ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
FridgeMagnet said:
Deletion has taken on a whole new meaning since the Cybermen returned to Dr Who.
Did Palestine really exist?
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Deletion has taken on a whole new meaning since the Cybermen returned to Dr Who.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Gmart
Well-Known Member
insults are cheap
Astronaut, so glad that you seem to feel that you know me so well. Such stereotypes are so much easier.
As far as the vote went, perhaps you would like to suggest the alternative you would have liked to have seen there?
I doubt if you could though.
I am glad that you seem to share my search for a way through this problem, and i hope that we can all stop name-calling and maybe return to the matter at hand.
And concerning the nuclear device issue. It would seem obvious that the Arabs feel that they are not getting any equality of opportunity or any equality of freedom. Without this the likelihood of some nut coming along and blowing the whole area while screaming 'I am God's soldier'.
That is what happens when people are cornered to the point of violence.
Astronaut, so glad that you seem to feel that you know me so well. Such stereotypes are so much easier.
As far as the vote went, perhaps you would like to suggest the alternative you would have liked to have seen there?
I doubt if you could though.
I am glad that you seem to share my search for a way through this problem, and i hope that we can all stop name-calling and maybe return to the matter at hand.
And concerning the nuclear device issue. It would seem obvious that the Arabs feel that they are not getting any equality of opportunity or any equality of freedom. Without this the likelihood of some nut coming along and blowing the whole area while screaming 'I am God's soldier'.
That is what happens when people are cornered to the point of violence.
Well how about: Did Palestine exist before Israel?
1. Yes, it existed as an independent state
2. Yes, it was one or several autonomous parts of some larger entity
3. Maybe, it was one or several semi-autonomous parts of some larger entity
4. No, it was a one or several non-autonomous parts of some larger entity
5. No, an earthquake lifted the land out of the sea
Of course, the correct answers are 3 and 4, depending on the exact period of time, without anything to do with Israel.
Then you could have a 2nd set of questions: Was there an indigenous population before the state of Israel was created?
1. Yes, established/settled population
2. Maybe, with fluid/migratory population
3. No settled population
Of course, the correct answer is all three, depending on when/where you refer to.
I know that both of these questions and answers are not black and white, so it is hard for some people to understand, but these are closer to reality than any extremist on either side will accept.
Good post, Astronaut. 
GMarthews: Again, to "invade" a nation must exist before hand. You have not even come close to proving one existed.
The court case you are referring to is dealing with fraudelent immigration cases where Gazan or "West Bank" Arabs marry Israeli citizens in hopes of escaping scrutiny by immigration officers. Prior to the ammended law, applicants were offered blanket approval. This blanket approval led to 26 cases of terrorism perpertrated by people who had manipulated this loophole. Now, men under 35 and women under 25 from the effected areas will undergo case by case scrutiny. They will not be "barred." In fact, most nations scrutinise applicants for residency and/or immigration.
Nino: Of course Modern Hebrew is full of loan words.
Astronaut: Why are you asking me what Modern Hebrew's use of loan words has to do with this debate? Nino was adressing the viability of modern Celtic culture and from there he introduced this nutty subject. I have no idea what it has to do with anything.
I am an extremist? If you say so. Like Kadimah is right wing. Why is 90% of the stuff on this site about personalities as opposed to issues?
Fridge: correct, Moono has only used it once but context matters little. If I said I have a frienbd called "Dave the Nigger" and he does not object to his moniker, the astory in of itself is offensive to most. Furthermore, he has conistently used the word Shyster. Is it your opinion then that shyster is not racist? Especially when using it in reference to a Jew?
The court case you are referring to is dealing with fraudelent immigration cases where Gazan or "West Bank" Arabs marry Israeli citizens in hopes of escaping scrutiny by immigration officers. Prior to the ammended law, applicants were offered blanket approval. This blanket approval led to 26 cases of terrorism perpertrated by people who had manipulated this loophole. Now, men under 35 and women under 25 from the effected areas will undergo case by case scrutiny. They will not be "barred." In fact, most nations scrutinise applicants for residency and/or immigration.
Nino: Of course Modern Hebrew is full of loan words.
Astronaut: Why are you asking me what Modern Hebrew's use of loan words has to do with this debate? Nino was adressing the viability of modern Celtic culture and from there he introduced this nutty subject. I have no idea what it has to do with anything.
I am an extremist? If you say so. Like Kadimah is right wing. Why is 90% of the stuff on this site about personalities as opposed to issues?
Fridge: correct, Moono has only used it once but context matters little. If I said I have a frienbd called "Dave the Nigger" and he does not object to his moniker, the astory in of itself is offensive to most. Furthermore, he has conistently used the word Shyster. Is it your opinion then that shyster is not racist? Especially when using it in reference to a Jew?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So your point about Celtic languages is what, precisely?
