/diplomatic concerns are dealt with (though the last 2 are almost solved), we would rather side with the settlers than with anyone else. again , its the enemy of an enemy is a friend mentality , I may not agree with them on every level , but when it comes down to it, I have to side with who will watch my back when times are tough , until an alternative is found. Will the settlers be removed? Or will they change the facts on the ground making peace impossible? I think we both know the answer to that. How can there be peace when another group of people are building on the land you plan to use as a nation state? Do you take the Palestinians as complete fools? Because only a fool would sit around and wait for negotiations while settlers are expanding around them like a noose around their collective necks. the settlers will be removed, but not until there are agreements, its simple logic not to burn bridges with your own people , while not building any with anyone else. but ok , lets say the settlers leave tomorrow , hypothetically speaking, what happens then?
[QUOTE="Redinko"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the only difference is that the settlers at least have something truthful , in that the Jews really were there, its not as though the Europeans were ever in the Americas before they colonised it. that doesn't mean its necessarily right, but thats the fact. and the settlers will be removed once there is peace, there is very little otherwise to say, in Israel the view is that until our demograpic , security, and frankly, economic/diplomatic concerns are dealt with (though the last 2 are almost solved), we would rather side with the settlers than with anyone else. again , its the enemy of an enemy is a friend mentality , I may not agree with them on every level , but when it comes down to it, I have to side with who will watch my back when times are tough , until an alternative is found.Darkman2007Will the settlers be removed? Or will they change the facts on the ground making peace impossible? I think we both know the answer to that. How can there be peace when another group of people are building on the land you plan to use as a nation state? Do you take the Palestinians as complete fools? Because only a fool would sit around and wait for negotiations while settlers are expanding around them like a noose around their collective necks. the settlers will be removed, but not until there are agreements, its simple logic not to burn bridges with your own people , while not building any with anyone else. but ok , lets say the settlers leave tomorrow , hypothetically speaking, what happens then? You're logic is an oversimplification. Before you can build bridges with people you have to stop antagonizing them. If settlements stopped today, the Palestinian leadership would be seen as having made genuine change which would give them the credibility to move forward in the peace process. At the very least, it would end a practice which has been provoking violence and is immoral by almost any account.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"] Will the settlers be removed? Or will they change the facts on the ground making peace impossible? I think we both know the answer to that. How can there be peace when another group of people are building on the land you plan to use as a nation state? Do you take the Palestinians as complete fools? Because only a fool would sit around and wait for negotiations while settlers are expanding around them like a noose around their collective necks. Redinkothe settlers will be removed, but not until there are agreements, its simple logic not to burn bridges with your own people , while not building any with anyone else. but ok , lets say the settlers leave tomorrow , hypothetically speaking, what happens then? You're logic is an oversimplification. Before you can build bridges with people you have to stop antagonizing them. If settlements stopped today, the Palestinian leadership would be seen as having made genuine change which would give them the credibility to move forward in the peace process. At the very least, it would end a practice which has been provoking violence and is immoral by almost any account.
that still means nothing to me, even if the settlers go , it won't make any of my problems and concerns. go away.
nevermind that half the Palestinian leadership aren't even happy that Im alive , so its not quite a simple as that.
ie, how does taking away the settlers help me in any way?
You're logic is an oversimplification. Before you can build bridges with people you have to stop antagonizing them. If settlements stopped today, the Palestinian leadership would be seen as having made genuine change which would give them the credibility to move forward in the peace process. At the very least, it would end a practice which has been provoking violence and is immoral by almost any account.[QUOTE="Redinko"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the settlers will be removed, but not until there are agreements, its simple logic not to burn bridges with your own people , while not building any with anyone else. but ok , lets say the settlers leave tomorrow , hypothetically speaking, what happens then?Darkman2007
that still means nothing to me, even if the settlers go , it won't make any of my problems and concerns. go away.
nevermind that half the Palestinian leadership aren't even happy that Im alive , so its not quite a simple as that.
ie, how does taking away the settlers help me in any way?
