No....it says a lot about Israel and its governments, not Jews.
Printable View
No....it says a lot about Israel and its governments, not Jews.
It's Friday night where I am. I can't be bothered ploughing through everything, so I have read the first page and jumped ahead. Sorry, but at least I admit it.
If the Jewish people control all of the money, then I assume the oil wells in the middle East are controlled by the Jews. Since they generate a shed load of serious money.
I assume the Aga Khan is Jewish, he is a seriously wealthy man.The people who control Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc - all Jewish. All of the oil billionaire Arab Princes, Jewish.
ilw, I should have mentioned before, I'm not orthodox. Most Jews aren't, and you can quote me on that. The orthodox are a minority within a minority. I don't have any statistics off hand, but I know their numbers are under a majority(<50%) of the general jewish population. The laws that you are refering to that make it difficult for Jews to interact with non-jews don't really apply to the majority of jews, besides a few exceptions, mostly with conservative jews. So what I'm saying is the generalized awkwardness that Jews feel when trying to interact with non-jews and the suspicion and awkwardness that non-Jews feel when trying to interact with Jews is some product of society.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@24 October 2003 - 10:11
Well theres nothing I can suggest that wouldn't go against your religion. Cliquishness (thanks AS) is a result of various religious laws as is the nepotism.
I didn't mean it literally. Now that it has been mentioned though, is that land "objectively worthless" when compared to the surrounding countries? Even the arabs want it becomes of Mohammed.Quote:
Being attacked on all sides at the moment is a result of geography and the high value you place on objectively worthless religious land.
@Ratfaced-maybe you missed the Fox News Channel thread and the link I gave there. At any rate, I have only one question, "Even if there was a "jewish slant" to the media, would it last forever?"
Media Slayer...I didnt say a "Jewish Slant", I said an Israeli slant.
I really must be assertive in, what I agree, may sound like semantics.
The reason being...
The way Israel has been settled etc.....
It started off with Freedom Fighters, followed by an influx of displaced Jews, and a couple of wars to harden attitudes of the people there.
Since then, mainly Orthodox/Ultra Orthodox Jews have emmigrated there.
This means that the whole way the creation and settlement of Israel has come about means that the country is basically controlled by Right Wing/Religious people.
This is not a problem that would only have happened to Jews...
Any country settled in this way, by any religion, I suspect would be just as bad.
I really cant think of an example that would fit, to describe the way i feel.
However if Christians and Jews (as an example) were reversed, and it was Christians that had been butchered in the Hollocaust, given "The Holy Land", had to fight the wars with the neighbours, and then most emmigrants had been Fundamentalist Christians.... Im sure the politics of the region would be similar.
As to "will it last forever"...... I suspect, sadly, that it may last for the rest of my lifetime. The Israeli's would have to give up more than they are willing to (back to 1967 Borders), and not all Pallestinians will rest at that (although thats all 99% of them want).
I've said before, both peoples deserve to live in peace, and i believe they both want this (the majority).....however, until the Far Right/Religion stops controlling the policies in Israel, there will be no peace there...I mean, they are still settling the land that is in dispute. The more that is settled, the less likely it is to happen, and even though the PLO denounced Terrorism in the mid 70s, and has as the Pallestinian Authority....people still shout "Terrorist" at them. Hamas are, and a few other groups....but not them, at least not for a long time, all this achieves is to undermine the main Pallestinian group that wants peace and recognises Israels right to exist...dont figure.
I think that Israel will leave it too long, Palestinian Authority loses all control of the Pallestinians (they are close to that already), and Sharon will create the "Greater Israel" he's been after all his life..... I think this will be make the last 50 years look like kindergarten. :(
I have to admit that if I was around at the time of the creation of Israel, I would have been against it's creation. This trouble was always on the horizon, even then...taking someone elses land and "Giving It" to someone else is wrong, pure and simple, they are gonna be upset.
