The new Fascism

[questor]

To whom does this tortured land belong? Who was there first?

 

"Who were the original inhabitants of Palestine?",

(http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_original_people.php),

Palestine Facts website. Retrieved December 2, 2007.

The history of the area is complex due to the many tribes and (later) nations that settled, conquered and ruled, traded there or moved through: Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians....

 

To me this argument is quite simple; the Palestinians are destroyers of people

and culture, the Israelis are attempting to build a productive society in the face of monolithic hatred from the Arab and Muslim world. Israel has started

no wars, they have acted in their own defense. The unreasoning hatred of Jews by their own ethnic brothers illuminates the barbarism present in the Middle East. If you're looking for fascists, try the Sauds, Ghaddafi, the Islamic

mullahs. This is where hate originates.

[Buffy]

Nazism was a radical extreme, but as Wiggleverse indicated, there are some subtle similarities. These similarities stem from Judaic doctrine. They do not say they are the "super-race" as did the Nazis. Instead, their doctrine holds that they are "the chosen (by Yawheh) people."

"Judaic doctrine?" *Every* religion preaches a variation of that belief, thus making them "uniquely close to God."

 

And somehow you go all the way from "being the chosen people" to being the "master race" and exterminating all that are not members of that race?

 

While this sort of argument borders on irrationality, it is unfortunately common due to prejudice even among "non-believers."

 

In any case its more than anything an example of hate begetting hate begetting hate.

 

Those who try so hard to find fault with one party or another do nothing to resolve this hate and I personally think they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you, ;)

Buffy

[wigglieverse]

questor:

You have gone over the archeological record (what's known of it) that indicates the land of the Canaanites (who apparently were genetically close to the 'Isrealites') was conquered over a period of ~1000 yrs. Moses may well have been several people (possibly a succession of leaders, sons of each previous patriarch or somesuch). The Old Testament (especially the Pentateuch), then 'justifies' the conquest as a religious war, or a clash of "chosen peoples" with "godless peoples".

 

This reflects strongly the Hindu Mahabharata, which begins with the Aryan conquest of the Punjab and Indus valley, and the destruction, pillaging, murder and so on of the "lowly peoples" by the militarily superior hill tribes. The Aryan invasion was initially seen as a "godlike" ascension, and possibly explains the evolution, subsequently of the Hindu caste system, which of course kept the lowly peoples in their rightful place, as slaves of the superior castes, which were Aryan-only.

 

There certainly are parallels in history for the OT account (viewed in an archeological light, or especially an anthropological one).

 

But nowadays it's a bit beyond the pale (except there do seem to be elements that want to usher in its return).

 

And both the Judaic and Hindu traditions evolved subsequently into more individualist and humanist philosophies (but slavery was a fact of life throughout, and still is in the Hindu beliefs). Looks like some are keen to turn back the clock a few thou years...

 

Which is what the "creation" of the modern state started, perhaps not intentionally. So someone convince me that Jews living under British rule during WWI and WWII weren't looking for an opportunity to give their colonial masters a reason to hand the place over. This happened more or less because England could no longer afford to manage its Empire, and because it was becoming too troublesome to battle the guerillas (or terrorists, as they would be called today -the Jewish resistance who bombed trains and committed acts of violence against civilians, etc). So the Balfour Declaration was quickly ratified and the modern state created on paper, and the Jews had their land back. Well some of their land back. They saw this as an opportunity to get the lot, I would imagine.

 

Israel does not want any strong Arab neighbours. It is concerned constantly with any economic or military developments in any of them, and acts to undermine any Arab ascension by periodically invading, bombing or subverting via intelligence assets, any such Arab neighbour to ensure its own dominance. The "war of error" is aimed squarely at this goal as well IMO.

[Buffy]

So someone convince me that Jews living under British rule during WWI and WWII weren't looking for an opportunity to give their colonial masters a reason to hand the place over.

Do you mean *all* Jews? Or is it sufficient for a few Jews to believe this and its therefore fair game to say they *all* believed this?

 

When you think about it, if you are living with people hostile to your existence, isn't it easier to simply let a colonial master who is more sympathetic to your rights do the police work? Why is it more logical to want to take it all over yourself when surrounded by hostiles and having little means of support?

 

Sure you can find extremists who supported this, but your entire argument consists of insisting that all Jews are extremist and that no Arabs have ever been:

Israel does not want any strong Arab neighbours. It is concerned constantly with any economic or military developments in any of them, and acts to undermine any Arab ascension by periodically invading, bombing or subverting via intelligence assets, any such Arab neighbour to ensure its own dominance.