It really is revealing how somebody that can describe the murder of a ten-year-old schoolgirl as 'a good kill, can call the deaths of several civilians and the severing of a three-year-old's spine as 'acceptable collateral damage' and calls areas of Palestine 'killing zones' can brazenly visit here and complain about crooked lawyers being called 'shysters'.
The Zionists should leave Palestine now. They are responsible for the current war between faiths that has no parallel in history. The Zionist 'dream' is a nightmare for everybody else. Throw them out.
The Zionists should leave Palestine now. They are responsible for the current war between faiths that has no parallel in history. The Zionist 'dream' is a nightmare for everybody else. Throw them out.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shysterrachamim18 said:
not racist so shut it ....
Etomology online said:
why must we go through this every time becuase you are too lazy to do your own research...
www.etomonline.com really use it next time you wish to find out the meaning and indeed origin of a word...
right as for the Dave the nigger ideal well i i have a friend called paki dave, he calls himself paki dave and defines himself as such... who the flying hell am i to tell another human being how they should choose to define themselves... who are you too??
sure others may find the monkier offensive because it uses the term paki in it however they again cannot choose how others will define themselves....even if they are offended by what would normally be an deroigtory name...
I choose to call myself garfield the fudge packer request that you identify me as such then who are you to not do so... to deny me my choosen address?
so the item jewboy, as we have heard it wasn't intended or indeed in context used in a racist fashion, but as an example.
The very fact that this issue comes up time and time again shows the purile nature which is in effect here, please stop with all the attention seeking childish toy out of the pram nonsense and start debating... not lecturing, not with some level of nose in their air holier than you snobbery, not with the endless, tiedious, soperific posturing .... but real debate based in reality ...
of course this is hoping to much i fear and no doubt you with come away from this encounter, as with all previous points where your nonsense has been challenged and proved wrong, no less rude in your dealings with peoples here...
drop the superiour act really ... it's so not true...
I suspect "Paki" Dave is using that term ironically, because perhaps he has been called "Paki" so many times by racist people -- so, calling himself "Paki" Dave is a reflection of his bitterness.
There is a lot of that in the use of "Nigger" by blacks, and in use of "Jewboy" by Jews.
The fact that they use the term ironically DOES NOT make these terms acceptable when used to describe someone.
I certainly would not feel comfortable with someone called themselves "Paki" or "Nigger" or "Jewboy", even if they were a member of that group, because it may well indicate that the person has internalized hatred.
This topic has deteriorated into endless argument about the meaning of words and who insulted who. Meanwhile, R18 and astronaut, two of the most argumentative people in the thread, haven't even bothered to vote on the topic.
Doesn't this show that they're more interested in point-scoring than actual discussion?
Doesn't this show that they're more interested in point-scoring than actual discussion?
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
ZAMB said:
Not necessarily. The options are a little difficult to choose from.
It wasn't 'Israel' that invaded Palestine, and even though I chose that option, it's not accurately worded enough to be close to either side's truth.
If you read the King Abdullah of Jordan's statement in 1947 he talks about the history of illegal Zionist immigration from a moderate Arab perspective. He is especially tolerant when it comes to the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Hitler's genoicdes. King Abdullah was unfortunately assassinated by extremists for political reasons, some few years later.
As Arabs see the Jews, 1947, King Abdullah of Jordan
I have also read these: ISRAEL: Boundary Disputes with Arab Neighbours 1946-1964, Jordan History (Govt. Site) The Tragedy of Palestine
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
astronaut said:
again you attempt to define others madates for them ...
GarfieldLeChat said:again you attempt to define others madates for them ...
1. That is something YOU do about Jews constantly, so please don't take an air of superiority here.
2. Why on earth would anyone call themselves "Paki," "Nigger," or "Jewboy" except ironically, out of bitterness? Can you explain it?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
1. show me... where.. anywhere will do... show me where... once ... indeed why is it that most of the jews on this thread are saying the same things as me and not you... 0/10 for brains there love... i think all of the jews i know including those i will be meeting in around 7 hours time wouldn't stipulate this... i love your pronoucments... so wide of the mark as to be an irredeemable stain on your character... astro...astronaut said:
2. cos they choose to... obviously a whole plethoria of music has slipped past you in the last centry...
btw what is it you do again...
are you ever going to actually tell us....
i'd have thought by now and the repeated times of asking you could have made up some more nonsense, strat, i mean it's not like you and your bessie mate google couldn't make summit up is it...
