Call for a Peaceful End to Zionism

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Earth wrote: Are you a monster? Only you can answer that. Do you support cold blooded murder?

Earth you should take off your blinders "Cold Blooded Murder" is happening on both sides. Palestinians can't fire rockets into Israel and harm her people ( article the top of the page) and expect no payback. For you to lament the suffering of the Palestinian people while emiting no concern, care or warmth towards Isreal you are supporting the cold blooded murder of the innocent Isrealies. Frankly I'm sick of the Palestinians reliving history and rewriting it, it they "Truely" want peace lay down there rockets, there guns, there weapons and let the UN oversee a peace treaty. Since the dawn of time man has waged war citing a god like being as the reason, man has pillaged, slaughtered, raped and stolen the lands of those who lost those battles. Isreal isn't any different, the ME and Palestine need to get their heads out of the sand and come into the 21st century. I'm tired of there incessant wailing in the media, **** happens move on and try and build a future by accepting Isreals right to exist. It's just dirt, and it isn't worth killing or dying for.

Where have I ever stated I support violent acts by either side? I support freedom and justice. I am against violence by either side. Do you support Israel's violence against Palestinians?

What Palestinians want is freedom and justice. If Palestinians lay down their arms, will they have a just peace? Will Israel give back everything they have taken from these people over the years? I don't think so. So what you expect is that Palestinians accept living in refugee camps, without hope for a better future, freedom or justice. That's not going to happen.

If Israel's leaders want peace, then why do they assassinate Palestinian leaders who negotiate ceasefires?

Killing of Hamas leader ends truce
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Chris McGreal in Gaza City
Friday August 22, 2003
The Guardian


[/FONT]Five Israeli missiles incinerated Ismail Abu Shanab in Gaza City yesterday, killing one of the most powerful voices for peace in Hamas and destroying the ceasefire that Palestinian leaders believed would avert civil war....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1027403,00.html

Actions speak louder than words...

Ismail Abu Shanab was a moderate by Hamas leadership standards. A ceasefire negotiator, he was prepared to consider the two-state solution. openDemocracy’s Paul Hilder interviewed him at his home in Gaza in July 2002, days after the assassination of Salah Shehadeh, leader of Hamas’s military wing. In this disturbing conversation, they talk about peace, violence, democracy, the US, bin Laden, and colonialism...

http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/ViewPopUpArticle.jsp?id=2&articleId=1469#

I'm not calling for an end to Israel, but an end to Zionism. Zionism isn't that different from Apartheid. Just replace Jews with whites and Palestinians with blacks and you have Zionism. I was against Apartheid and for the same reasons I am against Zionism. By the way, non-violent methods ended Apartheid.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Earth as One, you have to deal with reality here......Hamas, no matter how nicely it's leaders' serve lemonade, is an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel...........were anybody a true "moderate" they would not be a member (to say nothing of a leader) of Hamas. That simple.

<H5>What does Hamas believe and what are its goals?
Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the PA with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." Its leaders have called suicide attacks the "F-16" of the Palestinian people. Hamas believes "peace talks will do no good," Rantisi said in April 2004. "We do not believe we can live with the enemy."
</H5>
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Well Earth as One..

You are contradicting yourself.

If a "people" have a shared right and responsibility (ie, "Palestinians" as a group own the land around Palestine) then ALL palestinians (as they collectively share rights, like land rights) share blame.

If ALL palestinians share land rights (ie, Mr. X didn't own this land before Israel came, Palestinians owned the land, and Mr. X was a palestinian), then all palestinians share blame (ie, If Mr.X didn't fire a missile at Israel, Palestinians fired a missle at Israel and Mr.X was a palestinian)


Group Rights, Group Blame. Land Rights, Right of Return, Right to brutal butcher like reprisals.

Individual Rights, Individual Blame. No Land rights, no right of return and no deserved punishment.


You can't pick the both of best worlds, so which is it you believe in?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
From a Palestinian's perception, thanks to outside intervention, terrorists moved in and started a war which continues to this day. Zionism has only increased anti-Semitism, not protected Jews from violence.