And so they have no excuse for this: the Jews are just bloodthirsty Arab baby-killers, right?

 

If so, why not exterminate every last one of them?

 

Honestly wigglie, you seethe with so much hatred it just begs the question: why do you think Jews are universally evil? Why do you think that all Arabs are poor and virtuous?

 

Shades of grey wherever I go, the more I find out the less that I know, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[wigglieverse]

your entire argument consists of insisting that all Jews are extremist and that no Arabs have ever been

Does it? I think you've made quite a leap there.

So someone convince me that Jews living under British rule during WWI and WWII weren't looking for an opportunity to give their colonial masters a reason to hand the place over.

After me saying that Jews (I don't see where it says "all Jews") wanted to rid themselves of their empire-building 'masters', so they could be their own. Just what do you know about Palestine under British rule btw? Did you know there was a Jewish resistance to colonial rule as I stated? Or that they committed acts (in the name of Zionism and Jewish ascendancy) that would definitely have them labeled a terrorist group these days?

 

You seem to be quite good at jumping to various conclusions, though. Are you saying that my post indicates I hate someone (as you have done previously). I'm just being frank about the situation. If it quacks like a certain aquatic fowl, and walks and flies like one, I usually call it a goose, at least (even if it might actually be a duck).

 

And lastly:

if you are living with people hostile to your existence, isn't it easier to simply let a colonial master who is more sympathetic to your rights do the police work?

Either you don't know that much about what the political and sociological conditions were in 1940s Palestine (as its British masters called it, and as it had been called since Roman times), or you are yanking my chain. I seriously suspect the former, but.

 

Perhaps you should read up a bit more about the history of the place before jumping to conclusions like "Arabs have always been hostile to Jews living in 'their country'" -which your post seems to imply. (The country: Palestine, now called Israel which encompasses the 'occupied territories' of the rump Palestine)

 

Or that "the British were there to police the unruly Arabs". This is not the case at all.

 

And please, do explain why any country has a 'right' to invade, bomb, undermine politically, etc, all of its immediate neighbours to ensure its own 'safety' and ascendancy?

[Buffy]

After me saying that Jews (I don't see where it says "all Jews") wanted to rid themselves of their empire-building 'masters', so they could be their own.

Glad to see the first qualification of any of your statements so far in this thread!

 

You might want to think about the effect that your statements have when they have had no qualification. I don't think I've made much of a jump at all, since you complete your last post with a continued implication that the Arabs are blameless for Israel's "attacks":

And please, do explain why any country has a 'right' to invade, bomb, undermine politically, etc, all of its immediate neighbours to ensure its own 'safety' and ascendancy?

I'll say first that many of Israel's activities have been unjustified and unwise even in the eyes of many Israelis, but to imply that they have no reason for these other than their "'safety'"--which by putting in quotes you indicate you feel is unnecessary--and "ascendancy"--which clearly indicates that you feel one of their primary goals is to invade and control the entire middle east which the vast majority of Israelis would agree is neither a good policy or even *possible*.

 

This is hardly,

... just being frank about the situation.

 

While you cast aspersions about my knowledge of Palestine under British Rule, you seem to have a blind eye to any activities by Arabs during that time period which were indeed hostile to Jews. I'll mention again the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked very hard to try to get Germany to invade Palestine during WWII, and this is just one example among many.

 

I freely admit that there are extremists on *both* sides. You conflate the actions of one side into pure evil, and are silent about the other.

 

You are the one who purposely chose the inflamatory and unjusifiable title for this thread that is simply a restatement of the old canard "Zionism is racism." If you want to bandy about the notion of Fascism, please note the following statement from the Grand Mufti:

On condition that the Axis powers "recognize in principle the unity, independence, and sovereignty, of an Arab state of a Fascist nature, including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan", he offered support in the war against Britain and stated his willingness to discuss the issues of "the Holy Places, Lebanon, the Suez canal, and Aqaba". The Italian foreign ministry approved the mufti's proposal, recommending to give him a grant of one million lire, and referred him to Benito Mussolini, who met al-Husayni on October 27. According to the mufti's account, the meeting went amicably with the Italian leader expressing his hostility to the Jews and Zionism.

This particular extremist Arab actually *claimed* to be Fascist!

