First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Deutscher Herbst
Posted 11/23/09 , edited 11/24/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What you need is a timeout. So until you realize my stance is based on the ever evolving and universal teaching of social science, and not just some localized old doctrines. You'll be hearing nothing from me, unless you're readily and willingly to challenge the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane.

"One who thinks of others being small and insignificant, is distancing oneself from what one thinks as a small and insignificant existence. That's only as big and vast as the world where people live." -by yours truly-

And this one is on the house by yours truly: "Only those who have real discipline can express true appreciation for those that are dignified. When self-dignity is earned through self-confidence based on self-discipline."


What you need is respect. So until you realize my stance is based on people's thought and their feelings, not just blind faith. I will assume you are just running away from reality and fact, enjoying your individualism without concern about others, unless you can explain of how your method could solve this war.

If you trying to show you are superior, actually you make yourself much lower Holo, the Wise Sage of Wolf (2008-2009)

Don't you mean your immature thoughts and feelings as manipulated by others? When even the wise Holo herself as a mere fictional existence, couldn't stand against loneliness.

While the Islamic faith is being misinterpreted by a localized group of Middle Eastern extremists, who distance themselves from the rest of the world with their radical ideology. In order for them to manipulate those weak local populace into becoming their power base through fear. Social science OTOH is continuously evolving along with the rest of humanity, by reinventing news ways for individuals to connect themselves with the rest of the world. Thus forming a global community not through fear, but with scientific progresses based on constructive and cognitive criticisms.

You speak of respect without you respecting "the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane". So is that your method of Light and Darkness by you respecting and embracing war? When the maturation of a human brain is at age 25, thereby making you only half-baked.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/23/09 , edited 11/24/09

DomFortress wrote:

Don't you mean your immature thoughts and feelings as manipulated by others? When even the wise Holo herself as a mere fictional existence, couldn't stand against loneliness.

While the Islamic faith is being misinterpreted by a localized group of Middle Eastern extremists, who distance themselves from the rest of the world with their radical ideology. In order for them to manipulate those weak local populace into becoming their power base through fear. Social science OTOH is continuously evolving along with the rest of humanity, by reinventing news ways for individuals to connect themselves with the rest of the world. Thus forming a global community not through fear, but with scientific progresses based on constructive and cognitive criticisms.

You speak of respect without you respecting "the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane". So is that your method of Light and Darkness by you respecting and embracing war? When the maturation of a human brain is at age 25, thereby making you only half-baked.


Now you questioning anime character? While I only took her words, not her actions. Is that your futile effort to defend yourself in embarrassing way?

Islamic faith also evolving without forgetting its basic rule. that's why Taliban wrong from its medieval belief. But they are right to oppose foreign troops and illegitimate government for looting and killing Afghan people for 8 years. This is Light and Darkness. No entire right and no entire wrong. You've been proven once again being ignorant to religious people.

What's the definition of "the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane"? Is it by putting more troops to Afghanistan without trying to understand their situation and negotiate with Taliban, as human beings? Or your individualism only concern about your safety without concern to others?

Light and Darkness embraces all aspect from human beings, considering all their good and evil side while some are correct but they are also wrong. Therefore, respect and embracing all people from different races, gender, belief and ethnic with love are the basic ideology of Light and Darkness.

Maturing of brain is at age 25, while knowing knowledge is belongs to all humans. thereby, where's your mature when you called Afghan people and me, stupid and moron?

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/24/09 , edited 11/25/09

What's the definition of Zionism?


Zionism is generally defined in one of two ways: either Jewish nationalism or the movement to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, if you study the movement you’ll discover that the former explanation is too vague and the later too specific. Both are simply proliferated for convenience sake. I will elaborate below, but before I matriculate down that road I want to address the rest of your post.


From what I heard, Zionism created because of the desire of people from the Lands to freed it from occupation and build its own government without intervention from foreign troops, like Ottoman or British.


That is incorrect. The earliest recordings of widespread Zionism appeared after the Protestant Reformation and indicate that it was actually a Protestant Christian movement. It was a proposed solution to solve the “Jew problem,” that I personally find strikingly reminiscent of the later response to Native Americans after Wounded Knee. Basically, the idea was that the Jews were a plague to Christian society so they should be moved back to their historical homeland. The proposition was published by Sir Henry Finch in his 1621“The World’s Great Restauration or Calling of the Jews.” It was also supported by Napoleon and the second US president, John Adams.

Even in terms of modern Zionism there has never been a point in which Zionism was associated with resisting occupied forces. Most of the Jews were not even aware that they had a homeland; much less that it was being occupied by the Ottoman Empire. The Jews didn’t even consider themselves Jews. A Jewish citizen of Germany called himself a Germany. An English Jew called himself British. The Jews in France considered themselves Frenchmen and the Jews in Russia thought they were Russians.

As time elapsed, however, Herzl and the other Jews realized that their countrymen did not see them in the same light. It’s kind of like how in Canada a Chinese citizen will still be treated like an immigrant even if his family had been present in Canada for five generations. For various reasons this sense of separation turned violent and discrimination against the Jews erupted--and then Herzl made a proposition.

He proposed Jews from all across the world come together and form a homeland. Now, mind you, he knew nothing of his Jewish heritage or his ancestral ties to Palestine. Herzl had never even read the Tanakh or Talmud. Whatever the case, he did not propose liberating the Jewish lands from occupying forces.

As it stands, at this time Palestine wasn’t really being occupied. It was being claimed but not populated. Nobody was interested in this particular plot of land until later, when the Industrial Revolution made living conditions for the average individual so difficult that it trigged a world-wide mass migration. This is where you hear about the immigrants to America looking for opportunity. This is also when the Jews and Arabs started migrating to Palestine.

