German study claims devout Islamic youth more violence-prone

Beause most Muslims believe in those theories since they are propogated by every single scholar of almost every sect.

The Palestinians are responsible for attacking the Jews and for supporting the Nazis to further their own interests. Also, don't bother saying "well they did this and this!!". That doesn't mean squat to this conversation. To support Nazis, who murdered million of Jews, just to have political and geographic dominance in a country where the population should have equal rights, is wrong. Wrong, even if in reponse to a wrong... is still wrong. Accept that responsibility.

As for your question, it depends on the situation. If it's an actual cookie, MY cookie, I would offer the side with the most chips. But if we're talking about a country, and I'm not the owner or the exclusive owner of it, I would not be in charge of who gets what and I would expect that the chips are split proportionately.

What are these chips you're talking about? What are the chips that you find so valuable?

Why have you ignored everything else I said? You realize that it's true about the mandate and the Ottomans and the conspiracy theories?

If you want to get into a religious debate about this issue, I'm happy to do that as well. But politically and legally speaking, the land did not belong to Palestine. It was lost in war in the early 1900's, just like Saudi Arabia was lost in war. Just like America was won'lost in war.

 

That's rather bizarre. Please accuse me of "jumping to conclusions," if you like. It's a cheap way to dismiss someone's take on an issue, but considering how many conversations I've had here over the years, there's no doubt that you can find instances of it. However, you saying "he loves namedropping poster names to make it seem like he's such an integral part of community" is bizarre. That's as nice a response as I can come up with. If you care to post links, quotes, and so on to back that statement up, I just might waste some of my time looking at your "evidence."

Just when I thought this forum couldn't be any more strange, up pops this cat who must have been lurking in Bizarro World.

 

Deckard has been here for quite awhile and he posts regularly. He is part of this community and many people would miss him if he was gone.

Now you on the other hand .... have apparently been here for seven years and I don't recall even noticing your nick before.

 

This thread is as insane as the entire Israel/Palestine situation itself.

 

You posted Jews are not Jews by DNA, but you believe the contrary when it comes to Muslims. You are a hypocrite.

The Palestinians NEVER supported Hitler to this day.

The Palestinians only became violent with the Jews after they took their homes and began slaughtering them.

The cookie was a bad example. We are talking about land, and Israel wanted the most valuable land. Of course the Palestinians said no. They got the crappy end of the deal.


UN Partition 1947

Have you ever seen a state divided in such a way? Ask yourself why would they do this? They didn't want to set a boundary with a fair split, because with this partition they could slowly close in on the Palestinians over time and take more. The conflict would not have ended even if both sides agreed. The Jews and the Palestinians would continue to fight for more, and it's obvious who would win. There is too much bad blood between the Palestinians and the Jews.

The Jewish population after World War I (1914) in Palestine was less than 2%. The land belonged to the Palestinians, and they did not mind the Jews. They let them live with them and had no problem with them. It's not the same vice versa.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

White man in the north was loved the token black man as long as he was a weak, easily pushed around and had so little group power that he could be degraded for fun. He was the personification of the token dumb black manservant in cowboy movies.

But when it is more than one black man? The slightest 'threat' posed by the great migration turned the North into the equal of the most racist and segregated parts of the USA.

And the land was divided that way because those lines outlined roughly where people were. But, if you want to get back into trying to explain how the Negev is the most valuable land anywhere in the world, we can revisit that canard.

 

1) I never said Jews are not Jews be DNA. Check my post.

2) Muslims are not Muslims by DNA. Because Muslim is a religion ONLY. Being Jewish entails being from a race and possible from the Jewish religion.

How can you sit here and tell me that 2% of the population were slaughtering the other 98% and THEN the 98% became violent?

Both sides wanted the most and the best land. There is nothing special about anything in that land but Jerusalem.

Also, and I want you to answer this very thoughtfully, why are you specifically choosing 1914? Why is that the precision point for you? Think long and hard about why that specific year is used.

Oh, keep in mind, Jews have always been a small population and have lived there for thousands of years, before the Palestinians settled there. If we're going to talk about who was there first, it's Jews. If you want to talk about who was there in greater numbers, let's talk about WHY all the Jews left 'Palestine', mmkay?

