georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #101
Did you find it easier to murder male or female children, *****?
Israel Needs a New Map
- Thread starter georgephillip
- Start date
DO you realize what a fool you make yourself to be?
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #103
DO you realize how morally indefensible the murder of children really is, regardless of the color of the flag the murderer was born under?
Hossfly
ZIONIST
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #105
"But the temporarily replaced monument tells the truth. The Palestinian Authority ultimately desires the removal of Israel from the map of the Middle East."
The PA ultimately desires the removal of a Jewish State from the Middle East since equal numbers of Jews and non-Jews currently live between the River and the sea, yet only about one-quarter of the Arabs living under Jewish laws are allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
Still having issues with one person, one vote, Cracker?
Palestinians hid true intentions from Obama - Israel Today | Israel News
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Certainly, George. I'm a Republican and I deplore the Democrat practice of voting 73 times in one election.
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Really, Homeboy, you need a part-time job. Does anyone think that Homeboy cares that in some Muslim countries only Muslims can be citizens? Say, Homeboy, what does your beloved Wikipedia say about any voting in Saudi Arabia by citizens? I know you like to look up information about voting rights. I think we all know by now that a non Muslim can't be a citizen in the Maldives. Better stay here, Georgie Boy, because I don't think they would give subsidized apartments to non citizens.
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #108
How bad would it have to get in the "Land of the Free" before you considered the possibility that "choosing" between Democrat or Republican in the voting booth is no choice at all? Hypothetically, if the US economy crashes loudly enough to focus our attention the same way 911 did, will elites from either major party be worth listening to?
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #109
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just formed a new government in Israel. But nothing of substance will change. Peace negotiations will not resume; settlement activity will expand; war with Iran will still be threatened; and Israel will move even closer to becoming an international pariah."
How do Muslim human rights violations in the Maldives and Saudi Arabia change the truth values of the above statements?
Israel needs a new map - latimes.com
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Georgie Boy, why not tell us how many Opinion pieces in the L.A. Times are for Israel and for against Israel? That would tell us a lot about what the L.A. Times publishes regarding Israel. Of course, Gerogie Boy (being the good abd that he is), has no problems with the Arabs yelling "from the river to the sea." The good abd would love them to have their way and take over all of the land, even Israel proper, from the Jews. That new map of theirs would really please him. (As an aside, I am sure the viewers realize that the good abd keeps on regurgitating the same articles. He makes it appear that there is nothing much new he can say.
Land Day protests smaller than expected
Land Day, which commemorates six Israeli Arabs killed by security forces during riots on 30 March, 1976, were held across Israel on Saturday, although with a far lower turnout than organizers had hoped. The Galilee village of Sakhnin saw the largest demonstrations, with thousands of marchers holding Palestinian flags and chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "with blood and fire, we will liberate al-Aksa." Scuffles between supporters and opponents of the Assad regime in Syria also broke out during the Sakhnin protests, leading to a few light injuries. There were also several incidents of rock-throwing in the West Bank, with two IDF soldiers and a five year old Israeli child sustaining injuries which sent them to the hospital.
RoccoR
Gold Member
georgephillip, et al,
Please do not read into this, I do not intent to antagonize or insult anyone.
Generally speaking, the pre-conflict violence (before May 1948) were Arab inspired insurgencies to oppose a whole host of agenda, attempting to achieve some Arab style greedy regime, unsatisfied with receiving 100% of the French Mandate and about 85% of the British Mandate; excluding the Arab Kingdoms of Iraq and Kuwait. The Arab was totally unwilling to share any portion of the of the former Ottoman Sovereignty. It was this greedy mentality that spawned the conflict. Any attempt to blame it entirely on the Jewish Settlers is just a rationalization of the Arab attempt to steal and control the relinquished Ottoman Territory.