Well, Zionism of course has evolved and it is multifaceted, but generally speaking it is the desire to protect Jewish life, liberty, heritage, and culture. Herzl’s method of accomplishing these goals (protecting Jewish life, liberty, heritage, and culture) was to create a Jewish state.

In broad terms Zionism isn’t about nationhood. It’s about preventing what happens to a people (in this case the Jews,) whenever they don’t have nationhood. In America after the Native Americans abandoned their tribal institutions and allowed themselves to be placed on reservations their identity as Native Americans virtually disappeared. They were assimilated and in time they will disappear completely. Well, Zionists don’t want this for the Jews. And the best way to avoid what happens to a people with no nation is to maintain a nation for those people.



Therefore, not only Jews who are Zionist, but also Arabs also support Zionist. All people of the Lands were Zionist when they were under Ottoman occupation and early British army came there.


That would, perhaps, be a logical conclusion if the premise was correct. The premise is not correct. The conclusion is also incorrect.


However, as British, like you said, can't maintain the balance between two sides and was only supporting Arabs because they were majority ethnic there. British wanted to gain control of the Lands, especially the holy sites, Jerusalem.


Actually, the British had no particular desire to occupy Palestine. Following the First World War the British mandate was placed under English Sovereignty as a stop-gap solution. It was meant to be temporary and the British knew it. Palestine was of no particular interest to them, although they did eventually make efforts to control the Sinai Peninsula. Following the Second World War it was the British who asked the United Nations to take the territory off of their hands and their hasty abandonment of the territory contributed to the Arab response to the declaration of Israel’s independence.

Even before that the British had been making promises to hand out chunks of the land to any group that made a claim. The Balfour Declaration promised to create a Jewish institution somewhere in Palestine while various other agreements vowed to hand out much of the territory to the Arabs. The Balfour was seen by the Arabs as a violation of previous agreements made between the Arabs and the British to give portions of the territory over to them once order had been established and peace attained.


After hundred of years being under Ottoman, Arabs and Jews can't stand being under another occupation.


Most of the Jews and Arabs in Palestine during the time of the British Mandate had only juts arrived. When the Jews started showing up in about 1880-1900 the Arabs had only just established a foothold themselves. By 1911 the Jews had been there for about one generation and the Arabs had been there for about three generations. There was no hundreds of years of occupation for the vast majority of both ethnic groups.

The Jews began resisting the British following the White Papers and the Arabs began resisting the British following the Balfour Declaration and the mass immigration of Jews. Even then it wasn’t until nearer to the Second World War that this resistance peeked.


They were opposing British at early they came after Ottoman fled. As we know, there was unbalance and discrimination between Arabs and Jews and the dispute gotten bigger and bigger. Until the extend to eradicate Jews from the Lands. Arab revolt, Six Days War, etc...


No, there was no widespread opposition to the British when they first started showing up. Now, here and there you did have some resistance to their presence, but by-and-large people were bargaining with them. They were saying, “Well do this if you give us that plot of land,” and in fact the Arabs succeeded in attaining the vast majority of the British Mandate and the Jews earned themselves a homeland.

The violence there got worse because the Arabs weren’t willing to compromise and the Jews got inflated egos and started believing they could not be stopped. The Yom Kippur War taught them that they weren’t as tough as they thought they were, though they did defeat the Arab invaders.


What I found silly from Arabs were, they got nerve to claim the Lands without tolerance to Jews and wanted to kick Jews from Lands. They got help from Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc... to fight against Jews. But, they were PWND in 6 Days War by a single Israel, lol~.


They would’ve won the Six Day War if Israel hadn’t disobeyed the commands of America and launched a pre-emptive strike. The Arabs were being unreasonable in 1948, and how the Israelis managed to win that war when the odds were so profoundly against them is hard to say. There is, just so you know, some debate as to whether or not the Arabs were going to attack Israel. Arab scholars and some anti-Israel political activists say that the gathering of hundreds of thousands of troops was part of a training exercise…. *Shrug.*


I guess that's kinda a judgment from their, our God to not disturb another religion in the Lands. After all, Jews and Islam share some similarity in religion. Like praying 5 times a day, no pork, one God, etc... We were closer to Jews than any other religion, actually. Maybe because they interpret Qur'an from radical view?


They believed that Palestine belonged to Muslims and thus that their war was a defensive campaign to throw out occupiers. I think Jews actually pray three times a day. Christianity is chronologically more closely related to the Jewish religion than Islam, though Islam and Judaism do seem more theologically similar than Judaism and Christianity or Christianity and Islam.


What's the definition of Semitic? Not only Jews, but also ancient Arab were put in this category. So, it's wrong to said anti-Semitic because they hate Jews, many ethnic were put in this definition. Check wiki to know more


The term Semitic can refer to modern Semite or Ancient Semite. The Arabs are ancient Semites along with a boat load of other people. The Jews are modern Semites. Really, the only difference I can tell is that the Jews still identify themselves as Semites while people like the Palestinians identify themselves as Arabs. Technically, Palestinians are Semites and so are the other Arabs. But they don't identiy themselves as Semites.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/25/09 , edited 11/26/09

Clearly, not only Arabs, but also traditional Jews are opposing Zionist. The real Jews are not Zionist.


I’ve pointed this out many times before: Zionism is, in part, a rebellion against the rabbinical traditions of orthodox Jewry. It replaces religious rule with secular nationalism. But, who’re you to decide which one’s authentic and which one’s rhinestone? It’s like an argument about knives. I could come into a kitchen with my American knives and find that everyone else there uses German knives. They could then say to me, “These are real knives,” and brandish their German knives. But in fact my knife is a knife, just a different type of knife. There are many things in life that are black and white. This is not one of them. This issue is grey. It’s a matter of perspective. To say that Zionists are not real Jews is to say that your perspective is better than the perspective of all those around you, and yet you cannot buttress an argument of this nature except based on personal bias no matter where you stand.

