The 350 years are those for which accurate figures exist, it's a starter for the timespan during which the indigenous population was Arab rather than Jewish. No doubt a western-backed and funded country would have engineered a 'modern miracle' compared to its neighbours in Uganda (where the Zionists originally hoped for a homeland) or most places where the locals could be expelled/fecked over.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Accurate figures do not exist, and estimates for the same year often vary considerably. Naturally with nomadic populations there's also a considerable seasonal variation.
Uganda would have been nice too for the rich wildlife, but then I reckon people there have been fecked over well enough by you lot, Pete.
א עַל נַהֲרוֹת, בָּבֶל--שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ, גַּם-בָּכִינוּ: בְּזָכְרֵנוּ, אֶת-צִיּוֹן. 1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
ב עַל-עֲרָבִים בְּתוֹכָהּ-- תָּלִינוּ, כִּנֹּרוֹתֵינוּ. 2 Upon the willows in the midst thereof we hanged up our harps.
ג כִּי שָׁם שְׁאֵלוּנוּ שׁוֹבֵינוּ, דִּבְרֵי-שִׁיר-- וְתוֹלָלֵינוּ שִׂמְחָה:
שִׁירוּ לָנוּ, מִשִּׁיר צִיּוֹן. 3 For there they that led us captive asked of us words of song, and our tormentors asked of us mirth: {N}
'Sing us one of the songs of Zion.'
ד אֵיךְ--נָשִׁיר אֶת-שִׁיר-יְהוָה: עַל, אַדְמַת נֵכָר. 4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a foreign land?
ה אִם-אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם-- תִּשְׁכַּח יְמִינִי. 5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
ו תִּדְבַּק-לְשׁוֹנִי, לְחִכִּי-- אִם-לֹא אֶזְכְּרֵכִי:
אִם-לֹא אַעֲלֶה, אֶת-יְרוּשָׁלִַם-- עַל, רֹאשׁ שִׂמְחָתִי. 6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; {N}
if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy.
ז זְכֹר יְהוָה, לִבְנֵי אֱדוֹם-- אֵת, יוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָם:
הָאֹמְרִים, עָרוּ עָרוּ-- עַד, הַיְסוֹד בָּהּ. 7 Remember, O LORD, against the children of Edom the day of Jerusalem; {N}
who said: 'Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.'
ח בַּת-בָּבֶל, הַשְּׁדוּדָה:
אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם-לָךְ-- אֶת-גְּמוּלֵךְ, שֶׁגָּמַלְתְּ לָנוּ. 8 O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; {N}
happy shall he be, that repayeth thee as thou hast served us.
ט אַשְׁרֵי, שֶׁיֹּאחֵז וְנִפֵּץ אֶת-עֹלָלַיִךְ-- אֶל-הַסָּלַע.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. {P}
Uganda would have been nice too for the rich wildlife, but then I reckon people there have been fecked over well enough by you lot, Pete.
א עַל נַהֲרוֹת, בָּבֶל--שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ, גַּם-בָּכִינוּ: בְּזָכְרֵנוּ, אֶת-צִיּוֹן. 1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
ב עַל-עֲרָבִים בְּתוֹכָהּ-- תָּלִינוּ, כִּנֹּרוֹתֵינוּ. 2 Upon the willows in the midst thereof we hanged up our harps.
ג כִּי שָׁם שְׁאֵלוּנוּ שׁוֹבֵינוּ, דִּבְרֵי-שִׁיר-- וְתוֹלָלֵינוּ שִׂמְחָה:
שִׁירוּ לָנוּ, מִשִּׁיר צִיּוֹן. 3 For there they that led us captive asked of us words of song, and our tormentors asked of us mirth: {N}
'Sing us one of the songs of Zion.'
ד אֵיךְ--נָשִׁיר אֶת-שִׁיר-יְהוָה: עַל, אַדְמַת נֵכָר. 4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a foreign land?
ה אִם-אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם-- תִּשְׁכַּח יְמִינִי. 5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
ו תִּדְבַּק-לְשׁוֹנִי, לְחִכִּי-- אִם-לֹא אֶזְכְּרֵכִי:
אִם-לֹא אַעֲלֶה, אֶת-יְרוּשָׁלִַם-- עַל, רֹאשׁ שִׂמְחָתִי. 6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; {N}
if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy.
