Don't Be Fooled By The Israeli Regime...

[Balloon guy 158]

Do any of you actually click on any of the links that All In posts?

No need...it's al jazzzzeera

[Avaron 0]

Technically, it was Israel's land taken from them by others. The people living there were just the only people living there at the time. And a large number of them were Jews.Israel made that land something wonderful. It was nothing before they came.They speak of it in the Bible when they say the land will be turned into green lands with flowers and food growing. You know, out of the barren sand that was their before the Jews turned it into a beautiful country.

don't play the bible card. i hate these pseudo-historic arguments why one country has territorial claims or not. if one would use that argument on the usa, the us would have no right to exist whatsoever. the european countries could be in constant war, if they would fight about historic territorial claims.it's not like there's not enough room for israels and palestinians. both sides are just stubborn, simply speaking. the israelis don't want the palestenians living in the land they claim to be theirs because some ancient book, and the palestenians are upset because the "invasion" (from their view).someday someone one both sides just needs to realize that no land is worth so much killing and settle the whole thing..........oh wait.....im speaking about mankind here......

No need...it's al jazzzzeera

being an arabic tv station doesn't make it bad.

[owise1 0]

avoided giving a full answer?! try reading what i posted, all your 'answers' are there..why did i only point out this one? uhhh, that was the main point of my post. just because there are other examples it does not diminish the horrors of this one.your bolded part:I just want to be clear. Are you saying that Israel is a colonial, imperialist, settler state comparable to apartheid South Africa?1. Colonial:"Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is difficult to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a dependent territory."- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy2. Imperialist:"Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is difficult to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a dependent territory."- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"Commonly associated with the policy of direct extension of sovereignty and dominion over non-contiguous and often distant overseas territories, it also denotes indirect political or economic control of powerful states over weaker peoples. Regarded also as a doctrine based on the use of deliberate force, imperialism has been subject to moral censure by its critics, and thus the term is frequently used in international propaganda as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive foreign policy."- International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (second edition)3. Settler State:"Settler colonialism is a policy of conquering a land to send settlers in order to shape its demographic similarly as in the metropole."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialismI assume you are intelligent enough to connect the dots. Any other questions?

Just one question. For whom were the Jews colonialists?And I prefer this definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/co·lo·ni·al·ism (kə-lō'nē-ə-lĭz'əm) n. A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.co·lo'ni·al·ist n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

[owise1 0]

i don't recall the palestinians having much of a say when the west created israel out of relative thin air.granted, the two groups have basically been fighting for thousands of years over the same general area, but the creation of israel in the 20th century was the first time that outside groups just came in, took a bunch of land, and gave it to one side. if i was a palestinian, i'd be pretty pissed off, too. i mean, land is a big part of what pretty much every war in history has been about in some manner or another, so it's not like their "instigation" lacks precedent.it's going to be pretty much impossible to fix that quagmire with any sort of even semi-permanence unless both sides are willing to cede a bit of jerusalem to the other, and i just don't see either side willing to do that for the foreseeable future.but israelis look more like white people than palestinians, so it's more likely that palestinians are at fault.

From The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz: (available here)"The Palestine to which the European Jews of the European Jews of the First Aliyah [1881-82 immigration of European Jews] immigrated was vastly underpopulated, and the land onto which the Jews moved was, in fact, bought primarily from absentee landlors and real estate speculators. "You can google Mark Twain 1867 Palestine to find his full description but I will quote part of it here. "... There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent - not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ren miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings..."Also from the above book (quoting the Palestine Royal Commission Report (Peel Report) Google it if you like"A professional analysis of land purchases between 1880 and 1948 established that three-quarters fo the plots purchased by Jews were from mega-landowners rather than those who worked the soil."

