|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
[Give me a break. She was saying they don't exist. |
I don't know what she meant. and I don't think anyone can w/o some context.
| Quote: |
She didn't even say there were Arabs in the lands before we came. If she did say there were indigenous Arabs there, then you would have a point about her saying it doesn't matter that she didn't say there were Palestinians. It was a Zionist mantra to say "A people without land for a land without people".
What does that mean exactly? It means the Zionist leadership to some extent were saying the land was empty. This is part of the Zionist literature. Joanne Peters wrote a book called from "Time Immemorial" where she was trying to say the land was empty. It was endorsed by many Jews including Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman later withdrew her endorsement when Norman Finkelstein who is very exacting and sharp showed serious miscalculations, errors, contraditions which would undermined her arguments. |
Ok I see your point but as I said we can't know what she meant by the statement unless we have context. Especially since a high level PLO official said the same thing.
| Quote: |
What does it matter what the Arabs were called? I don't know this Mr. Hussein. Here is what I can tell you. There was no Palestinian state in the 20th century. |
or anytime before that either. In fact the area was no even heavily populated before the 20th century.
| Quote: |
There was no German state until 1871. There was no Italy until around 1860. Does it mean one ignore the fact that there were indigenous people living there? The Palestinians were, in a sense, Syrians just like the Jordanians and Lebanese. I don't mean modern day Syria. |
[quote]
sure and the indigenous people ought be compensated for them. No argument from me. And they would be under any peace plan.
But for some reason that is not enough for Israels enemies.
Also Israel is better than its enemies in that while Israel might very well be willing to pay some compensation . Israels' enemies offer nothing.
| Quote: |
They were viewed as northern people by the other Arabs as basically Palestine was Syria-Palestine, Syria-Lebanon etc...
However, if your ancestors were say from Hama or Homs, Syria the Palestinians would call you a Syrian to differentiate you from them as you are more northern than they even if your family was there a century or so. I know this to be true, because I know the history quite tell.
Palestine was essentially viewed as a Syrian province. The connexion to modern Syrians is much weaker because of the colonial divisions and separations. The Palestinians were separate to some extent even before the conflict. Zuhair is wrong. He is repeating oversimplified talk of Arabs are the same which Arabs repeat to stress unity among them and to play down divisions which is not the same as saying we are identical. |
What is the difference between Jordanians and Palestinians? Were they seperate people before 1948? I am not saying the Palestininas ought not have a state , or that they should not be compensated.
Anyway as I know there was the Ottoman empire and the rest of the divisions were drawn up after WW II by the colonial powers.
| Quote: |
Anyway, before the first suicide bomber ever detonated his bomb, Israel was building settlements and trying to expel people from Jerusalem and the West Bank. |
I don't doubt that . But how did Israel get the west bank ? Didn't they get it from Jordan?
In a defensive war. What was the problem before 1967?
futhermore the occupation is harsh but lets be fair the Palestinian side refused to say that if Israel leaves that they won't attack Israel.
Why is that? Don't you think that they ought to?
Why ought Israel have to leave w/o the other side promising not to attack?
| Quote: |
I met someone who was expelled. He was expelled from a country he was born in. Also, students who were studying outside of the West Bank in 1967 in the U.S. or any country during the conflict essentially lost their right to go back to their native West Bank to live. |
I am sorry that he suffered. I hope he has a state to live in one day. What else can I say.
He sound like an innocent victim of a war.
But there is in fact a war going on , and the Palestinian side wants to continue , probably more than the Israeli side.
| Quote: |
With that perspective, it is not only Hezbollah which has a very dark past. Take a closer look at what Israel has done to the Palestinians since 1948. The modern Israeli historians admit it. It happened. Why deny what is historically true? |
I don't deny Israel has done some bad stuff , I don't think it ever should have been started . on the other hand
In 1948 didn't Israel enemies try to destory Israel and try to expel and/ or kill the jews of the area even the jewish arabs.
