Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Erikl

Is Israel an Apartheid state?

320 posts in this topic

How will you remove them? What RIGHT do you claim to remove them? Where will you place them? How much death and destruction is it worth to return Palestinian "refugees" to "their" land? What is your "solution"?

We all know the answer don't we? :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can call bull, while I can ask how come the UN have set a special definition for a Palestinian refugee, different than any other refugee, in a time there were tens of millions of refugees around the world (after WW2). For some reason, 600-400,000 refugees have grown to an astonishing 5-10 million Palestinian refugees, even though no one is making them leave anymore. How can refuge-dom be hereditary? This is unheared of anywhere in the political history. How come the Arab countries continue to lock Palestinians behind bars? How come the UN doesn't call upon these countries to assimilate and naturalize people with the exact same language, religion and culture (Muslim Arabs)?

No, there were 750,000 refugees in 1948 and another 250,000 refugees in 1967. The Palestinians were the indigeneous peoples of Palestine. But the Zionists were colonialists. They began colonizing Palestine since what the 1880s? The Zionists weren't indigeneous. They were European Ashkenazi Jews.

750,000 indigeneous peoples were dispossessed of their land and homes, and again in 1967 when many of these indigeneous peoples became refugees for a second time. The 750,000 refugees growth to the millions is decades worth of population growth in the refugees camps whose rightful homeland is Palestine.

Between 1948 to 1952, Israel's Jewish population doubled.

Are the Palestinians themselves Palestinians? Most of the people you consider Palestinians have lived in other Arab countries more generations than they did in what you and the rest of the world consider Palestine.

Being that until 80 years ago there was no Palestine and no borders in the Middle East, and the definition of the UN for a Palestinian refugee is "a person who resided in Mandatory Palestine from 1946", then these Jews are no colonialists in any way possible.

Btw, this thread is again taken by another member off-topic to spread propaganda. This is pointless. Jews are not colonialists in the area, they haven't come here as colonialists, not in their motives and not in their end result. What's wrong? the apartheid analogy was refuted so you go wild?

No this thread is being hijacked by alot of Zionist Orwellian doubletalk and doublethink.

Here is the UN definition of the Palestinian refugees:

Palestine refugees

empty.gif

Tags: refugees

empty.gif

Who are Palestine refugees?

2010010582327.jpg

Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict.

UNRWA's services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of the original Palestine refugees are also eligible for registration. When the Agency started working in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=86

Here is the definition of colonialism:

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Doesn't that describe European Zionism quite perfectly?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How will you remove them? What RIGHT do you claim to remove them? Where will you place them? How much death and destruction is it worth to return Palestinian "refugees" to "their" land? What is your "solution"?

First grant the right of return and right of self-determination to the indigeneous peoples namely the Palestinians even it if dissolves the current JEWISH state in favour for a multicultural genuine democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First grant the right of return and right of self-determination to the indigeneous peoples namely the Palestinians even it if dissolves the current JEWISH state in favour for a multicultural genuine democracy.

Right. We'll do that after we'll give back California and most of the south West to the Mexicans, ok?

The Palestinians were the indigeneous peoples of Palestine. But the Zionists were colonialists. They began colonizing Palestine since what the 1880s? The Zionists weren't indigeneous. They were European Ashkenazi Jews.

When you call one group by it's ethnicity, yet the other one by it's national movement's name, your entire argument turns into a cheap, lousy, propaganda. Jews were most certainly not colonialists in the region. The fact that Jews and Judaism originates from Judea, an area in what you consider Palestine, kind of contradict this. It has been a long time since I've seen so many terms being abused in one sentence, all thanks to the thought police of the anti-Israeli police. Go and learn what colonialism means. Go and learn what Zionism means. In the mean time, you can continue to support your bogus, fake "humane" cause, that is to support a racist, genocidal, tyrannical nationalist movement called Palestinian nationalism.

There is no point into discussing with you, as you seem to obviously support the destruction of my country. Hence any debate with you will equal a debate with a neo-Nazi about Jews or African-Americans. Go spread your hatred somewhere else.

Edited by Erikl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. We'll do that after we'll give back California and most of the south West to the Mexicans, ok?