 

So Sammy Davis Jr. is from the Jewish race as well? Not just the Jewish religion? Did his DNA start resembling David Ben-Gurion's when he converted to Judaism?

Both sides were attacking each other, years before the Ottoman Empire crumbled. And the 2% were not just attacking the other 98%. They were also attacking the British. Need I remind of the King David Hotel bombing?

Palestinian Christians will not agree with you here. They hold Bethlehem in high regards.

First off, get educated in some relevant history. Jews were their first? I guess all Canaanites were Jews, even though they had no idea what monotheism was.

Let's talk about how the Jews came back into Jerusalem. Let's talk about how they were banned for over five hundred years. Let's talk about how they finally got to come back to Jerusalem.`

 

1) As I said, Jewish can be race and religion. If you are from the Jewish race, you don't necessarily believe in Judaism.

2) If those 2% took on the other 98% and the massive British colonial power, then I say GTFO out of Palestine, there's no chance of winning. In reality, I don't believe that the 2% raped and pillaged the 98% and the British. I believe they did damage, I believe they engaged in terrorist activities, but I don't believe that it was necessary to decide to wipe the entire settlement off the face of the earth.

3) Fine, Bethlehem too.

Let's talk about how I don't give a damn that they were banned from Jerusalem. Let's talk about how most Jews in Israel are from the territories in or around Palestine/Israel. Let's talk about how it's completely logical, rational and normal that a heckload of Jews went to Jerusalem since they were being tormented around the world.

I ask a simple question. Where is "home" for Jews?

 

Well, because if there was a rapist and a victim, it is convenient to ignore the past events and say "kiss and make up" when, in fact, justice must be served.

I'm not implying that someone is a rapist and someone is a victim. I'm just saying that in any dispute, the historical evidence is essential to resolution.

I can't imagine that if 50 million Iranians landed in the USA this year (in addition to the few million who have lived there for centuries) and declared that they want to govern themselves as a state, it would have certain implications. If 1 million landed to join the 50 million already there, then they demanded a state, it would have a different set of implications.

If, as many seem to think, 7 million Jews from around the world joined the 1 million Jews in British Mandate Palestine and demanded a state, it would be very very odd, especially if the demand hinged on the strong, historic presence of the Jews in that place.

 

2% in 1914, the massacre started in the 40s.

In 1891 A Jewish lady wrote a book about the need to take Palestine. Not because it was their homeland either. Go find an original copy.

 

Many Jews from all around the world invaded Palestine and helped take over the land.

 

I think in some respect you are both right. I'm thinking of the way the Truth and Reconcilliation Comissions worked in South Africa. There is a point where by simply acknowledging the past can help you release it and move on to the future.

I don't think either side is anywhere near that point Israel/Palestine, however since it requires compromising on the veracity of cherished individual narratives.

 

We can't ignore, for example, the land that settlers are illegally taking. We must take it into consideration when trying to create a solution for the future.

If your comment is limited to "who was here first", I agree, it is useless.

But that doesn't include "we were the rightful owners of this land before it was taken away from us in 1947" because that is very relevant to the future.

What would be fair is for the relevant parts of the history to be taken into consideration when trying to come to a solution. No resolution can be reached without doing it. I'm not sure how we can solve this by only thinking about the future. There are people who have been robbed, killed, jailed, assassinated, extorted, etc. These all have to be addressed.

If I stole someone's bag, the future can be bright if we both choose to wipe away the past. But I must give back the bad for justice to prevail.

 

Dude, what does it matter what happened in 1914? Between 1914 and 1917, the rulers of the land changed. The situation was vastly different. It went from Ottoman rule to British rule (via League of Nations approval). It did not at any point belong to Palestinians.

In 2010, there are Islamic scholars on youtube saying that a full-on genocide of Jews is in order.

It is not the Jewish lady who took Palestine. That's completely irrelevant to why Jews deserve a state in those territories.

I disagree with the boundaries of the current state. I disagree with the boundaries offered. But the fact of the matter is, Palestinians wanted the whole thing and were unwilling to negotiate.