I didn't realize this discussion was about what helped you? Also, do you think provoking violence helps you? Do you understand that settlers are provking anger not just in Palestine but all around the Middle East? If an Arab country in the region was building settlements in Israel, would Israel respond with peace negotionations or with violence?[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"] You're logic is an oversimplification. Before you can build bridges with people you have to stop antagonizing them. If settlements stopped today, the Palestinian leadership would be seen as having made genuine change which would give them the credibility to move forward in the peace process. At the very least, it would end a practice which has been provoking violence and is immoral by almost any account. Redinko
that still means nothing to me, even if the settlers go , it won't make any of my problems and concerns. go away.
nevermind that half the Palestinian leadership aren't even happy that Im alive , so its not quite a simple as that.
ie, how does taking away the settlers help me in any way?
I didn't realize this discussion was about what helped you? Also, do you think provoking violence helps you? Do you understand that settlers are provking anger not just in Palestine but all around the Middle East? If an Arab country in the region was building settlements in Israel, would Israel respond with peace negotionations or with violence? of course I understand why they dislike it, that much is obvious . at the same time, its a basic question of politics, why should I shoot myself in the foot and get nothing in return. its not like the rockets will stop the second the settlers leave, you know that as well as I do , because there are groups there who will want my death no matter what i give them , its never quite as simple as that. the settlers are not the only reason here, if they were, there would no problems before 1967 , but there were terrorist raids accross the border quite frequently.Its not shooting yourself in the foot, its normalizing relations by taking steps that will ultimitly lead to peace.. You attribute the reasons for violence as an inherint need to kill you because you are Jewish, Israeli ect... which, i guess, is eassier then looking at the actual actions taken by the Israeli government as the roots of this violence. Also, dont you think morally it is wrong for YOUR country to take such actions? Dont you see this as a stain against your country? Against the jewish state? Redinkosure, so when the settlers leave, I want the rockets to stop , 100% , can I get a guarantee of that? wheter you realise it or not, there are groups among the Palestinians, a minority or otherwise, which will not be happy with any sort of peace treaty , that much is a fact , what youre doing is essentially saying "if Israel does x number of things, everything will be rosy" its just not that simple. it is shooting myself in the foot , its simple politics, and the idea of sticking together for the better of the country . and if youre talking about any stain, it means nothing, the UN and to some extent, opinion was biased against Israel even before 1967 , when there were no settlements, no so called occupation , etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x8l9d3g_8Q here is one interview with Abba Eban from 1958, where the interviewer puts forth various complaints , which funny enough are no different from today.
[QUOTE="Redinko"]Its not shooting yourself in the foot, its normalizing relations by taking steps that will ultimitly lead to peace.. You attribute the reasons for violence as an inherint need to kill you because you are Jewish, Israeli ect... which, i guess, is eassier then looking at the actual actions taken by the Israeli government as the roots of this violence. Also, dont you think morally it is wrong for YOUR country to take such actions? Dont you see this as a stain against your country? Against the jewish state? Darkman2007sure, so when the settlers leave, I want the rockets to stop , 100% , can I get a guarantee of that? wheter you realise it or not, there are groups among the Palestinians, a minority or otherwise, which will not be happy with any sort of peace treaty , that much is a fact , what youre doing is essentially saying "if Israel does x number of things, everything will be rosy" its just not that simple. it is shooting myself in the foot , its simple politics, and the idea of sticking together for the better of the country . and if youre talking about any stain, it means nothing, the UN and to some extent, opinion was biased against Israel even before 1967 , when there were no settlements, no so called occupation , etc.