When you call one group by it's ethnicity, yet the other one by it's national movement's name, your entire argument turns into a cheap, lousy, propaganda. Jews were most certainly not colonialists in the region. The fact that Jews and Judaism originates from Judea, an area in what you consider Palestine, kind of contradict this. It has been a long time since I've seen so many terms being abused in one sentence, all thanks to the thought police of the anti-Israeli police. Go and learn what colonialism means. Go and learn what Zionism means. In the mean time, you can continue to support your bogus, fake "humane" cause, that is to support a racist, genocidal, tyrannical nationalist movement called Palestinian nationalism.

There is no point into discussing with you, as you seem to obviously support the destruction of my country. Hence any debate with you will equal a debate with a neo-Nazi about Jews or African-Americans. Go spread your hatred somewhere else.

I rarely directly answer questions from this poster any longer for this very reason. It is impossible to have a reasoned back and forth. I believe any one has a right to be as anti Israel or America as they want to be, but I have NO respect for someone who will never admit their stance openly. Especially when the end result of what they advocate for is death and destruction of an entire people. That may sound incendiary but I challenge anyone to deny it in a rational way. Grrrrrrrrr :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Right. We'll do that after we'll give back California and most of the south West to the Mexicans, ok?

That same argument can be used against the Zionists seeing that the Arabs dominated Palestine for the last 1,300 years before 1948. Why resurrect the long dead Davidic Kingdom that existed around 1000 BCE and lasted until 926 BCE? Prior to the state of Israel, the Davidic Kingdom HASNT existed in approximately 2,871 YEARS. In other words, the last time the Jews ruled this much land in Palestine was approximately 2,936 years ago FROM TODAY. Geezus! Sure, the apostate Kingdom of Judah stood for nearly 350 years thereafter. But that kingdom's domain was really no larger than today's the West Bank.

When you call one group by it's ethnicity, yet the other one by it's national movement's name, your entire argument turns into a cheap, lousy, propaganda. Jews were most certainly not colonialists in the region. The fact that Jews and Judaism originates from Judea, an area in what you consider Palestine, kind of contradict this. It has been a long time since I've seen so many terms being abused in one sentence, all thanks to the thought police of the anti-Israeli police. Go and learn what colonialism means. Go and learn what Zionism means. In the mean time, you can continue to support your bogus, fake "humane" cause, that is to support a racist, genocidal, tyrannical nationalist movement called Palestinian nationalism.

There is no point into discussing with you, as you seem to obviously support the destruction of my country. Hence any debate with you will equal a debate with a neo-Nazi about Jews or African-Americans. Go spread your hatred somewhere else.

The Zionists were European and there is no evidence they have any direct lineage to the ancient Israelites dating back between 1000 BCE to 586 BCE.

Jews were NOT the first peoples in Palestine though, doesn't the history of Palestine date back to something like 5,000 BCE. The Jews were relatively new comers to the region, the Davidic Kingdom rose around 1000 BCE and lasted a mere 74 years.

The Kingdom of Judah stood for alike something just under 350 years. Not only are the Jews latecomers but out of 7,000 years of human history in Palestine, the Jews "dominated" around 500 years of it and it was not much larger than today's the West Bank during its longest domain.

Edited by B Jenkins
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I rarely directly answer questions from this poster any longer for this very reason. It is impossible to have a reasoned back and forth. I believe any one has a right to be as anti Israel or America as they want to be, but I have NO respect for someone who will never admit their stance openly. Especially when the end result of what they advocate for is death and destruction of an entire people. That may sound incendiary but I challenge anyone to deny it in a rational way. Grrrrrrrrr :no:

Right!

Arab Palestinians - 1,300 years

Davidic Kingdom - 74 years

Kingdom Of Judah - 344 years

Hasmonean Dynasty - 73 years (as an independent state)

State Of Israel - 65 years and counting

Edited by B Jenkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arab Palestinians - 1,300 years

Woah, it seems each and every post in this page by you is full of lies, eh?

There was no independent Arab Palestine ever, in the area. Not ever.