Generally speaking, one can consider the 1948, '67 and '73 wars as conflicts of necessity to the survival survival of Israel. The requirement to suppress the Arab Palestinian attempt to dismantle Israel. In contrast, the 1956 and 1982 wars (and all operations since) can be viewed as political-military (pol-mil) options, seeking to achieve specific geo-political goals. The Arab Palestinian insistance on the continuation of the conflict was the principle concern. The Israelis have been faced with a perennial security dilemma that re-emerges with every non-productive generation that has become the parasite to peace; breaking down any tolerance the Jewish might have had toward reconciliation.
The three principle enablers:
1) The Populace
I would rather trust Paul Harvey than a Palestinian that justifies the terrorism they for which they have become so famous. Anyone that tries to justify that the Palestinians has some right to conduct Munich Olympic event, the Achille Lauro, numerous airport attacks, numerous hijackings, etc, has something of a moral dilemma to explain. Sovereignty was never a question, in that the territory has been under other than Palestinian sovereignty for a millenium or more.
I'll stick with appreciating the peaceful approach, advocating the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Conversely, the Palestinian consistently argues that they have some inherent right to pursue a course of violence and terrorism as a means of coercion; violent acts which were intended to create fear; perpetrated for a religious (Islam), political (statehood, sovereignty, destruction of Israel), and ideological (anti-Semitic, prejudice, hatred and discrimination against Jews) goal.
Remember the MAO-A and VMAT-2 Genes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Please do not read into this, I do not intent to antagonize or insult anyone.
(QUESTIONs)
- What are the "western corporate enablers?"
- Who profited?
Generally speaking, the pre-conflict violence (before May 1948) were Arab inspired insurgencies to oppose a whole host of agenda, attempting to achieve some Arab style greedy regime, unsatisfied with receiving 100% of the French Mandate and about 85% of the British Mandate; excluding the Arab Kingdoms of Iraq and Kuwait. The Arab was totally unwilling to share any portion of the of the former Ottoman Sovereignty. It was this greedy mentality that spawned the conflict. Any attempt to blame it entirely on the Jewish Settlers is just a rationalization of the Arab attempt to steal and control the relinquished Ottoman Territory.
Generally speaking, one can consider the 1948, '67 and '73 wars as conflicts of necessity to the survival survival of Israel. The requirement to suppress the Arab Palestinian attempt to dismantle Israel. In contrast, the 1956 and 1982 wars (and all operations since) can be viewed as political-military (pol-mil) options, seeking to achieve specific geo-political goals. The Arab Palestinian insistance on the continuation of the conflict was the principle concern. The Israelis have been faced with a perennial security dilemma that re-emerges with every non-productive generation that has become the parasite to peace; breaking down any tolerance the Jewish might have had toward reconciliation.
The three principle enablers:
1) The Populace
- The Israelis: Driven by a long history of persecution.
- The Palestinians: Driven by the inability to make any prosperous or going concern, with a violent history.
- The Israelis: Driven by a long history of persecution.
- The Palestinians: Driven by the inability to make any prosperous or going concern, with a violent history.
- The Israelis: Driven by a long history of persecution.
- The Palestinians: Driven by the inability to make any prosperous or going concern, with a violent history.
(COMMENT)
I would rather trust Paul Harvey than a Palestinian that justifies the terrorism they for which they have become so famous. Anyone that tries to justify that the Palestinians has some right to conduct Munich Olympic event, the Achille Lauro, numerous airport attacks, numerous hijackings, etc, has something of a moral dilemma to explain. Sovereignty was never a question, in that the territory has been under other than Palestinian sovereignty for a millenium or more.
I'll stick with appreciating the peaceful approach, advocating the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Conversely, the Palestinian consistently argues that they have some inherent right to pursue a course of violence and terrorism as a means of coercion; violent acts which were intended to create fear; perpetrated for a religious (Islam), political (statehood, sovereignty, destruction of Israel), and ideological (anti-Semitic, prejudice, hatred and discrimination against Jews) goal.
Remember the MAO-A and VMAT-2 Genes.