By the same token however, Israel does exist now, and 90%+ of the people there had nothing to do with the creation of the country. They were born there, they moved there etc etc etc. No one has the right to take Israel away now, it has as much right to exist as anyone else...
The Palestinians have recognised this, however the current Government there does not recognise the Palestinians rights.
Since this thread is comfortable with history let's mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.
Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans
The partitioning of Ireland didn't go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.
History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.
I don't see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.
I fail to see the difference. What is the correct way to address the people of Israel?Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 19:00
No....it says a lot about Israel and its governments, not Jews.
you call British a Brit, i don't mind, do the Americans not like being called Yanks
i don't know i have not known an american personally. i'm not taking the piss here i really don't know. :( :blink:
Not all Jews are Israeli's... just like not all Christians are Yanks or Brits.
I would have thought the difference between a Religion and a Nationality self evident.
JPaul,
Im not trying to "support" Jewish Conspiracy theorists....I have already said there is no such thing :blink:
I also said that the way the country was settled, it doesnt matter what Religion....there would have been a similar political climate.
Keep up dear chap :P
Don't u know i'm a thick Brit trying to keep up with u clever ppl's :DQuote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 23:40
Not all Jews are Israeli's... just like not all Christians are Yanks or Brits.
I would have thought the difference between a Religion and a Nationality self evident.
JPaul,
Im not trying to "support" Jewish Conspiracy theorists....I have already said there is no such thing :blink:
I also said that the way the country was settled, it doesnt matter what Religion....there would have been a similar political climate.
Keep up dear chap :P
The concept of a Zionist conspiracy was being discussed in the thread dealing with the comments by the Malaysian President. However, it seems to have drifted over here.
There seems little point in repeating what I said in the other thread but I was intrigued by the references to the Magna Carta.
Jews are indeed heavily involved in banking and the historical figure of the Jew, be it in Walter Scotts Ivanhoe or Shakespere's Merchant of Venice, is usually a negative connotation. The reason for this is simple. Money lending with interest is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (in fact it is mentioned more times than most of the other dos and don'ts put together - which is rather interesting considering much of modern capitalism is based purely on interest earned). Jews are not allowed to lend to other Jews and Christians could not lend to other Christians. However, it was all right to lend with interest to unbelievers. Christian to Jew and vice versa. Jews were the bankers of medieval Europe and one never likes those one owes money to. One of the best ways of dealing with mounting debts was to have a purge and throw all the Jews out of a region - being a banker in medieval times was a dangerous business. Because Jews were not Christian they were barred from most trades and crafts and only had a few lines of business open to them. Banker, a prestigious job today, was vile and un-Christian in medieval times and therefore open to Jews.
Consequently, Rat Face is absolutely right, there never was a conspiracy.
The mistakes of the current Israeli cabinet represent just that - the mistakes of the current administration. The majority of the Israeli population are decent people who earnestly would like to see the illegal settlements removed and a lasting peace with their neighbours. A surprisingly large number of Palestinians would settle happily for the same. At the moment, however, it those who believe in the sword who hold these majorities in their thrall.
Do you realize that the majority of Israelis are Jewish? In other words, if a person is born in England but moves to America, does that person lose his "Englishness"? After a while, I'm guessing the person would, but all that time inbetween I would still classify that person as English. Let's not forget, Ratfaced, modern day Israel is not hundreds of years old. There are many new immigrants in Israel who were "Jewish" in their homeland. So when they move to Israel, does that make them "Israeli"? After a while, yes, but please remember it is a fairly new nation. So what I'm getting at is this: to say the media has a "Israeli" slant is nearly the same as saying the media has a "Jewish" slant. It's not as if the nation of Israel was created by rebellious Jews who didn't like the Judiasm of their home countries. It was founded to keep the Jewish traditions alive in a place where they wouldn't be bothered, which mostly wasn't worked so far :( . There are differences between "non-Israeli" Jews and Israeli Jews, but they are mostly irrelevant to a discussion about any media slant. While we're on the subject though, I would like to point out that whoever told you that its mostly orthodox Jews settling in Israel is wrong. As luck would have it, Israel is fairly secular. Often, Jews who were very observant in their home countries drop some ways and traditions when they move to Israel, resulting in a general drift towards being non-observant, secular Jews.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 October 2003 - 21:47
Media Slayer...I didnt say a "Jewish Slant", I said an Israeli slant.