[checkymcfold 0]

From The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz: (available here)"The Palestine to which the European Jews of the European Jews of the First Aliyah [1881-82 immigration of European Jews] immigrated was vastly underpopulated, and the land onto which the Jews moved was, in fact, bought primarily from absentee landlors and real estate speculators. "You can google Mark Twain 1867 Palestine to find his full description but I will quote part of it here. "... There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent - not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation. One may ride ren miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings..."Also from the above book (quoting the Palestine Royal Commission Report (Peel Report) Google it if you like"A professional analysis of land purchases between 1880 and 1948 established that three-quarters fo the plots purchased by Jews were from mega-landowners rather than those who worked the soil."

you're kind of cherry picking one random spot in history and a relatively small area of what is now israel, for one thing, but even if i grant you that kind of kerfuffle, owning land and changing political boundaries are two profoundly different things. by your logic, the next time i buy a house, i should declare it the republic of petoria or whatever, and if the US decided that it wanted that land back, i should probably start training my kids to use big guns in defense.also, i'm vaguely familiar with dershowitz's work on making a case for israel, and although he's a smart guy, it suffers from the same intellectual dishonesty that a lot of that type of work. more precisely, it assumes that everyone who disagrees with the way that israel's contemporary boundaries came about thinks that israel shouldn't exist at all, and then uses that strawman to conflate the "counter-argument" for any sort of jewish political homeland with one for israel as it is presently constructed. that's bad argumentation, quite frankly, as i don't follow that strawman, and neither do many, more qualified thinkers with whom i agree. our argument isn't that israel should give back everything to the palestinians according to our whims, but rather that doing that would be directly analogous to the manner in which the west swooped in and directed the formation of the present day boundaries of the area. these two arguments are not the same, amirite?

[checkymcfold 0]

What exactly did the Palestinian senate say when their land was 'taken away'?What about the Palestinian President?I'm curios because I don't remember what the government of palistine did when the west came in and said you no longer have a country.

even according to the UN's own official document "the origins and evolution of the palestinian problem: 1917-1988: part II, 1947-1977," completed and distributed in 1990, escalating violence in protest of the UN partition plan was the reason that the plan was formally scrapped and only adopted thereafter as (ultimately, nearly-exact) guidelines for the political boundaries to be formed in the region.honestly, the way that a lot of you are trying to rewrite the history of that part of the world is frighteningly, ideologically, and frustratingly orwellian.

[All_In 0]

Just one question. For whom were the Jews colonialists?And I prefer this definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/co·lo·ni·al·ism (kə-lō'nē-ə-lĭz'əm) n. A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.co·lo'ni·al·ist n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Isn't gaza dependent upon israel? israel has sealed the borders and is imposing a blockade (against int'l law). I'd say that is extending control.when israel can arbitrarily build settlements on palestinian land (against int'l law), arbitrarily build an aparthied wall that cuts into and steals palestinian land (against int'l law), thereby giving israel a lot of disputed land in the process (against int'l law), i'd say that is extending control."Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. "That doesn't define the current situation? I think your question's answer is pretty obvious.

[Balloon guy 158]

even according to the UN's own official document "the origins and evolution of the palestinian problem: 1917-1988: part II, 1947-1977," completed and distributed in 1990, escalating violence in protest of the UN partition plan was the reason that the plan was formally scrapped and only adopted thereafter as (ultimately, nearly-exact) guidelines for the political boundaries to be formed in the region.honestly, the way that a lot of you are trying to rewrite the history of that part of the world is frighteningly, ideologically, and frustratingly orwellian.

Only a politician, or a former professor, could think the above says anything.Unless this is newspeak, then nevermind

[Balloon guy 158]

Isn't gaza dependent upon israel? israel has sealed the borders and is imposing a blockade (against int'l law). I'd say that is extending control.when israel can arbitrarily build settlements on palestinian land (against int'l law), arbitrarily build an aparthied wall that cuts into and steals palestinian land (against int'l law), thereby giving israel a lot of disputed land in the process (against int'l law), i'd say that is extending control."Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. "That doesn't define the current situation? I think your question's answer is pretty obvious.

In order to steal something, you must first prove you own it.

[checkymcfold 0]

Only a politician, or a former professor, could think the above says anything.Unless this is newspeak, then nevermind

if UN internal documents don't suffice as documentation for you, you can always turn to the interwebs:http://www.google.com/search?q=palestinian...lient=firefox-amost of those links should suffice.

[Balloon guy 158]

if UN internal documents don't suffice as documentation for you, you can always turn to the interwebs:http://www.google.com/search?q=palestinian...lient=firefox-amost of those links should suffice.

If you can't admit you are wrong, you shouldn't teach young minds.

[checkymcfold 0]

If you can't admit you are wrong, you shouldn't teach young minds.

i'm not wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

i'm not wrong.

