Israel & Palestine

Belly Love

New member
As for the video, it's a love letter to the John Birch Society with a bunch of interview quotes from ultra conservatives, who among other things, believe that women have no right to tell their husbands "no" to sex, do not believe in gay marriage or civil unions, oppose Roe vs. Wade (i.e. abortion), believe there shouldn't be a separation of church and state, and are 100% pro-nuclear power.
Almost all wrong. Women can't say no to husbands who want sex?! What?! Your assesment of a video you have not seen is waaaaay off ;).

Like I said in the original post- these are not made up theories, it's based on facts, which have not yet been debunked.

The man who made the documentary is ultra conservative. He won an award for this documentary and in his speech he talked about how he wouldn't be able to accomplish much of what he has without his wife and how important she is to his life and everything he does. I know two guys who are 100% all for this video and who think women are a precious and they should always be treated with the utmost respect... these are not the type of men who force sex on their wives.

You say "ultra conservative" like it's a bad thing, but most ultra conservative men respect marriage and don't believe in cheating, flirting or even thinking about another woman in a sexual way and think family is the most important thing. For most liberal men, fantasizing, flirting and cheating with women outside of their marriage/romantic relationship is commonplace and by their actions, show that money and material things are the most important things in life.* Which type of man would most women want to be married to? I would say the former. Of course not all conservative men fit this description in our society, but the chances of that type of man being conservative are vastly higher than that man being liberal. So, conservative isn't necessarily a bad thing... even to someone who is liberal ;)

People always comment on how the divorce rate in our country is so high, like it's a bad thing, yet, they promote things that are the very distruction of marriage! Marriage isn't the problem, people and their morals are!

Erik- I agree with your stand on the issues posted.

I do not believe in abortion being used as birth control. I think women have the right to chose what they do with their bodies, but not the life of the child inside of them. When it comes to issues that are beyond their control, that is another story.

I also cannot stand when people equate not agreeing with gay marriage to hate. I know plenty of people who do not agree with gay marriage who do not hate gay people whatsoever, myself included!

This stuff always comes back to the issue of people assuming they're being judged if people do not agree with something they do... two different things.

Anyway, the video isn't really about these issues, but it does bring them up and talks about how they are being used as tools in our society. People are going to be quick to judge this video (I was) but you really can't grasp what it's about until you see it.

* Please note the words commonplace & most, I did not say all.
 
Last edited:

khanjar

New member
Having been married, there is a difference between civil union and marriage, I didn't think there would be, but there was, a definate feeling in the marriage that was not in the previous civil union. The feeling I can only describe is of wholeness, and a happiness nothing can challenge. Now knowing of that feeling I would like others to experience it, everyone if possible, because it does change your perspectives on life and the world around you.

Now at that time, I was very conservative in my tastes, I though not religious adhered totally to my vows as marriage was one step higher than any other form of union, there is a distinct difference. Now I am more liberal in my beliefs and with that liberalism I have I believe progressed as a human being, and so would like to see everyone have a chance at the happiness I have experienced, because it is down to one highly underrated thing these days and that thing is in all the religions, it is called love. Where there is love, no law should rule, because it is down to people, not legal issues or holy guide books and anything else is just prejudice pure prejudice plain and simple.

My marriage I did not go into lightly, for I was aware of what it was and I really had to do some very deep soul searching to make sure I was doing the right thing, which is as you know committing to another in love for eternity and one does really commit, it chanes you as a person, for marriage I believe is that final test in life, quite different from producing offspring, for marriage is not needed for that and that has been displayed through the history of mankind.

As a point of interest I wonder how many people in our history were the product of wedlock and how many weren't, because as you know, nature is stronger than any human ideal, nature will always prevail and if we ignore nature, nature will teach us a lesson we will as an individual, not forget, if we recognise that lesson for what it is.

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear~ William Gladstone
 

Tarik Sultan

New member
Contemporary with the Diaspora that is how the people who were THERE described it.

It might not be a literal description of the situation, could be an exaggeration, or it might just be a turn of phrse. Like how we say a sports team got slaughtered when they lose a game.

Everything I wrote is an accurate history of what happened to them, saying "it happened to someone else too" doesn't change it. Please don't get hissy at me just because I am answering someone's question on the subject.

Who was getting hissy? I was just stating my point of view and backing it up.