And the following news which is from the Jewish Forward promises to magnify the problem of violence:


http://www.forward.com/articles/book-israel-lobby-pushing-iran-war/


Book: Israel, Lobby Pushing Iran War

Nathan Guttman | Fri. Dec 29, 2006
A former United Nations weapons inspector and leading Iraq War opponent has written a new book alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage.”


http://www.eshopads2.com/adserver/adview.php?what=zone:282&n=af636e79
In the new book, called “Target Iran,” Scott Ritter, who served as a senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and later became one of the war’s staunchest critics, argues that the United States is readying for military action against Iran, using its nuclear program as a pretext for pursuing regime change in Tehran.
“The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby, has succeeded,” Ritter writes, “in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran.”
Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
Ritter’s book echoes recent high-profile attacks on the pro-Israel lobby by former President Jimmy Carter and by scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Ritter, who recently returned from a weeklong speaking engagement on The Nation cruise, speaks of a “network of individuals” that pursues Israel’s interests in the United States. The former weapons inspector alleges that some of the pro-Israel lobby’s activities “can only be described as outright espionage and interference in domestic policies.” Ritter also accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of having an inherent dual loyalty. He called for the organization to be registered as a foreign agent.
Representatives for both Aipac and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Ritter’s accusations.
In his book, Ritter also accuses the pro-Israel lobby of invoking the memory of the Holocaust and of crying antisemitism whenever Israel is accused of betraying America. “This is a sickening and deeply disturbing trend that must end,” Ritter writes.
According to Ritter, Iran is far from developing a nuclear weapons program and will not do so in the future if the world makes sure that stringent inspections are in place to verify that the Iranians live up to the requirements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
“If Iran does make a political decision to develop nuclear weapons, it will take them a decade and it won’t go undetected,” Ritter said. “But it will take the U.S. only five weeks to build up a force capable of destroying Iran by air strikes. It’s a timeline of five weeks compared to a decade, so I’m not worried about taking a risk.”
As for Israeli and American fears regarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president who vowed to “wipe Israel off the map,” Ritter dubbed the leader a “sick joke” and asserted that he does not make the decisions in Tehran.
Ritter argues that the Bush administration knows that inspections can solve the Iranian nuclear problem but, at the urging of Jerusalem and its American allies, is in reality pursuing a different goal: regime change in Tehran.
“Israel has, through a combination of ignorance, fear and paranoia, elevated Iran to a status that it finds unacceptable,” Ritter writes in his book. “Israel has engaged in policies that have further inflamed this situation. Israel displays arrogance and rigidity when it comes to developing any diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.”
Ritter is no stranger to controversy.
As a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, he headed several surprise inspection missions that were denied access to suspicious sites, and led to the Saddam Hussein regime accusing Ritter of being an American spy. The frequent refusal of the Iraqis to provide Ritter and his team access to sites of interest led eventually to the abandonment of the inspection regime in Iraq. Ritter resigned his post in 1998, accusing the United States and the U.N. of caving in to the Iraqis.
But Ritter later became a leading voice warning against taking military action against Iraq, arguing that a resumption of inspections would be sufficient to contain Hussein. He accused the United States of trying to use the U.N. inspection force for spying purposes and claimed that Iraq was deliberately held to higher standards than other countries in order to justify a military invasion.
In early 2004, Ritter charged in an interview on the Web site Ynet, operated by the daily Yediot Aharonot, that Israeli intelligence had deliberately overstated what it knew to be a minimal threat from Iraq in an effort to push America and Britain to launch a war. Ritter’s accusations were roundly rejected across the Israeli political spectrum. Security officials interviewed by the Forward insisted that no branch of the military could or would deliberately skew the findings in that way, but they also said that Israeli intelligence tended to exaggerate threats because it was operating under flawed assumptions.
Now Ritter is arguing that a similar effort is under way to produce an attack against Iran.
Speaking to the Forward this week, Ritter stressed that he is not accusing all American Jews of having dual loyalty, saying that “at the end of the day, I would like to believe that most of American Jews will side with America.”
Ritter is already working on his next book, due for publication in March 2007. In this tome, he sets out to teach the anti-war movements that he supports how to wage an effective campaign to win over American public opinion.
Fri. Dec 29, 2006




.............................................................................................





 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Scott Ritter is an interesting guy.

He also wrote about the Childrens' prison in Saddam's Baghdad, where the children of political prisoners were kept nice and handy for torture or murder............kids from roughly 2 to 12 years of age. Hundreds of them.