I really must be assertive in, what I agree, may sound like semantics.
The reason being...
The way Israel has been settled etc.....
It started off with Freedom Fighters, followed by an influx of displaced Jews, and a couple of wars to harden attitudes of the people there.
Since then, mainly Orthodox/Ultra Orthodox Jews have emmigrated there.
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn't that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole. There is only "claiming" of land, not true ownership. If Russia took all the British Isles, you would no longer "own" that land, no matter what a piece of paper says.
@Ratfaced-I forgot to add this:
It's hard to define what the word "Jew" means because the meaning has changed over the centuries. Mostly it refers to an identity, which covers more area than a nationality or race.
I would not call any country that gives Judicial Power to a religious court...secular.
It takes a lot to emmigrate to another country..to emmigrate to a war zone takes real belief in what your doing. I stand by what i say regarding Israeli settlers, however i can also see that children born there, or indeed that emmigrate there, do not necessarily have their parents beliefs.
Also, a country who's Labour Party is more to the Right than Thatcher was (or Reagan) can only be classed as Right Wing.
The choice up until now has been between conservatism and outright facism...sorry.
I hope you can now see why i try and differentiate between "Jew" and "Israeli". I am aware that most of Israel is Jewish. However most of both UK and Italy are Christian....this does not mean that they share the same beliefs or political views.
NO! It is not a black hole. it's black and white! Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out!!Quote:
Originally posted by Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn't that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.
:angry:
NO! It is not a black hole. it's black and white! Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out!!Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 16:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn't that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.
:angry: [/b][/quote]
Your date for vacating Australia would be when ?
NO! It is not a black hole. it's black and white! Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out!!Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 15:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn't that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.
:angry: [/b][/quote]
:o :ph34r: :unsure: :ph34r:
Are you saying things that happened 200 years ago justify events of today?
When you lot occupied Australia there were 250 hanging offences in Britain, you've changed since then, Israel hasn't. At least 200 years ago people were charged with an offence first, not murdered in cold blood on the assumption they were guilty.
It's time Israel were dragged, screaming if necessary, into the 21st century.
:angry:
I never occupied anywhere, at that time all of my family were Irish, living in Ireland. We moved to Scotland 2 generations ago.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 16:25
Are you saying things that happened 200 years ago justify events of today?
When you lot occupied Australia there were 250 hanging offences in Britain, you've changed since then, Israel hasn't. At least 200 years ago people were charged with an offence first, not murdered in cold blood on the assumption they were guilty.
It's time Israel were dragged, screaming if necessary, into the 21st century.
:angry:
Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say you were English by birth. So it would have been you, or your people, not I, or mine who did it.
Are you telling me the native Australian people were afforded proper rights when their lands were taken from them. It's been going on for longer than that, it didn't happen all in one day.
What about the native South African people are the whites leaving there now, that's good news. I wasn't informed.
I did not suggest that those events justify what happens today. I don't see how even your twisted logic could take that meaning.
Excuse me? Wasn't Ireland part of Britain 200 years ago?Quote:
I never occupied anywhere, at that time all of my family were Irish, living in Ireland. We moved to Scotland 2 generations ago.
As for the legality or otherwise of your lot's occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.
Do you declare a certain slant towards Israel on the question of the continuing illegal settlement of Palestinian land?
:huh:
[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 15:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mediaslayer
One last thing, JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land? Isn't that illegal too? In reality, the ownership of land is a social black hole.
JPaul brought up THE strongest argument for the Israeli state. What makes those settlements any more illegal than an English "settlement" on Irish land?