All of this is ancient history and only impacts what is happening now in as much as participants allow it to. It is necessary though to understanding why there are people who feel the way they do and I do believe it is important to understand the past and everyone's POV whether you agree with it or not.

Agreed

You've already made your feelings that they should not be there at all quite clear, getting angry at any facts that might be construed to excuse them only makes your own position seem weak.

You're slightly off the mark here. If you had asked me in 1940 should a Jewish state be created in Palestine, I would have told you no way, its a bad idea and these are the reasons why. Fact today: A Jewish state was created in Palestine and several generations have been born there. Whatever I believe about whether or not it should have been done is now irrelivant. As I said, you can't have an abortion after the baby is born. Thing to do is figure out a solution that doesn't cause more damage.

The fact that I don't think it should have been done means nothing in the light of current reality. The people born and living in Israel now have no other place to go or call home. Where you are born is your home, so in my book, they are in the same boat as the Palestinians, but I make it clear that their rights to live in the land are not greater than those of the Palestinians.

With regards to settlers? I think people who have comfortable middle class lives in Europe, America, Australia, where they have the full rights of citizenship and are protected by law to the fullest extent have no reason to go to Israel, it only adds to the problem. Building settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and other disputed territory also does nothing but add fuel to the fire. All very bad ideas if your intention is to have a place where you live in peace.


I thought we were trying to discuss the situation and not having a mock trial so they can be declared Guilty.

Well, like it or not, the Israeli government is guilty, them's just the facts. I feel like I have become the lawyer for the defense in an attempt just to get both POV's in the discussion. I would much rather discuss actual particulars of the situation instead.




An answer to a question someone asked. If you took the time to read the article you might find it interesting yourself.

Did I miss something? I don't think so. I'm not disputing who is a Jew or not a Jew. To me that is irrelivant. If someone considers themselves a Jew, to me they are a Jew. Should Jews be allowed to live in Israel/Palestine? Also, not an issue to me since Jews have been living there all along. What is an issue to me is the idea that Jews have a more legitimate right to the land than anyone else because they were there 2,000 years ago. In my opinion, yes, there were Jews there 2,000yrs ago and their descendants are still there today; they're called Palestinians. The fact that within the past 2,000yrs most of them converted either to Christianity or Islam doesn't change that fact, a fact that's backed up by DNA. If DNA is good enough to validate who some body's baby daddy, then its good enough to prove that the current Palestinian population is and always has been native to the land of their birth. To exclude them based on notions of religion is bigoted and an attitude that's a relic of the past, not the 21st century. Stating my opinions do not make hissy, especially when you consider the fact that like it or not, my tax dollars are being used to support a governmental system that I don't agree with. Dissagreeing with a government is not the same thing as disagreeing with a people's basic human right to life and security. Its just that I don't believe that Jewish Israelis have more of a right to that basic need. I believe the Palestinians have it too. Not based on some ancient tribal law or religion, but because of their basic human rights

@khanjar: The original reason that the Palestinians were not accepted back into Israel was not because they weren't "Jews" but because they were the ones who had sided with the Arab countries who had tried to wipe them off the face of the earth. They had reason not to trust them.

And given the fact that most Palestinians live in poverty compared to Israelis, the fact that Israel is armed to the teeth, the fact that settlers continue to build in areas that are supposed to be Palestinian territory..... well... I'm just sayin'

I am really tired of the comparisons with the Nazis. Nazism is not the face of the Israeli guard in the previous videos who stood there calmly while children called him names to his face. It's the face of brutal dictators who sent millions to their deaths and only complained that the bodies were difficult to dispose of. If they really were a new "Nazi" government there wouldn't be any Palestinian issues since they would have annihilated them years ago. Oh they have their issues and are far from perfect but the attempts to link it to the Nazis and the Holocaust is pure (documented) spin that started from the end of WWII by the same anti-Jew extremist groups that Tarik keeps mentioning as using the Palestinians for their own ends. It's sad that people are starting to believe it. Allow them to attack Israel undisputed and they win.
Nazis, no, racist yes. A more accurate comparison would be Apartide South Africa or the Jim Crow south of the United States. Understand though that racism ranges in degrees. At one end of the spectrum is, I don't like those people because they're not one of my kind, we are better than them. At the other end of the spectrum is We are better than them, they are a problem and must be exterminated. In its defense, Israel has not reached the extreeme end of the spectrum, but they're not in the benign end of it by any stretch of the immagination either.
 