During those 1,300 years, the land was ruled by succession of Muslim and Christian kingdoms and empires. From the 15th century up till 1918 the land was part of the Ottoman, Turkic, non-Arabic empire. It was carved out and named "Palestine" by the league of nation and the British as a result of the fact that in the West, the region was called Palestine, from the Romans naming it that way. The Arabs have called the entire region of Syria, Lebanon and modern Israel as "Bilad Ha-Sham".

The Palestinians themselves didn't come to think themselves as a nation until about 50 years ago. Before that their national movement considered themselves Arabs, part of one single nation of people stretching from Morocco to Iraq. The existence of a separate Palestinian Arab people is the direct result of British and French colonialism - nothing more than that. Before that and even today so-called "Palestinian" families stretch from north Israel all the way to Syria, as until few decades ago the Arab in the region defined themselves by tribal affiliation, not nationhood. That was brought into the region by British and French colonialism.

Jews, on the other hand, have been living in the region for thousands of years. Modern genetic studies have proven that Ashkenazi Jews originate from the Middle East, with very little admixture from non-Jews in Europe (as a result of the fact that Christians were forbidden from marrying Jews).

And that has nothing to do with the fact that half of the Israeli Jews originate from Middle Eastern communities, from where is now Israel, from Syria, from Lebanon, from Iraq, from Morocco, Tunisia etc,. They are intermarried and intermingled with Ashkenazi Jews. So a person whose grandfather came from the Middle East, and his grandmother from Europe - where would you send?

That same argument can be used against the Zionists

This is exactly what you want. You want to "return" Israel to the Palestinians, even though it wasn't theirs to begin with.

California and most of the south West, was, historically, part of Mexico. And most Mexicans are mostly Native Americans with only some Spanish admixture. So they have much better claim to that area than a bunch of Irish, German, Scots, Italians and Jews coming from Europe and annexing their lands to their newly European-dominant country back in the 19th century, no? :rolleyes::wacko:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he's saying is a Jew isn't a real Jew if he wants a homeland...too sad to be funny...and far too many like him in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. We'll do that after we'll give back California and most of the south West to the Mexicans, ok?

The british gave Scotland it's fair chance for independency now. Do you have to be the last ones to make a change just because you were the last ones who made the claim?

No matter what you say can change the state of things in your country. The state of things seems to be that the palestinians are living worse off and being pushed by you, more than the other way around. It's a problem of mutual violence. To stop violence you shouldn't give more reasons to be violent, because that simply doesn't help until one side is obliterated, completely wiped out. Do you really want things to go there?

We all know the answer don't we? :rolleyes:

Why dont you just say it out loud then?

It's a real laughing riot to say there's no apartheid in Israel and to resort to bickery about terminology when there's two big ethnic groups, jews and palestinians basically, and one side's leaders decide to lock the other population behind a big fence, checkpoints, occasionally raid them and allow settlers to take their land because of...? And palestinians do suicide bombing and rocket strikes, yes. It's mutual. Did you think that world war 2 gave you a right to take it out on others because your people had it rough there? There's apartheid, it's mutual, everyone aren't involved as there's those who stay out of it on both "sides" the best they can. That's how it is.

One thing I'd like to see is people pull their heads off their .... and start not bickering and blaming and claiming and putting down their offensive attitute for once around this subject, and even hypothetize a solution both sides could accept.

The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Woah, it seems each and every post in this page by you is full of lies, eh?

There was no independent Arab Palestine ever, in the area. Not ever.

During those 1,300 years, the land was ruled by succession of Muslim and Christian kingdoms and empires. From the 15th century up till 1918 the land was part of the Ottoman, Turkic, non-Arabic empire. It was carved out and named "Palestine" by the league of nation and the British as a result of the fact that in the West, the region was called Palestine, from the Romans naming it that way. The Arabs have called the entire region of Syria, Lebanon and modern Israel as "Bilad Ha-Sham".