They were given no food or water, as their death by thirst or starvation merely saved the regime the trouble of offing them for the "sins" of their parents.............

He said it was the worst thing he saw in Iraq.

Let us quit comparing Saddam and Bush...........

Oh yeah, back to the subject at hand........an American invasion of Iran is simply implausible...........politically, militarily, or economically.

I have nothing against Mr. Ritter, but I suspect he is busily boosting future book sales.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
" Call for a Peaceful End to Zionism "
Hmmm. I put out a call for a peaceful end to ignorancism and stupidism, but very little changed. :D
Quite a while ago I put out calls for any kind of end to barney the purple dinosaur. Didn't work.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Earth as One, you have to deal with reality here......Hamas, no matter how nicely it's leaders' serve lemonade, is an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel...........were anybody a true "moderate" they would not be a member (to say nothing of a leader) of Hamas. That simple.

</H5>
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/


I judge by actions not words. Judge a tree by the fruit that it bears.

Although both sides have committed violents acts against each other, only one side faces destruction. Seems to me those actions speak volumes about which side is dedicated to destruction of the other.

Zionism has brought nothing but death and destruction to the majority of Palestinians. How far will Zionism go to seal their absolute claims?

In the beginning Zionism was about coexistance with the people living there and Zionsim would benefit the local people.

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Zionism_and_the_Arabs
Zionism and the Arabs

The Jews who already lived in the region of Palestine had a long and complex history of interaction with their Muslim neighbours and rulers, which was complicated by the relationship between Islam and Judaism. Outside of Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias, Arabs and/or Muslims constituted the overwhelming majority of the population. The early Zionists were well aware of this, but claimed that the inhabitants could only benefit from Jewish immigration. They also were inclined to settle in uninhabited areas, such as the coastal plain and the Jezreel Valley, thus avoiding conflict with the Arabs.

Within Zionist literature, the Arab presence was largely ignored, as in the famous slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land." This slogan is often attributed to Israel Zangwill, but its original form, "A country without a nation for a nation without a country," was penned by Lord Shaftesbury.[14]....

Though there had already been Arab protests to the Ottoman authorities in the 1880s against land sales to foreign Jews, the most serious opposition began in the 1890s after the full scope of the Zionist enterprise became known. This opposition did not arise out of Palestinian nationalism, which was in its infancy at the time, but out of a sense of threat to the livelihood of the Arabs. This sense was heightened in the early years of the 20th century by the Zionist attempts to develop an economy in which Arabs were largely redundant, such as the "Hebrew labor" movement that campaigned against the employment of Arabs. The severing of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration were seen by the Arabs as proof that their fears were coming to fruition.

Zeev Jabotinsky


A wide range of opinion could be found among Zionist leaders after 1920. However, the division between these camps did not match the main threads in Zionist politics so cleanly as is often portrayed. To take an example, the leader of the Revisionist Zionists, Vladimir Jabotinsky, is often presented as having had an extreme pro-expulsion view but the proofs offered for this are rather thin. According to Jabotinsky's Iron Wall (1923), an agreement with the Arabs was impossible, since they
look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.

A land without people for a people without land...

What a crock. As a result of Zionsism, four million people live in refugee camps and the area on the edge of Israeli control is a war zone.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Well Earth as One..

You are contradicting yourself.

If a "people" have a shared right and responsibility (ie, "Palestinians" as a group own the land around Palestine) then ALL palestinians (as they collectively share rights, like land rights) share blame.

If ALL palestinians share land rights (ie, Mr. X didn't own this land before Israel came, Palestinians owned the land, and Mr. X was a palestinian), then all palestinians share blame (ie, If Mr.X didn't fire a missile at Israel, Palestinians fired a missle at Israel and Mr.X was a palestinian)


Group Rights, Group Blame. Land Rights, Right of Return, Right to brutal butcher like reprisals.

Individual Rights, Individual Blame. No Land rights, no right of return and no deserved punishment.


You can't pick the both of best worlds, so which is it you believe in?

All individuals who suffered as a result of Israel's creation as well as their descendants have a right to compensation.

In many cases records such as land deeds, addresses on old letters, a picture of a home, family portraits... still exist. People with proof have individual rights based on their evidence.

But after so much time and war, most records must have been destroyed... Therefore Palestinian have collective rights. But this isn't so different than historical collective rights by Palestinian communities to community property, ie grazing, water access, orchards... Palestinians have collective rights based on evidence that the land was community owned.