Sirène

New member
Almost all wrong. Women can't say no to husbands who want sex?! What?! Your assesment of a video you have not seen is waaaaay off ;).
My quote was about the people interviewed for the video, not the video itself. A viewer must take into account the sources, and in the case of Agenda Grinding America Down I find that instead of striving for a representative sample to support his theory, the filmmaker pretty much sought out a selective sample of those to the far right. This is no different than what Michael Moore does when he cherry picks ultra liberals for sound bites for his films which appeal to the far left. The finished product might play well for those with the same ideology, but it certainly does not help convince those in the center or at the opposite end of the spectrum.

As for the "women can't say no" bit, that's actually from Phyllis Schafly who is featured prominently in the trailer:

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.
{1}

It's true, I did use the word "ultra-conservative" in a negative way. However, the negative connotation stems not from the conservative part, but from the ultra. It is my opinion that ultra-anything tends to be negative because there is an automatic exclusion or opposition to ideas outside of the group's. From the trailer for Agenda, I got the sense of a very singular point of view from a group that wouldn't consider anything I had to say worth the air it took to speak.

Truthfully, I think the majority of people don't fall neatly into any one group - one can be conservative, centrist or liberal, depending on the subject: finance, politics, social issues, the environment, etc. - but I find that the media doesn't treat their viewers that way. It's "you're completely on board" or "you're the enemy." :(

For most liberal men, fantasizing, flirting and cheating with women outside of their marriage/romantic relationship is commonplace and by their actions, show that money and material things are the most important things in life.
If by liberal you mean, going Vegan, driving a prius and voting independent - cheating is no more commonplace or accepted than it is for non-liberals. Equating liberalism with a compete lack of moral values is as erroneous as equating religious devotion with infallibility (examples below). Individuals are each unique and flawed. Affiliation or identification with a group is no guarantee that someone will make good (or bad) decisions.



@Erik:
Your opinions are your own and I respect you even if your beliefs differ from mine. We both love bellydancing, so we're not without some common ground. ;)
 

Amulya

Moderator
A friendly reminder to stay on topic :) maybe a new thread needs to be started for the off topic stuff?

But I am also hearing not only do the Israeli elite persecute the Palestinians, but they also persecute oriental Jews in their own country, the fact that the oriental Jews are Jews prevents them being thrown over the fence to be controlled with the Palestinians.

The Israeli elite are racists plain and simple to see, but behind that racism, is zionism.

Is that elite that group of very orthodox Jews? That group is gaining power rapidly due to their rising numbers. In the beginning (when the state Israel was declared) there were not that many of them, but they were having and keep having enormous amounts of kids. Apparently at the moment 20% of people in the Parliament are from this group.
 
Last edited:

khanjar

New member
...some might say 'how can you compare us to Nazis'. I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws

A quote from Educational Psychology professor Gavriel Soloman in criticism of the Oath of Alegiance originaly intended for those coming into the country who were non Jews seeking citizenship, it was later changed to include all immigrants after the government was charged with racism.

But Racism within Israel towards non Ashkenazi Jews, see here

For it is very clear Arab Jews are disliked and discriminated against.

But because of their Law of Return, all sorts have returned, and brought with them their hatreds and now there are reports of Neo-Nazism at work within Israel

Now, from a situation before the Balfour declaration, a situation where thousands of Jews already lived in the area along with Arabs, undoubtedly there will have been religious tensions, but why didn't the Arabs wipe them off the face of the earth then, why did it take to the formation of Israel for Arabs to express that desire?

Further back, Jews were accepted as people of the book, they held a lower status to Muslims, but they weren''t oppressed, indeed many Jews might have converted to Islam to improve their lot in life, which could be explained by the genetic similarity Muslims and Jews have in the region.
 

Tarik Sultan

New member
...some might say 'how can you compare us to Nazis'. I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws

A quote from Educational Psychology professor Gavriel Soloman in criticism of the Oath of Alegiance originaly intended for those coming into the country who were non Jews seeking citizenship, it was later changed to include all immigrants after the government was charged with racism.

But Racism within Israel towards non Ashkenazi Jews, see here

For it is very clear Arab Jews are disliked and discriminated against.