The majority of Palestinians and Israelis want peace, and if I am not mistaken, Hamas has a cease fire. Either they can try to seize the moment or have this happen another 40 years. But also there is an Arab Spring occuring. They should do what they can now to try to make peace with the Palestinians.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"]Its not shooting yourself in the foot, its normalizing relations by taking steps that will ultimitly lead to peace.. You attribute the reasons for violence as an inherint need to kill you because you are Jewish, Israeli ect... which, i guess, is eassier then looking at the actual actions taken by the Israeli government as the roots of this violence. Also, dont you think morally it is wrong for YOUR country to take such actions? Dont you see this as a stain against your country? Against the jewish state? gaming25sure, so when the settlers leave, I want the rockets to stop , 100% , can I get a guarantee of that? wheter you realise it or not, there are groups among the Palestinians, a minority or otherwise, which will not be happy with any sort of peace treaty , that much is a fact , what youre doing is essentially saying "if Israel does x number of things, everything will be rosy" its just not that simple. it is shooting myself in the foot , its simple politics, and the idea of sticking together for the better of the country . and if youre talking about any stain, it means nothing, the UN and to some extent, opinion was biased against Israel even before 1967 , when there were no settlements, no so called occupation , etc. But now the majority of Palestinians and Israelis want peace, and if I am not mistaken, Hamas has currently made a cease fire. Either they can try to seize the moment or have this happen another 40 years. But I believe that all of this is now just the backdrop since there is an Arab Spring occuring. They should do what they can now to try to make peace with the Palestinians. Hamas has indeed made a ceasefire, but a ceasefire can be broken very easily, as it was a month ago . I don't want ceasefires, I don't want a maybe, I don't want some rockets , I want actual peace, and thats quite hard given the palestinians have two governenments. and lets be honest here, that little agreement they had in Cairo meant nothing, Fatah and Hamas don't talk to each other, they still have bad blood between them , and frankly, still act like two states. and even if you took Hamas out of the picture, so what? there are groups like Islamic Jihad that fire rockets and are not under any influence , heck in the Palestinian arena there are quite a few groups, each with its own agenda, alot of them not under any control of either the PLO or Hamas and yes, most Israelies do want peace, but we are not going to shoot ourselves in the foot in the process there are certain, it takes two to tango .
[QUOTE="mayceV"]
actually the weapons were given to them due to a fear that they will be attacked, it wasn't given to them in order to attack anybody. what they do with those weapons is something else , even though the settlers are almost a law onto themselves at times.Darkman2007I know that, doesn't really change the fact that settlers aren't very nice people. actually I typed in palestine news and its just full of clashes and attacks by settlers on google. Also refering to the zionism post, I don't get that religious ideology. I mean a lot of Jews in Isreal are European Jews that are not the hebrews that followed Moses into the land so If the land was promised to the followers and the decsendents wouldn't that mean that European Jews are basicly the same as arabs in asense? so I mean that Ideaology is flawed from a religious standpoint let alone a moral stand point.
EDIT: grammar
in regards to the ancenstry thing, Jews are an ethnic group , there were various studies on the subject, but the simple fact, is that even after being exiled around 70-135AD from Judea, the Jews didn't really intermarry with non Jews, not to a great extent (it was basically forbidden until 150 years ago), so for the most part, we are not that different from what we were 2000+ years ago, there was also very little in the way of conversions to Judaism , since Judaism makes conversions very difficult, especially in the past.
if youre wondering why some Jews are brighter skinned than others there would be 2 main reasons.
1) climate, and what mixing in with non Jews there was.
2) there are variations in ethnic groups that are spread over a large area, even between Arabs, there is a difference, Egyptians for instance seem to be quite a bit darker than Syrians or Lebanese for instance.
as for Jews being the same as Arabs, well, both are semetic, so both beong to the same group of ethnic groups , but not the same as such.
though in the end, a European Jew has more in common genetically with a Jew from Egypt, than he does with non Jewish Europeans in this regard.
egyptians arent arab though... and each arab group mixed with the original people in the area. Jordaninian arabs for instance mixed with Assyrian ( same thing with Syria) Lebonese people originate If I recall correctly from Phonecians, Palestinans from Canaannites, Philistines, Samatarians, some even with Jews. So I was just wondering because there are chinese Jews in china that have been jewish for well over a thousand years. Still though It takes an extremely long time for skin color to change naturally over time.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"] Will the settlers be removed? Or will they change the facts on the ground making peace impossible? I think we both know the answer to that. How can there be peace when another group of people are building on the land you plan to use as a nation state? Do you take the Palestinians as complete fools? Because only a fool would sit around and wait for negotiations while settlers are expanding around them like a noose around their collective necks. Redinkothe settlers will be removed, but not until there are agreements, its simple logic not to burn bridges with your own people , while not building any with anyone else. but ok , lets say the settlers leave tomorrow , hypothetically speaking, what happens then? You're logic is an oversimplification. Before you can build bridges with people you have to stop antagonizing them. If settlements stopped today, the Palestinian leadership would be seen as having made genuine change which would give them the credibility to move forward in the peace process. At the very least, it would end a practice which has been provoking violence and is immoral by almost any account. Settlement did fully stopped for 10 months last year and it didn't change anything. Abbas just made new excuses. And Israel hasn't established a new settlement for 10 years if I'm not mistaken.