In terms of ethnic Jewry, it’s more black and white. You either are a Jew or you are not a Jew. In which case Jews, even atheistic Jews, who’re also Zionists are completely real Jews rather you choose to acknowledge them for their political perspective or not. Now, we here in America have a Christian Zionist movement. Many of these individual Christian Zionists are ethnic Jews, but the vast majority is Caucasian or African American individuals in the south. Most of these are not “real Jews,” but they’re not “fake Jews,” either because they make no claim to be Jewish in religion or ethnicity.


So, Palestinians can't elect Hamas, can't chose their real voice? Even though Hamas was being considered as candidate who gained majority of Palestinian in 2006 election? If they can't, why put Hamas in election from begin with? Where's the democracy?

I don’t know why you’re having trouble comprehending this. I’m nearly force to accept that you simply aren’t being honest with yourself again. I’ll say what I’ve told you a hundred times. You’ll likely ignore it because you don’t want to accept it, but it remains historical fact. Hamas won a majority seats in the 2006 election. Hamas took power in the 2007 coup. In the 2006 election the Palestinians also chose Fatah. The Fatah officials were elected to their seats as well. Hamas tried to force them out in 2007.

So, the Palestinian can’t elect Fatah, can’t chose their real voice? If they can't, why put Fatah in election from begin with? Where's the democracy?

Just because once upon a time Hamas won an irrelevant electoral victory doesn’t mean that they’re a democratic organization. They make no attempt to hide that they’re anti-Democracy Islamo-Fascists.


You always saying about illegally kidnap of Gilad. Remember: Gilad was a soldier, this is war zone, it's common things, it's better than dead, right? How about 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, that's not illegal?


Actually, Gilad was not kidnapped in a war zone. In fact, Gilad wasn’t even kidnapped during a time of war. There were some small conflicts around that time, but this was supposedly a time of peace. Of course, a time of peace in Israel means only about five rockets flying at your children each week instead of two hundred.

The abduction is illegal. Period, that’s a fact. Maybe it shouldn’t be illegal but it is.

Concerning the 11,000 Palestinian prisoners--that’s another topic. This is what’s called the straw man’s fallacy. I point out that the abduction was what ruined the peace process. You don’t want to admit that Hamas made a bad decision, that Hamas was wrong. So instead of acknowledging, “Yeah, the two parties were working towards peace before Gilad was kidnapped,” you change the topic and say: “Hey! Look over there! Israel’s arresting innocent people!”

It’s not illegal, by the way, to arrest a soldier carrying out an attack on your nation. So, if an American soldier fired his gun across the border at random Mexicans then the Mexican authorities would have the liberty to retaliate. However, if that American soldier was simply posted near the border it would be illegal for the Mexicans to arrest him.

That’s what happened with Gilad. He was drafted into the military and post on a base near the border. He was in Israel and posing no threat to the Palestinians when the Hamas forces crossed the border and conducted his unprovoked abduction in pursuit of their political goals. That’s illegal.

In many cases I’m sure the arrest of Palestinians is also illegal, but whenever you’ve got a legitimate and individual level cause of suspicion it’s acceptable to arrest foreign nationals. Israel’s rate of arrest is actually conservative when you consider the situation.

Once again I have to address the rest later, my battery is dying.



Actually, throughout most of the Ottoman rule the Arab forces were generally moderate and content. The upsurge of imperial nationalism was not the result of a rip-roaring desire for self determination in Palestine but rather strategic injection on behalf of French and British agents such as Sir Mark Sykes. The campaign of insurgency was engendered by a Bureau of Britain’s foreign office which hoped to give the British establishments in Egypt control of the Arab world.

The major Arab contribution was Hussein bin Ali and his followers. Hussein, however, was traditionally a close ally and supporter of the Turks and he worked very closely with the Ottoman Empire. It was not until he discovered Turkish officials conspiring to remove him from power that he began bargaining with the British. In the years leading up to the revolt the British were eager to weaken an ally of Germany. They agreed to assist Hussein and eventually created an Arab state with borders in northern Syria and Yemen. This does not necessarily encompass Palestine.

The Arabs did see the Balfour as a violation of previous agreements and to some degree it was. However, plans had already fallen apart with the First World War. In addition it should be noted that the Arab nationalist movement emerged around the same time as adherents to modern Zionism began appearing in Palestine.

Whatever the case, throughout most of the Ottoman era neither the Arabs nor the Jews had maintained a significant presence in the area. Both were relatively new immigrants and the neither had any legitimate claim to the land. The fact remains that most of the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine at this time were simply living there because it was cheap and they could. They had no nationalist or imperial intention to take Palestine from the Turks or the British.

The race riots of 1936-1937 were not a revolt against the British. They were violent demonstrations designed to pressure the British into restricting Jewish immigration. As I pointed out before, to appease the Arab nationalist forces the British negotiated the White Papers which were the utter anti-thesis of the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist ambition to self determination.

You should also know that not only did the British have support from Zionist forces and Jewish self defence groups such as Haganah, many Arabs groups in Palestine actually fought alongside the British and the Zionists to protect the Jews.


Of course, I won't dare to saying something that really accusing someone can't interpret Qur'an, after all they can speak Arabc, the Qur'an language and clearly many of them had gone to Mecca for pilgrimage. They are wayyy better than mine in religion. However, rather than calling me arrogant, how if you read deeper about Qur'an perspective of Jews in many verses. Clearly, it's not very friendly.http://www.pakistanlink.com/religion/2002/0104.html But of course, it's only focused on Jews who killed prophets, including Jews and abandoned God's promises.

