You are defending terrorism you dullard. Too bad your moral relativism means you can't even see the evil you are perpetuating. You share the blood of the innocents.
'Jew' is a race, 'Judaism' is a faith. You used one word and meant another - but the word you used invalidated your argument when read by someone else who knows how to distinguish the words, eg. me.
Perhaps English is not your first language, so I won't go any further with your mistake, I wouldn't want to be a 'grammar Nazi' after all, lol. What it means is your attempted little baiting has failed - you simply can't call me a Nazi because you fsckd up your little trap through a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words 'Jew' vs 'Judaism'. Your whole thinking of me as some kind of Nazi is based on a false premise - me responding to some fscked up writing of yours where you didn't even understand what you were saying.
Since your little trap has failed, what does that leave us with? Well, I have made a bunch of statements and backed them up with numerous website links, documents, and video clips. You have made a bunch of statements and have backed them up with nothing. All you are giving is opinions and insults (I'm not complaining about the latter, I too trade barbs). Would be nice if you would actually watch the references I provided and could provide some kinds of facts for rebuttal - you know, like something even an undergraduate would do without needing to be told.
Look, I know you believe that by demonstrating tolerance of the intolerant (Islam, as in Totalitarian Religious Socialism) that somehow you feel you are the good guy. Did you grandfather demonstrate tolerance of the intolerant (Totalitarian National Socialism)? No, he did not. Tolerating evil *is* evil - perhaps not as great an evil but an evil nevertheless. I tolerate a great deal of things (which we have not covered in these discussions) but I'm with your grandfather on this: I refuse to tolerate the intolerance of Naziism nor the religious equivalent, which is Islam. If your grandfather was alive today do you think he would be proud of you demonstrating your tolerance of the modern even more genocidal equivalent of Nazis, which are the Islamicists? He would be sickened with your position - because of your clear ignorance of Islamic doctrine you are defending evil. I'll give you some references (not that you ever check them out anyway, you are so determined to not learn about the true nature of the evil ideology you defend):
Then we have three Islamic attacks today (22 killed and 61 wounded in India, Pakistan and Iraq). This follows two the day before (17 dead, 13 wounded in Pakistan and Nigeria), one the day before that (8 dead, 23 wounded in Baghdad), and four attacks the day before that (25 killed, 119 wounded in Pakistan and Iraq). There have been more than 20762 deadly Islam-motivated attacks since 9/11, and this carnage has been going on for *1400* years (well before Israel and the US were created): http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Let's have a look at what is going on with these these casualties, so we can see who are the victims of the people you are defending:
2013.04.25 - The Taliban bomb the offices of a secular-leaning political party, killing at six.
2013.04.25 - Eleven people are killed in two Boko Haram attacks.
2013.04.24 - Eight Shiites at a bus stop are obliterated by Sunni bombers.
2013.04.23 - Muslims bomb a rival mosque, killing seven worshippers.
2013.04.23 - Nine people bleed to death as Shiites
Falling back on calling me an anti-semite for my cut and paste example of your own words is hilarious
False, it was a cut n paste with an ideology replaced by a race. Changes everything. Too bad you are too idiotic to notice.
could have done without you wanking it all over this page with that bio
I never started with that bio. I was forced to do so because you perpetually accused me of being an 'undergraduate'. It was not me tossing off at all - I was forced to show my credentials because you kept denying reality. That reality is you don't know squat about the Scientific Method and even if you did you probably wouldn't apply it. Your prejudices are already set and you filter out all counter evidence - this is clear.
Give it a few years and those places will probably look a lot more politically like Turkey - they are already a million miles away from Iran's theocracy and show no signs of going that way. So your "political islam" IMHO makes no more sense than saying "political christians".
This shows how ignorant you are. You clearly don't understand the Islamicist agenda at all. Turkey is a bad example, what was once a secular country has been turning more and more Islamic. Look at the false Ergenekon trials as the Islamists purge resistance to their agenda with false charges show trials. Look at the AKP slowly but surely dismantling the secular state. Time will tell, but the words of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan are something you should take heed of, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”.
Also your bit about pretending Islam is a form of politics is a ridiculous waste of words since you cannot possibly be that stupid as to believe it, especially with Syria etc going on now.
Your assertion is ridiculous. Islam is political because there can never be a separation of mosque and state and still be true Islam. What has happened is that there have been all sorts of republics with Muslim majorities - but this is not the same as Islamic republics.
Ah, in that case you need to have said 'Judaism' (a personal faith) rather than 'Jews' (a people) [perhaps you don't know the difference, it certainly sounds like your standard of education is pretty low in this area]. I see you are an anti-Semite. That's explains why you defend the genocidal aims of Islam. That explains all that you have said, and why you are being evil by defending evil. Go back to your alchemy you racist.
Ah, I see your major malfunction. You are attempting the Leftist fallacy of 'moral equivalence'. In this you equate Jews (who are an ethnic group) with Islam (a political ideology). The problem is that discrimination against a race or ethnic group is bad (an individual cannot change their ethnicity) whereas it is perfectly possible to change political ideology - especially one as evil as Islam (if you ever care to cast your eye over the Qur'an, hadiths and sira - instead of arguing from a position of ignorance).
Dude, your whole apoplexy is a result of a major flaw in logic. Races and ideologies are not the same. Discrimination on race is bad, it is clear we both agree, but your mistake is one commonly made by the political Left in thinking that Muslims are some kind of 'race'. They are not. Thought experiment for you: what 'race' is Islam specifically? it isn't. Here is where your argument falls apart and the absurdity of your premise is exposed. Can you see the colossal flaw in the logic now? you are confusing apples and oranges - which is pretty daft when you think about it, yeah?
Now we've hopefully straightened out your thinking I hope we can move on to my original point. It is interesting your mention the ideology of National Socialism. We both can probably agree that Germans (an ethnicity) may be good and bad like any other people but it is the *ideology* of National Socialism that is bad. Yes? Well, we have a close analogy with Islam, which is a Religious 'socialist' ideology of sorts. The goals of Islam were the same as National Socialism (if you care to read the Qur'an): total submission of the individual to the State and the leader (Fuhrer/Mohammed); commandment to exterminate all Jews; subjugation of all other peoples (eg. dhimmis); heavy taxation on subjugated peoples (jizya); no respect for other cultures or laws; perpetual call for total war (Goebbel's Sportspalast speech, jihad); etc.