[QUOTE="Redinko"]Its not shooting yourself in the foot, its normalizing relations by taking steps that will ultimitly lead to peace.. You attribute the reasons for violence as an inherint need to kill you because you are Jewish, Israeli ect... which, i guess, is eassier then looking at the actual actions taken by the Israeli government as the roots of this violence. Also, dont you think morally it is wrong for YOUR country to take such actions? Dont you see this as a stain against your country? Against the jewish state? Darkman2007sure, so when the settlers leave, I want the rockets to stop , 100% , can I get a guarantee of that? wheter you realise it or not, there are groups among the Palestinians, a minority or otherwise, which will not be happy with any sort of peace treaty , that much is a fact , what youre doing is essentially saying "if Israel does x number of things, everything will be rosy" its just not that simple. it is shooting myself in the foot , its simple politics, and the idea of sticking together for the better of the country . and if youre talking about any stain, it means nothing, the UN and to some extent, opinion was biased against Israel even before 1967 , when there were no settlements, no so called occupation , etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x8l9d3g_8Q here is one interview with Abba Eban from 1958, where the interviewer puts forth various complaints , which funny enough are no different from today. Actually, if they did stop the settlements the peace process would move forward no prolem. Granted there are the rockets however with the peace negotiations on track action can be taken against the terrorism. Look at afghanistan and Iraq exremists eventualy give up when support for thier cause dwindles. Same thing will happen to hamas. If the peace process is put for and a state with rights to the people is the outcome then Hamas would loose all support especially if the state continues to grow economically. However continuing the settlements is halting long term peace and unstalbizing the region. Jordan is afraid that Isreal will dump its problems on them as proposed by a few in the Isreali government. Not good. the settlemnts have to stop if Isreal wants peace its as simple as that.
[QUOTE="mayceV"] I know that, doesn't really change the fact that settlers aren't very nice people. actually I typed in palestine news and its just full of clashes and attacks by settlers on google. Also refering to the zionism post, I don't get that religious ideology. I mean a lot of Jews in Isreal are European Jews that are not the hebrews that followed Moses into the land so If the land was promised to the followers and the decsendents wouldn't that mean that European Jews are basicly the same as arabs in asense? so I mean that Ideaology is flawed from a religious standpoint let alone a moral stand point.
EDIT: grammar
in regards to the ancenstry thing, Jews are an ethnic group , there were various studies on the subject, but the simple fact, is that even after being exiled around 70-135AD from Judea, the Jews didn't really intermarry with non Jews, not to a great extent (it was basically forbidden until 150 years ago), so for the most part, we are not that different from what we were 2000+ years ago, there was also very little in the way of conversions to Judaism , since Judaism makes conversions very difficult, especially in the past.
if youre wondering why some Jews are brighter skinned than others there would be 2 main reasons.
1) climate, and what mixing in with non Jews there was.
2) there are variations in ethnic groups that are spread over a large area, even between Arabs, there is a difference, Egyptians for instance seem to be quite a bit darker than Syrians or Lebanese for instance.
as for Jews being the same as Arabs, well, both are semetic, so both beong to the same group of ethnic groups , but not the same as such.
though in the end, a European Jew has more in common genetically with a Jew from Egypt, than he does with non Jewish Europeans in this regard.