That's why the verses quite harsh, that's where I assume the conservatives and extremist referring to this kind of verses that made their hatred against Jews until now. Just look at Iran, they don't have any problem with Jews, as they are 2nd biggest population of Jews in middle-east. It's pretty clear, it's not because of holy book, but rather to the people who read and interpret it differently.


I’ve actually read quite a bit of the Qur’an. My personal observation is that this particular cannon does indeed have two distinct and mutually exclusive perspectives of the Jews. On one hand it says they’re brothers under god and should be treated with dignity so long as they do not challenge Islam. On the other hand it seems to convey they’re conspiring perpetrators of Dajjal and should be suppressed if not killed on sight.

However, by and large whenever I see a verse cited by terrorists like Hamas it seems to me that they’re intentionally manipulating the text. For example, during a battle against a tribe of Jews Mohammad (pbuh,) told his warriors to kill every Jew they saw. This obviously wasn’t a commandment to all Muslims. In context he’s clearly only directing it at a specific group of people in a specific circumstance. Hamas and other Islamo-terrorist groups do seem to be taking them out of context.

They also take Jihad out of context. I was actually introduced to Jihad while reading the Qur’an. I’d heard the term before but never really known what it was. The perspective I got from the Qur’an is very different than the one I get from history and modern Jihad. It’s the effort to defend oppressed Muslims and preserve Islamic heritage and culture and life and liberty. These people twist that and say that it’s a campaign to united the world beneath Muslim tyranny.

To be honest, I think the Shiites are the real problem. The Shiites believe that Imams and Caliphs and Mufti and other religious officials are appointed by God and that their words are utterly flawless. They believe anything their leaders tell them and anybody who disagrees is accused of denying God and being an infidel.

Obviously you can’t completely generalize. I’ve never met a Shiite in person, only Sunnis. I talked to one on the internet once, but what’s that worth?

I think Iran is a bad example. The government itself is progressive, in my perspective, whatever anyone says. I think Iran is a more moderate and modern state than we give it credit for. On an individual level, however, discrimination against the Jews on behalf of Islamic radicalism is still an issue.

I think that the United Arab Emirates would be a better example.


10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/26/09 , edited 11/26/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Zionism is generally defined in one of two ways: either Jewish nationalism or the movement to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, if you study the movement you’ll discover that the former explanation is too vague and the later too specific. Both are simply proliferated for convenience sake. I will elaborate below, but before I matriculate down that road I want to address the rest of your post.

That is incorrect. The earliest recordings of widespread Zionism appeared after the Protestant Reformation and indicate that it was actually a Protestant Christian movement. It was a proposed solution to solve the “Jew problem,” that I personally find strikingly reminiscent of the later response to Native Americans after Wounded Knee. Basically, the idea was that the Jews were a plague to Christian society so they should be moved back to their historical homeland. The proposition was published by Sir Henry Finch in his 1621“The World’s Great Restauration or Calling of the Jews.” It was also supported by Napoleon and the second US president, John Adams.

Even in terms of modern Zionism there has never been a point in which Zionism was associated with resisting occupied forces. Most of the Jews were not even aware that they had a homeland; much less that it was being occupied by the Ottoman Empire. The Jews didn’t even consider themselves Jews. A Jewish citizen of Germany called himself a Germany. An English Jew called himself British. The Jews in France considered themselves Frenchmen and the Jews in Russia thought they were Russians.



Well, Zionism of course has evolved and it is multifaceted, but generally speaking it is the desire to protect Jewish life, liberty, heritage, and culture. Herzl’s method of accomplishing these goals (protecting Jewish life, liberty, heritage, and culture) was to create a Jewish state.

In broad terms Zionism isn’t about nationhood. It’s about preventing what happens to a people (in this case the Jews,) whenever they don’t have nationhood. In America after the Native Americans abandoned their tribal institutions and allowed themselves to be placed on reservations their identity as Native Americans virtually disappeared. They were assimilated and in time they will disappear completely. Well, Zionists don’t want this for the Jews. And the best way to avoid what happens to a people with no nation is to maintain a nation for those people.

That would, perhaps, be a logical conclusion if the premise was correct. The premise is not correct. The conclusion is also incorrect.

Actually, the British had no particular desire to occupy Palestine. Following the First World War the British mandate was placed under English Sovereignty as a stop-gap solution. It was meant to be temporary and the British knew it. Palestine was of no particular interest to them, although they did eventually make efforts to control the Sinai Peninsula. Following the Second World War it was the British who asked the United Nations to take the territory off of their hands and their hasty abandonment of the territory contributed to the Arab response to the declaration of Israel’s independence.

Even before that the British had been making promises to hand out chunks of the land to any group that made a claim. The Balfour Declaration promised to create a Jewish institution somewhere in Palestine while various other agreements vowed to hand out much of the territory to the Arabs. The Balfour was seen by the Arabs as a violation of previous agreements made between the Arabs and the British to give portions of the territory over to them once order had been established and peace attained.

Most of the Jews and Arabs in Palestine during the time of the British Mandate had only juts arrived. When the Jews started showing up in about 1880-1900 the Arabs had only just established a foothold themselves. By 1911 the Jews had been there for about one generation and the Arabs had been there for about three generations. There was no hundreds of years of occupation for the vast majority of both ethnic groups.

The Jews began resisting the British following the White Papers and the Arabs began resisting the British following the Balfour Declaration and the mass immigration of Jews. Even then it wasn’t until nearer to the Second World War that this resistance peeked.