The Free World has recognized and defeated the totalitarian ideologies of National Sociaism and Soviet Socialism. The remaining ideology of Religious Socialism (called "Islam") is on the rise, but Free Peoples are still mostly unaware of what that ideology calls for. If they knew how closely Islam's goals were to National Socialism they would be shocked. Instead they mistake Islam for a personal faith like all the other religions in the World. Islam does have some elements of personal faith/superstition but they are very secondary to its totalitarian, theocratic political ideology. Free People are starting to wake up to this aspect (as bloggers are starting to point out the nature and goals of Islam, instead of the sanitized lies we get from mainstream media - thanks to the political Left having a fact-free view of Islam).
So, now I hope you can see:
1) Opposing Islam is not calling for genocide or racism in any way, because Islam is an *ideology* with characteristics pretty similar to National Socialism. Islam is not an ethnicity nor race, and
2) Opposing those who oppose Islam is effectively the same as supporting the Nazis. I know you didn't do this on purpose, you just had confusion about people that opposed Islam (mistaking them as racists, when in fact they want to preserve the freedoms and liberties we currently have against the Islamic ideology that open states it wants to destroy freedom for all peoples [especially ethnic and cultural minorities]).
It's always ok to be wrong, provided you consider new facts as they are presented to you. That's the Scientific Method in action. I hope I've been able to enlighten you somewhat. To oppose the political ideology Islam is *not* racist in any way - it is standing up for freedom for all races and cultures against the very real goal of Islam to dominate and subjugate all non-Muslims.
Does that make sense to you now? Thanks for interacting long enough I could get to the core of your misunderstanding, and have now hopefully corrected it. Stand up for freedom for all people - stand up against Islam and stand with those who oppose it (eg. the flawed but very brave Israelis; the freedom fighters for the rights of Muslim women like Pamela Geller; for Coptic Christians like Raymond Ibrahim; and for all Christians and secularists like the great Robert Spencer).
One thing you can say about the Egyptians and their pyramids, despite no one practicing their religion (in numbers): despite Cairo being 9:1 Muslim:Coptic Christian, no one will ever forget the people who built them. As long as humans exist on this earth anyway.
You may be interested to note that the Salafis released after the fall of Mubarak (thanks to the clueless Obama pulling the rug out from under him and unleashing the Islamists across the region) wish to destroy the 'pagan' Pyramids and Sphinx just as they blew up the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and destroyed the medieval mosque in Timbuktu, Mali in the last year. Now not every Egyptian feel this way, but these guys are "on a mission from Allah" and feel they are commanded to destroy all non-Muslim cultural artifacts. As time goes one expect the Salafis to win additional power over more moderate Islamicists (just as in any organisation those who can claim to be 'holier than thou' can marginalise moderate voices, leading to the organization becoming more and more extreme over time).
Now here is the apologies for the Islamicists from a left-leaning media source (typical, the leftist media in the US loves Islam and make excuses every way they can). It claims that the calls for destruction of the pyramids were a 'hoax' yet then goes on to say the claims were 'fringe'. That means the claims were *real* (not a hoax as the apologist makes out) but still on the fringe. The pyramids are safe, for now, but expect as Egypt becomes more and more extreme. This is also the plan of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis to impose more and more Sharia on Egypt progressively [incidentally, what they are trying to do through 'Cultural Jihad' through the OIC-dominated UN is similar, but on a much longer timescale so ordinary joes won't notice the installation of special rights for Muslims and limits being placed on Free Speech for non-Muslims; all in accordance with Sharia and enacted through "political correctness"]. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/blow-up-the-pyramids-u-s-pundits-fall-for-a-hoax.html
The Islamicists aim to take over the World (as the Qur'an commands them to). If they are prepared to rob other cultures of irreplaceable antiquities just how much less do they value your human rights or even your life. Islam must be stopped by all Free People (regardless of our differences in political leanings or beliefs in the best economic system). If we don't unite to stop Islam our culture will be destroyed and forgotten, just as the former cultures of the Middle East have been (eg. Roman/Byzantine culture that lasted around 2500 years; the Persians with a similar heritage; the Graeco-Egyptian culture in Egypt; etc). Israel is first on the chopping block and then the West is next (as the Muslims say to themselves, "First the Saturday people and then the Sunday people" [the planned order of conquest and subjgation]).
Most people simply aren't aware just how barbaric Islam is. No wonder, the Lefti
After the shit calling for death you are calling me a troll?
False. Please point out a single statement where I call for death of anyone who isn't an imminent armed jihadi threat? You are just making stuff up. The reason you make stuff up is because you can't debate on the facts I've presented.
After the shit calling for death you are calling me a troll?
False. I did a long PhD working on gravitational microlensing and the associated software techniques for detecting and analysing these events - including such events such as MACHO-1995-BLG-30 (first finite source gravitational microlensing event) and MACHO-98-BLG-35 (first possible planet detected with gravitational microlensing). Again you are in demonisation mode because you are avoiding the fact - you have been shown to being anti-rationalist and anti-scientific by a scientist (well, ex-scientist, I'm on to vastly more lucrative work now).
So what is your scientific qualifications, please? Either put up or admit you don't actually know much about the Scientific Method (which explains why your worldview is so out of date, you refuse to accept new evidence and facts that are staring everyone in the face, and that makes you just plain wrong about the ideology and nature of Islam as it *really* is). So, your scientific credentials please?
Thanks for that criticism. It's noted. I wanted to put it in there because many people in the West go past legitimate criticism of Israel into racism. Once you start thinking about it you'll see how people who don't think they are being racist actually are. They go past the facts and judge people based on their ethnicity/nationality. I think we can agree that racism against anyone is bad yes? (primarily because your race is not something you have the power to change, unlike say, a political affiliation where you can change from Nazi to anti-Nazi or Islamist to secularist etc). I hope that softens your judgement on that statement a little? Thanks for the feedback:)
You are correct. That was the mindset of "Eretz Israel" at the time. However, the Israeli Government has changed policies - which is why it gave Gaza back (hoping for peace, but instead they got more rockets - perfectly predictable if you understand that Islam is a large factor in driving the Arab political decision making).