The Palestinians themselves didn't come to think themselves as a nation until about 50 years ago. Before that their national movement considered themselves Arabs, part of one single nation of people stretching from Morocco to Iraq. The existence of a separate Palestinian Arab people is the direct result of British and French colonialism - nothing more than that. Before that and even today so-called "Palestinian" families stretch from north Israel all the way to Syria, as until few decades ago the Arab in the region defined themselves by tribal affiliation, not nationhood. That was brought into the region by British and French colonialism.

Jews, on the other hand, have been living in the region for thousands of years. Modern genetic studies have proven that Ashkenazi Jews originate from the Middle East, with very little admixture from non-Jews in Europe (as a result of the fact that Christians were forbidden from marrying Jews).

And that has nothing to do with the fact that half of the Israeli Jews originate from Middle Eastern communities, from where is now Israel, from Syria, from Lebanon, from Iraq, from Morocco, Tunisia etc,. They are intermarried and intermingled with Ashkenazi Jews. So a person whose grandfather came from the Middle East, and his grandmother from Europe - where would you send?

Baloney, the Palestinians are of the same western Semitic stock as spoken of in the Bible (namely the Amorites and Arameans) that arrived from northwestern Mesopotamia due to Indo-European and Hurrian expansion into their Mesopotamian and Anatolian homelands.

Jews of the Old Testament were admixture of western Semitic stock likewise also Palestinians.

Western Semites were the Amorites and Arameans who originated from Northwestern Mesopotamia, from the Upper Eurphrates river. Amorites inhabited the southwest parts of this region while the Arameans inhabited the north parts of this region.

Eastern Semites were the Akkadians and Assyrians from the Upper Tigris river

There was a series of large migrations to Palestine/Levant between the 3rd and 2nd Millenium. The earliest inhabitants were Ghassulian in the 4th Millenium BCE and many believe these were simply the very first wave of western Semites, proceeded by two more waves of large migrations into the Levant. The second wave is said to be the Amorites. While the Patriarch Abraham occurred during the third large migration which is said to be the Arameans.

See Deuteronomy 26:5, Genesis 14:13, Genesis 24:4, Genesis 25:20.

So in essence, the Palestinians do indeed quality as Arabicized western Semites because the local population preserved their Semitic lineage. So with that, the Palestinians actually have a greater claim to historically to Palestine than the Ashkenazi European Jews because they are just as the Hebrews and Jews of the Old Testament were... western Semites and no doubtly can trace their bloodlines to the Hebrews but despite successive waves of Hellenization, Christianization, and Islamization. The last of which Arabicized this local western Semitic population over the last 1,300 years.

This is exactly what you want. You want to "return" Israel to the Palestinians, even though it wasn't theirs to begin with.

California and most of the south West, was, historically, part of Mexico. And most Mexicans are mostly Native Americans with only some Spanish admixture. So they have much better claim to that area than a bunch of Irish, German, Scots, Italians and Jews coming from Europe and annexing their lands to their newly European-dominant country back in the 19th century, no? :rolleyes::wacko:

Western Semites (aka Hebrews, Amorites, Arameans) never departed from the Levant. They were always there. They are the Palestinian Arabs.

Edited by B Jenkins
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he's saying is a Jew isn't a real Jew if he wants a homeland...too sad to be funny...and far too many like him in the world.

P

Wait a minute, Jews in the Old Testament are western Semites (aka Amorites and Arameans). See the verses in my last post in response to Erikl.

Therefore, I ask you this, and then? Is Judaism ... racial? Or is Judaism ... a creed? Please answer me this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The british gave Scotland it's fair chance for independency now. Do you have to be the last ones to make a change just because you were the last ones who made the claim?

No matter what you say can change the state of things in your country. The state of things seems to be that the palestinians are living worse off and being pushed by you, more than the other way around. It's a problem of mutual violence. To stop violence you shouldn't give more reasons to be violent, because that simply doesn't help until one side is obliterated, completely wiped out. Do you really want things to go there?

Why dont you just say it out loud then?

It's a real laughing riot to say there's no apartheid in Israel and to resort to bickery about terminology when there's two big ethnic groups, jews and palestinians basically, and one side's leaders decide to lock the other population behind a big fence, checkpoints, occasionally raid them and allow settlers to take their land because of...? And palestinians do suicide bombing and rocket strikes, yes. It's mutual. Did you think that world war 2 gave you a right to take it out on others because your people had it rough there? There's apartheid, it's mutual, everyone aren't involved as there's those who stay out of it on both "sides" the best they can. That's how it is.

