Nobel Prize For Palestinian Hero?

[Coyote]

Wait, I'm confused. What has Marwan actually done to create peace between Israel and Palestinians? You know, that's deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I kind of see this as two different issues.

1. Is he worthy of a nomination? Arguments against it are the exact same arguments that would disqualify Begin or Mandella.

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

 

[Hollie]

I guess the Ottoman Muslim invaders who defeated the Arab Muslim invaders and ruled for 700 years, aren't considered "foreigners". ha ha ha.

Yes, they were foreigners but did not evict the native people and transfer Turks to Palestine to replace them. The Ottomans evicted the Mamluk rulers (who also did not evict the natives to replace them with Mamluks. Mamluks were not Arabs.

So now that it was proven that Israel was invaded and ruled by two Muslim invaders, who oppressed and persecuted the native Jews, he squirms and changes the subject to another lie, that Jews evicted. Actually it was the Arab Muslim animals that started attacking the native Jews after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and that was by order of the Nazi Palestinian mufti who had already killed tens of thousands of Christians, and wanted to commit genocide on the Jews n their own holy land.

Palestine was a Christian land and only Christians could live there after Christianity became the state religion of Rome/Byzantium.

You insist on making up your own history. LOL

For the last 700 years that the Ottoman Muslims ruled the land, it wasn't Christian land, nor was there a Palestine. That's the history.

Well of course there was a Palestine, it was called Palaestina and it was a Roman province before the Muslim invasion. No Jews.

The Mamluks, were converts to Islam, many from Eastern Europe. They ruled Palestine until 1516 when the Ottomans took over.

You mean when the Ottoman invasion / colonial project began in earnest.

And, No Jews?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

 

[Coyote]

There is no returning native people, that's a whole 'nother argument, and it doesn't detract from the fact that these people have a legitimate cause.

The land needed is no more, no less, than a portion of their ancestral homeland. But, that is neither here nor there.

Because Jordan is Jordan and the Palestinian's homeland is...where they are.

What you suggest is something analagous to the trail of tears - forced expulsion into another area.

False.

I live in Colorado, doesn't make me any less Cayuga than if I were back on my homelands now. I could RETURN whenever I so chose and I'd still be Cayuga. A native person may RETURN to a homeland anytime and its still their homeland.

On the other hand the Arab Muslims homeland is in Arabia.

Which completely demolishes the Arab Muslim narrative regarding illusions to a legitimate cause.

You don't know a thing about history if you think what I'm suggesting is in any way associated with the trail of tears incident. Which as coincidence would have it I just rote a history piece for elsewhere.

The five civilized nations were completely peaceful and had in no way involved themselves in anything that could be misconstrued as terrorism.

The Arab Muslims in Israel on the other hand. Well it hardly bears mentioning.

The Geneva Conventions allow for the controlling power to segregate POWs from civilians and to repatriate the POWs to their places of origin or otherwise. No mutual agreements need be made between combatants in order for the expulsion of either POWs or combatants.

Yur logic fails on every level. ;--)

One problem.

"Native Muslims" come from all over the world.

Major fail that.

Great 'yote cartoon though

Actually the fail is that I specified Arab muslims ;--) and you conveniently missed it.

The Arab Muslims in Israel are the problem are Arabian.

Even if you want to pretend that there ever were a people called palestinians who weren't Judaic you still have the problem of them being Jordanians. And Jordan illegally stripping them of their citizenship. In which case they're homeland is in Jordan. ;--)

What was the topic again?

There is no returning native people, that's a whole 'nother argument, and it doesn't detract from the fact that these people have a legitimate cause.

The land needed is no more, no less, than a portion of their ancestral homeland. But, that is neither here nor there.

Because Jordan is Jordan and the Palestinian's homeland is...where they are.

What you suggest is something analagous to the trail of tears - forced expulsion into another area.

False.

I live in Colorado, doesn't make me any less Cayuga than if I were back on my homelands now. I could RETURN whenever I so chose and I'd still be Cayuga. A native person may RETURN to a homeland anytime and its still their homeland.

On the other hand the Arab Muslims homeland is in Arabia.

Which completely demolishes the Arab Muslim narrative regarding illusions to a legitimate cause.

You don't know a thing about history if you think what I'm suggesting is in any way associated with the trail of tears incident. Which as coincidence would have it I just rote a history piece for elsewhere.