Now there are still factions of Israeli society that still believe in this concept. The Israeli Government does try and reign them in. You can compare that to the Palestinians where the terrorists *are* the Government. Anyway, I agree with your point, but please understand it is of historical interest and is not the stated policy of the Israeli Government for the last decade (times change! but unfortunately many people's understanding of the situation is colored from decades ago, rather than the policies today).
ps. If the Israelis really were interested in driving all the Palestinians out for real, just how many days do you think their mighty IDF would take to accomplish this? not long, yeah? it should be clear when you think about it that the Israelis believe what they say, they are prepared for a Two State Solution provided there is permanent peace and mutual recognition (although I have the sneaking suspicion that the Israelis also know the Arab terrorist government could never agree to this - the Qur'an won't let them; but that is not Israel's fault, they're just making use of the ideology of their opponent).
I live in New Zealand. There is a claim that the Maori here (of which I have ancestry) displaced an earlier wave of migration, the Moriori. Fortunately the Maori polynesians pretty much wiped out the pacifist Morioris and the last full-blooded Moriori died out nearly a century ago. Even the polynesians can't claim to be immune to the territory grabs and conquest that every other country is afflicted by.
Oh, and let the lesson of pacificism in the case of genocidal invaders be a lesson to you all - we can;t appeas Islam or our 21st Century Culture will be supplanted destroyed by a 7th Century Culture.
So, to sum up, Jews had been living in what is now Israel for roughly 3,000 years, the same as the Palestinians.
False. The Arab invasion was 1300 years ago. The time scales are different. Now we may argue that the 'Palestinian' Arabs may deserve to return to Israel (ignoring the fact there are over 1 million Arabs already in Israel), but then we could also argue that a far larger number of Jews then deserve to return to Muslim majority countries without fear of persecution. Trying to re-litigate history is fraught with peril. If the Arabs have claims then the Jews/Israelis also have counter-claims (which are are rarely mentioned, and I did not see that in your post). I hope you watched the links I posted for the legal status of the situation:)
No worries. Just one more tiny point, the land wasn't "UK". It was a Mandate granted by the League of Nations for the UK to administer (not own). I know I'm picking hairs here, but given the nature of the subject it pays to be a little pedantic with regards to the history.
What idiot would think that the Jews only got there after 1948?
Dude, you would be surprised. It is a common refrain of some Islamic supremacists that the Jews have no right to the land because they all came from Europe to displace Arabs at the end of WWII. That's why they mistakenly call for all Israelis to go back to Europe. Since even Western readers are also often confused I thought I'd better make the history explicit, and some folks might learn something. Much of the political problems are due to intentional or unintentional re-writing of history. I didn't mean to suggest you didn't know this. I just saw that some could misconstrue your original post as being that the Israelis only arrived at the end of WWII because the UK put them there - and displaced Arabs in some fit of colonialism. Since that meme is common, but not true, I thought I'd post just so no-one gets confused. I did not mean to raise your hackles.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but shall we examine the facts instead? The original inhabitants of the land at the turn of the 20th Century is about 5% of the current population. In the 19th Century and earlier the population hadn't changed for about 400 years. What does this mean? It means that there has been immigration and massive birth rate increases for both Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Arabs have been in Palestine for about 1300 years and the Jews for about 3000 - but both in relatively small numbers in the last 500 years. The notion that the Jews displaced the Arabs in a sparsely inhabited country is not borne out by the known populations. What was scarce was arable land until the Jews set about draining the swamps. Meanwhile, many Arab farmers abandoned tracts of land due to the predations of the Bedouin. Please have a read of the following research from Harvard http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=spring01/&name=myth
What this means is that claiming that the Palestinian Arabs were displaced is a myth. What happened is that after hundreds of years of extremely low population growth the Palestinians started breeding and immigrating from other Arab countries. Meanwhile the many non-Arabs also immigrated and their birth rate also went up. They simply made more land area from swamp and filled the empty land (when I visited the area I couldn't believe what an empty and barren dump Samaria is - as they say, "the fighting is so vicious because the stakes are so small" [plus, there are the genocidal goals of the religious folks too - on both sides, but Government sponsored on the Arab side]). The Jews and Jewish Agencies also purchased land from willing sellers - as the article points out. That means the sentiment of your statement is not historically correct. Given the inflammatory nature of the subject it is better not to put false memes out there and try stick to the facts where they are known. Sound good?
I wasn't passing moral judgement for or against the terrorism (although my private opinion is that this was bad). I mentioned it because I don't want to deny it happened and it was significant.
Bill Whittle once made an interesting statement about land ownership, recognizing how complex it is the further you go back in history in *all* countries. He said, "There are only two unique claims to the land, the first inhabitants and the last inhabitants". I would add, the guys who are able to hold the land against all comers can be the owners, if you can't hold the land - or you depopulate yourself (crazy Russia and 'traditional' European populations) then it is probably going to be taken away from you. This sucks, but that is the nature of Nature. No point whining about it, as some do - just get on with improving your claim (and the lives of citizens).
The *UN* offered Israel and the Palestinian Arabs nation status in 1948. The Israelis accepted, the Palestinians did not. Your assertion was that the UK did this. This is not true. The UK's involvement was from 1917 to 1948 and primarily in 1922 in the League of Nations providing an area in their Mandate for Jews in Palestine.
It's just that your post was inaccurate. No problem, I was just fixin' it for ya and adding detail lest people get the mistaken impression that Jews only arrived in the place after WWII and at the behest of the UK, when they'd been there all along (even if in small numbers in the Middle Ages) and formed a country based on the League of Nations, UK and most importantly, the United Nations all forming the legal basis for the State of Israel.
I didn't mean offense by correcting you, but your post did need correction to be historically accurate (and then I took the liberty to go into more detail about some of the aspects of the situation and history). Hopefully some people will learn some correct historical facts as a result, I'm sure you don't mind that:)
I was not saying the Jews were the majority, so I agree with you. What is important is that Jews had been living there continuously for 3000 years. Most people think that the *all* Jews were evicted by the Romans, but this is not true (the ban was Jerusalem only, AFAIK).
What I did meant is that the British controlling the region at the time generally used the words "Palestinian" and "Arab" to refer to Jews and Arabs respectively. Even more importantly the arabs of the region did not generally refer to themselves as "Palestinian" (since my understanding is that they saw themselves as part of the Arab nation greater than any nation) - this was a later invention by PLO leaders so they could claim Haifa and Tel Aviv etc in the eyes of the World and deligitimize Israel and legitimize their planned genocide/ethnic cleansing (as my citation from Al Rassooli indicates, in the words of PLO founders themselves). I hope that point wasn't missed.
Actually, Rachel Corrie put herself in harm's way where the bulldozer driver could not see her. She committed suicide by bulldozer, dude. Check the facts. That's why the driver was cleared, she idiotically placed herself in a position the driver simply could not see and therefore could not stop. Same would happen to the idiots that walk in front of buses in every city when they are jabbering on their cellphones.