Most Respectfully,
R
IMO--the most significant factor disputing statements
attributing "ISRAEL" so some sort of european
colonial interest circa 1920---is the fact that "ISRAEL"
had been a fact for at least four decades BY 1920--
its founding did not START circa 1920-----it started
in the early 1800s when the Ottomans decided it would
be legal to sell land in palestine to jews It became
an established reality with the founding of major cities
like tel aviv and rishon l'tzion and of hospitals
and universities----all BEFORE the start of the 20th
century
attributing "ISRAEL" so some sort of european
colonial interest circa 1920---is the fact that "ISRAEL"
had been a fact for at least four decades BY 1920--
its founding did not START circa 1920-----it started
in the early 1800s when the Ottomans decided it would
be legal to sell land in palestine to jews It became
an established reality with the founding of major cities
like tel aviv and rishon l'tzion and of hospitals
and universities----all BEFORE the start of the 20th
century
RoccoR
Gold Member
irosie91, et al,
In some manner, I agree --- the timeline at some point becomes irrelevant; and more of an excuse.
Many of the questions on this thread are irrelevant.
We have a situation where the Palestinians and the Israeli are locked in a land dispute that is compounded and becoming more involved every year. The arguments, on both sides, that try to establish a historical prior claim to the land (which neither really has in modern times) has been mulled-over for decade to the point it has become ridiculous.
The facts are, that the Palestinians and Jewish populations had no control over the sovereignty of the territory during the millenium prior to 1948. It was always in the hands of a higher power.
Today, without regard to the outrageous claims made by either side, we have a country (Israel) surrounded by a hostile and barbaric population of Palestinians that have made a number of violent and terroristic attempts to overthrow and replace Israel for over half a century. The generational fighting between the two cultures has set-up the conditions where the Israel no longer has any sympathy (Israel becoming less and less objective - and less and less benevolent towards the opposition) for the Palestinian and their plight. The Palestinian (and the related adjacent Arab subcultures), as a result of inherited propensity for barbaric struggle ---- past on from generation to generation, openly argues that they have some inherent right to continue the violent confrontation with the Israeli by any means necessary.
The Israelis believe that they have some ancient ties and right to the land; backed by prophecy, a land which is absolutely essential and necessary for their security and continuation. The Palestinian believes that the land belongs to them, that they had some sovereign right to the territory, which they never controlled and to which they have never made an effort to control for the benefit and prosperity of the indigenous population.
Neither side has really tried to seek an accommodation with the other in the last half century. And that is the key. Neither side has suffered enough to understand that peace is the more important issue - the higher path - beneficial to both sides. And until that epiphany is realized, neither side will attempt to reach a realistic accommodation with the other.
Neither side has a valid argument to continue the struggle. All this nonsense about "self-determination" and "sovereignty" --- who owned what land and the demographics of the territory at different points along the timeline, is merely immoral rationalization to foster their individual claims to the territory. Neither culture wants peace; yet! And until both sides are exhausted, there is no chance for peace.
Most Respectfully,
R
In some manner, I agree --- the timeline at some point becomes irrelevant; and more of an excuse.
(COMMENT)
Many of the questions on this thread are irrelevant.
We have a situation where the Palestinians and the Israeli are locked in a land dispute that is compounded and becoming more involved every year. The arguments, on both sides, that try to establish a historical prior claim to the land (which neither really has in modern times) has been mulled-over for decade to the point it has become ridiculous.
The facts are, that the Palestinians and Jewish populations had no control over the sovereignty of the territory during the millenium prior to 1948. It was always in the hands of a higher power.
Today, without regard to the outrageous claims made by either side, we have a country (Israel) surrounded by a hostile and barbaric population of Palestinians that have made a number of violent and terroristic attempts to overthrow and replace Israel for over half a century. The generational fighting between the two cultures has set-up the conditions where the Israel no longer has any sympathy (Israel becoming less and less objective - and less and less benevolent towards the opposition) for the Palestinian and their plight. The Palestinian (and the related adjacent Arab subcultures), as a result of inherited propensity for barbaric struggle ---- past on from generation to generation, openly argues that they have some inherent right to continue the violent confrontation with the Israeli by any means necessary.