ZAMB said:
Anyone voting on this poll is implicitly accepting its anti-Israeli bias. A bias more marked than most polls on Urban, despite the proliferation of biased polls on these boards.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Apologies for the perceived slant on the poll. The alternative poll given by Astronaut on post 424 is OK though maybe others may have a better set of questions as there seems uncertainty as to what is important:
Was Palestine autonomous before Israel came along?
Was it part of a larger entity? If so what was it?
Do either of these factors affect this discussion?
Meanwhile the name calling goes on. Surely anyone is free to choose the label they wish to attach to themselves?
Of course the indigenous population question is a bit difficult seeing as we are talking about an area with a variety of people, often from quite a nomadic lifestyle, but there must have been some settled areas such as Jerusalem, but of course there will have been many different people there too.
Does getting there first even imply the right to call that place home? probably, but to be in charge? Well America was built at the expense of the Native Americans and Australia the Aboriginees, and taking land from people who are less developed or less able to defend their system seems to be the way we do things. So maybe the Palestinians need to accept that they have been invaded? We all came from Africa originally anyway
The problem is that they are not accorded the same status as the Israelis. They have become a second class citizen which is marginalised by the Israelis.
Of course it's proven Rach. There's stacks of proof here My favourites include #433 and #372 and most of the first page. It's only you who seems to deny it. Which choice on post 424 would you choose i wonder? Or how would you have phrased the question?
The very fact that Israel divides people into Israelis and Arabs, rather than just according them the same rights as everyone is a form of racism. And saying that all countries are racist like this does not convince me that racism is right (in fact it's a fallacy). Actually the countries most open to immigration gain economically and in many other ways too. It is countries like Israel who insist on some master race which is superior to all others which ends up disappearing down the bottom of the genetic pool.
We are all people with the same consciousness and when some court wants to discriminate between two people based on them being different from 'us', it reminds me of Aryan Supremacy and where that went.
Was Palestine autonomous before Israel came along?
Was it part of a larger entity? If so what was it?
Do either of these factors affect this discussion?
Meanwhile the name calling goes on. Surely anyone is free to choose the label they wish to attach to themselves?
Of course the indigenous population question is a bit difficult seeing as we are talking about an area with a variety of people, often from quite a nomadic lifestyle, but there must have been some settled areas such as Jerusalem, but of course there will have been many different people there too.
Does getting there first even imply the right to call that place home? probably, but to be in charge? Well America was built at the expense of the Native Americans and Australia the Aboriginees, and taking land from people who are less developed or less able to defend their system seems to be the way we do things. So maybe the Palestinians need to accept that they have been invaded? We all came from Africa originally anyway
The problem is that they are not accorded the same status as the Israelis. They have become a second class citizen which is marginalised by the Israelis.
Of course it's proven Rach. There's stacks of proof here My favourites include #433 and #372 and most of the first page. It's only you who seems to deny it. Which choice on post 424 would you choose i wonder? Or how would you have phrased the question?
The very fact that Israel divides people into Israelis and Arabs, rather than just according them the same rights as everyone is a form of racism. And saying that all countries are racist like this does not convince me that racism is right (in fact it's a fallacy). Actually the countries most open to immigration gain economically and in many other ways too. It is countries like Israel who insist on some master race which is superior to all others which ends up disappearing down the bottom of the genetic pool.
We are all people with the same consciousness and when some court wants to discriminate between two people based on them being different from 'us', it reminds me of Aryan Supremacy and where that went.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
i ask again one example of me trying to tell Jews their own personal mandate...astronaut said:
i think astro is looking for a ban for this lie... tbh...
one example or a retraction and an apology.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
SOMEBODY is looking for a ban. Possibly more than one person.
I've made the moderating position quite clear on that use of the term; given the context I do not consider it sufficient grounds for a judgement of racist intent. Should it be used further as a term of abuse things might change, but it hasn't been. Any further personal bickering and abuse should be taken to PM or elsewhere or just ignored. If it pops up here again, I will ban. Simple as that.
And no, "shyster" is not anti-semitic.
I've made the moderating position quite clear on that use of the term; given the context I do not consider it sufficient grounds for a judgement of racist intent. Should it be used further as a term of abuse things might change, but it hasn't been. Any further personal bickering and abuse should be taken to PM or elsewhere or just ignored. If it pops up here again, I will ban. Simple as that.
And no, "shyster" is not anti-semitic.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
please point out where highlight the post so i can either refute this or explain you misunderstanding of it otherwise withdraw the comment...astronaut said:
this so far is little more than a vile slur with no basis...
FM can this joker please be requested to vailidte this repugnant claim or face a ban i see no reason why anyone one on urban should have this level of racism levelled at them unjustifably, nor should it go uncommented.