The five civilized nations were completely peaceful and had in no way involved themselves in anything that could be misconstrued as terrorism.

The Arab Muslims in Israel on the other hand. Well it hardly bears mentioning.

The Geneva Conventions allow for the controlling power to segregate POWs from civilians and to repatriate the POWs to their places of origin or otherwise. No mutual agreements need be made between combatants in order for the expulsion of either POWs or combatants.

Yur logic fails on every level. ;--)

One problem.

"Native Muslims" come from all over the world.

Major fail that.

Great 'yote cartoon though

Actually the fail is that I specified Arab muslims ;--) and you conveniently missed it.

The Arab Muslims in Israel are the problem are Arabian.

Even if you want to pretend that there ever were a people called palestinians who weren't Judaic you still have the problem of them being Jordanians. And Jordan illegally stripping them of their citizenship. In which case they're homeland is in Jordan. ;--)

What was the topic again?

It was something about the pure idiocy of submitting a convicted and jailed terrorist for recognition as what I can't imagine by the Nobel committee. A greater travesty of justice I can't imagine.

Why ?

Begin was a terrorist. Yet he was nominated and won. Go figure

 

[Coyote]

Why shouldn't Marwan Barghouti be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize?

Because he'd make a better example if he were fried in our man Edison's example of the dangers of AC electricity

The chair

Should Begin have been given the KFC treatment then?

Begin was a soldier who later had the courage to sign a peace deal with the Israeli's Your man Marwan is just a murderer, nothing more, an illegal combatant and a murderer.

Begin was no different than Marwan. Both were members of paramilitary groups, both fighting for a cause and both targeting civilians. In fact, Irgun under Begin saw a huge increase in civilian targeting. The only difference is that the British never caught Begin.

Marwan has also had the courage to promote a peaceful resistance and dialogue with Israel while imprisoned.

So not much difference between the two.

Nonsense, did your man Marwan sign an international peace treaty ? DId he reject the terrorist tactics and insist on taking a higher road ?

NO

Marwan slaughtered, what, five innocent people and now sits in prison when most other countries would have him fried in the chair.

He no more deserves a nobel than Charlie Manson does.

He is not yet in the position to do so.

Did Begin regect terrorist tactics? Did he regret employing them?

Did Mandella?

Inquiring minds want to know if the innocent people those men slaughtered deserve the same consideration.

 

[montelatici]

Yes, they were foreigners but did not evict the native people and transfer Turks to Palestine to replace them. The Ottomans evicted the Mamluk rulers (who also did not evict the natives to replace them with Mamluks. Mamluks were not Arabs.

So now that it was proven that Israel was invaded and ruled by two Muslim invaders, who oppressed and persecuted the native Jews, he squirms and changes the subject to another lie, that Jews evicted. Actually it was the Arab Muslim animals that started attacking the native Jews after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and that was by order of the Nazi Palestinian mufti who had already killed tens of thousands of Christians, and wanted to commit genocide on the Jews n their own holy land.

Palestine was a Christian land and only Christians could live there after Christianity became the state religion of Rome/Byzantium.

You insist on making up your own history. LOL

For the last 700 years that the Ottoman Muslims ruled the land, it wasn't Christian land, nor was there a Palestine. That's the history.

Well of course there was a Palestine, it was called Palaestina and it was a Roman province before the Muslim invasion. No Jews.

The Mamluks, were converts to Islam, many from Eastern Europe. They ruled Palestine until 1516 when the Ottomans took over.

You mean when the Ottoman invasion / colonial project began in earnest.

And, No Jews?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

No Jews, there were no Jews in Palestine. Jews or people of any other religion in Palaestina converted to Christianity or had to leave (most converted) when the Romans adopted Christianity as the state religion with Edict of Thessalonica in 380 BC.

 

[Roudy]

Last I heard, Gaza was a shithole that was ruled by Islamic terrorists...and it still is.

Gaza is ruled by Israel. They control the borders, territorial sea, air space and collect the taxes. It is a large out door prison or concentration camp (in the original sense of the term) with Israelis as the prison guards.

Wrong again, Gaza is ruled by Hamas. Outdoor prison, concentration camp...my ass. Just garbage IslamoNazi propaganda. How many times does this shit have to be repeated? Come up with something different.