Were you aware that many of the Arabs now living in Israel were labourers imported by the Jews that were living there continuously for over 3000 years? the names of many Arab families give it away, eg "Al Misri" indicates the person was an immigrant from Egypt. Before 1967 the word "Palestinian" usually meant a Jew living in Palestine, while the Arabs were simply "Arabs". The word "Palestinian" was co-opted in 1967 by the terrorist PLO so they could continue their genocidal plans against the Jews. Please see my earlier post in the thread for references of this: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3682915&cid=43543411
In response to your claim of "terrorism" by the State of Israel you probably need to get clued up on the legalities. Here's a video for you to look at that covers the relevant International Law. It turns out that only by denying International Law can you claim that the State of Israel is terrorist. You can claim it is heavy handed etc, but you cannot claim it has no legal basis to do what it does (which would make it a "terrorist" state). In short, Israel is not a terrorist state, despite what its critics would like you to believe (and many do believe the falsehood, because they never ever check the historical facts from objective sources): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2x5UvjUs4 [youtube.com] "The Legal Case for Israel" (46 minutes)
Since you are Jewish you might also want to learn about the history of Palestine. You would see that the Israelis have an extremely good case for their right to be there (of course, the whole notion of a people having to justify their right to be in a land they inhabited continuously for over 3000 years is pretty immoral, but we won't worry about that here). I've got some *factual* videos you may wish to look at in this post (which I'll link to rather than re-post): http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3682915&cid=43543411
Israel does have a right to do what it is doing as a UN Member State. That's why it cannot be touched on legal grounds (despite the rantings of the genocidal OIC-bloc in the UN).
False. Your recall of history is factually incorrect - which makes your assertion about the UK ridiculous.
The League of Nations in 1922 declared an intention to create the states of Palestine and Transjordan. Palestine was a Jewish region of the Ottoman Empire and 'Palestinians' meant Jewish dhimmis in the Palestine region. Arabs were simply 'Arabs'. Palestine was to get all the land west of the Jordan River and Transjordan the land to the East. Then the British decides to split the Palestine region into a Jewish part and an Arab part. The Jews living in the region had been living there continuously for 3000 years (although Jews were temporarily excluded from Jerusalem in 70 AD and in the 3rd Century, but remained in the surrounding areas). In the late 18th Century the 'zionist' movement got going and the Jews that were already in the region were joined by Jews from other parts of the World. These Jews bought swampy land near the coast that the Arabs didn't want. The Jews set to work clearing the swamps and started importing Arabs from other parts of the Arab world (most of whom arrived *after* the Jews, and in 1967 took the name 'Palestinians' for political reasons I'll explain later).
World War II came along and many Jews fled to Palestine if they could. The British kept many of them out (where they were murdered in millions by the National Socialists). Meanwhile the Mufti of Jerusalem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni headed to Hitler and suggested the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem (reminding Hitler that if the Jews were exteminated no one would remember them, citing how the Armenians were mostly forgotten by the Turkish genocidal jihad against Armenians in 1915). The Mufti also proceeded to the Balkans to raise a pair of Bosnian and SS Divisions that killed tens of thousands of Yugoslavian Jews. The Mufti was not a nice man.
After World War II ended many surviving Jews were convinced that Europe would always be anti-Semitic and left for Palestine (which is true, we see a rise again today; one cannot be racist but it is perfectly acceptable in polite society, politics and academia these days to demonize all Israelis without considering individuals - if you are doing this you are in fact a racist; please stop being racist).
The Jews conducted terrorism against the British and the British decided to leave Palestine (it was also in an anti-colonial mindset and divesting itself of all colonies as well at that time, eg India etc). In 1948 the UN offered states for Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Jews accepted and Israel was formed. The Arabs rejected the UN plan and attacked with the armies of many neighbouring Arab states as part of the Arab League (and driven by several things; the lust for land and conquest and the intention to commit genocide of Jews as commanded in the Qur'an and hadiths). The Arab Legion told the Arabs in Palestine to move out of the area so that the genocide would be easier. These Arabs are the refugees that no Arab host country wants to integrate. The Jews also had to flee Judea, Samaria in the face of the Arab League armies and were expelled from Arab countries (eg. Egypt). The Jewish refugees were accepted as full citizens by Israel. The Arabs who remained in Israel were accepted as full citizens, and were given Members of the Knesset (eg. similar to Congressmen/Senators in the Israeli political system). There are about 1 million Arab Israelis (who fight for Israel, because they see themselves as citizens of *their* country) and have 3 Members of Knesset. After a year of fighting the Israelis won and their State survived.
After 1948 the Jordanians annexed Judea and Samaria and renamed it "The West Bank" [of the Jordan] to deflect any Jewish historical claim on it. The Egyptians occupied Gaza. The Arabs in Gaza did not call themselves "Palestinian" (a term used for Jews before 1948) but instead called themselves "Egyptian". The Arabs in the West Bank did
Israel used to be mostly ignored by the US until 1970 when Israel help save the King of Jordan from being overthrown by Palestinian terrorists. The US concluded that the Israelis were trustworthy allies and an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the region - which the US could use to further their interests (particularly against Soviet influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East). The US needed Israel more than the other way around (since before this the Israelis mostly got arms from the French and Russians-via-Czechoslovakia).
The loss of Israel would be very bad for US self-interest - which is why the US does what it does. Conspiracy theory fruitcakes always start frothing that the Jews control the White House this is utterly false. The Jews and Israelis have influence in the US, but are among many influences. The White House today is instead heavily infiltrated by racist Jew-hating Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, refer: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates. I'm digressing here because of all the bullshit spun about that the White House is controlled by Jews - this is false, ever since George W Bush it is the jew-haters that have excessive influence in the State Department and White House.
Note that the jihadi Arabs like the *Egyptian* Yasser Arafat caused murder and instability in Israel, Gaza[then illegally occupied by Egypt], Judea/Samaria/West Bank [then illegally occupied by Jordan]), Jordan proper, Lebanon, and globally (Munich, Pan Am, Achilles Lauro murder etc). Israel is a bulwark against these guys and it suits the US to do the heavy lifting. The Israelis also tend to take out nuclear weapons programmes, like Iraq, Syria and soon-to-strike Iran when it would be more politically difficult for the US.