One thing I'd like to see is people pull their heads off their .... and start not bickering and blaming and claiming and putting down their offensive attitute for once around this subject, and even hypothetize a solution both sides could accept.

The end.

Do you really feel that in all these years of US effort that no one has attempted to do just that? The final status agreement that was cobbled together between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat gave the PA almost all the land they asked for and more importantly -East Jerusalem. And Arafat walked away and started a war (intifada). Lots of reasons were given for this but the truth is he was a coward. Ehud Barak was hated by more than half of Israelis because gave away too much yet Arafat was so worried about being killed by his own people that he just walked out. There will never be a lasting peace between these two peoples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I think plenty of people have done it. Just that this is what seems to be the breaking point, people get too heated and rigid and go back to their camps behind fences both mental and physical. I see a lot of people taking a good attitute to this but the ones who dont have a good attitute can't seem to make the most important chance, the chance of their own attitute. As you describe it's not just leaders, but the grassroot thing. People can say a million words but in every word there's an atittute that shines behind them, you can't escape that attitute. And it's those people who hold onto rigid and hateful attitute that are in the key position to make that important change. You can't force that change even at gunpoint on any side. It's the heart of the crisis, that's the heart that needs to be healed.

Even though it's something they must do themselves, it usually takes an external event to "wake them up" sort of, like it takes something happen to the family life of an alcoholic for the person to realise "hey, I'm gone too far now" and start rehab. I think we should ship millions of mirrors there or sponsor someone to manufacture them, so the people who hold on to malign attitute can take that mirror, look there and ask themselves "is any of this really helping". Because if they dont do this, things wont change. Breaking a mirror results in 7 years worth of bad luck so they would do well not to break all those mirrors. Let alone bomb a mirror factory. And maybe if everyone has mirrors in their homes, 3 or more, maybe no one bombs each other in fear of breaking a mirror.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
935340_583117008379117_1404881349_n.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Israelis realize that they can still be Jews without being Zionists, when they are able to distinguish meaningless political rhetoric like "right to exist" from meaningful policy that oppresses innocent masses, the dirty work of the Zionists will come to an end.

It doesn't matter diddly squat whether a certain county is 80% Amish and 20% non-Amish. What matters is that Amish people aren't oppressing non-Amish people, and that non-Amish people aren't oppressing Amish people in any county of any population makeup, of any history, of any religion, of any ethnicity. I can't even believe I have to say this to some people. They don't need their own "homeland" in order to live free and in peace in the US and neither do Jews, Arabs, Muslims, or any other special interest group under God. That's where US taxpayer responsibility ends. We're not going to collectively act like racists over here suffering group-minded nonsense like that and we can't keep funding it overseas in Israel either or we'll continue to be branded as hypocrites in the world.

Mikko's best external event that shakes up the status quo in Israel are changes in US foreign policy. A non-violent idea that will mean that Israel will no longer enjoy political, economic, and military support from the US that it does. When that day comes, Israel will need to look at sanity and humanity to solve its problems instead of treating its problems with statist force control. I'm sure the Ghetto Uprisings in Warsaw were extremists who needed to be punished severely as if they hadn't already. Extremism is what happens when governments oppress people. It's fundamental, it's blatantly predictable. It's the expected outcome.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I think plenty of people have done it. Just that this is what seems to be the breaking point, people get too heated and rigid and go back to their camps behind fences both mental and physical. I see a lot of people taking a good attitute to this but the ones who dont have a good attitute can't seem to make the most important chance, the chance of their own attitute. As you describe it's not just leaders, but the grassroot thing. People can say a million words but in every word there's an atittute that shines behind them, you can't escape that attitute. And it's those people who hold onto rigid and hateful attitute that are in the key position to make that important change. You can't force that change even at gunpoint on any side. It's the heart of the crisis, that's the heart that needs to be healed.