But because of their Law of Return, all sorts have returned, and brought with them their hatreds and now there are reports of Neo-Nazism at work within Israel

Now, from a situation before the Balfour declaration, a situation where thousands of Jews already lived in the area along with Arabs, undoubtedly there will have been religious tensions, but why didn't the Arabs wipe them off the face of the earth then, why did it take to the formation of Israel for Arabs to express that desire?

Further back, Jews were accepted as people of the book, they held a lower status to Muslims, but they weren''t oppressed, indeed many Jews might have converted to Islam to improve their lot in life, which could be explained by the genetic similarity Muslims and Jews have in the region.
Wow! That article was full of foolishness! Jewish Nazis, we support Hitler?! How do you even fix your mind to entertain such a dumb assed thought? Exactly where the hell do they think they would have been had they been in Western Europe in 1944? How stupid can a person be?

As outragious as this is, the article does show some flaws in the Israeli system. People with only a trace of Jewish ancestry apparently get full automatic citizenship. They don't even have to be observant Jews. Not surprised, I know many Israelis who are complete athiests. Yet people whose ancestors have lived in the land for thousands of years are treated as aliens in the country.

It also shows that Israel is not a democratic egalitarian country. If they were, why would they be so alarmed at the increase of the Israeli Arab population? These are not Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, but Israeli citizens who just happen to be Muslims and Christians. So how do you suppose an Arab Israeli feels living in a society where the message they get constantly is that they aren't wanted?
 

Ariadne

Well-known member
...some might say 'how can you compare us to Nazis'. I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws
Then your argument is flawed for two reasons. First because when you talk about ethnic cleansing the death camps are what is being discussed. There are many countries that have had similar issues with racism and never came near the level of Nazi Germany. Second because the very link you provided stated that they actually have laws against the very things you are accusing them of. "Israel has broad anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, and political beliefs, and prohibits incitement to racism." What is more your source documents an increase of racism on BOTH sides. The question with their laws then isn't whether the laws are racist but whether the people are and are they being enforced.

Now, from a situation before the Balfour declaration, a situation where thousands of Jews already lived in the area along with Arabs, undoubtedly there will have been religious tensions, but why didn't the Arabs wipe them off the face of the earth then, why did it take to the formation of Israel for Arabs to express that desire?
Those desires were already being expressed before then. Look up the Hebron Massacre, then look up the Arab leaders of the anti-Jewish movement post WWII and see what they were doing during and before the war. It didn't just show up all of a sudden out of thin air. They just didn't have the general support they do now thanks to increasing prejudice in general.

Further back, Jews were accepted as people of the book, they held a lower status to Muslims, but they weren''t oppressed, indeed many Jews might have converted to Islam to improve their lot in life
If they weren't oppressed why would they need to convert to improve their lives? According to things I've read on the subject being Jewish under Islam was both better and worse then being Jewish under the Christians depending on the ruler. If you know anything about some of the things that happened to them under the Catholic nations that should tell you something.



@Tarik: :lol: You sum up the concept of a Jewish Nazi so succinctly.

It might not be a literal description of the situation, could be an exaggeration, or it might just be a turn of phrse. Like how we say a sports team got slaughtered when they lose a game.
According to the histories I've read it wasn't an exaggeration. They say that most of the growth that has occurred in Palestine has happened since the mid 1800's.
 

Belly Love

New member
With respect to Amulya, I will keep this short and let it go 'cause I did steer it off topic, sorry :)

Truthfully, I think the majority of people don't fall neatly into any one group - one can be conservative, centrist or liberal, depending on the subject: finance, politics, social issues, the environment, etc. - but I find that the media doesn't treat their viewers that way. It's "you're completely on board" or "you're the enemy." :(
I agree.

If by liberal you mean, going Vegan, driving a prius and voting independent - cheating is no more commonplace or accepted than it is for non-liberals.
I do not mean people who are vegan, drive a prius and vote independant- I mean people who don't have a high respect for the institution of marriage, sex or unborn life- no one needs a college degree to figure out that most liberal people are fine with divorce, porn & abortion and most conservative people are not.

I am fully aware that there are conservative people out there who do "bad" things, that is why I made the note at the bottom of my previous comment.

As for the "women can't say no" bit, that's actually from Phyllis Schafly who said:
"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape,"
That's taken out of context. She is saying that this type of assult should be handled in a different way when it comes to married people than it does strangers because the two people involved are in a marriage/sexual relationship, which changes the dynamic. She's not saying men have the right to take advantage of their wives.
 