He did not say that !
He said this....
Quote:
The partitioning of Ireland didn't go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.
Apologies for not keeping up, but what exactly is the thrust of the argument here? :blink: :blink:
The issue regarding land is a crucial one but it is a political hot potato all round the world. Whether Israel should or should not have been founded is a perhaps an interesting point but it is not going to change the fact that it does exist - anymore than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US or any other settled territories are liable to suddenly disappear.
The key, then, must be, what is a workable peace and an acceptable compensation to those who lose out? This is only beginning to be addressed in all of the territories mentioned above and it will continue to test the political ingenuity of those in the ME for years to come. In the meantime those who think they can steal a march through gun and bomb are running loose.
Sharron's get tough philosophy has resulted in a far worse security situation for ordinary Israelis than anything that went before. The situation is therefore largely one of incompetent politics than some pan global conspiracy. That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.
I have no slant either way. As I have said elsewhere untill people agree that compromise is the only way forward there can be no progress towards peace. I use Ireland as an example of this, because there has been progress. Like I said 2 steps forward and 1 step back, but that still works out as forward motion.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 16:52
Excuse me? Wasn't Ireland part of Britain 200 years ago?Quote:
I never occupied anywhere, at that time all of my family were Irish, living in Ireland. We moved to Scotland 2 generations ago.
As for the legality or otherwise of your lot's occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.
Do you declare a certain slant towards Israel on the question of the continuing illegal settlement of Palestinian land?
:huh:
Things like you said earlier :
NO! It is not a black hole. it's black and white! Israelis are thieving murderers, stealing and killing land and landowners, how can you sit there and justify that? Get the fuck out of Palestine, all of you, and fucking stay out!!
are exactly the type of words which are so unhelpfull. This is the ideal way to ensure that people become even more entrenched.
You persist with using the phrase, "your lot's" I take it from this that you were not born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I had thought you previously stated this.
Where are you actually from then.
Edit - sorry meant to mention the terra nullis nonsense. The land was "declared unoccupied" in spite of the fact that their was a whole culture already living there.
"This manifestly false proposition was identified as such by the High Court of Australia in the landmark judgment in Mabo case in 1992 and the concept of terra nullis was held to be of no application given the truth that the land was occupied by at least 750.000 people [and possibly many more] organized into tribal and family communities scattered throughout the continent and maintaining a strong spiritual relationship with the land."
Do you have a particular slant with regard to the natives in your adopted land.
I fail to see how you can say that, the people of Israel consistently elect right wing governments with the same "no deal" attitude towards Palestine. If you want peace, vote for it!Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles
That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.
@ JP: I am Australian, hence you lot and us lot.
:)
I fail to see how you can say that, the people of Israel consistently elect right wing governments with the same "no deal" attitude towards Palestine. If you want peace, vote for it!Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 17:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
That is not to say the far right in Israel do not have an agenda - just that it is not shared by the majority of Israelis.
@ JP: I am Australian, hence you lot and us lot.
:) [/b][/quote]
Where were you born Billy, I had thought you said you were born in England and moved to Australia. Sorry if I picked that up wrong.
Either way, when are you leaving. Or do you intend keeping these people's land from them.
Or do they not have any rights. The Australians Courts have accepted that terra nullis is nonsense. So any claim on the land is untenable.
I ask you again JP: Are you claiming events of hundreds of years ago justify the Israeli actions, vis-a-vis the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land?
Legal Status: The Israeli settlement system is illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, of which Israel is a signatory party, prohibits in all cases the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying Power into the territory it occupies. The Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annexed Regulations of 1907, which together constitute customary international law, prohibit the destruction, seizure and confiscation of private or public properties in occupied territories (except when absolutely necessary for military reasons).