No, there was no widespread opposition to the British when they first started showing up. Now, here and there you did have some resistance to their presence, but by-and-large people were bargaining with them. They were saying, “Well do this if you give us that plot of land,” and in fact the Arabs succeeded in attaining the vast majority of the British Mandate and the Jews earned themselves a homeland.

The violence there got worse because the Arabs weren’t willing to compromise and the Jews got inflated egos and started believing they could not be stopped. The Yom Kippur War taught them that they weren’t as tough as they thought they were, though they did defeat the Arab invaders.



That's correct, I didn't do deeper research about Zionist. The term Zionist itself is derived from the word Zion. It'sreferred to Mount Zion, a mountain near Jerusalem and under Prophet Daud (David), the name Zion was being referred to the Land of Israel. 'Zionism' was first by Austrian Jewish that eventually became a movement, kind like political party. The purposes of Zionist movement, indeed, to create Jewish homeland and its protection due to various discrimination to Jews people, especially in Germany.

What I meant Land is Jerusalem, not actually all land of Palestine. I'm not sure about other lands, but Jerusalem has Arabs and Jews citizens from century ago. There's no way Jerusalem were not being occupied. If you meant migrating to other lands in Palestine, I agreed. It was probably rare humans living in those lands, except Jerusalem.

However, there was actually Arabs who support Zionist when Jerusalem hadn't being occupied by British. In 1873, Shah of Persia Naser al-Din Shah Qajar met with British Jewish leaders, including Sir Moses Montefiore, during his journey to Europe. At that time, the Persian king suggested that the Jews buy land and establish a state for the Jewish people. On the other hand, some non-Arab Muslims such as some {Turks, Kurds and Berbers) have also voiced support for Zionism.

Unfortunately, the relation between Jews and Arabs worsened. I'm not quite sure what caused it. From my perspective, because British came and Arabs people were very violent to Jews. As majority, Arabs started demanding territories to British, the one who defeat ottoman and the army who control Jerusalem at that time. Yes, British were agreed to Arabs because they were majority. However, it's unfair to Jews. Then, Balfour declaration was born for Jews, While on the other hand, White Paper was for for Arabs. The thing is, those 2 were contradict to each other, until some extend which I'm not sure. There were too many disagreement between Jews and Arabs that leads to wars in the future.

I agreed, Arabs were being arrogant to Jews just because they are majority. Kinda similar to current situation where discrimination often happen to minority? I think this is human's nature that God very much dislike it. In my opinion, their conditions now caused by their disagreements to anyone, especially UN Partition Plan which is I think great solution for both nations. And Israel wouldn't attacking Palestine like today, if Arabs accepted UN Partition Plan and Jews were being recognized by Arabs too.



SeraphAlford wrote:

They would’ve won the Six Day War if Israel hadn’t disobeyed the commands of America and launched a pre-emptive strike. The Arabs were being unreasonable in 1948, and how the Israelis managed to win that war when the odds were so profoundly against them is hard to say. There is, just so you know, some debate as to whether or not the Arabs were going to attack Israel. Arab scholars and some anti-Israel political activists say that the gathering of hundreds of thousands of troops was part of a training exercise…. *Shrug.*


Arabs were think they are the one who are correct on everything in this Lands. That's why they're the one who attacked Israel first in Six Day War, if I'm not mistaken. Very much propaganda from Arabs to justify their action about their 'practice'. Well, well. I think Arabs were very shameful. They were the one who attack first, being supported by many Arabs States, didn't want to recognize Jews and being ignorant to Jews civilian, thus they're the one who lost.... lol~

Actually, I've been wondering. In Six Day War and many wars, how come a single Israel can won against joined forces of Arabs States? From where they got the weapons and armed vehicle? Does US gave it to them in order for political motives, competed with Soviet?


SeraphAlford wrote:

They believed that Palestine belonged to Muslims and thus that their war was a defensive campaign to throw out occupiers. I think Jews actually pray three times a day. Christianity is chronologically more closely related to the Jewish religion than Islam, though Islam and Judaism do seem more theologically similar than Judaism and Christianity or Christianity and Islam.

The term Semitic can refer to modern Semite or Ancient Semite. The Arabs are ancient Semites along with a boat load of other people. The Jews are modern Semites. Really, the only difference I can tell is that the Jews still identify themselves as Semites while people like the Palestinians identify themselves as Arabs. Technically, Palestinians are Semites and so are the other Arabs. But they don't identiy themselves as Semites.


Yeah, because they were majority. It just like Aborigine and Eurasian fighting in Australia to fought the island. Arabs or Muslims shouldn't think Jerusalem or 'Lands' were theirs. Like Aborigine or Native Americans, they were the one who first came there under Prophet Daud (David) and Moses. Jews, Christianity and Islam were come from Abraham religion. The first one who born was Judaism and the story goes on with Jews prophets( They are also Islam Prophets). I heard Jews in Jerusalem prays 5 times a day, I'm not sure though. I'm curious how many times Christians pray a day actually? (Not including daily prayers.)

The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. But the one who came earliest are Hebrews and it came from Shem (Sam) one of Noah (Nuh)'s sons. That is Semitic.

However, the term anti-semitic were always only referred to Jews. It was being used in 1879 by German journalist, Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry". Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaism Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the "League for Anti-Semitism". German people were the one who first used Anti-Semitic terms, without knowing it is also included Arabs and other ethnic as well. If I'm not wrong, it was included within western middle-east people, also south-east europe people. Therefore, Arabs are semitic as well.



