Jan 18, 2010 -- 3:19PM, teilhard wrote:

Jan 18, 2010 -- 3:01PM, Christianlib wrote:

I don't think we'll argue ourselves into any reasonable or actual agreement here.

I look at what's happening in Palestine/Isreal, and I can only think of the "shortest verse in the New Testament."

I'm sure you know the reference.

Peace, brother.

 

Yes ... and unfortunately, being The Chosen People of God

ISN'T necessarily an "Easy Street" ...

 

"Moses," ro "God" --

"Let me see if I've understood -- THEY get ALL The Oil Deposits,

and WE have to cut off the end of our WHAT ... ???"

Moses to the Children of Israel:

"I've got good news and bad news on this Commandments negotiation.

The good news is, I've got Him down to 10.

The bad news is, adultery stays in."

Jan 18, 2010 -- 4:04PM, teilhard wrote:

Jan 18, 2010 -- 3:58PM, KindredSai wrote:

I do NOT "deny" -- nor have I EVER "denied" --

the VERY long-standing Historic ongoing Relationship

of The People of Israel with The LAND of Israel ...

That's not what I'm asking, you are drifiting off into a tangent. The very long standing relationship with Jews and Israel should NOT translate as superiority regarding land. Hitler too believed that "Aryans" had a special historic on going relationship with Europe.

Extremists religion and ideology such as Zionism and Islamism has no place in a humane world.

Shame on anybody who defends these beliefs.

So ... You AFFIRM The Right of ( SOME of ) The People of Israel

to " ... live and move and have their being ... " in The LAND of Israel

ON  CONDITION ( ??? ) that "they"

do so ONLY as a Minority of The Population ... ???

or ONLY as a percentage of The Population as per, say, that in ... 1850 or so ... ???

or in 1217 ... ???  or WHAT ... ???

 

What ARE you suggesting ... ???

We are going around in circles Teil, I have been over this too many times.

I have nothing against a peaceful Jewish State as a majority as long as it doesn't attain majority status by compromising the existence of a non-Jewish people. Israel has been guilty of this as such unfortunately and this is why Israel is subjected to criticism, my opinion are the same with Tibet and China and even if Israel was not Jewish.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 4:34PM, rocketjsquirell wrote:

KS

you wrote

"I have nothing against a peaceful Jewish State as a majority as long as it doesn't attain majority status by compromising the existence of a non-Jewish people. "

Since Jews did not attain majority status in their homeland by compromising the existence of a non-Jewish people or anyone else I would expect that you would cease being Anti-Israel.

I wonder, does it bother you at all that the majority population in the country in which you live did attain majority status by compromising the existence of other people? What have you done or what are you doing to correct this manifest injustice? Just asking.

Thank you

One DOES wonder WHY "Israel" gets SPECIALLY singled-out

for such criticism ...

I happen to be in Favor, e.g., of The Dakotah People REGAINING

their righful ownership of The Black Hills of South Dakota,

and being re-imbursed for Mineral and other Resource Rights ...

However ... The Dakotah People had taken possession of The Black Hills

originally by driving OUT The Crow People ...

Should EVERYONE just "go home" to The Land of Their Ancestors

as of ... ( when ... ??? ) ... say, 1850 ... ???  or 962 ... ???  or 70 C.E. ... ???

Jan 18, 2010 -- 5:13PM, KindredSai wrote:

Since Jews did not attain majority status in their homeland by compromising the existence of a non-Jewish people or anyone else I would expect that you would cease being Anti-Israel.

Has the last 60 years escaped your mind? The Jewish homeland within the Western Mandate went against the local inhabitants over 400,000 against over 800,000 people. Ever since Jews have been sustaining their population by expelling of Arabs, occupation, a right of return (Jew only policy) and forced evictions and demolitions of non-Jewish homes.

If you don't call this compromising an existence, then you're even more ill educated than I thought.

 

 

I wonder, does it bother you at all that the majority population in the country in which you live did attain majority status by compromising the existence of other people? What have you done or what are you doing to correct this manifest injustice? Just asking.

Many nations have attained this majority status by this method, I don't dispute that.

If you're talking about my nation in particular over the past thousands of years it has been invaded by armies but have never advocated ethno-centrism to the extent that Israel has which has caused a perpetual conflict for over 60 years compromising the security of two distinct people.

So ... with your extensive personal-historical-geographical Knowledge

of The Land of Israel, do YOU have handy a detailed Map of The Land of Israel

indicating exactly WHERE  "Jews"

are allowed to " ... live and move and have their being ... "... ???

Not true at all.  The Arabs were given the larger share.

When will you quote facts? Jews were given 56% of Palestinian Mandate.

The real difference between Israel and most any other country is that the State of Israel was not simply taken, but created and accepted by a consensus in the League of Nations.  Can you say the same about the creation of any other country?

Most nations after WWII were created and accepted by the UN or League of Nations, it doesn't make it morally right if it was against the wishes of an indigenous population, this was agreed by the Colombian delegation in the League of Nations.

No, but your country more likely slaughtered the indigenous population.

It actually didn't. Israel however slaughtered it's indigenous population, created a climate of fear for non-Jews to leave and this was all endorsed by the League of Nations.