The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been asserted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by United Nations organs and agencies, as well as by every country in the world. The United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in twenty-four resolutions. The Council has specifically dealt with the issue of settlements, established a Commission in this regard and considers settlements to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. In addition, the Council has called for the cessation of all settlement activities and the dismantling of the existing ones. The Council has also repeatedly declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the demographic composition, physical character, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are null and void and have no legal validity (e.g. resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980)).
I eagerly await your reply.
PS. Fu*king Fulham beat Man U 3- 1! What right do they think they have to inflict that on the greatest team on Earth?
:)
http://partners.permissioninteractiv.../tap-dance.jpg
Whole lotta tap dancin' going on.
Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don't think I said anywhere that it did.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 18:47
I ask you again JP: Are you claiming events of hundreds of years ago justify the Israeli actions, vis-a-vis the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land?
Legal Status: The Israeli settlement system is illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, of which Israel is a signatory party, prohibits in all cases the transfer of parts of the civilian population of the occupying Power into the territory it occupies. The Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annexed Regulations of 1907, which together constitute customary international law, prohibit the destruction, seizure and confiscation of private or public properties in occupied territories (except when absolutely necessary for military reasons).
The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has been asserted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by United Nations organs and agencies, as well as by every country in the world. The United Nations Security Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, in twenty-four resolutions. The Council has specifically dealt with the issue of settlements, established a Commission in this regard and considers settlements to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. In addition, the Council has called for the cessation of all settlement activities and the dismantling of the existing ones. The Council has also repeatedly declared that all measures taken by Israel to change the demographic composition, physical character, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, are null and void and have no legal validity (e.g. resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980)).
I eagerly await your reply.
PS. Fu*king Fulham beat Man U 3- 1! What right do they think they have to inflict that on the greatest team on Earth?
:)
I though I made my position clear, sorry if it wasn't.
Now if you could afford me the same courtesy. Where were you born and when are you leaving Australia.
I await your reply with equal eagerness.
So why do you ask when I'm leaving?Quote:
Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don't think I said anywhere that it did.
:)
Will you answer the question, where were you born, or at the very least have the courtesy to decline to do so. I remain eager to hear your answer.
I ask when you are leaving because the land was stolen. The Australian court has diemissed your specious terra nullis argument, though I am sure you knew that already.
How can it have been "stolen"? That's a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago. There was no international law, as there is now, no UN, and no real concept of universal human rights. There is also no suggestion of illegality on Britain's behalf. Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act. The indiginous population is not asking anyone to leave, nor claiming the whole of Australia.
As for answering your irrelevent questions, I have you to thank for that, you taught me well, I salute you.
:)
How can it have been "stolen"? That's a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 October 2003 - 20:03
How can it have been "stolen"? That's a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago. There was no international law, as there is now, no UN, and no real concept of universal human rights. There is also no suggestion of illegality on Britain's behalf. Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act. The indiginous population is not asking anyone to leave, nor claiming the whole of Australia.
As for answering your irrelevent questions, I have you to thank for that, you taught me well, I salute you.
:)
:lol: :lol: :lol: That is just ridiculous. Is your tongue sore, you must be biting it.
.... no real concept of universal human rights.
Oh that's OK then, as was slavery based on that argument.
Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.
You used terra nullis as your original defence for the land being taken, when you said
As for the legality or otherwise of your lot's occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.
This was the worst I have ever seen from you and there has been some real garbage. Please at least try to be consistent. You use an argument to defend your position, then a few posts later describe that very defence as "incorrect".
[BD] How can it have been "stolen"? That's a legal term it was not illegal 200 years ago.
[JP] That is just ridiculous. Is your tongue sore, you must be biting it.
[Me]If you wish to argue the point of legality or otherwise of an act, declared legal under British law at the time, go ahead. If they "stole" it by their understanding, why did they bother to justify it?
[BD] ... no real concept of universal human rights.
[JP] Oh that's OK then, as was slavery based on that argument.
[Me] My point exactly, different world, different understanding of right and wrong.
[BD] Terra nullis was found to be incorrect, not an illegal act.