SeraphAlford wrote:

I’ve pointed this out many times before: Zionism is, in part, a rebellion against the rabbinical traditions of orthodox Jewry. It replaces religious rule with secular nationalism. But, who’re you to decide which one’s authentic and which one’s rhinestone? It’s like an argument about knives. I could come into a kitchen with my American knives and find that everyone else there uses German knives. They could then say to me, “These are real knives,” and brandish their German knives. But in fact my knife is a knife, just a different type of knife. There are many things in life that are black and white. This is not one of them. This issue is grey. It’s a matter of perspective. To say that Zionists are not real Jews is to say that your perspective is better than the perspective of all those around you, and yet you cannot buttress an argument of this nature except based on personal bias no matter where you stand.

In terms of ethnic Jewry, it’s more black and white. You either are a Jew or you are not a Jew. In which case Jews, even atheistic Jews, who’re also Zionists are completely real Jews rather you choose to acknowledge them for their political perspective or not. Now, we here in America have a Christian Zionist movement. Many of these individual Christian Zionists are ethnic Jews, but the vast majority is Caucasian or African American individuals in the south. Most of these are not “real Jews,” but they’re not “fake Jews,” either because they make no claim to be Jewish in religion or ethnicity.


It because Jews people were too vague to described. It is because Judaism/Jew is religion, we couldn't know they are Jew unless they admit it themselves. It is faith, lies in our belief. Even Einstein hadn't being captured because Nazi didn't know he was Jew. Almost being captured, when Einstein speaks Hebrew to old lady though.

Same like another religion. Unless they talk, we can't be sure either they are Muslims, Christian, Jews, Atheist, Buddhist or Satanist.


SeraphAlford wrote:

I don’t know why you’re having trouble comprehending this. I’m nearly force to accept that you simply aren’t being honest with yourself again. I’ll say what I’ve told you a hundred times. You’ll likely ignore it because you don’t want to accept it, but it remains historical fact. Hamas won a majority seats in the 2006 election. Hamas took power in the 2007 coup. In the 2006 election the Palestinians also chose Fatah. The Fatah officials were elected to their seats as well. Hamas tried to force them out in 2007.

So, the Palestinian can’t elect Fatah, can’t chose their real voice? If they can't, why put Fatah in election from begin with? Where's the democracy?

Just because once upon a time Hamas won an irrelevant electoral victory doesn’t mean that they’re a democratic organization. They make no attempt to hide that they’re anti-Democracy Islamo-Fascists.


I just don't understand what kind of democracy they did there. Hamas won the election of Palestinian people, therefore they are the one who has rights to govern Palestine, not Fatah. It is simple math, between 2 parties there is only one winner: 2 - 1 = 1. As simple as that, unless the other party can't accept the result of election. That's when the maths are incorrect. Who is the one who ignore the election's result?

Hamas and Fatah were being elected in different elections. Hamas was chosen as the winner who has rights to be a leader of Palestinian people and Fatah was chosen to be the Parliament of Palestine. If I'm wrong, please tell me which elections Fatah had won?

The problem is Fatah was NOT the winner. Of course, there is some Palestinians who chose Fatah and there are lot of them, but because of this 'Tyranny of Majority' system, Hamas gained more vote than Fatah. I think people who lived in Democratic country know this system very well, right?

What kind of irrelevant victory you talked about? You meant Hamas was cheating like Hamid Karzai did in Afghanistan? I don't think there was any reports indicated to that. Hamas indeed are not Democratic organization, they believe in Islamic Laws, that's why you can't force them to be Democratic organization. It just different ideology but hey, does that even matter? Many ideologies exist in this world, and they doing well without implement this overrated system whereas Parliament can block any President's decision for their self-interest or for their party or because of sentiment to president who being elected not from their party. Does this ring the bell in your mind?

Election just a tool to know where Palestinians voice belongs to. After it been decided, it was Hamas, it's up to Hamas whether they want to implement democracy or not. Remember, if he people can't even believe in system, any system will not work effectively just like what happened to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Honduras.... etc. In my opinion, as long as they happy and accept their leader, it doesn't matter what kind of system they want to implement, just like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Well, as long as west do not force small country to implement it. Similar method like in Cold-war, with Block Policy?



SeraphAlford wrote:

Actually, Gilad was not kidnapped in a war zone. In fact, Gilad wasn’t even kidnapped during a time of war. There were some small conflicts around that time, but this was supposedly a time of peace. Of course, a time of peace in Israel means only about five rockets flying at your children each week instead of two hundred.

The abduction is illegal. Period, that’s a fact. Maybe it shouldn’t be illegal but it is.

Concerning the 11,000 Palestinian prisoners--that’s another topic. This is what’s called the straw man’s fallacy. I point out that the abduction was what ruined the peace process. You don’t want to admit that Hamas made a bad decision, that Hamas was wrong. So instead of acknowledging, “Yeah, the two parties were working towards peace before Gilad was kidnapped,” you change the topic and say: “Hey! Look over there! Israel’s arresting innocent people!”

It’s not illegal, by the way, to arrest a soldier carrying out an attack on your nation. So, if an American soldier fired his gun across the border at random Mexicans then the Mexican authorities would have the liberty to retaliate. However, if that American soldier was simply posted near the border it would be illegal for the Mexicans to arrest him.

That’s what happened with Gilad. He was drafted into the military and post on a base near the border. He was in Israel and posing no threat to the Palestinians when the Hamas forces crossed the border and conducted his unprovoked abduction in pursuit of their political goals. That’s illegal.

In many cases I’m sure the arrest of Palestinians is also illegal, but whenever you’ve got a legitimate and individual level cause of suspicion it’s acceptable to arrest foreign nationals. Israel’s rate of arrest is actually conservative when you consider the situation.

Once again I have to address the rest later, my battery is dying.