The Israelis believe that they have some ancient ties and right to the land; backed by prophecy, a land which is absolutely essential and necessary for their security and continuation. The Palestinian believes that the land belongs to them, that they had some sovereign right to the territory, which they never controlled and to which they have never made an effort to control for the benefit and prosperity of the indigenous population.
Neither side has really tried to seek an accommodation with the other in the last half century. And that is the key. Neither side has suffered enough to understand that peace is the more important issue - the higher path - beneficial to both sides. And until that epiphany is realized, neither side will attempt to reach a realistic accommodation with the other.
Neither side has a valid argument to continue the struggle. All this nonsense about "self-determination" and "sovereignty" --- who owned what land and the demographics of the territory at different points along the timeline, is merely immoral rationalization to foster their individual claims to the territory. Neither culture wants peace; yet! And until both sides are exhausted, there is no chance for peace.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
RoccoR
Gold Member
toastman, et al,
Well, this is only partially true in the objective sense.
The Israeli, in general, can be said to prefer "peace" to "conflict." So, in the partial objective sense, you are correct.
But, -----> (long pause) Nothing in life is free, especially in the Middle East. Everything of value has a price to be paid. And in this regard, we have to evaluate the "Israeli wants" in comparison to the hierarchy of "Israeli values." Yes, Israel values peace. But does it value "peace" above "the cost of the conflict over the territorial control?" Not yet. Israel is not willing to pay the price for "peace" at this time. Right now, that cost is too high in their estimation.
"Peace" and the associated "costs" are an investment on the future. And with all investments, there is "risk" involved (an expectation of a return on the investment). At this point in time, the risk (the expectation that any compromise the Israeli might make) will not be met with "peace" (the desired expectation as a return on the investment).
(COMPLICATIONS)
As is true in any investment portfolio, there are a number of ancillary and tertiary factors that play a role in the risk assessment. In the case of Israel, these factors have a splintering effect within their own domestic landscape.
So, when we talk about Israeli "wants" ----> we have to align it to Israeli "needs and concerns" in the hierarchy of "values and essentials." Yes, Israel would prefer peace; but depending on who is evaluating the cost of peace, determines what the risk is.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, this is only partially true in the objective sense.
(COMMENT)
The Israeli, in general, can be said to prefer "peace" to "conflict." So, in the partial objective sense, you are correct.
But, -----> (long pause) Nothing in life is free, especially in the Middle East. Everything of value has a price to be paid. And in this regard, we have to evaluate the "Israeli wants" in comparison to the hierarchy of "Israeli values." Yes, Israel values peace. But does it value "peace" above "the cost of the conflict over the territorial control?" Not yet. Israel is not willing to pay the price for "peace" at this time. Right now, that cost is too high in their estimation.
"Peace" and the associated "costs" are an investment on the future. And with all investments, there is "risk" involved (an expectation of a return on the investment). At this point in time, the risk (the expectation that any compromise the Israeli might make) will not be met with "peace" (the desired expectation as a return on the investment).
(COMPLICATIONS)
As is true in any investment portfolio, there are a number of ancillary and tertiary factors that play a role in the risk assessment. In the case of Israel, these factors have a splintering effect within their own domestic landscape.
Above "peace," Israel has a number of internal constituents that believe their is an ancient religious requirement for the Jewish People to maintain control over certain key sites. We sometimes refer to this as the "Hallowed Land Concept." The pursuit of this concept is often given a greater value than "peace." (Just to name a few!)
The aforementioned is often confused with "Religious Zionism." But originally, Zionism was a much more secular idea hijacked (in a way) by fundamentalist that had a Hebrew rich agenda. The internal and external positions this created instilled a fear in that if the Andalucian Solution or the Isratine Democracy were to come to fruition, Israel would lose its unique Jewish content and would entirely defeat the idea behind the Jewish National Homeland in favor of an Arab Majority; Israel losing the distinctive Jewish character that was intended. This is something of a cost and a very high risk factor to the Israeli. And it is an obstacle to the acceptance of the "right of return." Thus the risk is too high to accept.