Benny Morris said that most of the arabs were driven out directly or indirctly but he also has said that the arabs were seeking to do the same or worse to the Israelis which puts what Israel has done in perspective rspective.Since 1948 haven't Israels enemies been seeking to wipe out Israel and do the same thing or even worse to Israel?
In other words there was an ugly war started in 1948 by Israels enemies and they suffered a harsh defeat.
They continue to suffer but one of the reasons is that they don't want to compromise.
Alsoand didn't Israel's enemies persecuted and or expel their jewish populations?
Since they did that there is now a need for Israel cause Israel's enemies are ideologically incapable of not persecuting jews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer:
Once again you're trying to equate terms of malice that are incompatible. Seizing land, however egregious, is not the same as blowing up people in a marketplace. If we can't even agree on that then there's no basis for a discussion. Unwittingly perhaps, that sort of rhetoric only serves to enable terrorist acts.
The worst Israeli government is better than the best Arab government in my book.
As for al-Sadr, this self-styled mullah is a rabble rouser and if given half the chance he'd spread his message of hate beyond Iraq, gladly fawning all over Iran. On that I have no doubts.
The problem with the Arabs is that even many of their religious leaders are rabble rousers.
Nothing even remotely similar to this has happened on this scale in the other great religions in recent times.
When the history of these times are written it will be Muslim intolerance and the inciting to violence of mullahs that will held responsible for most of the carnage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="stevemcgarrett"]Adventurer:
Once again you're trying to equate terms of malice that are incompatible. Seizing land, however egregious, is not the same as blowing up people in a marketplace. If we can't even agree on that then there's no basis for a discussion. Unwittingly perhaps, that sort of rhetoric only serves to enable terrorist acts.
How about dropping bombs in neighbourhoods in Gaza and Lebanon?
Here is what an Israeli soldier said after his service:
"Since 29th September 2000, the Israeli army has waged a 'dirty war' against the Palestinian Authority. This dirty war includes extra-judicial killings, the murder of women and children, the destruction of the economic and social infrastructure of the Palestinian population, the burning of agricultural fields, and the uprooting of trees. You have sowed fear and despair but failed to achieve your ultimate objective; the Palestinian people did not give up their dream of sovereignty and independence. Neither did you provide security for your own people despite all the destructive violence of the army over which you have responsibility.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/I_Wont_Serve_In_Army.html
Even Benjamin Netanyahu's nephew won't serve in the territories and went to jail. Many soldiers know war crimes have been committed.
How are war crimes different from terrorism? It doesn't matter, Steve, if Israel is better than the best Arab countries. A crime is a crime regardless of many in your family are better behaved than the family of another criminal. Arguing that Israel may or may not be better than say the United Arab Emirates, which could be debatable, in terms of how they treat people is a red herring, and doesn't justify one side harming the civilians of the other. Also when discussing terrorism, one cannot discount the large settlements that were built to uproot people, and you cannot discount the huge bombardment of Lebanon not helping to create organisations like the Hezbollah and AMAL. You cannot simply disconnect the occupation from terrorism anymore than you can disconnect Israel's response in 2006 to Hezbollah taking its soldiers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]
| Quote: |
[Give me a break. She was saying they don't exist. |
I don't know what she meant. and I don't think anyone can w/o some context.
| Quote: |
She didn't even say there were Arabs in the lands before we came. If she did say there were indigenous Arabs there, then you would have a point about her saying it doesn't matter that she didn't say there were Palestinians. It was a Zionist mantra to say "A people without land for a land without people".
What does that mean exactly? It means the Zionist leadership to some extent were saying the land was empty. This is part of the Zionist literature. Joanne Peters wrote a book called from "Time Immemorial" where she was trying to say the land was empty. It was endorsed by many Jews including Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman later withdrew her endorsement when Norman Finkelstein who is very exacting and sharp showed serious miscalculations, errors, contraditions which would undermined her arguments. |
Ok I see your point but as I said we can't know what she meant by the statement unless we have context. Especially since a high level PLO official said the same thing.