Even though it's something they must do themselves, it usually takes an external event to "wake them up" sort of, like it takes something happen to the family life of an alcoholic for the person to realise "hey, I'm gone too far now" and start rehab. I think we should ship millions of mirrors there or sponsor someone to manufacture them, so the people who hold on to malign attitute can take that mirror, look there and ask themselves "is any of this really helping". Because if they dont do this, things wont change. Breaking a mirror results in 7 years worth of bad luck so they would do well not to break all those mirrors. Let alone bomb a mirror factory. And maybe if everyone has mirrors in their homes, 3 or more, maybe no one bombs each other in fear of breaking a mirror.

This is why the teaching of children to hate in kindergarten is a real problem. It happens and it isn't even deniable. How does one make a peace with that attitude? It is cover for those who want to "steal" more land.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, that all boils down to attitute problem of those who keep teaching those things, both sides. Not just kindergarden but everyone who advocate the attitute. The problem to remove this stays the same, just that you might need a bigger external event because it's so deep-rooted there. You need to bury the war-axe in people's minds on both sides before it can happen, and the external event that allows people to justify other possibilities in their minds. They may already want peace, both sides, even if they well hell-bent on denying it, but just dont admit it. This is why you need the external event, for them to come to surface with it.

An idea of peace is easy. An idea of peace together can be achieved too if you let people keep enough area of the country to live in, just that and throw all historical-political nonsense off for once. Just the humane, relatively fair thing. But you need an event too, small or big, an excuse for them to come clean about peace.

I know it's hard to let go if you've been bullied, and both sides have victims so yeah. But this is why it's even more important to take it on only the real culprits and only them, not those who just carry out what they order. This is taking it out on the rest and that is not good. Culprits on both sides need to be uprooted and handed over to the other side, promised a fair trial and dealt with. It's not because of justice but to sate the lust for vengeance. That lust wont go away easily. If you bomb a group of civilians you know that you bomb on people who might not want to oppress you, and if you be a facist and build a wall and checkpoints to make a prison for people and order others to raid their homes and approve of stealing their land without consequences, then in both cases you need to be brought to justice. It's that simple, there's no "oh well, I'll let it be" -solution apart from total forgiviness in both sides, or total subjugation and very likely consequently an international conflict US vs Arabs. I'm sure the weapon manufacturers and rebuilders want this, it does create more jobs and profit than peace, but you should think of your own interest, not corporate interests. If corporates benefitted from peace they'd be lobbing for it, but do you see that in weapons manufacturers' case?

Total forgiviness might be hard because jews have a history of having been treated harshly and you can understand that they might view anyone whining on them (jews) giving others a hard time just pointless whining, while arabs of israel have been this conflicts underdogs. It's hard then... but that's why you need to drop all this history and politics and religion and just ask yourself if you're a conflict member how hard time you've gotten from all this. Ask yourself how hard you've been hit, and what you really feel bad about. You can always find forgiviness if you take that approach, and if the other party apologies. But if you go behind facades of this and that, facades of religion or facades of history of generations that were there long before your parents were born, it wont really help to decide who's right and who's wrong on this kind of thing. The moral balance of accounts, Karma as people call it, stops being inherited. Otherwise we'd all be in jail or executed, and die because our hearts would break under the heaviness of guilt. It really hurts your heart when you're guilty but can't let go and come clean, and if all that pain would be inherited, you'd be accumulating so much pain you wouldn't literally breathe. Or you'd be a very cold-blooded, very very numb individual. But most of you are not despite the history. So drop it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are efforts on the way for some time now but its always lost in the war cries :

Heartbeat: Palestinian and Israeli Youth Musicians on Debut Tour in U.S. Posted: 02/19/2013 2:19 am

Heartbeat play an impromptu performance on Ben Yehuda, a busy pedestrian-only street in West Jerusalem. Most song are their own compositions, including "Bukra fil mish mish," which is a word play on a Palestinian saying which means "When the impossible becomes possible" -- the reference being that there are Palestinians and Israeli's creating music together. The song, a mix of rock music sung in their rare mix of English and Hebrew reggae tones and Arabic rap, represent the mix of personalities and cultures that make up the group of 14- to 22-year-olds.

link

“Sport has a unique and irreplaceable capacity to unite people,

going far beyond ethnic, religious or social differences.

I am convinced that sport can be at the long-term service of peace”

HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco

link

Israeli and Palestinian youth make peace through film

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Despite their differences, Palestinian and Israeli youths are coming together in peacemaking efforts. Two different organizations are helping them make use of the media (through videos and a multi-lingual magazine), in order to overcome differences and try to better understand one another.

link

Now if the adults can just at the very least stay out of the way if they are not supportive or constructive with the criticism ///

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really feel that in all these years of US effort that no one has attempted to do just that? The final status agreement that was cobbled together between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat gave the PA almost all the land they asked for and more importantly -East Jerusalem. And Arafat walked away and started a war (intifada). Lots of reasons were given for this but the truth is he was a coward. Ehud Barak was hated by more than half of Israelis because gave away too much yet Arafat was so worried about being killed by his own people that he just walked out. There will never be a lasting peace between these two peoples.

MORE ZIONIST PROPAGANDIST BULL OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!

Ehud Barak offered Arafat a demilitarized "autonomous" Palestine with limited control of its land, its airspace, its borders, and its resources. Arafat basically said "Screw that, and stick it where the sun don't shine, Israel!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MORE ZIONIST PROPAGANDIST BULL OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!

Ehud Barak offered Arafat a demilitarized "autonomous" Palestine with limited control of its land, its airspace, its borders, and its resources. Arafat basically said "Screw that, and stick it where the sun don't shine, Israel!"

You so funny... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You so funny... :w00t:

Those are the real facts, the Camp David Proposals failed to address the refugees and their right of return, it failed to address the settlements by fact that East Jerusalem would been Palestinian islands in a sea of Jewish settlements and annexiation of lands all the way to Jordan, and failed to offer the Palestinians viability, independence, and self-determination.

It demilitarized this proposed Palestinian state.

It gave Israel control of the Palestinian state's borders.

It gave Israel control of the Palestinian state's airspace.

It gave Israel control of the Palestinian state's water resources. Annexation of 'large swaths of the territory' over the Western Aquifer would increase Israel's proportion of water under international law, thus reducing the Palestinians'. Moreover, the Palestinians' shortage of water resources and agricultural land was neglected by Barak's proposals. This aquifer primarily lies under West Bank land and is the 'best' and 'most abundant' Palestinian water source. As for their agricultural needs, the only area left for development is the Jordan Valley, which Israel sought to keep under long-term lease.

I thought Barak was quite frankly hilarious (sarcasm)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's because the bloody Palis started shooting rockets at them from Gaza a few days after they evicted settlers? Are you really that dense? Forget it - it's like talking to a wall. Am Yisrael Chai -and always will - so chew on that BJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Barak was quite frankly hilarious (sarcasm)!

B Jenkins, you are right Barak is a master comic.

But he's small time compared to Netanyaho whose a real comedic genius.

Don't you remember how Bibi left his UN audience in stitches after his famous Looney Tunes' Wile E. Coyote skit, in which he used graphics to depict a classic Acme designed bomb and dramatized the severity of attempting to stop the Road Runner from crossing the red line ... Why even Elmer Fudd was laughing his ass off!

Now that's Priceless!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B Jenkins, you are right Barak is a master comic.

But he's small time compared to Netanyaho whose a real comedic genius.

Don't you remember how Bibi left his UN audience in stitches after his famous Looney Tunes' Wile E. Coyote skit, in which he used graphics to depict a classic Acme designed bomb and dramatized the severity of attempting to stop the Road Runner from crossing the red line ... Why even Elmer Fudd was laughing his ass off!

Now that's Priceless!

Yeah...nuclear weapons in the hands of religious zealots is a real laugh riot. If anything Bibi was being condescending, not attempting to be funny. He realizes he's dealing with idiots, a little slow on the uptake where Iran and nukes are concerned. Sad thing is that when they admit they have a bomb there won't be a peep from any of you guys. You'll probably even say they have the right and it's no problem. What's that line from Ron White? "YOU CAIN'T FIX STUPID"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.