 

If you don't like folks pointing out the extreme nature of your bias, perhaps you should avoid creating threads discussing them in this manner.

 

On the other hand, if you don't care, then you're a Troll and you should be ashamed of yourself for carelessly inciting hatred.

 

This is a controversial topic, and both sides have to give in to many of their inviolable truths in order to simply survive.

 

By insisting that only one side is right, you do nothing but ensure that the result is unending hatred and violence.

 

Most Arabs and Jews do not want that outcome and we are all against the kind of unmitigated hate that you spout. Hiding behind some well-chosen words to allow you "wigglie-room" to claim you don't imply such hatred does not hide this very well.

 

Pot calls kettle black, both get fried, refuse to get out of the fire before the other one does,

Buffy

[Freddy]

...They do not say they are the "super-race" as did the Nazis. Instead, their doctrine holds that they are "the chosen (by Yawheh) people." The inference is that He chose them BECAUSE they were somehow superior. Also, a sizable chunk of the whole Near East was, their doctrine says, promised to them...

I was under the impression that Yahweh chose Abraham because of the trial where he was willing to sacrifice his only son to Yahweh and the covenant was established due to Abraham's obedience to Yahweh. Abraham's descendants became the the Israelites, with Judah being one of the 12 tribes of Israel.

[Boerseun]

I honestly think the Middle East is a complete and utter cock-up (pardon my French). People take extreme viewpoints, saying "The Israelis (Jews) are completely wrong, and the Palistinians are all victims", or "The Palestinians are evil and the poor Israelis (Jews) are all victims".

 

In reality, we can't blame the British for deciding to screw up Palestine by creating the Israeli State - the area called Palestine then and Israel now, was screwed up long, long, before the British came to the fore. Matter of fact, the place was screwed up long before the English language was even formed.

 

Case in point, things were lookin' bad in Israel, what with famine, drought and general unhappiness. So, the Jews decided to quit the land and go and live in exile in Egypt. After 400 years of livin' da good life, they decided to quit Egypt and go back to Israel - the "promised land". There, they found people that have over the last 400 years moved into what they saw as deserted land. The Jews didn't like it one bit, and put hundreds of thousands of the "foreigners" to the sword, so that they can reclaim their "promised land". I'd love to see the signature of the guy who made them that promise, a form of a legal notice, so to speak. And then I'd like to see the title deed of the land actually belonging to the guy in the first place, making it his to give away. In my opinion, land having been deserted by the owners for 400 years kinda makes it "abandoned". So, nobody has an exlusive claim, historical or otherwise, to the land called "Palestina" or "Israel".

 

But tell it to them, and see how far you get.

 

I think what they should do is to say to everybody "All those promising to stop blowing up people and abide by normal, civil laws like everybody else on this here planet, and to respect fellow humans (of any race, colour or creed), step to the right!" And then machine-gun all those still standing on the left.

[wigglieverse]

By insisting that only one side is right

Well, so far you are the only one I've seen insisting anything, you seem to be insisting that I'm insisting something. I know the Arabs don't want the Jews there, especially not now.

But look at the history of the place. The Jewish 'homeland' disappeared from the face of the earth when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the 'dispersal' began. The place was part of the Ottoman empire for many centuries. Of course, you may well know this.

 

Before WWII, things weren't too bad in Palestine: there were only a few thousand Jews (and this was one of the issues during the "formation" of the modern state, as I have said more than once, on a piece of paper -the claim that Jews had continuously occupied parts of Jerusalem was their ticket to a big patch of mother earth, pretty shaky deal right there).

 

So now the Jewish tribes have returned and reclaimed their long lost (~2000yrs) land and turned the clock back to before the Roman occupation. Except they haven't, have they. There's still all that history and all those Arabs.

 

Of course both sides have done equally terrible things. My point is that the modern state of Israel does not resemble the ancient homeland in the slightest, though there are many who want to believe in this dream, it isn't happening (tell me I'm all wrong about this).

 

Therefore the whole thing was one big mistake. Political expediency has yielded an intransigence that isn't going anywhere soon. And the Palestinians, Jews and Arabs (and us) are living with it. What do you think the chances might be of an eventual nuclear attack (never mind by who or to who)?

 

Israel exists, it isn't just going to pack up and head out. But if the mistake had not been made (why, after all, should Palestinians have to make room for European Jews because they were oppressed by Nazis), then this would not be happening, it would still be called Palestine, and there would be a few tens maybe, of thousands of Jewish people living there (just as they had coexisted with Arabs for centuries).