And yet, you aren't teaching anymore...

[checkymcfold 0]

And yet, you aren't teaching anymore...

only because my e-students aren't paying attention.

[Balloon guy 158]

only because my e-students aren't paying attention.

So boring that even teaching them while they are on a device that allows them to listen to music, watch tv and play poker during class, you couldn't keep them interested...Yea, sounds like restaurant work was a good career move.

[CaneBrain 95]

honestly, the way that a lot of you are trying to rewrite the history of that part of the world is frighteningly, ideologically, and frustratingly orwellian.

almost as frustrating as excusing decades of terror and illegal actions because of something the UN did in the 40s.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

almost as frustrating as excusing decades of terror and illegal actions because of something the UN did in the 40s.

I certainly don't excuse the actions of the terrorists but it seems that you can't see the difference between the terrorists and the average Palestinian who is a victim of this whole situation whether you see that or not.They are victims due to the actions of their own leaders, the actions of the Arab States like Egypt, Jordan and Syria and they are victims of many actions of Israel.I really don't see a solution to this situation as there is no compromise that will satisfy both sides and the difference between the sides seems to get greater all the time.One of the saddest parts of this is that so many things that Israel is doing make it so much easier for the terrorists and extremists to get support just like every terrorist action makes it less likely that Israel will compromise.

[CaneBrain 95]

I certainly don't excuse the actions of the terrorists but it seems that you can't see the difference between the terrorists and the average Palestinian who is a victim of this whole situation whether you see that or not.They are victims due to the actions of their own leaders, the actions of the Arab States like Egypt, Jordan and Syria and they are victims of many actions of Israel.I really don't see a solution to this situation as there is no compromise that will satisfy both sides and the difference between the sides seems to get greater all the time.One of the saddest parts of this is that so many things that Israel is doing make it so much easier for the terrorists and extremists to get support just like every terrorist action makes it less likely that Israel will compromise.

I agree with the last paragraph (only in regards to the last 5-7 years or so). I think the average Palenstinian bears responsibility for keeping others in line....but then again I am constantly critical of all religions for letting the crazy 20% run the show.I also agree I dont see a compromise in the near future.

[Mercury69 3]

Donaldson, get off my thread.

[All_In 0]

In order to steal something, you must first prove you own it.

the apartheid barrier, in places, separates farmers from their fields/orchards."...is not along the internationally recognised borders of 1967 (the Green line), the wall annexes 58 per cent of the West Bank and confines the Palestinians to a ghetto-like existence....it essentially closes off the entirety of the Palestinian town of Qalqilya. Winding its way south towards East Jerusalem and Bethlehem, it physically encloses over 78 Palestinian and Arab communities, such as Battir, Nahhalin, Ras Al-'Amud, Ras Atiya, Abu Farad to cite only a few. ""The wall...has severely disrupted and profoundly encumbered daily life. It has undermined and wretchedly destroyed the social and economic fabric of the Palestinian civil society....entire orchards and olive groves have been uprooted. Farmers have no access to what little remains of their arable land. Thousands of Palestinian homes -- over 42,165 in the West Bank -- have been demolished by the Israeli military. Tens of thousands of dunams (1 dunam = 1000 square metres) have been confiscated by the Israeli military in this systematic process. Check-points and road-blocks obstruct Palestinians' unfettered access to schools, health clinics, and work. Families have been physically separated; and, in one instance, a house was purportedly divided in half. In Qalqilya, the wall rises to such a height that, it is said, one can no longer see the sun set. ""...in the district of Qalqilya, the Israeli military opens the check-point briefly. An Israeli military sign in Arabic announces the check-point is open from 7:40 to 8:00, 14:00 to 14:15, and 18:45-19:00, only 50 minutes a day. "http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/cont.../163/28669.html

[No_Neck 0]

you are severely confused.Your whole argument is that killing is intrinsically wrong. This kind of thinking is idiotic.

lol

[owise1 0]

(owise1 @ Sunday, July 19th, 2009, 4:44 PM) Just one question. For whom were the Jews colonialists?And I prefer this definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/co·lo·ni·al·ism (kə-lō'nē-ə-lĭz'əm) n. A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.co·lo'ni·al·ist n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

name='All_In' date='Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 10:12 AM' post='3171043']Isn't gaza dependent upon israel? israel has sealed the borders and is imposing a blockade (against int'l law). I'd say that is extending control.when israel can arbitrarily build settlements on palestinian land (against int'l law), arbitrarily build an aparthied wall that cuts into and steals palestinian land (against int'l law), thereby giving israel a lot of disputed land in the process (against int'l law), i'd say that is extending control."Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. "That doesn't define the current situation? I think your question's answer is pretty obvious.