[You are referring probably to the first PLO leader who was a lawyer and not very diplomatic, and he preceded Arafat and his name was Ahmed Shuqairi. Am I correct? He said Palestinians are Southern Syrians, but that means Palestinians were indigenous southern Syrians. He was expressing ethnic kinship to the Syrians, but it was not implying that Palestinians don't and didn't have their own songs, native dishes, dialects, and own personal historical narratives.
I am sure you can agree with that. He was reiterating the fact that Lebanon and Palestine and parts of Jordan were historically associated with a larger Syrian region and the Arabs also use a term called Bilad Al Sham. I can understand what you are talking about, but you cannot think of the area in the same as you think of the modern United States where an Oklahoman and Texan are Americans.
| Quote: |
What does it matter what the Arabs were called? I don't know this Mr. Hussein. Here is what I can tell you. There was no Palestinian state in the 20th century. |
or anytime before that either. In fact the area was no even heavily populated before the 20th century.
[Certain areas were heavily populated. It is quite well know that the cities of Haifa, Nablus, Jaffa, and Jerusalem had decent populations for the general region. They were considered major cities. There were about a million people I believe in the area, and it is a small land.
| Quote: |
There was no German state until 1871. There was no Italy until around 1860. Does it mean one ignore the fact that there were indigenous people living there? The Palestinians were, in a sense, Syrians just like the Jordanians and Lebanese. I don't mean modern day Syria. |
| Quote: |
sure and the indigenous people ought be compensated for them. No argument from me. And they would be under any peace plan. There is more agreement on the refugees probably than the settlements. It is a thornier issue.
[That sounds fair, in the main. The refugees issue is important, but the settlements are probably more of a sticking point to deal with.
But for some reason that is not enough for Israels enemies.
[Not quite true. The Palestinians including Arafat know the refugees can't return en masse. What is a non-starter for them is huge settlements separating the West Bank in half, the control of the borders in the Jordan Valley and Gaza by Israel. Those are the main problems. The refugees know the PLO will have to sacrifice them at the negotiating table. It is no secret.
Also Israel is better than its enemies in that while Israel might very well be willing to pay some compensation . Israels' enemies offer nothing.
[Well, I agree that Jews who suffered losses in Egypt should be able to have some redress from the Egyptian government for example, but the problem with Egypt is that Egyptian Muslims and Christians lost their land due to Nasser's socialist programmes that failed. Iraq should compensate the Jews who fled. However, the Jews in Israel have homes that Palestinians lived in. Those Israelis have something. The Palestinian refugees who had no part in the fleeing of Jews from Egypt and Yemen and Iraq. It is a tragedy that the Palestinains had no role in. I am sure you know that. Anyway, if Israel compensates the Palestinians, the conflict ends, it would save the region's economies a lot of money. These wars cost way too much money. I think the Jews who lost something in Arab countries should have some compensation. No doubt about it.
| Quote: |
They were viewed as northern people by the other Arabs as basically Palestine was Syria-Palestine, Syria-Lebanon etc...
However, if your ancestors were say from Hama or Homs, Syria the Palestinians would call you a Syrian to differentiate you from them as you are more northern than they even if your family was there a century or so. I know this to be true, because I know the history quite tell.
Palestine was essentially viewed as a Syrian province. The connexion to modern Syrians is much weaker because of the colonial divisions and separations. The Palestinians were separate to some extent even before the conflict. Zuhair is wrong. He is repeating oversimplified talk of Arabs are the same which Arabs repeat to stress unity among them and to play down divisions which is not the same as saying we are identical. |
What is the difference between Jordanians and Palestinians? Were they seperate people before 1948? I am not saying the Palestininas ought not have a state , or that they should not be compensated.