Last edited:

Kashmir

New member
Not really. The area was already growing well before that with migrants of all kinds including both Jews and Arabs. The growth was caused by an ongoing migration of Jews moving back into the area on their own, being productive, which then encouraged other growth and commerce. This growth continued up to post WWI.
There was quite a bit of Russian Jewish migration pre-WWI - but most of these returned to Russia or carried onto USA. ANd one of the reasons they did not cap immigration to Palestine was that immigration rates were falling (and more over it was temporary).
It doesn't help of course that Israel was created by the UN at a time that anti-Imperialism was so strong, and really still is. This gives it two strikes against it between both anti-Semitic and anti-Imperial politics.
In 1947 the UN decided to create two states in Palestine; giving the 1/3 Jewish population 54% of the land area and keeping Jerusalem under UN control. Before that actually happened Jewish paramilitary were already taking over some of the supposedly Arab areas.

In 1948 “Israel” – the Jewish state was unilaterally declared by the Israelis (nothing to do with the UN - they have no mandate) – which included all of the Arab areas. Many Arabs (550,000-800,000) fled in fear of their lives. Then the UN arrived and its mediator, Bernadotte, was murdered by the Stern Gang. This was followed by an international trade boycott of Israel.

Sounds like a bad start to a nation. Unsuprisingly the displaced Arabs have not forgotten - a bit hard when three generations have been living in a refugee camp. Continual land grabs since then have not helped either. The power balance is very much in Israel's favour. The death toll is about 10 times as high for the Palestinians.

What to do now is really hard. Now both sides have legitimate claims (I don't believe you can throw out third generation Israelis any more than 100th generation Palestinians) But as a start both sides need to stop killing each other. Both sides - whether by missile, bomb, or denying freedom of movement and access to hospitals ("Colour of Olives" any one?)
 

Kashmir

New member
I took the time to watch that. I found it sad. The saddest part was how the Palestinian children were encouraged to hate the Jews. Everywhere they went the children were throwing rocks at people and the adults only response was "it's the Jews fault." No wonder they grow up and shoot people.
"The Colour of Olives" is a documentary about one Palestinian family that refused to be bullied off their land when the Israeli government put up the wall. Their land was on the other side of the wall and they were humiliated and hassled whenever they tried to tend it. Their trees and hen houses were destroyed. They always had to keep one adult in the house as gangs of Jewish youths were encouraged to do petty damage (tossing big rocks through windows etc) They were told by officials, one day you might just be killed - and who will know. Better to leave now. They lost two children because they could not get them to hospital in time - they were not allowed through the checkpoint.
 

Kashmir

New member
But as everyone knows, the key to sorting this problem out, is America, for as long as America abstains or opposes UN attempts to ease the situation, the longer it will continue, so maybe the current situation could be put at the feet of America when seeking reason why nothing positive is happening with the situation.
No to mention billions of dollars of military aid - every year for decades. Made me chuckle when someone complained about Arabs smuggling in arms.
 

Kashmir

New member
Shanazel, I happen to believe that marriage is an institution which exists between men and women to produce offspring and perprtuate the race.
So infertile hetrosexual couples should not allowed to be married?

Personally, I believe "marriage" is a cermony of commitment which grants a range of legal rights to both partners - such as inheritance, the ability to look after each other's children, the ability to be next-of-kin and arrange their partner's funeral. Sadly, NZ has had same sex civil union for many years which grants all these rights - but lesbian friends of mine refused it as it reminded them too much of patrichal marriage. When one died she found she had no right to her partner of 30 year' body and was shut out of the "official" funeral.
 

Tarik Sultan

New member
@Tarik: :lol: You sum up the concept of a Jewish Nazi so succinctly.

Ain't that some crazt #@it? Humans never cease to amaze me with the depths of their stupidity. Just when you've figured you've seen it heard it all, along comes something totally off the wall. What's next, devil worhiping christian missionary hindu budhists?
According to the histories I've read it wasn't an exaggeration. They say that most of the growth that has occurred in Palestine has happened since the mid 1800's.
I find it hard to believe because when the crusaders came there they found a very populated land full of cities.
 

Erik

New member
So infertile hetrosexual couples should not allowed to be married?
They should have every right to be married.