Palestinians have no rights to land obtained legally by Israel or Zionists: i.e. sale/purchase

Land, whose ownership is unclear, should be awarded fairly to victims on all sides.

Let every individual vote and enforced peaceful democracy should resolve the rest of the issues.

But just because I believe in collective rights or even fundamental human rights doesn't contradict not believing in collective punishment.

Because I believe in justice, I believe all who commit violent acts should be held accountable for their actions.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
"well as their descendants have a right to compensation."

Descendants deserve nothing. They didn't lose anything, why should they get it.


"But just because I believe in collective rights or even fundamental human rights doesn't contradict not believing in collective punishment."

Yes it does. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. That is fundemental to every adult. Punishment results from failing in your responsibilities, always.

If you have collective rights, you have collective responsibilities. If you fail at your collective responsibilities you get collective punishment.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
As a result of Zionsism, four million people live in refugee camps ....
-----------------------------------earth_as_one------------------------------------------------------

If only the Uighers had the spotlight.
And the Kurds under Saddam.

Irrelevant ? Yep. Sincerely irrelevant.


But here's some relevance: Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, and refugee camps
existed under them in Ramallah especially (West Bank).

You wonder at least 4 questions.

1. Why didn't Jordan give these people autonomy and thus almost 17 years of a productive self rule ?
2. Why did the Arab world NOT build infrastructure and school and jobs while under Jordan rule ?
3. Why did the Arab world choose to devote it's oil rich dollars to unrewarding activity such
as hate schools instead of job learning skills ?
4. Why did it not encourage placement in houses rather than maintaining refugee camps for 17 years,
thus keeping the pressure cooker cooking ??

But in the end, these questions only point out hypocrisy, and cynical manipulation by Arab leadership.

In the end, it is what earth_as_one points out.

Yet earth_as_one is as equally one-sided as the zionists he accuses.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
"well as their descendants have a right to compensation."

Descendants deserve nothing. They didn't lose anything, why should they get it.


"But just because I believe in collective rights or even fundamental human rights doesn't contradict not believing in collective punishment."

Yes it does. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. That is fundemental to every adult. Punishment results from failing in your responsibilities, always.

If you have collective rights, you have collective responsibilities. If you fail at your collective responsibilities you get collective punishment.

I would agree that over time, wrongs become historical. But if descendants of people who lost their property 2000 years ago have rights to this land, then so should the descendants of those who lost their property over the last 60 years.

Your support for collective punishment is troubling. Collective punishment leads to killing innocent people. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, it means committing acts of genocide. Collective punishments are war crimes as per Geneva conventions:
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Israel has committed this war crime:

BBC
Switzerland says Israel has clearly violated international law by imposing collective punishment on Palestinians over the capture of an Israeli soldier.

Switzerland is the "depository" state of the Geneva Conventions.
They prohibit the deliberate targeting of services essential to the civilian population, like water and electricity. The statement from Switzerland comes amid growing concern among aid agencies at the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza...

...It says there is "no doubt Israel has not taken the precautions required of it in international law to protect the civilian population and infrastructure.
"The destruction of a power station, the attack on the offices of the Palestinian prime minister, the arbitrary arrests of a large number of democratically-elected representatives of the people and ministers... cannot be justified."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5145654.stm
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
As a result of Zionsism, four million people live in refugee camps ....
-----------------------------------earth_as_one------------------------------------------------------

If only the Uighers had the spotlight.
And the Kurds under Saddam.

Irrelevant ? Yep. Sincerely irrelevant.


But here's some relevance: Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, and refugee camps
existed under them in Ramallah especially (West Bank).

You wonder at least 4 questions.

1. Why didn't Jordan give these people autonomy and thus almost 17 years of a productive self rule ?
2. Why did the Arab world NOT build infrastructure and school and jobs while under Jordan rule ?
3. Why did the Arab world choose to devote it's oil rich dollars to unrewarding activity such
as hate schools instead of job learning skills ?
4. Why did it not encourage placement in houses rather than maintaining refugee camps for 17 years,
thus keeping the pressure cooker cooking ??

But in the end, these questions only point out hypocrisy, and cynical manipulation by Arab leadership.

In the end, it is what earth_as_one points out.

Yet earth_as_one is as equally one-sided as the zionists he accuses.