[Yes and no. The ones before 1948 were rather different from the Palestinians of today in general. They were more bedouin while the Palestinians were more of a city people with their dialect differing somewhat, and the Palestinians who weren't city people were farmers i.e. the Felaheen as they were called. Now, the situation is blurred because of the exodus to Jordan. Jordan ended up being a sponge absorbing fleeing Palestinians.
Anyway as I know there was the Ottoman empire and the rest of the divisions were drawn up after WW II by the colonial powers.
[You mean after World War I.
| Quote: |
Anyway, before the first suicide bomber ever detonated his bomb, Israel was building settlements and trying to expel people from Jerusalem and the West Bank. |
I don't doubt that . But how did Israel get the west bank ? Didn't they get it from Jordan?
[Yes, they took it in the 6 day war.]
In a defensive war. What was the problem before 1967?
[The 1967 war was a pre-emptive war, but it was labeled as a defensive war. It is very debatable depending on who you talk to.
futhermore the occupation is harsh but lets be fair the Palestinian side refused to say that if Israel leaves that they won't attack Israel.
Why is that? Don't you think that they ought to?
[Many on the Palestinian side have said the including the PLO and Hamas has had a truce. Islamic Jihad and the PFLP have not really been good about truces or following one, but the PFLP group has been silent as of late. Both sides have violated the peace.
Why ought Israel have to leave w/o the other side promising not to attack?
| Quote: |
I met someone who was expelled. He was expelled from a country he was born in. Also, students who were studying outside of the West Bank in 1967 in the U.S. or any country during the conflict essentially lost their right to go back to their native West Bank to live. |
I am sorry that he suffered. I hope he has a state to live in one day. What else can I say.
He sound like an innocent victim of a war.
But there is in fact a war going on , and the Palestinian side wants to continue , probably more than the Israeli side.
| Quote: |
With that perspective, it is not only Hezbollah which has a very dark past. Take a closer look at what Israel has done to the Palestinians since 1948. The modern Israeli historians admit it. It happened. Why deny what is historically true? |
I don't deny Israel has done some bad stuff , I don't think it ever should have been started . on the other hand
In 1948 didn't Israel enemies try to destory Israel and try to expel and/ or kill the jews of the area even the jewish arabs.
Benny Morris said that most of the arabs were driven out directly or indirctly but he also has said that the arabs were seeking to do the same or worse to the Israelis which puts what Israel has done in perspective rspective.Since 1948 haven't Israels enemies been seeking to wipe out Israel and do the same thing or even worse to Israel?
In other words there was an ugly war started in 1948 by Israels enemies and they suffered a harsh defeat.
They continue to suffer but one of the reasons is that they don't want to compromise.
Alsoand didn't Israel's enemies persecuted and or expel their jewish populations?
Since they did that there is now a need for Israel cause Israel's enemies are ideologically incapable of not persecuting jews. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer:
I still you're sounding like an apologist for the Palestinian cause.
| Quote: |
| Since 29th September 2000, the Israeli army has waged a 'dirty war' against the Palestinian Authority. This dirty war includes extra-judicial killings |
You mean when the Second Intifada began which was called by Arafat led to extreme measures like blowing up known terrorist leaders in their cars when civilians were near by. But then shouldn't the blame also rest on Fatah for not prosecuting these thugs? Face it: Fatah has always coddled Hamas and the few who want to rein it in like Abbas haven't got the real power to do so.
If you're going to say that civilian deaths are never justified in war it would be impossible to wage a war of defense.
As for Lebanon, it is Hezbollah, with Iranian and Syrian backing, that relentlessly infringes on Israeli territory.
What you're saying as that any violation of the law immediately disqualifies Israel from defending itself. No other nation in the world has faced such persistent abuse, nor would all the mealy-mouthed Western European countries--many with anti-Semitic leaders--condone such an onslaught against their own people. But they can sit back in safety and harangue the Jews for doing the same. Double standard all around.
