" I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees "

thats true... and the reason is because only one side gets the military loan

 

Yeah......right. Explain the PLO charter and its plank about the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a "Palestinian" state.
Explain the wars of aggression waged by the Arab states in their attempt to isolate, overrun and wipe out the Israelis. Yeah, the Arabs want peace. I'd have nukes too if I lived in neighborhood where everyone hated my ass and wanted to kill me and take it for themselves. You can't explain it, except Israel is daily waging a war for its own survival against people (the Arabs) who'd love to kill every single Jew they'd get their hands on. Peaceful people of a peaceful religion indeed.

 

There is a certain dark humor in that typo, isn't there? Maybe Khan wants to be some sort of vampiric fluffer?

 

I hate it when girls use too much teeth!

 

you guys are making the same mistake as equating the policies of Israel with the views of all Jews. the PLO is an ORGANISATION, not even a state! And its charter obviously didn't prevent it from endorsing just about every U.N. proposed two-state solution over the past 30 years. In any democratic Palestinian state, the PLO would just be one political party amongst dozens, some more radical (Hamas, clerics, etc.), some more moderate (businessmen, middle class, ex-patriates, etc.). Stereotyping about the the views of Palestinians and Arabs (and even Muslims at large) without even a hint of remorse is simply racist.

 

Lil,

Your post would make more sense if large majorities of the Palestinians didn't support things like suicide bombings and releasing militants. The fact is that Hamas and the PLO are quite representaive of the average Palestinian.

 

so according to your logic, it would be fair for mahathir to imply that all jews support Israeli policy, since the "large majority" of jews support the occupation, support israel's possession of wmd, and buy into the israeli excuses such as "security" and "living space" in imposing oppressive/apartheid policies, violating other nations, carrying out assasinations, and building settlements? and as a sample size, the state of israel is a far greater representative sample for jews worldwide versus the PLO and Hamas for Palestinians.

i'm in no way implying that you support these policies. i know you don't. but i just wanted you to see the implications of this logic. where do you draw the line between generalisation and stereotyping? in the former case, it's mere simplification, in the latter, it's racism. there should be a double standard for anyone. i made the same mistake, and i apologised for it before. just asking for the same courtesy here.

 

The strongest survives....this hasn't changed at all since there was a military. If the Palestinians cannot stand up and fight the Israeli government (and not its citizens), then their fate has to be that of the American Indian unfortunately.

Where are their Muslim brothers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.)? Why don't they take them in instead of encouraging them to engage in terrorism with Israeli citizens? Funny how they will fund the terrorism but not offer a resolution that includes giving them a home in their countries.

 

I think it is certainly fair to say that the average Israeli supports Israels policies toward the Palestinians. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep electing guys like Sharon.

 

Exactly....like I've been saying....it is always the smallest country in the ME whose only way to peace is to give away more of its precious land. That really makes you think.

 

so ur saying might makes right... would you take in your mexican neighbours if say cuba attacked them repeatedly...
why would one country invite more people into theirs..
why doesnt the USA give ISrael a big chunk of texas, esp since it is larger than israel itself, and since they are the ones who are hell bent on maintaining an israeli country... when the roles are reversed people shut up. (America would never let all of israel come and establish a country in USA) then why should any Arab country do the same. If USA/UK had ever even thought of giving up a little bit of their country to create an israeli state, none of this would have happened, but instead they stole candy from a baby, and thers no way to make the baby be quiet.

The only reason Israel was made (IMO) is because USA/UK did not want anymore Jews than were already coming in and so they proposed making a country where already quite a large number of jews had migrated. ie Palestine

 

Yes, might makes right. Hasn't changed since Day One. We don't have to like it, but there is it anyway.

Sorry Adebisi -- the roles aren't reversed so shutting up is not an option. By the way, your analogy stinks.

Whine all you want about how Israel came to be; I aint arguing with you there. But might sez that Israel is a country....Palestine isn't.

Since you spent your time responding to my post, why is it you did not address my questions regarding the other Muslim nations in the Middle East?

 

Just for the record, the United States has been extremely good about allowing Jews to come and settle. The U.S. has more Jews than any other country in the World. And we allow them the same rights any other immigrant (or natural born citizen for those born here). So, in general, I would say the United States is perfectly willing to put its money where its mouth is in terms of taking in Jews.

Would they be allowed to secede and make their own country? Of course not, but they are afforded the same rights as any other resident and/or citizen.

But it is always interesting to note that it is only Israel who is expected to give up land for a Palestinian state. No one ever expects any Arab state to do so. A lot of people see an inherent bias in that. If it is imperative that a Palestinian state be made, why must the land for it come solely from Israel? The obvious answer is that the Palestinians are already there. But it always seem to go deeper than that.

Here's a question. Let's say that Israel turns over the West Bank to Jordan and the Golan Heights to Syria, would those two countries be any quicker to turn those areas into a Palestinian state?

 

for all of you that says "might makes right", i'd like to see you say the same thing when one day the terrorists get their hands on a nuke and obliterate of a couple of american cities. oh yeah. "might makes right", why don't we just shut up and take it in the a$$? right now, OBL already has the power to terrorise america, are you saying that his might gives him a license to kill? oh yeah. "might makes right", how did i fail to see that?

as for the establishment of israel being rooted in the unwillingness of the west to deal with the jewish refugee problem after WW2. it's a historical fact. american may have taken a bit more of them in than other countries (we had more of them to begin with and a slightly more open immigration policy), but america was also one of the leading sponsors of the zionist movement during israel's formation years. many jews today still remember how america turned them away within sight of the statue of liberty in the pre-war years and sent them back straight to the concentration camps. after the war, our immigration policy wasn't much different. in short, we (by this i mean the west collectively) took our problem, and forced it on the arabs.

 

Israel never offered a state. A state would be the end of a number of other things, and the offer was a rotten one for the Palestinians. Israel does have a military order to destroy any Palestinian businesses which can compete economically with Israeli ones. The ruling party of Israel has voted to NEVER give the Palestinians a state regardless of whether Arafat or anyone else is leading the Palestinians. By continuing violence Israel has a built in excuse to continue grabbing land from the Palestinians.

 

Other Muslim nations have taken in palestinians, ex; jordan, many palestinians hold jordanian passports.

 

You might wish that a terrorist would do such thing. I'll tell you what, you'd better hope for their sake that it doesn't.

Might made Israel a nation. That's just a fact. Get back to me when the Muslim nations are in a position to change it. I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

 

i'm not denying that might, both political and military, sustains israel as a nation. it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. i only contest the "right" part.

might should never give anyone the "right" to violate others. if you would but read the american constitution, you'd see my point.

 

Pay attention. What is "right" is relative to who has the might. Get it?

 

yes. that's precisely the connection i denounced. if you honestly believe this mode of thinking, then you would by default be on the side of every successful terrorist and murderer, cuz their power gave them the "right" to kill.

might is might. right is right. what is wrong is wrong. might may enable a wrong act, but might by itself cannot NOT make anything right.

i'll repeat it as many times as you need.