 

What an Arab leader did during WWII, and the alliance they attempted with that particular 'superior race', shouldn't be held to account today, should it? Arabs want the Jews to at least let them live and farm and so on, or better yet, leave altogether (fat chance). Who would you say has the upper hand over there right now? Do you believe Olmert is genuinely trying to find a way to peaceful coexistence, considering what he has said in the past? Seriously, what sort of future do you think the inhabitants of the Gaza strip have to look to?

That is what I'm on about. Israel is currently the 'bully-boy', and no doubt feels justified in doing what it 'must do'. Maybe there will never be peace, maybe Jewish goals and Arab goals are just never going to commute... who can really say?

 

P.S. if you're a bit squeamish about bloody historical episodes, maybe you shouldn't read the stuff in this thread, because so far it's covered a fair bit of blood-covered ground. I haven't said much about the Roman occupation yet. Or various Ottoman wars and pogroms, and so on.

 

P.P.S. you may think I'm some kind of bloody-minded individual with some chip on their shoulder, or an unhappy person. I assure you this is definitely not the case.

[Buffy]

... as I have said more than once, on a piece of paper -the claim that Jews had continuously occupied parts of Jerusalem was their ticket to a big patch of mother earth, pretty shaky deal right there).

Take a look at these numbers: In 1910, there were 45,000 Jews in Jerusalem, representing nearly 70% of the population.

 

Do you see why some people might think these numbers don't support your argument even while you are "technically correct" in saying "there were only a few thousand Jews" in Palestine?

Therefore the whole thing was one big mistake.

Well as Boerseun just said,

the Middle East is a complete and utter cock-up...the area called Palestine then and Israel now, was screwed up long, long, before the British came to the fore.

and I agree with that. What happened in the 20th century was continued "cocking-up" but certainly forseeable given the convulsions that statecraft was going through in transforming from a world of monarchy, dynasty and imperialism to a more democratic and egalitarian one.

 

History is messy. All I get from this statement is that you're crying over spilt milk.

 

The question really is what should we do about it now, rather than continuing to point fingers at whole groups of people and call them names like "fascist" without any apparent justification.

 

Now its perfectly fair to have a jaundiced view of the situation, but what is the use of giving up all hope?

Political expediency has yielded an intransigence that isn't going anywhere soon. And the Palestinians, Jews and Arabs (and us) are living with it. What do you think the chances might be of an eventual nuclear attack (never mind by who or to who)?

Is that the only outcome you perceive? Why? Heck, *how*? Even the Bush administration now says Iran won't have a bomb for at least a decade, so who's going to nuke anyone other than Israel? Or is this the reason they're "fascist?"

Of course both sides have done equally terrible things.

I'm really glad to hear you say that, but given the fact that your main point seems to be that if it weren't for the British screwing things up, that everything would be fine, then why should the Arabs get an historical free ride?

What an Arab leader did during WWII, and the alliance they attempted with that particular 'superior race', shouldn't be held to account today, should it?

So Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gets a pass, but Arthur Balfour should be forever condemned? Why?

Arabs want the Jews to at least let them live and farm and so on, or better yet, leave altogether (fat chance). Who would you say has the upper hand over there right now? Do you believe Olmert is genuinely trying to find a way to peaceful coexistence, considering what he has said in the past?

So Arabs are bucolic, peace-loving folk who do nothing more than "hope" that the Jews will leave, while Olmert is a wolf in sheep's clothing who does not want coexistence? Is that the only fair view of the situation? And the only context that one should consider when asking the question:

Seriously, what sort of future do you think the inhabitants of the Gaza strip have to look to?

That's a good question! Unfortunately the real context of this question is that Hamas controls Gaza, and they continue to stick to a publicly stated policy of seeking the destruction of Israel. The question becomes, what do you think the Israelis should do about the constant and escalating rocket attacks from Gaza? Lots of folks agree with the fact that much of Israel's policy has at times been misguided and intransigent, but the vast majority on both sides simply wants it all to stop.

 

Of course increasingly, the primary source of violence in Palestine is not Israeli aggression, but fighting between Hamas and Fatah over who should lead. I personally find it easy to be cynical about why they have to do this with guns rather than finding a political solution, and see the parallel with ongoing resistance to negotiation on the part of the Palestinians to finding political solutions with Israel.