The Palestinian leadership is the main source of the problem in Gaza and the West Bank. And their refusal to accept the Dayton Accords among others played right into the hands of the far right wing of Likkud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ariellowen
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gevald geshreeyeh! This is not a moral question.
Either you know in your heart, nihilistically, that you are a Zionist, or that you are an anti-Semite; or you are ambivalent.
There is no sense in trying to argue it, or justify it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Adventurer:
I still you're sounding like an apologist for the Palestinian cause.
| Quote: |
| Since 29th September 2000, the Israeli army has waged a 'dirty war' against the Palestinian Authority. This dirty war includes extra-judicial killings |
You mean when the Second Intifada began which was called by Arafat led to extreme measures like blowing up known terrorist leaders in their cars when civilians were near by. But then shouldn't the blame also rest on Fatah for not prosecuting these thugs? Face it: Fatah has always coddled Hamas and the few who want to rein it in like Abbas haven't got the real power to do so.
If you're going to say that civilian deaths are never justified in war it would be impossible to wage a war of defense.
As for Lebanon, it is Hezbollah, with Iranian and Syrian backing, that relentlessly infringes on Israeli territory.
What you're saying as that any violation of the law immediately disqualifies Israel from defending itself. No other nation in the world has faced such persistent abuse, nor would all the mealy-mouthed Western European countries--many with anti-Semitic leaders--condone such an onslaught against their own people. But they can sit back in safety and harangue the Jews for doing the same. Double standard all around.
The Palestinian leadership is the main source of the problem in Gaza and the West Bank. And their refusal to accept the Dayton Accords among others played right into the hands of the far right wing of Likkud. |
This sounds like ad-hominem invective rather than dealing with the facts.
You are making it sound as if the Israelis are simply the victims and the Palestinians are simply the bad side. Who is being occupied? The Israelis or the Palestinians? Is the occupation of another country legal or illegal under international law? Is bombing neighbourhoods whether you are an Arab or a Jew illegal or not? It is that simple. It does not matter
who does it. You seem to think it matters.
A bullet doesn't care what your religion is or racial make up. You are simply dead. I don't think you should be lecturing about double standards when you justify settlements, bombing neighbourhoods but then complain about suicide bombers. How does that make sense? You don't want us to seperate Israel's mission into Lebanon from Hezbollah's incursion and kidnapping.
That is the correct approach. However, when you don't allow the same for the Arab side then you engage in the double standard you just mentioned. It is clear that Palestinian neighbourhoods were bombed in Gaza, extra judicial killings happened (these are illegal according to international law), and people have also been expelled
from East Jerusalem for being Arab in order to ethnic cleanse them.
Why are only suicide bombings that kill civilians in restaurants, discotheques, and buses noteworthy and the murder of Arab civilians
is always claimed to be an accident or the fault of the Arabs.
Charles Fischbein, the head of the Jewish National Fund, was told to defend Israel's conduct in the 1980s in Lebanon. He took a look at what was happening in Lebanon for himself and resigned instead. Clearly people see that crimes have also been committed against the Palestinians.
Read B'tselem's reports, the U.N.'s reports, Human Rights Watch they clearly point to the fact that blatant war crimes have been committed.
I think people should be careful before invoking anti-Semitism especially if they fault black people for using the race card. It defeats the ability to have a cogent debate and even leads emotional people to call Jews anti-Semites until they find out they are also Jews like themselves, so let us stick to facts not emotions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The extra judicial killings of Hamas officals were strikes against the command and control of a group that was out to destroy Isreal.
When an innocent Palestinian dies it is a tragedy but Hamas and Islamic Jihad members who were killed had it coming.
Hamas has sort of offered Israel a truce but that truce is only for 10 years . You mean Israel has to give up their strategic position for a truce.
There war going on there and if the Palestinian side wants it to end one of the things they are going to have to do is be willing to give up theirs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