The US 'aid' programme to the Israelis also benefits the US more than the Israelis. US tax dollars are used to pay US companies for equipment the Israelis use (including regional supplies and munitions the US intend to call on, if ever in a pinch).
The relationship between Israel and the US works for both parties. It turns out that the US receives far far more benefit from this than most in the US realize (and certainly much more benefits than the anti-Israeli left-leaning media would have you believe). I hope that gives some explanation as to why Israel gets so much attention from the US after the 1970's (replying to the parent AC's true statement by way of explanation).
That's right, keep attacking personally like you deluded Lefties always do. Never, ever look for facts or counter facts. That's the tactic, eh?
Actually, I gained my PhD over a dozen years ago working on this project: http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/moa/ where I contributed software and algorithms that were used to find extra-solar planets. So, let's examine your credentials, eh? See what your scientific backgrounds is. I bet you don't have a background in hard science, which is why your outlook is stuck somewhere in the 1960s and utterly anti-scientific.
No matter how many references and citations I have provided you still would not have looked at them. It is this that leads you to have a worldview out of touch with reality, coupled with a lack of any kind of reasonable or scientific outlook that would correct the flaws in your world model. That's why you defend insanity and don't listen to what people are *actually* saying - instead inventing strawmen in your tiny little mind (despite me explicitly making statements before you even invented the strawmen; it appears you have comprehension trouble with basic reading). This is all so you never have to think outside The Matrix you gladly inhabit.
You think your are morally correct but because you refuse to be evidence base you are instead immoral by supporting evil (the evidence is there for all to see at places like this, if you ever care to get fact based: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). Supporting evil makes *you* evil.
Goodbye anti-scientific dhimmi - your mind is closed and your life is wasted. It is a shame to throw away you life with a closed mind. It appears you'll never use objective evidence to decide how to stand up for personal freedoms and liberty and women's rights and homosexual rights and protection of *all* faiths on an equal basis (as misguided as they are) - which means standing against Islam and all its evil supremacist commands (eg. Sura 9:29 & 9:5). Go back under your bridge little troll that is massively under-endowed with any faculties of reason.
Slashdot Mirror
You are defending terrorism you dullard. Too bad your moral relativism means you can't even see the evil you are perpetuating. You share the blood of the innocents.
'Jew' is a race, 'Judaism' is a faith. You used one word and meant another - but the word you used invalidated your argument when read by someone else who knows how to distinguish the words, eg. me.
Perhaps English is not your first language, so I won't go any further with your mistake, I wouldn't want to be a 'grammar Nazi' after all, lol. What it means is your attempted little baiting has failed - you simply can't call me a Nazi because you fsckd up your little trap through a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words 'Jew' vs 'Judaism'. Your whole thinking of me as some kind of Nazi is based on a false premise - me responding to some fscked up writing of yours where you didn't even understand what you were saying.
Since your little trap has failed, what does that leave us with? Well, I have made a bunch of statements and backed them up with numerous website links, documents, and video clips. You have made a bunch of statements and have backed them up with nothing. All you are giving is opinions and insults (I'm not complaining about the latter, I too trade barbs). Would be nice if you would actually watch the references I provided and could provide some kinds of facts for rebuttal - you know, like something even an undergraduate would do without needing to be told.
Look, I know you believe that by demonstrating tolerance of the intolerant (Islam, as in Totalitarian Religious Socialism) that somehow you feel you are the good guy. Did you grandfather demonstrate tolerance of the intolerant (Totalitarian National Socialism)? No, he did not. Tolerating evil *is* evil - perhaps not as great an evil but an evil nevertheless. I tolerate a great deal of things (which we have not covered in these discussions) but I'm with your grandfather on this: I refuse to tolerate the intolerance of Naziism nor the religious equivalent, which is Islam. If your grandfather was alive today do you think he would be proud of you demonstrating your tolerance of the modern even more genocidal equivalent of Nazis, which are the Islamicists? He would be sickened with your position - because of your clear ignorance of Islamic doctrine you are defending evil. I'll give you some references (not that you ever check them out anyway, you are so determined to not learn about the true nature of the evil ideology you defend):
The Muslim rape gangs operating in the UK. They believe they are justified in grooming, trading, and gang raping underage girls because of the Qur'anic passage "men may enjoy 'what your right hands own,' 4:3":
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/04/muslim-gang-rapes-brutalizes-kidnapped-13-year-old-over-4-days-you-treated-her-like-a-piece-of-meat-.html
Then we have three Islamic attacks today (22 killed and 61 wounded in India, Pakistan and Iraq). This follows two the day before (17 dead, 13 wounded in Pakistan and Nigeria), one the day before that (8 dead, 23 wounded in Baghdad), and four attacks the day before that (25 killed, 119 wounded in Pakistan and Iraq). There have been more than 20762 deadly Islam-motivated attacks since 9/11, and this carnage has been going on for *1400* years (well before Israel and the US were created):
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Let's have a look at what is going on with these these casualties, so we can see who are the victims of the people you are defending:
Falling back on calling me an anti-semite for my cut and paste example of your own words is hilarious
False, it was a cut n paste with an ideology replaced by a race. Changes everything. Too bad you are too idiotic to notice.
could have done without you wanking it all over this page with that bio
I never started with that bio. I was forced to do so because you perpetually accused me of being an 'undergraduate'. It was not me tossing off at all - I was forced to show my credentials because you kept denying reality. That reality is you don't know squat about the Scientific Method and even if you did you probably wouldn't apply it. Your prejudices are already set and you filter out all counter evidence - this is clear.
Give it a few years and those places will probably look a lot more politically like Turkey - they are already a million miles away from Iran's theocracy and show no signs of going that way. So your "political islam" IMHO makes no more sense than saying "political christians".
This shows how ignorant you are. You clearly don't understand the Islamicist agenda at all. Turkey is a bad example, what was once a secular country has been turning more and more Islamic. Look at the false Ergenekon trials as the Islamists purge resistance to their agenda with false charges show trials. Look at the AKP slowly but surely dismantling the secular state. Time will tell, but the words of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan are something you should take heed of, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”.
Also your bit about pretending Islam is a form of politics is a ridiculous waste of words since you cannot possibly be that stupid as to believe it, especially with Syria etc going on now.