ז זְכֹר יְהוָה, לִבְנֵי אֱדוֹם-- אֵת, יוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָם:
הָאֹמְרִים, עָרוּ עָרוּ-- עַד, הַיְסוֹד בָּהּ. 7 Remember, O LORD, against the children of Edom the day of Jerusalem; {N}
who said: 'Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.'
ח בַּת-בָּבֶל, הַשְּׁדוּדָה:
אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם-לָךְ-- אֶת-גְּמוּלֵךְ, שֶׁגָּמַלְתְּ לָנוּ. 8 O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; {N}
happy shall he be, that repayeth thee as thou hast served us.
ט אַשְׁרֵי, שֶׁיֹּאחֵז וְנִפֵּץ אֶת-עֹלָלַיִךְ-- אֶל-הַסָּלַע.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. {P}
Back to the bible? I prefer The Melodians' rocksteady version myself.
You sound like the type of guy who has at least one Jewish friend. If you've been to his/her wedding and weren't too busy with the herrings you may have heard the: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not".
The original suggestion of Uganda was supposed to be temporary as Jews were being slaughtered in pogroms. Still, it almost split the Zionist movement be and like other less-famous suggestions stemmed from some members' position that the historic homeland was utopian. Thankfully the Balfour declaration proved them wrong.
You're not getting it, are you? The important thing to consider here is not whether the written material -in HR's example pre-and post exilic Hebrew poetry - was 'divinely inspired' but the simple fact that there exist a historical record of a nation of Hebrews that existed 3000 years ago that had a state called Israel. There is archaeological evidence for this fact. It is completely irrelevant whether you believe in the existence of a deity introduced in those writings, which is sort of a cheap point you're trying to bring into this debate.
Unless, obviously, you're fully disregarding all other ancient literature and archaeology and claim that Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. never existed and thus never had their homelands either.
I get it - the Jews were in Palestine 3000 years ago but not in any numbers 100 years ago and for centuries before that. Hence there was no legal/moral basis for them to occupy those lands under the Wilson principles of self-determination. How are you getting on with the problem of evil by the way?
You simply don't get it. Not even a successful WUM.
Legal basis:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
Moral basis:
The siding of Western "liberals" with some of the most fundamental religious nutcases is always a good starting point for a discussion on morals.
Legal basis:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
Moral basis:
The siding of Western "liberals" with some of the most fundamental religious nutcases is always a good starting point for a discussion on morals.
Freedom fighters sounds better.
Post-hoc justifications for previous dubious actions merely to cement the status quo.
Cementing a status quo? you mean like tearing Palestine apart and handing most of its territory to an Arab friend? Addmitedly, that got a post-hoc justification.
Preventing Jews from settling there was another shot at status-quo, wasn't it? Credit where it's due, that British idea pre-dates the Nurnberg laws.
the Brits behaved disgracefully (see Hussain-MacMahon, Sykes-Picot, Balfour and later). The bottom line is the decolonisation of the Ottoman empire ought to have been undertaken along the principles of Wilson's self-determination not driven by expediency and British post-colonial self-interest.
Arab and Jewish self-determination were supposed to have been guaranteed by the Faisal-Weizmann 1919 agreement. However, as with every Arab-Jewish/Israeli agreement since...
Well, as has been said before the historic argument is academic. What's to be done about a two-state solution? If they can sort out Northern Ireland it isn't impossible.
I seriously doubt it. Different scenarios altogether.
I've been reading articles in the Israeli media to try and get a better understanding of the situation from an Israeli POV, and the comments section of the J-post is absolutely crazy. It's even worse for lunatics than the Fox News comments section used to be before it was moderated. Take for example today's leading story.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-...hat-Europe-unfairly-critical-of-Israel-339014
Here is one of the 'moderator approved' comments from the top of the comments section.
And another comment
And one just for sheer crazy
Is there really such an anti-European sentiment in Israel? And do people actually believe that the EU is biased in favour of Palestine?
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-...hat-Europe-unfairly-critical-of-Israel-339014
Here is one of the 'moderator approved' comments from the top of the comments section.
And another comment
And one just for sheer crazy
Is there really such an anti-European sentiment in Israel? And do people actually believe that the EU is biased in favour of Palestine?