 

No one cares about DNA. It's about cultural connections. Jews have a common religious and in many cases cultural identity. Now that isnt universal (ashkenazi and sephardic jews have large cultural differences, Jews from Arab states tended to be poorly educated while Jews from Europe tended to be more educated, etc..) But nonetheless there were cultural commonalities that connected Jews beyond the mere fact that they have a common religion.

This extends in many ways to Muslims as well. Yes there are cultural differences between muslims but they have shared similarities that can serve to unite them as well.

And?

Uh no not at all. Read up on the Arab revolts that predate Israel's creation. Many of them go back to the 20s. I'm not suggesting that Israel's creation was fair or an acceptable way to arbitrarily create a state but this notion that there wasnt any violent response that predates the creation of Israel is nonsense. Ottoman sponsored families sponsored some of these riots too.

Also Israel's initial creation involved zionists outright buying land from Palestinians, not openly murdering people and taking their land. The only blatant example of that was after the Six day war when Israeli troops forcibly removed many Palestinian families from their homes. (also it wasnt until this point that the right of return became a real point of contention)

Now Palestinians werent exactly thrilled with the steady rise of Jews after the creation of the British Mandate but dont claim that Jews came in and brutally stole land.

I agree that the British partition plan was completely uneven in terms of population distribution but that's a criticism of the British partition process (which was god awful)

Yes I have, its called India and Pakistan. Look at the partition plan for that too. Pakistan consisted of two parts of land that were split by India. Not to mention they were ready to add Andhra Pradesh and parts of Gujarat to Pakistan and create enclaves in India. The British have a history of being complete morons.

Also understand the boundary in some context. The population of Jews at the time were either concentrated in a few cities and the rest spread out in Kibbutzim throughout Palestine. They couldnt just cut the land in half due to the way that the population of Jews and Palestinians were seperated. Now obviously they couldve done a much much better job, but there was a context to it. Also, the British did this incredibly hastily (as they did with India and Pakistan) so its quite easy to see how they could botch something so badly.

Also the Palestinians werent going to agree to anything. They were opposed to the zionist state from the moment the partition plan was announced. Dont pretend that the border couldve been made in some way to create peace. The idea of installing a Jewish state in the region was going to anger the Palestinians no matter how it was drawn up.

Of course they minded them. The problem was that it was a mixed bag. (and this dilemma continued well after Israel was created) The influx of a highly educated population was an economic boon for the region. Its the reason why Palestinian tolerance of the Jewish state was much higher in the immediate aftermath of the creation of Israel than it is today. The new state provided jobs, new infrastructure, trade, and on the flip side the Ottomans had tended to outright ignore the region and invested virtually nothing there.

That said, as I pointed out, there were plenty of nationalist Palestinian uprisings (especially during the British mandate).

 

That's only partially true. One of the biggest failures of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the fact that the Palestinians never even had a voice in the discussion until Arafat and the PLO. Until then it was Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc.. that always spoke on behalf of the Palestinians and always pushed an uncompromising agenda against Israel.

That's one of the biggest problems that helped lead us to where we are. Compromise was impossible back then when states that had no interest in Palestine outside of making a political point to help boost their own popularity were calling the shots.

 

So how do you distinguish between the two? What historical connection does Sammy Davis Jr. have to Zion?

No one ever made that decision...? There were attacks and counterattacks. Repeatedly for years.

And Nazareth...

Let's talk about the illegal immigration of European Jews to Palestine as being one of the core problems of this whole conflict. It may not matter to you, but thousands and thousands of immigrants coming into a territory primarily inhabited by one group and being run by a foreign power will cause a ton of tension. Especially when the immigrants are coming with funds to back up the colonization of Palestine. The majority of Arab Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) at the time were peasants and farmers who lost their livelihood because of absentee land laws. Never has immigration caused such a diverse effect except in the case of Palestine.

Let me rephrase that question. Where is "home" for the Jewish race? Israel.
Where is "home" for the Jewish religion? Wherever that particular Jew was born/raised and/or where their parents were born/raised.

Now I ask you a question (in a scenario)

Sammy Davis Jr. was born in NY, with one parent from North Carolina and another from NY with Cuban ancestry. Sammy Davis Jr. converted to Judaism sometime in the 1950's. Where is "home"?