Nope. From this statement it is clear that *you* are living in a pipedream. The fundamental characteristic of Islam compared to other religions is that Islam is explicitly a "total system" (as in, totalitarian) and has always been political.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam
http://www.politicalislam.com/principles/pages/five-principles/
http://www.politicalislam.com/
Your assertion is ridiculous. Islam is political because there can never be a separation of mosque and state and still be true Islam. What has happened is that there have been all sorts of republics with Muslim majorities - but this is not the same as Islamic republics.
Ah, in that case you need to have said 'Judaism' (a personal faith) rather than 'Jews' (a people) [perhaps you don't know the difference, it certainly sounds like your standard of education is pretty low in this area]. I see you are an anti-Semite. That's explains why you defend the genocidal aims of Islam. That explains all that you have said, and why you are being evil by defending evil. Go back to your alchemy you racist.
Ah, I see your major malfunction. You are attempting the Leftist fallacy of 'moral equivalence'. In this you equate Jews (who are an ethnic group) with Islam (a political ideology). The problem is that discrimination against a race or ethnic group is bad (an individual cannot change their ethnicity) whereas it is perfectly possible to change political ideology - especially one as evil as Islam (if you ever care to cast your eye over the Qur'an, hadiths and sira - instead of arguing from a position of ignorance).
Dude, your whole apoplexy is a result of a major flaw in logic. Races and ideologies are not the same. Discrimination on race is bad, it is clear we both agree, but your mistake is one commonly made by the political Left in thinking that Muslims are some kind of 'race'. They are not. Thought experiment for you: what 'race' is Islam specifically? it isn't. Here is where your argument falls apart and the absurdity of your premise is exposed. Can you see the colossal flaw in the logic now? you are confusing apples and oranges - which is pretty daft when you think about it, yeah?
Now we've hopefully straightened out your thinking I hope we can move on to my original point. It is interesting your mention the ideology of National Socialism. We both can probably agree that Germans (an ethnicity) may be good and bad like any other people but it is the *ideology* of National Socialism that is bad. Yes? Well, we have a close analogy with Islam, which is a Religious 'socialist' ideology of sorts. The goals of Islam were the same as National Socialism (if you care to read the Qur'an): total submission of the individual to the State and the leader (Fuhrer/Mohammed); commandment to exterminate all Jews; subjugation of all other peoples (eg. dhimmis); heavy taxation on subjugated peoples (jizya); no respect for other cultures or laws; perpetual call for total war (Goebbel's Sportspalast speech, jihad); etc.
The Free World has recognized and defeated the totalitarian ideologies of National Sociaism and Soviet Socialism. The remaining ideology of Religious Socialism (called "Islam") is on the rise, but Free Peoples are still mostly unaware of what that ideology calls for. If they knew how closely Islam's goals were to National Socialism they would be shocked. Instead they mistake Islam for a personal faith like all the other religions in the World. Islam does have some elements of personal faith/superstition but they are very secondary to its totalitarian, theocratic political ideology. Free People are starting to wake up to this aspect (as bloggers are starting to point out the nature and goals of Islam, instead of the sanitized lies we get from mainstream media - thanks to the political Left having a fact-free view of Islam).
So, now I hope you can see:
1) Opposing Islam is not calling for genocide or racism in any way, because Islam is an *ideology* with characteristics pretty similar to National Socialism. Islam is not an ethnicity nor race, and
2) Opposing those who oppose Islam is effectively the same as supporting the Nazis. I know you didn't do this on purpose, you just had confusion about people that opposed Islam (mistaking them as racists, when in fact they want to preserve the freedoms and liberties we currently have against the Islamic ideology that open states it wants to destroy freedom for all peoples [especially ethnic and cultural minorities]).
It's always ok to be wrong, provided you consider new facts as they are presented to you. That's the Scientific Method in action. I hope I've been able to enlighten you somewhat. To oppose the political ideology Islam is *not* racist in any way - it is standing up for freedom for all races and cultures against the very real goal of Islam to dominate and subjugate all non-Muslims.
Does that make sense to you now? Thanks for interacting long enough I could get to the core of your misunderstanding, and have now hopefully corrected it. Stand up for freedom for all people - stand up against Islam and stand with those who oppose it (eg. the flawed but very brave Israelis; the freedom fighters for the rights of Muslim women like Pamela Geller; for Coptic Christians like Raymond Ibrahim; and for all Christians and secularists like the great Robert Spencer).
One thing you can say about the Egyptians and their pyramids, despite no one practicing their religion (in numbers): despite Cairo being 9:1 Muslim:Coptic Christian, no one will ever forget the people who built them. As long as humans exist on this earth anyway.
You may be interested to note that the Salafis released after the fall of Mubarak (thanks to the clueless Obama pulling the rug out from under him and unleashing the Islamists across the region) wish to destroy the 'pagan' Pyramids and Sphinx just as they blew up the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and destroyed the medieval mosque in Timbuktu, Mali in the last year. Now not every Egyptian feel this way, but these guys are "on a mission from Allah" and feel they are commanded to destroy all non-Muslim cultural artifacts. As time goes one expect the Salafis to win additional power over more moderate Islamicists (just as in any organisation those who can claim to be 'holier than thou' can marginalise moderate voices, leading to the organization becoming more and more extreme over time).
Mandatory citations of the proposed madness:
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/12/249092.html
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-brotherhood-destroy-the-pyramids/
Here's a claim made nearly half a year later, showing that the call for destruction was not an isolated incident or single imam, but an intended goal of the Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood once they are in a position to do so:
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/muslim-brotherhood-backed-egyptian-president-renews-call-for-destruction-of-pyramids-and-sphinx/14432.htm
Now here is the apologies for the Islamicists from a left-leaning media source (typical, the leftist media in the US loves Islam and make excuses every way they can). It claims that the calls for destruction of the pyramids were a 'hoax' yet then goes on to say the claims were 'fringe'. That means the claims were *real* (not a hoax as the apologist makes out) but still on the fringe. The pyramids are safe, for now, but expect as Egypt becomes more and more extreme. This is also the plan of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis to impose more and more Sharia on Egypt progressively [incidentally, what they are trying to do through 'Cultural Jihad' through the OIC-dominated UN is similar, but on a much longer timescale so ordinary joes won't notice the installation of special rights for Muslims and limits being placed on Free Speech for non-Muslims; all in accordance with Sharia and enacted through "political correctness"].