Well, the fact that Gilad was Israel soldier became legal to be kidnapped rather than being killed in any war. What kind of conflict do you think between Palestine and Israel? So do you think, Hamas should asked permission to kidnap Gilad, a Israel soldier who participated in this war? Of course, as long as Israel soldiers in Palestinians area, there's no time of peace for them, as Israel soldiers always make dispute to Palestinian people in Palestine territories.

It is not another topic, this is related to one and another in order to make peace. I could care less about straw man or pepsi man (I liked the game in PS x btw,~) used in any discussion, I trying to look from their perspective, both Israel's civilians and Palestine's civilians as well. Have you ever put your shoe on their place? Do you think they want to accept peace deals when they kidnapping Palestinians civilian NOT soldier? Moreover, making peace deal while Israel build settlements? And in the end, violating time of peace by bombing Palestine in December 2008? What kind of peace deal they spoke about?

In Palestinian's eyes, either Hamas or civilians, any Israel soldiers are dangerous for them as they've been oppressed in many way. Just like UN's reports say. So in their perspective, kidnapping any soldier as long as they available are their chance to make demand to Israel's authority. This is guerillia war's tactic we talk about. Anything is permissible as long as they bring benefit.

From Palestinian's perspective, they might say, "Hey, they've been kidnapping our family, they're not soldier and there are thousands of them, so let's some Israeli too!" Well, unless you looked Israeli and Palestinians different. Like 1 Israeli is worth 1000 Palestinians. That's kind of racist, and some Americans think like this, the world too. They think, lives from 3rd world countries are not equal to lives of people from 1st world country. The abduction of Gilad Salit is being exaggerated.

Can you tell my, what kind of legitimate and this individual level cause of suspicion that made Israel captured 11,000 Palestinian prisoners? I'm sure not all of them are suicide bomber or Hamas, some of them even died in Israel prison. Fatah even demanded Israel to freed the prisoners because Israel doesn't give any explanation to any arrest of Palestinian, moreover trial. This is violation of International laws regarding abduction.



SeraphAlford wrote:

Actually, throughout most of the Ottoman rule the Arab forces were generally moderate and content. The upsurge of imperial nationalism was not the result of a rip-roaring desire for self determination in Palestine but rather strategic injection on behalf of French and British agents such as Sir Mark Sykes. The campaign of insurgency was engendered by a Bureau of Britain’s foreign office which hoped to give the British establishments in Egypt control of the Arab world.

The major Arab contribution was Hussein bin Ali and his followers. Hussein, however, was traditionally a close ally and supporter of the Turks and he worked very closely with the Ottoman Empire. It was not until he discovered Turkish officials conspiring to remove him from power that he began bargaining with the British. In the years leading up to the revolt the British were eager to weaken an ally of Germany. They agreed to assist Hussein and eventually created an Arab state with borders in northern Syria and Yemen. This does not necessarily encompass Palestine.

The Arabs did see the Balfour as a violation of previous agreements and to some degree it was. However, plans had already fallen apart with the First World War. In addition it should be noted that the Arab nationalist movement emerged around the same time as adherents to modern Zionism began appearing in Palestine.

Whatever the case, throughout most of the Ottoman era neither the Arabs nor the Jews had maintained a significant presence in the area. Both were relatively new immigrants and the neither had any legitimate claim to the land. The fact remains that most of the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine at this time were simply living there because it was cheap and they could. They had no nationalist or imperial intention to take Palestine from the Turks or the British.

The race riots of 1936-1937 were not a revolt against the British. They were violent demonstrations designed to pressure the British into restricting Jewish immigration. As I pointed out before, to appease the Arab nationalist forces the British negotiated the White Papers which were the utter anti-thesis of the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist ambition to self determination.

You should also know that not only did the British have support from Zionist forces and Jewish self defence groups such as Haganah, many Arabs groups in Palestine actually fought alongside the British and the Zionists to protect the Jews.


You're mostly correct. About dispute between Arabs and Jews, Balfour and White Paper, and the attempts to create Arabs State and Jewish State. In any case, Arabs either seen British violated their agreements or being arrogant to Jews, they did not agreed with British to some extend. While in some case, they are agreed (White Paper) that caused Jews disagree. I think British wanted to appease Arabs because they were the majority before Jews immigrants came. To calmed the situation, British were forced to agreed to majority. Kind like democracy.

But they do wanted to kick Ottoman empire from Palestine lands to govern themselves, because Ottoman can't manage citizens of Jerusalem correctly. So they joined with British to defeat Ottoman. The fact that (some) Arabs supporting Zionist also correct. This is political support to kick Ottoman from their lands. They were supporting each other to create Arab State and Jewish State together, however time pass by and they did not supporting each other again because their goals has completed by British helps. The problem is, British can't maintained equity to both sides, not to mention high pressures from Arabs.


SeraphAlford wrote:

I’ve actually read quite a bit of the Qur’an. My personal observation is that this particular cannon does indeed have two distinct and mutually exclusive perspectives of the Jews. On one hand it says they’re brothers under god and should be treated with dignity so long as they do not challenge Islam. On the other hand it seems to convey they’re conspiring perpetrators of Dajjal and should be suppressed if not killed on sight.

However, by and large whenever I see a verse cited by terrorists like Hamas it seems to me that they’re intentionally manipulating the text. For example, during a battle against a tribe of Jews Mohammad (pbuh,) told his warriors to kill every Jew they saw. This obviously wasn’t a commandment to all Muslims. In context he’s clearly only directing it at a specific group of people in a specific circumstance. Hamas and other Islamo-terrorist groups do seem to be taking them out of context.