[JP] You used terra nullis as your original defence for the land being taken, when you said...
...As for the legality or otherwise of your lot's occupation of Australia, the land was first declared terra nullis, Palestine never was.
[Me] Another of your famous misrepresentations.
The land was declared terra nullis, whether you like or agree with it is irrelevant.
I find your defence of Israel's repeated violation of human rights, their murders, assasinations, land stealing and dispossesions to be abhorrant. To try to justify them by your country's actions over 200 years ago, even more so.
:)
I don't mean to criticise, but QUOTE tags would make that a lot more easy to understand http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/headhurts.gif
I agree.Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey@25 October 2003 - 15:00
I don't mean to criticise, but QUOTE tags would make that a lot more easy to understand http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/headhurts.gif
Finally! Something I can comment on here. :blink:
Quote:
I find your defence of Israel's repeated violation of human rights, their murders, assasinations, land stealing and dispossesions to be abhorrant. To try to justify them by your country's actions over 200 years ago, even more so.
What defence would that be Billy - show me where I did this.
I see you are back to your old way of ignoring what people actually say and just typing nonsense.
Do you forget that people can actually read what we have both posted, so I say again show me where this defence is.
Take Lamsey's suggestion and quote the post in which I do it.
Here is my most recent post in relation to this
Quote:
Like I said before Billy - What happened hundreds of years ago, on a different continent has nothing to do with the situation there. I don't think I said anywhere that it did.
I though I made my position clear, sorry if it wasn't.
This was not a defence???Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@25 October 2003 - 07:12
Since this thread is comfortable with history let's mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.
Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans
The partitioning of Ireland didn't go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.
History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.
I don't see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.
What was it then?
:)
This was not a defence???Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+25 October 2003 - 21:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 25 October 2003 - 21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@25 October 2003 - 07:12
Since this thread is comfortable with history let's mention the Norman Conquests. That had a fairly dramatic effect on England and Ireland.
Ask the native Americans what happened to their lands. Or the Australians. Or the New Zealanders. Or the South Africans
The partitioning of Ireland didn't go down particularly well, but the situation is improving. Two steps forward and one step back, granted, but moving forward.
History is full of examples of people taking the land from others and "settling" it.
I don't see how this type of evidence supports the Jewish Conspiracy Theorists.
What was it then?
:) [/b][/quote]
Have you run mad.
That post states that history is full of examples of people taking land from others. It mentions it happening in several places.
There is nothing in it which makes a value judgement on any of the specific examples, or indeed any one in particular.
It does not even mention the present trouble in the middle east, far less defend either side.
Billy
I said that the majority of Israelis do not support the far right agenda because I believe that to be the case.
The Israeli election system is one of proportional representation. The current government is an amalgamation of far right and centrist parties, the oppostion, likewise, a grouping of left of centre parties. The Israeli Labour party has won elections and could, if it could agree with some of the centrist parties, take control again. The far right religious parties never garner enough support to be a credible government but they frequently hold the balance when things are tight for Likud.
It would be fair to say the far right are troublesome even for the Likud party but the latter tries to keep them at least theoretically on-side as they are important in holding together the coalition and, consequently, power.
Although the Israeli Labour Party is the "Left" in Israel, it is still Right of Centre itself...History of Israeli Labour Party
As said earlier, its the Ultra Orthodox Right Wing that holds the "Balance of Power"....
I would like to point out that the "center", such as it is in Israel, is NOT the same center as exists in the U.K., the U.S., or anywhere else.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 October 2003 - 17:26
Although the Israeli Labour Party is the "Left" in Israel, it is still Right of Centre itself...History of Israeli Labour Party
As said earlier, its the Ultra Orthodox Right Wing that holds the "Balance of Power"....
I see the terms right, left and center lobbed about as if there is an Oxford definition which has universal application.
Relativity will out, just as the truth; such loose play with words and terms is dishonest, and has no place this discussion.