If a government does not control its borders, its air space, its territorial sea and another state collects its taxes, it isn't ruling anything.

That's just your opinion. And we all know how much they're worth. Diddly.

If the govt wants open air space and sea, then it shouldn't be attacking its neighbors like animals. But since the govt. is considered a terrorist organization by the US and the West, they're going to continue behaving like Islamic terrorist animals. They want trust and respect? They have to earn it.

I wouldn't talk about people who attack their neighbors like animals. LOL

Who cares! Muslim Arabs attacked and invaded lands all over the Middle East, including Israel. Palestinians are simply continuing the Arab Islamic Imperialism that has been happening for 1400 years.

 

[Coyote]

That wasn't the issue. Begin was a terrorist and he received the Peace Prize.

But...and this is a big BUT - he transcended that. He went on to create a peaceful resolution with Egypt.

Marwan may yet do much. The argument against him, ironically are not "what has he done" but "he's a convicted terrorist" - just like Menacham Begin except Begin was never caugh and tried for his crimes.

Marwan deserves to be considered.

 

[Hollie]

So now that it was proven that Israel was invaded and ruled by two Muslim invaders, who oppressed and persecuted the native Jews, he squirms and changes the subject to another lie, that Jews evicted. Actually it was the Arab Muslim animals that started attacking the native Jews after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and that was by order of the Nazi Palestinian mufti who had already killed tens of thousands of Christians, and wanted to commit genocide on the Jews n their own holy land.

Palestine was a Christian land and only Christians could live there after Christianity became the state religion of Rome/Byzantium.

You insist on making up your own history. LOL

For the last 700 years that the Ottoman Muslims ruled the land, it wasn't Christian land, nor was there a Palestine. That's the history.

Well of course there was a Palestine, it was called Palaestina and it was a Roman province before the Muslim invasion. No Jews.

The Mamluks, were converts to Islam, many from Eastern Europe. They ruled Palestine until 1516 when the Ottomans took over.

You mean when the Ottoman invasion / colonial project began in earnest.

And, No Jews?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

No Jews, there were no Jews in Palestine. Jews or people of any other religion in Palaestina converted to Christianity or had to leave (most converted) when the Romans adopted Christianity as the state religion with Edict of Thessalonica in 380 BC.

I find your rather skewed and invented-on-the-fly versions of history to be a hoot.

 

[Roudy]

So now that it was proven that Israel was invaded and ruled by two Muslim invaders, who oppressed and persecuted the native Jews, he squirms and changes the subject to another lie, that Jews evicted. Actually it was the Arab Muslim animals that started attacking the native Jews after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and that was by order of the Nazi Palestinian mufti who had already killed tens of thousands of Christians, and wanted to commit genocide on the Jews n their own holy land.

Palestine was a Christian land and only Christians could live there after Christianity became the state religion of Rome/Byzantium.

You insist on making up your own history. LOL

For the last 700 years that the Ottoman Muslims ruled the land, it wasn't Christian land, nor was there a Palestine. That's the history.

Well of course there was a Palestine, it was called Palaestina and it was a Roman province before the Muslim invasion. No Jews.

The Mamluks, were converts to Islam, many from Eastern Europe. They ruled Palestine until 1516 when the Ottomans took over.

You mean when the Ottoman invasion / colonial project began in earnest.

And, No Jews?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

No Jews, there were no Jews in Palestine. Jews or people of any other religion in Palaestina converted to Christianity or had to leave (most converted) when the Romans adopted Christianity as the state religion with Edict of Thessalonica in 380 BC.

Again, there was no Palestine for the last 700 years of Ottoman rule. After the Ottoman's defeated the invading Arabs over 700 years ago, they invited the Jews to resettle from Spain and elsewhere in Europe to the Ottoman Empire, which included Jeruslem and many Jewish holy cities. That's because the Ottoman's as devout Muslims, also considered Arabs to be invaders and the land to belong to the Jews, as the Koran clearly states.

 

[Coyote]

Those of you involved in excavating ancient history...review the OP....just a suggestion....

 

[Coyote]

Since subtle hints don't make a difference, I'll say this in red. Get back on topic please.

 

[Shusha]

... yet it is a terrible crime when the Palestinians use terrorism to advance their objectives.

Whoa, what? What objectives have the Palestinians managed to advance using terrorism? Because I can't see even the smallest achievement that has been gained from terrorism.