They also take Jihad out of context. I was actually introduced to Jihad while reading the Qur’an. I’d heard the term before but never really known what it was. The perspective I got from the Qur’an is very different than the one I get from history and modern Jihad. It’s the effort to defend oppressed Muslims and preserve Islamic heritage and culture and life and liberty. These people twist that and say that it’s a campaign to united the world beneath Muslim tyranny.

To be honest, I think the Shiites are the real problem. The Shiites believe that Imams and Caliphs and Mufti and other religious officials are appointed by God and that their words are utterly flawless. They believe anything their leaders tell them and anybody who disagrees is accused of denying God and being an infidel.

Obviously you can’t completely generalize. I’ve never met a Shiite in person, only Sunnis. I talked to one on the internet once, but what’s that worth?

I think Iran is a bad example. The government itself is progressive, in my perspective, whatever anyone says. I think Iran is a more moderate and modern state than we give it credit for. On an individual level, however, discrimination against the Jews on behalf of Islamic radicalism is still an issue.

I think that the United Arab Emirates would be a better example.


Actually both of them are correct about perspectives of Jews. However, you shouldn't implement both of them at the same time. What matters is time, if at the moment Jews people are being cooperated and does not disturb Muslims people them they should be treated as Brother as they also monotheism and pray to their one God. In the other hand, in some verses there are many sentence that describe Jews in war time, that's when Prophet Muhammad encountered during war time. Of course, in war, it is common things to kill any enemy you meet and attempts to kill you, If not you're the one who will be killed. That's what it meant.

Some Jews actually had close ties to muslims, especially Jews under Moses and its Torah. That's when the verses called them as brothers under God, because Moses was one of Prophet in Islam. But when some Jews killed their own people and murdered many Prophets including Jesus, that's when the verses pointed and ordered Muslims to fight against them because they broke the promises to God and attempts to kill muslims too. I agreed with Hamas taking Qur'an and commandments out of context whenever they do suicide bomber.

In Islam, killing civilians that has nothing to do in war should be protected not to be treated harshly too. But when Hamas killed Israel soldiers, I think that is correct, because Israel soldiers are oppressing and fighting Palestinians. So it's fair to reply them by gun too. And their actions are to defend oppressed Muslims and preserve Islamic heritage, culture, life and liberty as you said.

Actually, that's what I believe. If Catholic Protestant has Pope, then Muslims has 'Khalifah' to lead all Muslims on the world. 'Khalifah' is the civil and religious leader of a Muslim state considered to be a representative of Allah on earth; "many radical Muslims believe a Khalifah will unite all Islamic lands and people and subjugate the rest of the world".

This is was being ordered by Prophet Muhammad when he was about to pass away. He asked his friends and all of muslims in Madinah to select amongst one of them that they acknowledged and most trusted to be his successor (to be leader of muslims not prophet). As result, one of Prophet Muhammad friends became successor and lead muslims world, then it continues like that.

Unlike democracy, their period is until they are died, BUT they are not utterly flawless. Muslims have rights to change the leader if the leader is not good enough to lead them, this is judged from many perspective of leader's quality, mostly by their piety to God and trust. There was a story my teacher told me about Khalifah (Leader of Muslims). I forgot his name, if I'm not wrong here is the story.

When he being appointed and chosen by Imams, Caliph, Mufti, and Generals. He then moved forward to city and faced Muslims people in front of crowd, to give his words. He shouted: "Who dares to oppose me?!" Citizens were not expecting this Khalifah talk like that. However, because of his background, people were scared to say any word. Suddenly, one man shouted back "Me.If you diverge from Allah's path and Prophet's, I won't hesitant to oppose you with my sword!" He raised his sword while he shouting to Khalifah. Then the Khalifah ordered that man to come in front of crowd to face the Khalifah. While He moved forward as Khalifah's order, the crowd wondering, whispering what Khalifah will do to this man. Unexpectedly, Khalifah hugged this man in front of crowd and said, "Thank God, there is still a person who will correct me if I did evil things'.

From this story, it gives us image about Khalifah. Khalifah are just human beings, they must be make some mistake. (Even Prophet made several mistake that God described in one Surah) They are not flawless, thus they need their people to judge them. If they diverge God's laws and being harmful to its own people, he can be changed or if he govern muslims people with dictator style, he can be killed. I don't know how you get the idea of Imams, Caliph, Mufti are appointed by God and they are flawless. While they should be appointed by their own people based on piety, trust and their capabilities to govern people. If they can't , they should be changed immediately.

This is not only Shiite, this is general understanding of Muslims. Well, coming from nor Sunni or Shiite, and only acknowledge Islam as whole might a bit different from what you heard from Sunni or Shiite. I meant, some of Shiite teachings are right and some of Sunni teachings are right and both of them possess wrong teachings at the same time. The combined right teachings between Shiite and Sunni is what I called True Islam. That's all. After all, Shiite and Sunni originally created because of politics motive after Prophet Muhammad died, not because of teaching.

I don't know about united Arab Emirates as I don't even know, where on earth those states are, lol. I don't know if Jews are living there, too. However, as I talked about in Iran's Nuclear Ambition thread, current Iran seems more moderate and tolerant than the past. jews can express their religion freely despite their hate of anti-Israel. They can live together. According to some Jews, they even stated Iranian Muslims are kinder to Jews than to Muslims themselves. We haven't been to Iran, after all. So we can't and shouldn't judge them by their outside layer.

If you have any problems to understand my grammar, please let me know.I don't know any good website that offer spelling and grammar check.

Btw, I briefly wrote solutions that possible to Israel and Palestine in this thread. If you have any other solution, especially your knowledge about government system in country. It 'll be very much appreciated.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-377801/the-nation-of-israel-and-palestine/?pg=19#28836461
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.