There are a number of segments within the Israeli population that have, as a result of a series of events in that last Century over the timeline, a grave concern for security; general in two flavors (internal and external). The internal worry is called the Boogyman Effect, where a segment of the population is very concerned that Arab/Palestinians (from inside Israel) will always have elements within its constituency that will asymmetrically exploit Israeli freedoms and conduct anti-Semitic insurgency and terrorist campaigns; for which they already have experienced. The other, external worry, comes from the more traditional concerns that the surrounding Arab Nations will again attempt to attack Israel in an effort to replace it with yet another fundamentalist Islamic nation. Hamas and Hezbollah already have established an interlocking relationship with Iran, that has regional aspirations. And again, these concerns establish the need for countermeasures that have a greater value to Israel than "peace."
- Western Wall Jerusalem,
- Old City of Jerusalem,
- Cave of Machpelah,
- Old City of Jaffa,
- Sanctuary of Shiloh
The aforementioned is often confused with "Religious Zionism." But originally, Zionism was a much more secular idea hijacked (in a way) by fundamentalist that had a Hebrew rich agenda. The internal and external positions this created instilled a fear in that if the Andalucian Solution or the Isratine Democracy were to come to fruition, Israel would lose its unique Jewish content and would entirely defeat the idea behind the Jewish National Homeland in favor of an Arab Majority; Israel losing the distinctive Jewish character that was intended. This is something of a cost and a very high risk factor to the Israeli. And it is an obstacle to the acceptance of the "right of return." Thus the risk is too high to accept.
I have noticed in recent times that the concept behind a "Jewish National Home" and the Israeli opposition to an Arab Majority within that home, is equated to "apartheid" like separation. But it is not. The Secular Zionist concept is one face to the same coin; with the Palestinian on the reverse side. It is the opposite face of the coin to the argument that the Palestinians make when they raise the issue of 600K Jews imposing rule over 1.2M Arabs.
There are a number of segments within the Israeli population that have, as a result of a series of events in that last Century over the timeline, a grave concern for security; general in two flavors (internal and external). The internal worry is called the Boogyman Effect, where a segment of the population is very concerned that Arab/Palestinians (from inside Israel) will always have elements within its constituency that will asymmetrically exploit Israeli freedoms and conduct anti-Semitic insurgency and terrorist campaigns; for which they already have experienced. The other, external worry, comes from the more traditional concerns that the surrounding Arab Nations will again attempt to attack Israel in an effort to replace it with yet another fundamentalist Islamic nation. Hamas and Hezbollah already have established an interlocking relationship with Iran, that has regional aspirations. And again, these concerns establish the need for countermeasures that have a greater value to Israel than "peace."
So, when we talk about Israeli "wants" ----> we have to align it to Israeli "needs and concerns" in the hierarchy of "values and essentials." Yes, Israel would prefer peace; but depending on who is evaluating the cost of peace, determines what the risk is.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Mr R----the concept that zionism "started out as a secular
movement" -----is----very overstated. ----something like a
play on semantics. What is true is that the most politically
effective elements of "the zionist cause"----were largely
secular. -----and also largely european. and the money
to buy land was largely ---secular and european and
american-----but the core population (the followers) were
not all that secular. It is a somewhat accepted fact that lots
of arabs were willing to tolerate religious jews who had
either been in palestine for a long time OR were
from arab countries -----ie the weak and pliable, not-
connected ---easy pogrom targets who ----if they felt
the need----could end up like the armenians and the world
would yawn
movement" -----is----very overstated. ----something like a
play on semantics. What is true is that the most politically
effective elements of "the zionist cause"----were largely
secular. -----and also largely european. and the money
to buy land was largely ---secular and european and
american-----but the core population (the followers) were
not all that secular. It is a somewhat accepted fact that lots
of arabs were willing to tolerate religious jews who had
either been in palestine for a long time OR were
from arab countries -----ie the weak and pliable, not-
connected ---easy pogrom targets who ----if they felt
the need----could end up like the armenians and the world
would yawn
RoccoR
Gold Member
irosie91, et al,
Not at all.