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/blow-up-the-pyramids-u-s-pundits-fall-for-a-hoax.html
The Islamicists aim to take over the World (as the Qur'an commands them to). If they are prepared to rob other cultures of irreplaceable antiquities just how much less do they value your human rights or even your life. Islam must be stopped by all Free People (regardless of our differences in political leanings or beliefs in the best economic system). If we don't unite to stop Islam our culture will be destroyed and forgotten, just as the former cultures of the Middle East have been (eg. Roman/Byzantine culture that lasted around 2500 years; the Persians with a similar heritage; the Graeco-Egyptian culture in Egypt; etc). Israel is first on the chopping block and then the West is next (as the Muslims say to themselves, "First the Saturday people and then the Sunday people" [the planned order of conquest and subjgation]).
Most people simply aren't aware just how barbaric Islam is. No wonder, the Lefti
Thanks. I'm glad some readers didn't mind the recap (there was a lot going on, and it affects the claims of legitimacy today).
After the shit calling for death you are calling me a troll?
False. Please point out a single statement where I call for death of anyone who isn't an imminent armed jihadi threat? You are just making stuff up. The reason you make stuff up is because you can't debate on the facts I've presented.
After the shit calling for death you are calling me a troll?
False. I did a long PhD working on gravitational microlensing and the associated software techniques for detecting and analysing these events - including such events such as MACHO-1995-BLG-30 (first finite source gravitational microlensing event) and MACHO-98-BLG-35 (first possible planet detected with gravitational microlensing). Again you are in demonisation mode because you are avoiding the fact - you have been shown to being anti-rationalist and anti-scientific by a scientist (well, ex-scientist, I'm on to vastly more lucrative work now).
So what is your scientific qualifications, please? Either put up or admit you don't actually know much about the Scientific Method (which explains why your worldview is so out of date, you refuse to accept new evidence and facts that are staring everyone in the face, and that makes you just plain wrong about the ideology and nature of Islam as it *really* is). So, your scientific credentials please?
Thanks for that criticism. It's noted. I wanted to put it in there because many people in the West go past legitimate criticism of Israel into racism. Once you start thinking about it you'll see how people who don't think they are being racist actually are. They go past the facts and judge people based on their ethnicity/nationality. I think we can agree that racism against anyone is bad yes? (primarily because your race is not something you have the power to change, unlike say, a political affiliation where you can change from Nazi to anti-Nazi or Islamist to secularist etc). I hope that softens your judgement on that statement a little? Thanks for the feedback :)
You are correct. That was the mindset of "Eretz Israel" at the time. However, the Israeli Government has changed policies - which is why it gave Gaza back (hoping for peace, but instead they got more rockets - perfectly predictable if you understand that Islam is a large factor in driving the Arab political decision making).
Now there are still factions of Israeli society that still believe in this concept. The Israeli Government does try and reign them in. You can compare that to the Palestinians where the terrorists *are* the Government. Anyway, I agree with your point, but please understand it is of historical interest and is not the stated policy of the Israeli Government for the last decade (times change! but unfortunately many people's understanding of the situation is colored from decades ago, rather than the policies today).
ps. If the Israelis really were interested in driving all the Palestinians out for real, just how many days do you think their mighty IDF would take to accomplish this? not long, yeah? it should be clear when you think about it that the Israelis believe what they say, they are prepared for a Two State Solution provided there is permanent peace and mutual recognition (although I have the sneaking suspicion that the Israelis also know the Arab terrorist government could never agree to this - the Qur'an won't let them; but that is not Israel's fault, they're just making use of the ideology of their opponent).
I live in New Zealand. There is a claim that the Maori here (of which I have ancestry) displaced an earlier wave of migration, the Moriori. Fortunately the Maori polynesians pretty much wiped out the pacifist Morioris and the last full-blooded Moriori died out nearly a century ago. Even the polynesians can't claim to be immune to the territory grabs and conquest that every other country is afflicted by.
Oh, and let the lesson of pacificism in the case of genocidal invaders be a lesson to you all - we can;t appeas Islam or our 21st Century Culture will be supplanted destroyed by a 7th Century Culture.
So, to sum up, Jews had been living in what is now Israel for roughly 3,000 years, the same as the Palestinians.
False. The Arab invasion was 1300 years ago. The time scales are different. Now we may argue that the 'Palestinian' Arabs may deserve to return to Israel (ignoring the fact there are over 1 million Arabs already in Israel), but then we could also argue that a far larger number of Jews then deserve to return to Muslim majority countries without fear of persecution. Trying to re-litigate history is fraught with peril. If the Arabs have claims then the Jews/Israelis also have counter-claims (which are are rarely mentioned, and I did not see that in your post). I hope you watched the links I posted for the legal status of the situation :)
No worries. Just one more tiny point, the land wasn't "UK". It was a Mandate granted by the League of Nations for the UK to administer (not own). I know I'm picking hairs here, but given the nature of the subject it pays to be a little pedantic with regards to the history.
What idiot would think that the Jews only got there after 1948?
Dude, you would be surprised. It is a common refrain of some Islamic supremacists that the Jews have no right to the land because they all came from Europe to displace Arabs at the end of WWII. That's why they mistakenly call for all Israelis to go back to Europe. Since even Western readers are also often confused I thought I'd better make the history explicit, and some folks might learn something. Much of the political problems are due to intentional or unintentional re-writing of history. I didn't mean to suggest you didn't know this. I just saw that some could misconstrue your original post as being that the Israelis only arrived at the end of WWII because the UK put them there - and displaced Arabs in some fit of colonialism. Since that meme is common, but not true, I thought I'd post just so no-one gets confused. I did not mean to raise your hackles.
That's what the Palestinians said ;-)
I understand the point you are trying to make, but shall we examine the facts instead? The original inhabitants of the land at the turn of the 20th Century is about 5% of the current population. In the 19th Century and earlier the population hadn't changed for about 400 years. What does this mean? It means that there has been immigration and massive birth rate increases for both Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Arabs have been in Palestine for about 1300 years and the Jews for about 3000 - but both in relatively small numbers in the last 500 years. The notion that the Jews displaced the Arabs in a sparsely inhabited country is not borne out by the known populations. What was scarce was arable land until the Jews set about draining the swamps. Meanwhile, many Arab farmers abandoned tracts of land due to the predations of the Bedouin. Please have a read of the following research from Harvard
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=spring01/&name=myth
What this means is that claiming that the Palestinian Arabs were displaced is a myth. What happened is that after hundreds of years of extremely low population growth the Palestinians started breeding and immigrating from other Arab countries. Meanwhile the many non-Arabs also immigrated and their birth rate also went up. They simply made more land area from swamp and filled the empty land (when I visited the area I couldn't believe what an empty and barren dump Samaria is - as they say, "the fighting is so vicious because the stakes are so small" [plus, there are the genocidal goals of the religious folks too - on both sides, but Government sponsored on the Arab side]). The Jews and Jewish Agencies also purchased land from willing sellers - as the article points out. That means the sentiment of your statement is not historically correct. Given the inflammatory nature of the subject it is better not to put false memes out there and try stick to the facts where they are known. Sound good?