egyptians arent arab though... and each arab group mixed with the original people in the area. Jordaninian arabs for instance mixed with Assyrian ( same thing with Syria) Lebonese people originate If I recall correctly from Phonecians, Palestinans from Canaannites, Philistines, Samatarians, some even with Jews. So I was just wondering because there are chinese Jews in china that have been jewish for well over a thousand years. Still though It takes an extremely long time for skin color to change naturally over time. Also you forget that the Palestinians also originate even more from greeks, romans and the biggest part Arab. I don't see what this got to do with anything. Jews are a group originating from Israel but also a certain extent of mix with non jews just like arabs. Still doesn't change anything.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Redinko"]Its not shooting yourself in the foot, its normalizing relations by taking steps that will ultimitly lead to peace.. You attribute the reasons for violence as an inherint need to kill you because you are Jewish, Israeli ect... which, i guess, is eassier then looking at the actual actions taken by the Israeli government as the roots of this violence. Also, dont you think morally it is wrong for YOUR country to take such actions? Dont you see this as a stain against your country? Against the jewish state? mayceVsure, so when the settlers leave, I want the rockets to stop , 100% , can I get a guarantee of that? wheter you realise it or not, there are groups among the Palestinians, a minority or otherwise, which will not be happy with any sort of peace treaty , that much is a fact , what youre doing is essentially saying "if Israel does x number of things, everything will be rosy" its just not that simple. it is shooting myself in the foot , its simple politics, and the idea of sticking together for the better of the country . and if youre talking about any stain, it means nothing, the UN and to some extent, opinion was biased against Israel even before 1967 , when there were no settlements, no so called occupation , etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x8l9d3g_8Q here is one interview with Abba Eban from 1958, where the interviewer puts forth various complaints , which funny enough are no different from today. Actually, if they did stop the settlements the peace process would move forward no prolem. Granted there are the rockets however with the peace negotiations on track action can be taken against the terrorism. Look at afghanistan and Iraq exremists eventualy give up when support for thier cause dwindles. Same thing will happen to hamas. If the peace process is put for and a state with rights to the people is the outcome then Hamas would loose all support especially if the state continues to grow economically. However continuing the settlements is halting long term peace and unstalbizing the region. Jordan is afraid that Isreal will dump its problems on them as proposed by a few in the Isreali government. Not good. the settlemnts have to stop if Isreal wants peace its as simple as that. So why didn't the 10 months of full stop move anything forward?? Yeah that's right more excuses from Abbas. And then a permanent deal of stop with room for natural growth. But you know even if settlements unnecessarily stopped then Abbas still has another demand which is for their border proposal pretty much be accepted before any negotiations! Also settlements should stop... as a result of a successful negotiation? Why would Israel stop developing their cities for a big fat maybe? And here's what really is hampering the peace talk.... NOT TALKING. Get Abbas's ass to the negotiation table.
I know, however the religious ideology of Zionism is very flawed. People can convert into judaism and lots of people did when it spread all across asia to russia to China to East Europe over 2 meliniums ago so its hard to pinpoint who's a Jew in origin and who converted 2000 years ago. especially when the ethnecities range so widely- Kurdish Jews, Yemenite Jews, European Jews. mayceVHow come all these Jews have so much in common genetically then?? And intermarriage exists in all ethnicities also within the arab people. So does this mean arabs have no right to a country now? Why are there black palestinians and blonde palestinians??
Actually I had a teacher from Lebanon and he had blue eyes.