I don't know the answer to your question, but comment sections always tend to attract the crazy and radical, so I'm not sure how much you can take away from this.
Firstly, BBF is absolutely right about comments sections in e-papers attracting loons.
As for anti-European sentiments in Israel in general they exist, and imo people are absolutely right in pointing at EU bias in the conflict here.
European bias! Jesus.
They're only biased if you take the US as neutral arbiters. The fact that the EU actually listen to and criticise both sides rather than just the interests of your own apparently counts for bias nowadays.
I'm sure that there are plenty of Palestinians who think the EU are biased against them as well (Germany and the UK in particular).
They're only biased if you take the US as neutral arbiters. The fact that the EU actually listen to and criticise both sides rather than just the interests of your own apparently counts for bias nowadays.
I'm sure that there are plenty of Palestinians who think the EU are biased against them as well (Germany and the UK in particular).
Not sure why the Palestinians think Germany and the EU are biased against them, considering the EU has paid the PA and Gaza over 3 billion EUR since 2008 and 20% of those funds were carried by Germany alone. You can only shake your head in disbelief and wonder where all the money has gone. The Gaza Strip could have been the Monte Carlo of the Middle East instead of the dump that it is.
That's less than 200 euros per head. On top of a per capita income of $3000 dollars a year.
Some Monte Carlo.
Germany supply parts for Israeli military equipment and spend a lower percentage of their gnp on foreign aid than the likes of Sweden and Denmark.
Actually, this is exactly the kind of myopia that I was referring to. It's as though people believe that states are biased against them if they don't support "their team" 100%. The EU is relatively balanced as things go, but because they dare to give aid to developing nations they must be on Palestine's "side".
Everybody is "biased" in favour of Palestine outside of Israel(including many Jewish people) because they have nothing as things stand. So once you even support the idea of a Palestinian state you are seen by many in Israel to be totally against them.
That's absolutely rubbish. How does this agree with the widespread public support for a two-state solution among Israelis.
It's this type of crap that derails a potentially reasonable debate into a futile slogan regurgitating waste of time. Anyone who favours self-determination for the Palestinians while at the same time rejects the right of Jews for self determination is biased to say the least.
Palestinian self determination isn't based on racial grounds. That's the difference.
The EU is probably the most reasonable of the major actors when it comes to the conflict. If anything, it's probably more reasonable to suggest that the EU is biased in favour of Israel due to its reluctance to speak out against illegal Israeli settlements, and the overwhelming support of the major EU states for Israeli military action. Only a fool could claim that the EU has a significant overall bias against Israel.
What is it based on then? Who are the Palestinians that the EU work so hard for? Are they the same people that democratically elected Hamas? What would be the grounds for self-determination under that rule in your opinion? Perhaps it's the moderates of the PLO who again see the Shari'alaw as the basis for legistlation according to their constitution?
European bias is most noticable regarding the legal status of the settlements. That issue is hotly disputed, but adopting the Arab stance and repeating the slogan ad nauseum gives the impression of a concensus. The future of the settlements should be negotiated between the two parties, while it's obvious to all that they are not the root of the conflict. One-sided boycotts and condemnations, coupled with indirect funding of incitement and terrorism, is bias. As is official EU funding of left-wing NGOs in Israel.
What do you mean 'work so hard for'? The EU gives development aid all over the world, there is nothing exceptional about its aid to Palestinians. And what does the election of Hamas have to do with anything? The EU is very critical of Hamas - it designates it a terrorist organisation and does not supply it with direct aid. Whenever the conflict flares up, the EU consistently places the blame on Hamas and publicly supports Israel's right to retaliate - although it of course asks for it to be done proportionately. The EU position on what you call Palestinian self determination is that there should be a two state solution, agreed by both sides. It's about establishing a state so that those who live in the territories eventually have full rights under international law, whether they are Arab Muslims or Arab Christians or whatever. The EU would be highly critical if an oppressive theocracy was established.