 

This is not the fault of the Palestinian people, it has to do with the fact that their political structures have been dominated by the corruption of Fatah (which is improving with Arafat who was obsessed with his image as the leader of the "struggle" now out of the way) and the fanatics of Hamas.

 

Extremists on both sides are now screaming that *both* Olmert and Abbas are "traitors" to their causes for sitting down to talk about solutions. That these extremists exist is not surprising given the history you are pointing to. That it would be helpful to support these extremists and advance their causes is something I strongly condemn.

Maybe there will never be peace, maybe Jewish goals and Arab goals are just never going to commute... who can really say?

Folks who predict the future are usually wrong! But if you inisist that one side is evil, you allow someone else to justify saying the *other* side is evil, thus *escalating* and *reinforcing* the conflict, and what you end up with is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Please understand here that my only goal is to try to stop you from making things worse by increasing hate, which is the only thing you accomplish when you call a whole group of people "fascist."

you may think I'm some kind of bloody-minded individual with some chip on their shoulder, or an unhappy person. I assure you this is definitely not the case.

Great! I'm more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you really need to look at how you're communicating, because its easy for people not to believe you when you say this.

 

Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution.

 

It is unfortunate, considering enthusiasm moves the world, that so few enthusiasts can be trusted to speak the truth, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[charles brough]

To whom does this tortured land belong? Who was there first?Who were the original inhabitants of Palestine?* *To me this argument is quite simple;* the Palestinians are destroyers of peopleand culture, the Israelis are attempting to build a productive society in the face of monolithic hatred from the Arab and Muslim world. Israel has startedno wars, they have acted in their own defense. The unreasoning hatred of Jews by their own ethnic brothers illuminates the barbarism present in the Middle East. If you're looking for fascists, try the Sauds, Ghaddafi, the Islamicmullahs. This is where hate originates.

 

Classifying of the Palestinians as destroyers of people and culture is reference to them as a race, a religion or what? Until we subsidized the Jewish invasion of Islam in Palestine, the Muslims had lived there in relative peace for centuries. Why do you hate them? They just want their land back. The British took it and gave it up to the Jews (the Judaics). The Palestinians want to return to their land, to have freedom, and to have their own government. If who owns what is to be decided by two to three thousand years back history, you must want to remould the whole world!

 

You judge the Palestinians as destroyers of culture when we have destroyed Indian cultures among others. We destroy any culture we want in order to replace it with our brand of secular ideals and values. You are prejudiced and filled with hate.

[wigglieverse]

All I get from this statement is that you're crying over spilt milk.

Just me huh? I'm not crying, except perhaps in the other sense of the word. I feel saddened by it all, though (and not just the Middle East). The Jews were told (a really long time ago) that their race represented all the good and noble things that humanity should be. Their tradition (especially the religious one) kept them 'together' -there are strictures in the Pentateuch about not mixing (inter-marrying) with other peoples of non-Jewish ancestry. But they have always believed (since the kingdom of David, maybe), that their purpose is to help other nations, and these would look to them as an example. I don't see how this image gels in any way with today's Jewish nation, which actually looks more like a bit of Middle-Europe that's been transplanted into an essentially Arab part of the world. It looks more like a phillips screwdriver in a slotted screw, or something.

 

You appear to be making assumptions, and drawing conclusions about what I have to say that are not there. But this is of course, entirely your prerogative. If you don't like history and think there are and were lots of bad people, well, that's how it is, what do you want me to say? Choosing sides is also entirely a choice you are free to make. You are also free to form the opinion that this is what I'm doing, but not so.

 

And I think I'm quite capable of communicating meaning (perhaps not as good at communicating intent), but I know that people more or less read what they want to see, in general.

 

As for quoting numbers about the people claiming Jewish ancestry, of course none of them did this for any reason other than their desire to declare this? It wasn't because they had any notion of some benefit for doing so? How many of the ~45k "Jewish" people can actually prove their ancestry, or were required to? I would take that particular historical 'fact' with a good dose of salt, if I were you.

 

The characterisations you are drawing are from your own opinion basket, not mine. I am not defending Arab 'terrorism', and I am not defending Jewish 'terrorism'. I'm just looking, making observations. I don't cry myself to sleep every night because it's such a great big mess, either.

 

Hamas must be a really really big threat, firing those rockets back at Israeli 'incursionist' policies. Maybe they could move off some of that land they grabbed. Israel can look forward, I suppose, to the collapse of social structure within the Gaza ghetto, at some stage.