Is your point that since Jordan treated Palestinians poorly, Israel has the right to treat Palestinians even worse?

Jordan is a poor country with the misfortune of being next to Israel. Since Israel's creation, Israel has burdened Jordan with refugees. Palestinians were better off when they were neglected as a result of Jordan's poverty.

Today, Palestinians are Israel's legal responsibilty. Not only doesn't Israel build infrastructure, schools and jobs for Palestinians... Israel destroys infrastructure, schools and jobs. Palestinian children aren't even safe in school:

Child Shot in UNRWA School Dies

At 09:15hrs this morning, Ghadeer Jaber Mokheimer, a grade five pupil at UNRWA’s Co-Ed Elementary D School in Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip died of her injuries from a gunshot wound received while sitting at her desk in an UNRWA school. She had been hit in the stomach by a shot from an Israeli military position on the outskirts of Khan Younis camp. Ghadeer would have been ten years old on December 9.

The nine year old is the second young child in recent weeks to die after being shot while sitting at her desk in an UNRWA school...


http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2004/hqg34-04.pdf

Here is a Jewish Israeli viewpoint:

Killing children is no longer a big deal
By Gideon Levy

...the question of who is a terrorist should have long since become very burdensome for every Israeli. Yet it is not on the public agenda. Child killers are always the Palestinians, the soldiers always only defend us and themselves, and the hell with the statistics.

The plain fact, which must be stated clearly, is that the blood of hundreds of Palestinian children is on our hands. No tortuous explanation by the IDF Spokesman's Office or by the military correspondents about the dangers posed to soldiers by the children, and no dubious excuse by the public relations people in the Foreign Ministry about how the Palestinians are making use of children will change that fact...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=489479

Why should Muslim/Arab countries pay to clean up the Palestinian refugee problem? Are rich countries like Saudi Arabia supposed to support all Palestinian refugees including Christians or are they responsible for just Wahabi Sunni Muslims?? Do dark ones go to the same country as light ones?

Should Palestinians be classed and assigned according their race/religion/ethnicity? Please do expand on this line of thinking and explain more about how you think which Palestinians should go where...

Also please explain why countries which voted against the creation of Israel and never attacked Israel are therefore responsible for cleaning up Israel's refugee problem. Explain why Israel shouldn't take responsibility for problems it created.

What about the nations which voted to create Israel? Do these nations have any responsibilty for the consequences of that decision?

The UN was clear about the Palestinian refugee problem when Israel wanted acceptance into the UN. Israel was allowed to join the UN on condition that it recognize Palestinian Right of Return:

Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273of May 11, 1949 ) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194of December 11, 1948 and Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution.

text of General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949 admitting Israel into the United Nations, and noting Israel's stated agreement to comply with Resolution 194:

http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html

[SIZE=+1]Jews Against the Occupation[/SIZE]
UN Resolutions[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]



[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]General Assembly Resolution 194[/SIZE][SIZE=-1], Dec. 11, 1948 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."[/SIZE]




[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Back in 1948, few Palestinians had committed violent acts against Israelis. Most refugees were unarmed civilians. It took 60 years for some of them to become militant. Each day they suffer injustice and oppression, more of them choose violence as a means to solve their problems. Despite this, most Palestinians still haven't committed any violent act against Israel. [/SIZE]



[SIZE=-1]In the longterm, Palestinians will continue multiplying in their refugee/concentration camps. Sympathetic organizations will continue to arm the ones who chose to fight. This problem will grow until its resolved in a fair and just. Israel's collapse is inevitable... over time.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The question isn't really should Zionism continue to exist. Obviously its days are numbered. The only choice now is whether this happens peacefully or not.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]You reap what you sow.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Unfortunately "Zionism" doesn't exist really. It just Jewish people living on "Muslim Lands" so they need to be "driven into the sea". We've heard that song and dance before "Spanish Lands/ Russian Lands /Aryan Lands... Muslim Lands is just the new chapter.


And why is this Jordans Problem? Look at the Map, there never was a nation of Palestine. There was a Palestinian Territory, but thats JORDAN now.


So how can they be refugees in Jordan when they are Jordanian Citizenry?

Simple, the Jordanians oppressed them the same way. And if Palestine is ever cut free, it will be 2 hours before Jordan, Egypt and Syria invade Palestine and divy up the land again.