Personally, I believe "marriage" is a cermony of commitment which grants a range of legal rights to both partners - such as inheritance, the ability to look after each other's children, the ability to be next-of-kin and arrange their partner's funeral.
Marriage laws and rights vary greatly from country to country, as do individual notions of what a marriage should be, but for thousands of years in many different cultures it has been recognized as a legal and/or religious male-female life partnership.



Sadly, NZ has had same sex civil union for many years which grants all these rights - but lesbian friends of mine refused it as it reminded them too much of patrichal marriage. When one died she found she had no right to her partner of 30 year' body and was shut out of the "official" funeral.
Kashmir, I don't agree with this kind of treatment under the law, and for whatever it's worth I think that right should be included in a civil union.

Additionally, if a homosexual union is the loving and lifelong committment that I am constantly being told it is, I can think of absolutely no conceivable reason under the sun why there would ever be a need for gay divorce, and therefore no reason why gay divorce should ever be legal even if gay marriage is. So, if gay marriage is ever legalized, I believe it should be for life and without any possible legal revocation. I don't know about divorces in NZ, but about half of American marriages end in divorce anyway. Certainly there can be nothing wrong with allowing straight people to at least keep the cherished institution of divorce for their very own. ;)

Again, to all concerned, I aplogize for my part in dragging the thread off-topic.
 

Erik

New member
@Erik:
Your opinions are your own and I respect you even if your beliefs differ from mine. We both love bellydancing, so we're not without some common ground. ;)
Thanks. I want you to know that I respect you as well, and I agree completely about that common ground. ;)
 

khanjar

New member
Then your argument is flawed for two reasons. First because when you talk about ethnic cleansing the death camps are what is being discussed. There are many countries that have had similar issues with racism and never came near the level of Nazi Germany. Second because the very link you provided stated that they actually have laws against the very things you are accusing them of. "Israel has broad anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, and political beliefs, and prohibits incitement to racism." What is more your source documents an increase of racism on BOTH sides. The question with their laws then isn't whether the laws are racist but whether the people are and are they being enforced.

Oh come on now, just because laws exist you expect them to be adhered to, yes, in an ideal world, but this is far from an ideal world, that is why there are punishments for breaking of societies laws. As you well know criminals exist, we hear about them every day in every society in every part of the world, people who do not respect nor adhere to the laws and of those punishments, sometimes laws will be broken because the punishments are weak or in some cases not even applied, not to forget of course the creation of criminal cases, lack of evidence, lack of police action, lack of judgement and of course that old gem; perspective. And something else seems to be prevelant in law these days, is terminology, you know situations were certain words are avoided, even argued against in favour of more politically correct words, for example;


''What has been charged so far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture,'' said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. ''I'm not going to address the 'torture' word.''


Just because laws exist, it does not mean laws aren't broken and another thing rears it's head, it depends on who breaks those laws and what influence they wield, society is far from being fair.


Those desires were already being expressed before then. Look up the Hebron Massacre, then look up the Arab leaders of the anti-Jewish movement post WWII and see what they were doing during and before the war. It didn't just show up all of a sudden out of thin air. They just didn't have the general support they do now thanks to increasing prejudice in general.

Aye, and of that support, undoubtedly arming to the teeth with state of the art weaponry given to them by foreign interests



If they weren't oppressed why would they need to convert to improve their lives? According to things I've read on the subject being Jewish under Islam was both better and worse then being Jewish under the Christians depending on the ruler. If you know anything about some of the things that happened to them under the Catholic nations that should tell you something.


Countries conquered by different religious powers allowing the conquered people continued personal belief when one of the reasons of the conquest was the conversion to the conquerers belief system, ain't that bad really, other conquerers have done much worse, catholics and cathars for example, also catholics and the New World. Obviously the conquered under Islamic rule were given a choice and in all religions/cultures there are the less devout and people being people out to always improve their lot in life might take the opportunity to improve their lot in life, it's only human nature. Furthermore those that continued as second class might have done so, because they were prepared to suffer for their faith, something that I understand comes with being devout.


@Tarik: :lol: You sum up the concept of a Jewish Nazi so succinctly.

According to the histories I've read it wasn't an exaggeration. They say that most of the growth that has occurred in Palestine has happened since the mid 1800's.
...
 