Firstly, where is this quote from? No dictionary I looked at has this as a definition.Secondly, you really didn't answer my question. Let me give you an example of what I was looking for. Great Britain made Canada a colony. They took back to England whatever riches they could. For instance, beaver and other animal furs were quite popular in Europe and Canada had plenty of them. They did the same thing to other colonies around the world, take what they could to make the motherland richer. So did the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch. So again, I ask for whom were the Jews colonialists?Alan Dershowitz from The Case for Israel says it best: "Israel is a state comprising primarily refugees and their descendants exercising their right of self-determination. Beginning in the 1800s, the Jews who moved to what is now Israel were refugees escaping the oppressive anti-Semitism of colonial Europe and the Muslim states of the Middle East and North Africa. Unlike colonial settlers serving the expansionist commercial and military goals of imperial nations such as Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Spain, the Jewish refugees were escaping from the countries that had oppressed them for centuries. These Jewish refugees were far more comparable to the American colonists who had left England because of religious oppression (or the Europeans who later immigrated to America) than they were to eighteenth and nineteenth-century English imperialists who colonized India, the French settlers who colonized North africa, and the Dutch expansionist who colonized Indonesia. "

[All_In 0]

Firstly, where is this quote from? No dictionary I looked at has this as a definition.

page 4 in this thread, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. it would help if you read what i post.

Secondly, you really didn't answer my question. Let me give you an example of what I was looking for.

so i didn't answer the way you wanted me to answer, that's really what you are saying. why are u hung up on semantics?

Alan Dershowitz from The Case for Israel says it best:

again, he is comparing israel to one form of colonizing that occurred in the past. why beat around the bush and try to hide the current immorality of israel by saying, 'well, they aren't as bad as great britain was'?

[Nimue1995 1]

Firstly, where is this quote from? No dictionary I looked at has this as a definition.Secondly, you really didn't answer my question. Let me give you an example of what I was looking for. Great Britain made Canada a colony. They took back to England whatever riches they could. For instance, beaver and other animal furs were quite popular in Europe and Canada had plenty of them. They did the same thing to other colonies around the world, take what they could to make the motherland richer. So did the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch. So again, I ask for whom were the Jews colonialists?Alan Dershowitz from The Case for Israel says it best: "Israel is a state comprising primarily refugees and their descendants exercising their right of self-determination. Beginning in the 1800s, the Jews who moved to what is now Israel were refugees escaping the oppressive anti-Semitism of colonial Europe and the Muslim states of the Middle East and North Africa. Unlike colonial settlers serving the expansionist commercial and military goals of imperial nations such as Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Spain, the Jewish refugees were escaping from the countries that had oppressed them for centuries. These Jewish refugees were far more comparable to the American colonists who had left England because of religious oppression (or the Europeans who later immigrated to America) than they were to eighteenth and nineteenth-century English imperialists who colonized India, the French settlers who colonized North africa, and the Dutch expansionist who colonized Indonesia. "

page 4 in this thread, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. it would help if you read what i post.so i didn't answer the way you wanted me to answer, that's really what you are saying. why are u hung up on semantics?again, he is comparing israel to one form of colonizing that occurred in the past. why beat around the bush and try to hide the current immorality of israel by saying, 'well, they aren't as bad as great britain was'?

owise1 you'd be wise to quit trying to argue with this Hamas apologist. He's just as blind as any pro-israeli fanatic is. Neither can admit that their side has anything to answer for.

[JOhnWaters 0]

Do you think after a hundred years or so, they'll give up and assimilate like the Native Americans have done? Countries have been invading and occupying other countries for centuries. The idea that there's something wrong with that is a relatively new concept.

indeed, although its a stretch to say that Israel has invaded anything. theyve defended themselves and taken land from their attackers. and in fact, many people do not realize this basic truth that no human has any claim to any land on this earth. there is no god or higher power that distributes land to people. you own whatever you can defend your ownership of.