The only time there is muslim peace in the middle east is when they are trying to kill Israel. Otherwise they descend upon each other like a pack of wild dogs. If they would stop fighting Israel they would live better than they ever could as a BRIEFLY independant Palestine.


Also Note: The "Right of Return"

1.) Only applies to refugees who had a home in Israel. Their descendants are not entitled to anything.

2.) Doesn't really matter anyways. UN resolutions are not binding, and only show the whim of a majority of nations who have a stake in the matter. Alot more Muslim nations than Jewish ones so you get alot of worthless hot air.

Now any of those General Assembly Resolutions ever make it past the security council? Any? A general assembly resolution has the legal standing of a vetoed bill, zilch.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Unfortunately "Zionism" doesn't exist really. It just Jewish people living on "Muslim Lands" so they need to be "driven into the sea". We've heard that song and dance before "Spanish Lands/ Russian Lands /Aryan Lands... Muslim Lands is just the new chapter.


And why is this Jordans Problem? Look at the Map, there never was a nation of Palestine. There was a Palestinian Territory, but thats JORDAN now.


So how can they be refugees in Jordan when they are Jordanian Citizenry?

Simple, the Jordanians oppressed them the same way. And if Palestine is ever cut free, it will be 2 hours before Jordan, Egypt and Syria invade Palestine and divy up the land again.

The only time there is muslim peace in the middle east is when they are trying to kill Israel. Otherwise they descend upon each other like a pack of wild dogs. If they would stop fighting Israel they would live better than they ever could as a BRIEFLY independant Palestine.


Also Note: The "Right of Return"

1.) Only applies to refugees who had a home in Israel. Their descendants are not entitled to anything.

2.) Doesn't really matter anyways. UN resolutions are not binding, and only show the whim of a majority of nations who have a stake in the matter. Alot more Muslim nations than Jewish ones so you get alot of worthless hot air.

Now any of those General Assembly Resolutions ever make it past the security council? Any? A general assembly resolution has the legal standing of a vetoed bill, zilch.

Are you saying the will of the majority of the nations, international laws and conventions mean nothing? Sooner or later all empires fall.

Palestine was an region of the Ottoman empire. It was inhabitated by people. Call them what you like, they were the majority of people who owned homes, property...and lived their lives in relative peace in the area which is now called Israel. Are you saying these 800,000 people who fled their homes don't exist and never did? How convenient for Israel. Maybe we should call these people who don't exist as the "New Jews".

Go back and reread what I have already posted. I am not talking about driving Jews into the sea. I am talking about ending Zionism peacefully. That could mean one state for Jews and non-Jews with equal rights.

Zionism will end because as long as people suffer oppression and injustice they will fight for freedom and justice.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Im saying they did exist. 60 years later, they are almost all dead. As is almost everyone in Israel who was old enough to have done anything wrong.

They very NON-BINDING resolution you show does not say descendants get to return.

International Norms do exist, they are NOT general assembly motions. It has to be passed by the security council if you want any kind of "legality" (even then, why on earth would you let the USSR and China decide whats fair, as they did for many many years)
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Im saying they did exist. 60 years later, they are almost all dead. As is almost everyone in Israel who was old enough to have done anything wrong.

They very NON-BINDING resolution you show does not say descendants get to return.

International Norms do exist, they are NOT general assembly motions. It has to be passed by the security council if you want any kind of "legality" (even then, why on earth would you let the USSR and China decide whats fair, as they did for many many years)

At least you admit they existed.

Now 4 million of them and their descendants exist. 60 years later, Israel maintains its rolling annexation. To acquire their property, Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. As you observed, this should be about what's fair. In your judgement have Palestines been treated fairly by anyone? The UN?, Israel? Neighboring nations?

So do you think what's happening to these people now is fair?

Gaza after Disengagement
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
At least you admit they existed.

Now 4 million of them and their descendants exist. 60 years later, Israel maintains its rolling annexation. To acquire their property, Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. As you observed, this should be about what's fair. In your judgement have Palestines been treated fairly by anyone? The UN?, Israel? Neighboring nations?

So do you think what's happening to these people now is fair?

Gaza after Disengagement
"....Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity" as has everyone else in the neighborhood. So?
I think what would be fair would be to let the people in that neighborhood sort out what is fair and everyone else mind their own biz.