Tarik Sultan

New member
"The Colour of Olives" is a documentary about one Palestinian family that refused to be bullied off their land when the Israeli government put up the wall. Their land was on the other side of the wall and they were humiliated and hassled whenever they tried to tend it. Their trees and hen houses were destroyed. They always had to keep one adult in the house as gangs of Jewish youths were encouraged to do petty damage (tossing big rocks through windows etc) They were told by officials, one day you might just be killed - and who will know. Better to leave now. They lost two children because they could not get them to hospital in time - they were not allowed through the checkpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne
I took the time to watch that. I found it sad. The saddest part was how the Palestinian children were encouraged to hate the Jews. Everywhere they went the children were throwing rocks at people and the adults only response was "it's the Jews fault." No wonder they grow up and shoot people.


Sorry, but I couldn't find the original post this quote belonged to. Uhhm.... not for nothing, but after watching a film about how a family is being ruined and harassed by the occupation to the point where two of their children died the sadest thing in the movie to you was their attitude towards Jews???? I'm sorry, but I detect a humongus disconnect here. I think this a a huge part of why the problem is so hard to solve. Because people are so indoctrinated by the Israeli position that even in the face of monumental injustice, they can't allow themselves to be genuine and admit that what they are seeing is a travesty of justice.

After growing up in conditions like that do you honestly think kids need adults to tell them to hate Israel? All it takes is one incident against their home and family and that child will forever carry the scars of anger and resentment towards their oppressors. When I was a child I lived with my grand parents in the house my great grand uncle built. When he died his wife's family tried to grab the house from us. When that failed, they decided to grab whatever they could get. They showed up at our house, barged through the gate uninvited, (In Jamaica you NEVER enter a person's yard. You knock at the gate until someone comes out and you only come in when invited to do so), they made a bee line straight to the kitchen and proceeded to grab all the china they could get their hands on. 2 old women and 2 children against a group of burly grown men invading their home and stealing their property. Since my grandma wasn't stong enough to challenge 6 men in their prime, she said "you know what, &*%k it! If I can't have it, no one else will and she smashed everything in sight. Guess who started throwing rocks? Yep, me. To that was the most traumatizing event of my childhood and to this day, I hate those bastards for violating my home. No one had to tell me to hate aunt Bunny because xyz, I just did because of what I saw and experienced. To see the grown men putting their hands on my great grandma and manhandling her. To see them shuving my grand ma and stealing our property while my great grand me sat helpless on the floor crying. Now imagine what Palestinians go through on a daily basis. What do you expect? The fact that you cant see it and understand, or to be more direct, with all due respect, that you can't allow yourself to feel and understand is an indication as to one reason why things can't be resolved.

Why do Palestinian kids grow up to shoot people? Are you serious? How could they not. You don't treat people like that and then turn around all surprised when they want to kick your butt. You can't antagonize a people withput respite and delude ypurself into thinking things would just be fine if parents would just stop telling their kids to hate Jews. Are you serious? Why do Palestinians hate Israel? What has Israel done to make Palestinians want to love them?
 

Ariadne

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne
I took the time to watch that. I found it sad. The saddest part was how the Palestinian children were encouraged to hate the Jews. Everywhere they went the children were throwing rocks at people and the adults only response was "it's the Jews fault." No wonder they grow up and shoot people.


Sorry, but I couldn't find the original post this quote belonged to.
That would be because the quote had absolutely nothing to do with "The Colour of Olives" documentary. You can find it here -> http://www.bellydanceforums.net/off-topic/15044-israel-palestine-3.html#post182180 I have neither seen the documentary nor commented on it in any way.

I haven't bothered to read your rant against my "disconnect" since it was taken completely out of context.

I'll take an apology please.

Then I think I'll take myself out of the conversation since it evidently is leading to my being misquoted and maligned.
 

Tarik Sultan

New member
That would be because the quote had absolutely nothing to do with "The Colour of Olives" documentary. You can find it here -> http://www.bellydanceforums.net/off-topic/15044-israel-palestine-3.html#post182180 I have neither seen the documentary nor commented on it in any way.

I haven't bothered to read your rant against my "disconnect" since it was taken completely out of context.

I'll take an apology please.

Then I think I'll take myself out of the conversation since it evidently is leading to my being misquoted and maligned.
If you've been misquoted I apologize, but from the way the quote was posted, that's the way it looked.

As for the disconnect, if it doesn't apply to you, it most certainly does to a lot of the people who are pro Israeli right or wrong.
 
Top