I trust that requesting the person make these repulsive accusations prove their lies is not considered a personal attack on that person.
moono said:
Not much chance of that, with Bush reiterating his support for their landgrab policies. Rather an interesting programme on Democracy Now about the current situation in Palestine.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/24/1435247
Gmart
Well-Known Member
The Americans never left the Native Americans alone. They probably think that in time pure poverty will force acceptance of the invasion.
I am interested in what options i should have put in this poll to make it less slanted. Astronaut has suggested some options which i criticised above, but which are probably better than mine.
Does anyone else have any suggestions?
I am interested in what options i should have put in this poll to make it less slanted. Astronaut has suggested some options which i criticised above, but which are probably better than mine.
Does anyone else have any suggestions?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Gmarthews said:
True, look at what's happening with the Western Shoshone. The USG have insisted that they want to test bunker busting bombs on their land. The UN has condemned the actions but the USG seems determined to go ahead regardless.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
why is this lieing slur still up and why has astronaught not been banned ...astronaut said:
2 day's is suffecent time to provide a vaild quote of my allegede dismissal of jews as either a race or a nation... but as both comments are patently untrue no evidence can be found...
so with draw or fae the consiquneces strat...
Nino: My point is not about Celtic languages per se but Celtic culture in general...It is far from viable.
Moono: It is not a "war between the faiths."
Garfield: For every source you show saying that "shstyer" is not racist, I can show on that says it is.
If your friend refers to themself with a derogatory, racsit term, that is their option. You using it however is yours. It not only boils down to personal responsiblity but the fact of the matter is, you do not have that same room to maneuver with the word as part of the demographic that uses it in a racist manner.
As for "who am I to deny" someone the option of being called a derogatory term if they so choose to be labled as such...I am a person who opts to assodciate with people who have enough self esteem and common sense not to be called such nonsense.
ZAMB: Hate to rain on your parade but I did vote, both in the poll and by ebdlessly expressing my opinion in lenghthly posting here. I find it a bit ironic that you would label me argumentive.
Invisible: Abdullah offered that "moderate" line to the Arab "Street." In private though, he was an ardent Zionist [in action anyway]. Remember, without Israel his "kingdom" would not have been created nor continue to exist. He was assasinated because he stole the greater portion of the Arab Partition.
GMarthews: The "nomadic populatrion" was a small one in the referred to area [at least in the relevant era].
"Was 'Palestine' autonomous before Israel came along?" No, it was not. It was actually divided into two different Ottoman jurisdictions. One was goverened out of cairo, the other out of Damascus. this also answers your second question, of whether iot was part of a larger entity. To answer your third question, no, it does not change anything. It was a Turkish backwater.
As for "Native Americans" and "Aborigines," what you fail to realise is that in your analogy Jews are the Natives and Aborigines.
Israel's Arab CITIZENS are not afforded any "second class status."
All nations devide their populations into demographics, there is nothing racist about it. Again, Arabs and ALL Israelis have the same rights. Israel has plenty of other minorities as well.
Moono: It is not a "war between the faiths."
Garfield: For every source you show saying that "shstyer" is not racist, I can show on that says it is.
If your friend refers to themself with a derogatory, racsit term, that is their option. You using it however is yours. It not only boils down to personal responsiblity but the fact of the matter is, you do not have that same room to maneuver with the word as part of the demographic that uses it in a racist manner.
As for "who am I to deny" someone the option of being called a derogatory term if they so choose to be labled as such...I am a person who opts to assodciate with people who have enough self esteem and common sense not to be called such nonsense.
ZAMB: Hate to rain on your parade but I did vote, both in the poll and by ebdlessly expressing my opinion in lenghthly posting here. I find it a bit ironic that you would label me argumentive.
Invisible: Abdullah offered that "moderate" line to the Arab "Street." In private though, he was an ardent Zionist [in action anyway]. Remember, without Israel his "kingdom" would not have been created nor continue to exist. He was assasinated because he stole the greater portion of the Arab Partition.
GMarthews: The "nomadic populatrion" was a small one in the referred to area [at least in the relevant era].
"Was 'Palestine' autonomous before Israel came along?" No, it was not. It was actually divided into two different Ottoman jurisdictions. One was goverened out of cairo, the other out of Damascus. this also answers your second question, of whether iot was part of a larger entity. To answer your third question, no, it does not change anything. It was a Turkish backwater.
As for "Native Americans" and "Aborigines," what you fail to realise is that in your analogy Jews are the Natives and Aborigines.
Israel's Arab CITIZENS are not afforded any "second class status."
All nations devide their populations into demographics, there is nothing racist about it. Again, Arabs and ALL Israelis have the same rights. Israel has plenty of other minorities as well.
Similar threads