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] sure, so when the settlers leave, I want the rockets to stop , 100% , can I get a guarantee of that? wheter you realise it or not, there are groups among the Palestinians, a minority or otherwise, which will not be happy with any sort of peace treaty , that much is a fact , what youre doing is essentially saying "if Israel does x number of things, everything will be rosy" its just not that simple. it is shooting myself in the foot , its simple politics, and the idea of sticking together for the better of the country . and if youre talking about any stain, it means nothing, the UN and to some extent, opinion was biased against Israel even before 1967 , when there were no settlements, no so called occupation , etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x8l9d3g_8Q here is one interview with Abba Eban from 1958, where the interviewer puts forth various complaints , which funny enough are no different from today.Cow4everActually, if they did stop the settlements the peace process would move forward no prolem. Granted there are the rockets however with the peace negotiations on track action can be taken against the terrorism. Look at afghanistan and Iraq exremists eventualy give up when support for thier cause dwindles. Same thing will happen to hamas. If the peace process is put for and a state with rights to the people is the outcome then Hamas would loose all support especially if the state continues to grow economically. However continuing the settlements is halting long term peace and unstalbizing the region. Jordan is afraid that Isreal will dump its problems on them as proposed by a few in the Isreali government. Not good. the settlemnts have to stop if Isreal wants peace its as simple as that. So why didn't the 10 months of full stop move anything forward?? Yeah that's right more excuses from Abbas. And then a permanent deal of stop with room for natural growth. But you know even if settlements unnecessarily stopped then Abbas still has another demand which is for their border proposal pretty much be accepted before any negotiations! Also settlements should stop... as a result of a successful negotiation? Why would Israel stop developing their cities for a big fat maybe? And here's what really is hampering the peace talk.... NOT TALKING. Get Abbas's ass to the negotiation table. ??? they never stopped. natenyahu said to stop formal expasion but let natural growth continue which means that the settlements were still getting bigger He just halted, for a short while, the greenlighting of new settlements. That changed nothing on the ground. The border thing was to make sure that Isreal recognized that Palestine actually has land that is to be negotiated over. Going to a negotiating table not knowing what your "opponente" recongizes as yours is stupidity at its finest. Abbas can't offord to mess up so he has to play it exremly safe or he'll lose control of everything. And that's the last thing anyone wants.
[QUOTE="mayceV"] I know that, doesn't really change the fact that settlers aren't very nice people. actually I typed in palestine news and its just full of clashes and attacks by settlers on google. Also refering to the zionism post, I don't get that religious ideology. I mean a lot of Jews in Isreal are European Jews that are not the hebrews that followed Moses into the land so If the land was promised to the followers and the decsendents wouldn't that mean that European Jews are basicly the same as arabs in asense? so I mean that Ideaology is flawed from a religious standpoint let alone a moral stand point.
EDIT: grammar
in regards to the ancenstry thing, Jews are an ethnic group , there were various studies on the subject, but the simple fact, is that even after being exiled around 70-135AD from Judea, the Jews didn't really intermarry with non Jews, not to a great extent (it was basically forbidden until 150 years ago), so for the most part, we are not that different from what we were 2000+ years ago, there was also very little in the way of conversions to Judaism , since Judaism makes conversions very difficult, especially in the past.
if youre wondering why some Jews are brighter skinned than others there would be 2 main reasons.
1) climate, and what mixing in with non Jews there was.
2) there are variations in ethnic groups that are spread over a large area, even between Arabs, there is a difference, Egyptians for instance seem to be quite a bit darker than Syrians or Lebanese for instance.
as for Jews being the same as Arabs, well, both are semetic, so both beong to the same group of ethnic groups , but not the same as such.
though in the end, a European Jew has more in common genetically with a Jew from Egypt, than he does with non Jewish Europeans in this regard.
egyptians arent arab though... and each arab group mixed with the original people in the area. Jordaninian arabs for instance mixed with Assyrian ( same thing with Syria) Lebonese people originate If I recall correctly from Phonecians, Palestinans from Canaannites, Philistines, Samatarians, some even with Jews. So I was just wondering because there are chinese Jews in china that have been jewish for well over a thousand years. Still though It takes an extremely long time for skin color to change naturally over time. youre right in that skin colour can change over a long time, but then 2000 years isnt a short time, and its not like they went through a massive change , at least in the case of European Jews (youre basically going from somewhat tanned to paler in most cases) I mean , alot of European Jews and Jews in North Africa are actually decended from Jews that lived in Spain in the Middle Ages (mostly in the Islamic part), so that shows you how much things can change even in just a few hundred years. there is of course some mixing in with the local population , its unavoidable, but at the same time , its not like we lost our ethnic identity , it wasn't as much as that, but maybe that little bit is enough to facilitate some physical differences, and there are differences no doubt, especially in some of the more remote communities like in India. interestingly though , there were genetic studies done over the years and apparently the two closest groups genetically are Palestinians (the more obvious/logical one) and apparently , Kurds, which is rather odd.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment