I Shall Remember

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did I say anything about how the US worked? Or do you simply not want to face the fact that you are a hypocrite? If you honestly believe that you have rights to Israel based on your heritage and that anyone who moved there from other countries has no right to be there then you should apply the same logic to your stay in the US. You should then respect the ...[text shortened]... operty of the land in question (obviously politically you have no right to Israel whatsoever).

Or are you making the ridiculous argument that different parts of the world 'work' differently when it comes to land and residence rights?

Of course not. Rather, I'm saying that the US and Israel work in completely different ways.

Originally posted by scherzo
Of course not. Rather, I'm saying that the US and Israel work in completely different ways.

How they currently work is not important. You do not live in Israel. You have no legal rights there as far as I know. If you claim that the people currently living there do not have a right to be there then you are appealing to some form of rights that has nothing to do with law. If you are correct that they have no right to be there then what right do you have to be in the US? How is it different?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How they currently work is not important. You do not live in Israel. You have no legal rights there as far as I know. If you claim that the people currently living there do not have a right to be there then you are appealing to some form of rights that has nothing to do with law. If you are correct that they have no right to be there then what right do you have to be in the US? How is it different?

I am Palestinian. I do not represent Israeli interests, I represent Palestinian interests. If these clash with the interests of the Israelis I don't compromise.

Originally posted by scherzo
I am Palestinian. I do not represent Israeli interests, I represent Palestinian interests. If these clash with the interests of the Israelis I don't compromise.

It is irrelevant who you represent. You claim that the Israelis do not have a right to be in Israel. On what do you base that claim? Why is it so hard for you to address my questions on this topic? Are you afraid of being shown to be the hypocrite that you are?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is irrelevant who you represent. You claim that the Israelis do not have a right to be in Israel. On what do you base that claim? Why is it so hard for you to address my questions on this topic? Are you afraid of being shown to be the hypocrite that you are?

I base that claim on the fact that for over a century, they have constantly repressed us without cause. They are going to continue doing that for as long as they exist. So the only two options for Palestine are (a) deport the Israelis, or (b) kill the Israelis.

I think we can agree on which choice is better.

Originally posted by scherzo
I base that claim on the fact that for over a century, they have constantly repressed us without cause. They are going to continue doing that for as long as they exist. So the only two options for Palestine are (a) deport the Israelis, or (b) kill the Israelis.

I think we can agree on which choice is better.

Unfortunately these are not options at all.

It seems to me that you in person learnt nothing from the 1929, 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006 and 2009 episodes. Your thesis reproduces solely ruins and death; there are not winners and losers as you appear to believe; there are solely human beings that they will never know ad infinitum whether or not their beloved persons that they kissed them well in the morning they will come back home late in the night. This is the reality over there, regardless if each human being walks under the light of the Star or of the Moon.

Originally posted by scherzo
I base that claim on the fact that for over a century, they have constantly repressed us without cause. They are going to continue doing that for as long as they exist. So the only two options for Palestine are (a) deport the Israelis, or (b) kill the Israelis.

I think we can agree on which choice is better.

So your reasoning really has nothing to do with any form of innate rights to the land? I was under the impression that Israel was created after the second world war. How did they manage to oppress you for over a century?

The Slaves in the US were oppressed longer than that, the non-whites in South Africa were oppressed longer than that, neither ever managed to kill off or deport their oppressors and now both countries have found a form of peace.

Originally posted by black beetle
Unfortunately these are not options at all.

It seems to me that you in person learnt nothing from the 1929, 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006 and 2009 episodes. Your thesis reproduces solely ruins and death; there are not winners and losers as you appear to believe; there are solely human beings that they will never know ad infinitum whether or not ...[text shortened]... ity over there, regardless if each human being walks under the light of the Star or of the Moon.

First of all, 1956, 1973, and 2006 did not involve Palestine. The first two involved Egypt and Syria; the third involved Lebanon.

Second of all, you can spout as many platitudes you want about the option of coexistence. It's not going to change anything.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So your reasoning really has nothing to do with any form of innate rights to the land? I was under the impression that Israel was created after the second world war. How did they manage to oppress you for over a century?

The Slaves in the US were oppressed longer than that, the non-whites in South Africa were oppressed longer than that, neither ever managed to kill off or deport their oppressors and now both countries have found a form of peace.

So your reasoning really has nothing to do with any form of innate rights to the land? I was under the impression that Israel was created after the second world war. How did they manage to oppress you for over a century?

The Zionist invasion began in the 1880s. The founding of the Israeli state was preceded by decades of colonization.

The Slaves in the US were oppressed longer than that, the non-whites in South Africa were oppressed longer than that, neither ever managed to kill off or deport their oppressors and now both countries have found a form of peace.

Beg to differ on the slaves in the US comment; they are (and should be) still fighting. The apartheid situation ... white South Africa is thankfully dead.

Originally posted by scherzo
First of all, 1956, 1973, and 2006 did not involve Palestine. The first two involved Egypt and Syria; the third involved Lebanon.

Second of all, you can spout as many platitudes you want about the option of coexistence. It's not going to change anything.

Whoever thinks the way you think he understands not the situation; and he is dreaming of a massive war because Israel is determined to cut its way through any obstacle, no matter if this is Egypt, Syria, Iran et al.

Once you reject the option of coexistence be prepared to suffer big time.-

Originally posted by scherzo
Beg to differ on the slaves in the US comment; they are (and should be) still fighting. The apartheid situation ... white South Africa is thankfully dead.

Actually I suspect the problems in South Africa are far more present than the ones in the US. But my point remains that both countries are trying a co-existence solution and it is in my opinion better than the genocide or expulsion you propose (which wont happen so what you are really proposing is endless war).

Originally posted by scherzo
So your reasoning really has nothing to do with any form of innate rights to the land? I was under the impression that Israel was created after the second world war. How did they manage to oppress you for over a century?[/b]

The Zionist invasion began in the 1880s. The founding of the Israeli state was preceded by decades of colonization.

The Sla nd should be) still fighting. The apartheid situation ... white South Africa is thankfully dead.

Dico tibi verum, libertas optimum rerum, nunquam servili sub nexu, vivito fili', which translates to 'I tell you the truth, the best of all things is freedom, never son, live under the bonds of slavery'. Taught to William Wallace in his boyhood.

http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/ww2002/gg-image7.htm

"who dared to stem tyranning pride or nobly die'', Burns

http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/ww2002/gg-image8.htm

Originally posted by scherzo
First of all, 1956, 1973, and 2006 did not involve Palestine. The first two involved Egypt and Syria; the third involved Lebanon.

Second of all, you can spout as many platitudes you want about the option of coexistence. It's not going to change anything.

Now let me be more specific; Israel came into existence because of four reasons:
1. Huge anti-Semitism in Europe for centuries, that was high peaked by the atrocities of the Nazis
2. Politics: the politics of Great Britain during 1920-1947
3. Dynamism: the dynamism and the unity of the Israelis set the momentum whilst the Palestinians are still represented by at least two different politics

Then we noticed chauvinism from both sides: the Jews and the Arabs jingoists were claiming the same land (Palestine) at the same time. And then followed the action of the Israeli chauvinists who deported the majority of the Arabs from Palestine.

But what happened in 1948?
According to the UN Note 181/ Nov. 1947 the solution could be provided in case both Palestinians and Israelis could agree that the Jews should hold 56,47% of the Palestine soil (back then they were 608.000 citizens) and the Arabs the 42,88% (back then they were 1,4 million citizens). Since the Arabs were denying this proposal the Israelis declared their independence at the land that was mentioned by UN, and then we noticed the wars.

Now, could you please show what exactly did the Palestinians gained after all these wars against Israel? Because, in case I am not deluded, the Israelis escalated their dominance over the 77,4% of the soil of Palestine, whilst it became improbable for the Palestinians to establish an Arab-Palestinian state neither at the land that was conquered from Jordan (West Coast) nor at the Gaza Stripe. This situation became a de facto, and then Israel started the struggle for its global recognition -and it seems to me that its struggle was successful.
Every next war and conflict were driving Israel stronger and stronger, and at the same time it was proved that Israel was stronger than any Arabic alliance (BTW this is the reason why I included the 1956, 1973 and 2006 incidents, and to be frank I cannot understand why you think that they have nothing to do with Palestine). These victories helped Israel to become one of the best allies of USA, whilst the USSR was constantly losing ground at that side of the planet.

Since the episodes of 1973 the question remains, and it is the following: Which way the Israelis and the Palestinians could coexist without conflicts and wars that they would have the same result?

And now you come aboard and you state that “…the only two options for Palestine are (a) deport the Israelis, or (b) kill the Israelis).

So, kindly please let me know which way, in your opinion, the Palestinians could promote the ingenious plan (a) or the ultra intelligent plan (b).

Originally posted by black beetle
Now, could you please show what exactly did the Palestinians gained after all these wars against Israel

Sounds rather like the story of terrorism in the last 10 years. I am yet to hear of a story of a terrorist that achieved a goal that benefited him or his cause. It is easy to say "I will fight to the death" and then fight to the death. It is quite another thing to give up some dreams in order to actually achieve something. I have a lot more respect for those who are willing to compromise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sounds rather like the story of terrorism in the last 10 years. I am yet to hear of a story of a terrorist that achieved a goal that benefited him or his cause. It is easy to say "I will fight to the death" and then fight to the death. It is quite another thing to give up some dreams in order to actually achieve something. I have a lot more respect for those who are willing to compromise.

Sure thing;