I agree in some ways.
The political effective elements (those in the decision making positions) were promoting a concept that was not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred to the Hebrew teaching.
Core Population:
Well, there were different interpretations inside the greater community of Jewish followers and those of Zionism.
But you are correct, there are Jewish elements that have a different agenda, that the Zionist movements can help further. And thus, this is were the confusion starts. It is like a political party that has factions within it. Over time, the complexion of the movement changes as it grows. But real Zionism is secular.
Max Nordau, at the first Zionist Congress (August 31, 1897) set a secular course. And the idea has not altered that much.
Most Respectfully,
R
Not at all.
(COMMENT)
I agree in some ways.
The political effective elements (those in the decision making positions) were promoting a concept that was not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred to the Hebrew teaching.
Core Population:
Well, there were different interpretations inside the greater community of Jewish followers and those of Zionism.
Max Nordau: "The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in Eretz-Israel (the land of Israel) secured by law."
But you are correct, there are Jewish elements that have a different agenda, that the Zionist movements can help further. And thus, this is were the confusion starts. It is like a political party that has factions within it. Over time, the complexion of the movement changes as it grows. But real Zionism is secular.
Max Nordau, at the first Zionist Congress (August 31, 1897) set a secular course. And the idea has not altered that much.
About the World Zionist Organization said:
Most Respectfully,
R
Mr R
"REAL ZIONISM" ????????? you mean
"REAL POLITICAL ZIONISM" or----well......
HERZLISM
my little jewish star necklace from childhood---was old
a thing some ancestor left-----I wish I had not lost it
it probably preceded herzl ----there was a hebrew word
in the middle which I could not read until I was about 14
---------word was ZION
The synagogue of MAIMONIDES----which they say was
built something like 1000 AD-----features a six pointed
star bronze thing on a stand-----with a word in the middle
'ZION' (in hebrew letters) -
the current return to zion project that began in the
1800s-----is NOT,, HISTORICALLY the first of such
projects ----there were several in the past 2000 years
all called RETURN TO ZION
"REAL ZIONISM" ????????? you mean
"REAL POLITICAL ZIONISM" or----well......
HERZLISM
my little jewish star necklace from childhood---was old
a thing some ancestor left-----I wish I had not lost it
it probably preceded herzl ----there was a hebrew word
in the middle which I could not read until I was about 14
---------word was ZION
The synagogue of MAIMONIDES----which they say was
built something like 1000 AD-----features a six pointed
star bronze thing on a stand-----with a word in the middle
'ZION' (in hebrew letters) -
the current return to zion project that began in the
1800s-----is NOT,, HISTORICALLY the first of such
projects ----there were several in the past 2000 years
all called RETURN TO ZION
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #119
"Zion is the Hebrew name for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and was the seat of the first and second Holy Temple. It is the most holy place in the world for Jews, seen as the connection between God and humanity.
"Observant Jews recite the Amidah three times a day facing Zion in Jerusalem, praying for the rebuilding of the Holy Temple, the restoration of the Temple service, the redemption of the world, and for the coming of the Messiah."
How many times a day did you and your observant necklace recite the Amidah?
(Any sign of that messiah?)
Zion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Observant Jews recite the Amidah three times a day facing Zion in Jerusalem, praying for the rebuilding of the Holy Temple, the restoration of the Temple service, the redemption of the world, and for the coming of the Messiah."
How many times a day did you and your observant necklace recite the Amidah?
(Any sign of that messiah?)
Zion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Don't get all hot and bothered, George. I'll be the first to let you know wnen The Sons of Menashe are given that Temple building project.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
Trump Has Fundamentally Overturned Our Form of Government. Why is Congress Sitting There?- Started by munkle
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
From Iranian English news: Russia, China Interfere To Stunt Iran Nuclear Plan- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
If ever there was a prez in need of some adult supervision, it's Don.- Started by berg80
- Replies: 22
Latest Discussions
-
-
Zone1 Colin Gray, father of Apalachee HS shooting suspect, found guilty- Latest: NewsVine_Mariyam
-
-