 

The square peg of Euro-centric expansionism along with Jewish hopes of restoration of a 'Holy land' will probably never fit in the round hole of Arab ideals and their notions of continuous habitation in 'their' land. I am not saying that one side is evil and the other isn't, but the Jews lost their homeland a long time ago. Your insistence that I am insisting one side is evil and therefore the other is innocent looks a bit like simplistic prosaicism, sorry.

 

P.S. I do like your photo, though.:doh:

[charles brough]

I agree. I also agree to likeing the photo . . . but is it a real foto of you, Buffy?

[wigglieverse]

I looked at the 1 in her profile. I'd say it's ridgy-didge, mate.

(that's an Australianism for original, btw)

[questor]

What do you think would happen if the Palestinian leaders would say to the Israelis ''If you would share Jerusalem with us and remove travel restrictions and establish fair borders to allow the Israelis and Palestinians to live together peacefully, we will guarantee there will be no more attacks upon the Jews.'' Who do you think would abide by this treaty? The Palestinians have repeatedly shown that they cannot be trusted and consider treachery a fine art. If you gave Israel the land now held by the Palestinians, and gave the Palestinians the land held by Israel, within a few short years the Israelites would be tilling fertile soil and the Palestinians would be grubbing in the dirt just as now, blaming others for their plight and looking for someone to kill. In the interest of world peace, why doesn't neighboring Jordan and/or Syria give some land to the Palestinians? They have plenty of land where nothing is happening.

The real reason is that the Palestinians are considered the ''dogs'' of the middle east and the surrounding countries use them as surrogates in harassing

the Israelis.

[wigglieverse]

The Palestinians have repeatedly shown that they cannot be trusted and consider treachery a fine art.

This, of course, includes every man, woman, and child (and their house pets). And every Israeli desperately needs to kill as many Arabs as possible too, because Arabs are all evil fanatics and terrorists, not to be ever trusted? Very big brush you seem to be using. Why do they hate the Israelis, again? Why do the Israelis hate the Arabs? Why do all of them hate each other to pieces? They don't all do this, do they? You're just being dismissive and biased.

If you gave Israel the land now held by the Palestinians, and gave the Palestinians the land held by Israel, within a few short years the Israelites would be tilling fertile soil and the Palestinians would be grubbing in the dirt just as now, blaming others for their plight and looking for someone to kill.

Where did you dig this up? This looks like your biased opinion (and not that good an opinion, in my opinion). How can you compare what Israel 'has' with the rump of Palestine? Why should Syria or Jordan give land to the Palestinians? Because Israel wants the land they have left? You are aware that there are millions of Palestinians 'living' in these neighbouring countries already, in refugee camps? Neither government has shown much sympathy for their plight either.

 

And wouldn't the Jewish/Arab conflict be "resolved" if the European Jews all went back to where they came from? Why does the Jewish occupation of 'Palestine' (its former name) for the past 59 years mean that they have more rights to the place: is the reason a piece of paper?

 

The Jewish state is obliged to oppress Arab economic growth in order to preserve its own, because a successful Arab neighbour is a potential threat militarily. It really is that simple (at least it is to the Israeli govt.). Whoever thinks that the creation of a (non-extant) Jewish "homeland" smack in the middle of an Arab nation is no big deal obviously has no regard whatsoever for Arab concerns (and didn't at the time). They were not consulted, they were simply expected to "wear" it.

 

The rest of it has since gotten pretty complicated, but the main reason for the presence of terrorist groups (who were once called "guerrillas" or "resistance fighters", remember France in WWII, and Holland, Norway etc?) is the absolute military dominance of Israel. Of course, in order to demonise them, they have to be shown to be "evil". Maybe they are, so Israel doesn't do any evil things like they do (don't get into suicide bombs, you know what I mean)?

 

We know they haven't the remotest chance of prevailing militarily, and arguably their best option is to accept that Israel is here to stay, lay down their weapons and take what they can from any deal. Why might they be a bit upset about this situation, and the reason the situation exists in the first place, do you suppose? I bet you don't really give a damn, though...

 

Chilling, dude.

[sanctus]

By insisting that only one side is right

Well, so far you are the only one I've seen insisting anything, you seem to be insisting that I'm insisting something.

 

Your first post and the title to thread show you saying this the first time (unless you don't want to say that nazis were a bit good and a bit bad). All your replies to my posts give the same idea. If you want I make a big collage showing wherever you insisted....