On the issue of the settlements, it is the EU position that they are illegal under international law. This position is shared by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice and almost all other major relevant international bodies, as well as almost every professor of international law in any serious university outside of Israel. So yes, the consensus view is that they are illegal. To say that the issue is hotly disputed is as absurd as creationists arguing that there is no consensus on evolution just because some crackpots vocally oppose it. I mean, seriously...what planet are you living on? The fact that the EU is tolerating the settlements, despite its view that they are illegal, suggests anything but a bias against Israel.
The settlements are not illegal as the WB is not an occupied territory. It wasn't occupied from any state, and there is no state claiming it back. There were no plans for creating a state on these territories prior to 1967 either. I have not made a poll among professors of law, and it's irrelevant really. A majority view among academics does not mean shit, just like the non-binding ICJ "ruling". In contrast to what is often being portrayed international law does not address the post-1967 situation here. Calling professors of law and prominent Western leaders crackpots is not going to change that basic truth.
Are you aware of other examples where the EU funds testbooks that call for the destrcution of a UN member state (and one it allegedly supports)? Do you pay allowances for convicted murderers anywhere else with your "development aid"? Does the EU fund radical NGOs in other Western democracies? How many times have we heard EU condemnation of PA incitement towards Israel and Jews in general?
The argument about Jewish self-determination being "racist" is the best of the lot. It would take a right crackpot to suggest that a future Palestinian state would grant equal rights to all its citizens any more than the "racist" Jewish state. It therefore not surprising that EU officials did not bat an eyelid when Abbas recently said that there will be not even one Israeli in the future Palestine...including civilians.
Last edited:
A quite shocking video regarding Israels attitudes to African migrants:
Absolutely shocking. How on earth does a country defend itself from waves of illegal immigration without drowning them at sea? How does the Israeli Supreme Court defend infiltrators from enemy states, and force the government to abandon draconian measures aimed at stopping the illegal immigration of 10,000's? How can Israel cope with what has arguably been the highest rates (per capita) of illegal immigration from Africa among developed countries?
I tell you what should be done about this. Send "human rights activists" with cameras to poor Tel Aviv neighbourhoods where illegal immigrants (>90% men...these are not refugees) days after an 8-year old Israeli girl was raped by an African infiltrator, take shots of a heated demonstration where a group of politicians are attraceted for a quick buck and upload your little video on YouTube. All it takes now is for one idiot to post this on an internet forum in an Israeli-Arab conflict thread and all is set. Job done.
I tell you what should be done about this. Send "human rights activists" with cameras to poor Tel Aviv neighbourhoods where illegal immigrants (>90% men...these are not refugees) days after an 8-year old Israeli girl was raped by an African infiltrator, take shots of a heated demonstration where a group of politicians are attraceted for a quick buck and upload your little video on YouTube. All it takes now is for one idiot to post this on an internet forum in an Israeli-Arab conflict thread and all is set. Job done.
The irony of Israel going wax lyrical over 'illegal immigration'..
Can't see the irony myself.
On the other hand, the irony of Arabs complaining about the well-being of African immigrants in Israel...
On the other hand, the irony of Arabs complaining about the well-being of African immigrants in Israel...
It is something isn't it
Something about Europeans and North Americans coming into Palestinian territory, bulldozing homes and building illegal settlements?
And what on earth has that point go to do anything? Why are Arabs relevant? Are you acknowledging the appalling treatment of African migrants then in Israel?
Why is this whole business relevant to the thread topic? It would make an excellent contribution in a thread discussing mass migrations from Africa to developed countries, in which we can discuss how welcome African migrants are made in Europe, Australia, Israel and indeed Arab countries.
If you insist on discussing African immigrants in a thread discussing the Israeli-Arab conflict you may wonder why these (largely) Muslim immigrants cross Muslim countries risking having their organs harvested by fellow Muslims in order to find a way into what is nothing other than an Apartheid state. As for the treatment of the illegal African infiltrators in Israel, it has been too good for my liking which for too long resulted in increasing migration waves. Thanks to Netanyahu's administration's resolve these have stopped, and hunderds of immigrants have decided to voluntarily go back to their home countries.
Last edited:
See? your contribution to the thread won you a friend. Well done!
You can only laughA lot of verbal and military escalations lately from Israel. Talking (a lot) about going to war with Iran. Bombing inside Syria. Bombing inside Lebanon. Shooting Palestinians...
Another war/wide-scale military operations soon?
Another war/wide-scale military operations soon?