 

[Shusha]

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

There are literally MILLIONS of people who argue against violent resistance and for a political process. What has he DONE?

 

[Coyote]

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

There are literally MILLIONS of people who argue against violent resistance and for a political process. What has he DONE?

At this point, I'm not sure other than he is, apparently, working from within prison to effect change with both PA and Hamas. It will be interesting to see what might happen rather than damn him outright.

Like I said - there is no reason he shouldn't be nominated, given those who came before. But whether he deserves to win is debatable.

 

[Boston1]

Wait, I'm confused. What has Marwan actually done to create peace between Israel and Palestinians? You know, that's deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I kind of see this as two different issues.

1. Is he worthy of a nomination? Arguments against it are the exact same arguments that would disqualify Begin or Mandella.

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

Fry him.

He's a convicted terrorist with no redeeming qualities, He's doing five life sentences with no chance of parole.

Save all that space and money and just fry him.

 

[Coyote]

Wait, I'm confused. What has Marwan actually done to create peace between Israel and Palestinians? You know, that's deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I kind of see this as two different issues.

1. Is he worthy of a nomination? Arguments against it are the exact same arguments that would disqualify Begin or Mandella.

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

Fry him.

He's a convicted terrorist with no redeeming qualities, He's doing five life sentences with no chance of parole.

Save all that space and money and just fry him.

Would you have fried Begin? Mandella?

Israeli justice is also questionable when it comes to palestinians.

 

[Boston1]

Wait, I'm confused. What has Marwan actually done to create peace between Israel and Palestinians? You know, that's deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I kind of see this as two different issues.

1. Is he worthy of a nomination? Arguments against it are the exact same arguments that would disqualify Begin or Mandella.

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

Fry him.

He's a convicted terrorist with no redeeming qualities, He's doing five life sentences with no chance of parole.

Save all that space and money and just fry him.

Would you have fried Begin? Mandella?

Neither Begin nor Mandella were serving five life sentences for murdering civilians

 

[Coyote]

Wait, I'm confused. What has Marwan actually done to create peace between Israel and Palestinians? You know, that's deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I kind of see this as two different issues.

1. Is he worthy of a nomination? Arguments against it are the exact same arguments that would disqualify Begin or Mandella.

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

Fry him.

He's a convicted terrorist with no redeeming qualities, He's doing five life sentences with no chance of parole.

Save all that space and money and just fry him.

Would you have fried Begin? Mandella?

Neither Begin nor Mandella were serving five life sentences for murdering civilians

Begin was never caught and prosecuted for his crimes. Does that mean his murders deserve a free pass?

 

[montelatici]

Wait, I'm confused. What has Marwan actually done to create peace between Israel and Palestinians? You know, that's deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I kind of see this as two different issues.

1. Is he worthy of a nomination? Arguments against it are the exact same arguments that would disqualify Begin or Mandella.

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

Fry him.

He's a convicted terrorist with no redeeming qualities, He's doing five life sentences with no chance of parole.

Save all that space and money and just fry him.

Would you have fried Begin? Mandella?

Neither Begin nor Mandella were serving five life sentences for murdering civilians

Neither Begin nor Mandella were serving five life sentences for murdering civilians

On This Day: Nelson Mandela Sentenced to Life in Prison

On This Day: Nelson Mandela Sentenced to Life in Prison

 

[Boston1]

Wait, I'm confused. What has Marwan actually done to create peace between Israel and Palestinians? You know, that's deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I kind of see this as two different issues.

1. Is he worthy of a nomination? Arguments against it are the exact same arguments that would disqualify Begin or Mandella.

2. Is he worthy of the prize? That is arguable. I do think there is potential there, as he is arguing against violent resistance and for a political process. In this, I can see similarities to Mandella. That is not to say he should be the winner - but it places him in the category of those who could legitimately be considered as opposed to the automatic rejection coming from some.

Fry him.

He's a convicted terrorist with no redeeming qualities, He's doing five life sentences with no chance of parole.

Save all that space and money and just fry him.

Would you have fried Begin? Mandella?

Neither Begin nor Mandella were serving five life sentences for murdering civilians

Begin was never caught and prosecuted for his crimes. Does that mean his murders deserve a free pass?

In other words the claims he committed any crimes at all are baseless ;--)