I wasn't passing moral judgement for or against the terrorism (although my private opinion is that this was bad). I mentioned it because I don't want to deny it happened and it was significant.
Oustanding!
Bill Whittle once made an interesting statement about land ownership, recognizing how complex it is the further you go back in history in *all* countries. He said, "There are only two unique claims to the land, the first inhabitants and the last inhabitants". I would add, the guys who are able to hold the land against all comers can be the owners, if you can't hold the land - or you depopulate yourself (crazy Russia and 'traditional' European populations) then it is probably going to be taken away from you. This sucks, but that is the nature of Nature. No point whining about it, as some do - just get on with improving your claim (and the lives of citizens).
The *UN* offered Israel and the Palestinian Arabs nation status in 1948. The Israelis accepted, the Palestinians did not. Your assertion was that the UK did this. This is not true. The UK's involvement was from 1917 to 1948 and primarily in 1922 in the League of Nations providing an area in their Mandate for Jews in Palestine.
It's just that your post was inaccurate. No problem, I was just fixin' it for ya and adding detail lest people get the mistaken impression that Jews only arrived in the place after WWII and at the behest of the UK, when they'd been there all along (even if in small numbers in the Middle Ages) and formed a country based on the League of Nations, UK and most importantly, the United Nations all forming the legal basis for the State of Israel.
I didn't mean offense by correcting you, but your post did need correction to be historically accurate (and then I took the liberty to go into more detail about some of the aspects of the situation and history). Hopefully some people will learn some correct historical facts as a result, I'm sure you don't mind that :)
I was not saying the Jews were the majority, so I agree with you. What is important is that Jews had been living there continuously for 3000 years. Most people think that the *all* Jews were evicted by the Romans, but this is not true (the ban was Jerusalem only, AFAIK).
What I did meant is that the British controlling the region at the time generally used the words "Palestinian" and "Arab" to refer to Jews and Arabs respectively. Even more importantly the arabs of the region did not generally refer to themselves as "Palestinian" (since my understanding is that they saw themselves as part of the Arab nation greater than any nation) - this was a later invention by PLO leaders so they could claim Haifa and Tel Aviv etc in the eyes of the World and deligitimize Israel and legitimize their planned genocide/ethnic cleansing (as my citation from Al Rassooli indicates, in the words of PLO founders themselves). I hope that point wasn't missed.
Actually, Rachel Corrie put herself in harm's way where the bulldozer driver could not see her. She committed suicide by bulldozer, dude. Check the facts. That's why the driver was cleared, she idiotically placed herself in a position the driver simply could not see and therefore could not stop. Same would happen to the idiots that walk in front of buses in every city when they are jabbering on their cellphones.
Racist.
Were you aware that many of the Arabs now living in Israel were labourers imported by the Jews that were living there continuously for over 3000 years? the names of many Arab families give it away, eg "Al Misri" indicates the person was an immigrant from Egypt. Before 1967 the word "Palestinian" usually meant a Jew living in Palestine, while the Arabs were simply "Arabs". The word "Palestinian" was co-opted in 1967 by the terrorist PLO so they could continue their genocidal plans against the Jews. Please see my earlier post in the thread for references of this:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3682915&cid=43543411
In response to your claim of "terrorism" by the State of Israel you probably need to get clued up on the legalities. Here's a video for you to look at that covers the relevant International Law. It turns out that only by denying International Law can you claim that the State of Israel is terrorist. You can claim it is heavy handed etc, but you cannot claim it has no legal basis to do what it does (which would make it a "terrorist" state). In short, Israel is not a terrorist state, despite what its critics would like you to believe (and many do believe the falsehood, because they never ever check the historical facts from objective sources):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2x5UvjUs4 [youtube.com] "The Legal Case for Israel" (46 minutes)
Since you are Jewish you might also want to learn about the history of Palestine. You would see that the Israelis have an extremely good case for their right to be there (of course, the whole notion of a people having to justify their right to be in a land they inhabited continuously for over 3000 years is pretty immoral, but we won't worry about that here). I've got some *factual* videos you may wish to look at in this post (which I'll link to rather than re-post):
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3682915&cid=43543411
Israel does have a right to do what it is doing as a UN Member State. That's why it cannot be touched on legal grounds (despite the rantings of the genocidal OIC-bloc in the UN).
False. Your recall of history is factually incorrect - which makes your assertion about the UK ridiculous.
The League of Nations in 1922 declared an intention to create the states of Palestine and Transjordan. Palestine was a Jewish region of the Ottoman Empire and 'Palestinians' meant Jewish dhimmis in the Palestine region. Arabs were simply 'Arabs'. Palestine was to get all the land west of the Jordan River and Transjordan the land to the East. Then the British decides to split the Palestine region into a Jewish part and an Arab part. The Jews living in the region had been living there continuously for 3000 years (although Jews were temporarily excluded from Jerusalem in 70 AD and in the 3rd Century, but remained in the surrounding areas). In the late 18th Century the 'zionist' movement got going and the Jews that were already in the region were joined by Jews from other parts of the World. These Jews bought swampy land near the coast that the Arabs didn't want. The Jews set to work clearing the swamps and started importing Arabs from other parts of the Arab world (most of whom arrived *after* the Jews, and in 1967 took the name 'Palestinians' for political reasons I'll explain later).
World War II came along and many Jews fled to Palestine if they could. The British kept many of them out (where they were murdered in millions by the National Socialists). Meanwhile the Mufti of Jerusalem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni headed to Hitler and suggested the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem (reminding Hitler that if the Jews were exteminated no one would remember them, citing how the Armenians were mostly forgotten by the Turkish genocidal jihad against Armenians in 1915). The Mufti also proceeded to the Balkans to raise a pair of Bosnian and SS Divisions that killed tens of thousands of Yugoslavian Jews. The Mufti was not a nice man.
After World War II ended many surviving Jews were convinced that Europe would always be anti-Semitic and left for Palestine (which is true, we see a rise again today; one cannot be racist but it is perfectly acceptable in polite society, politics and academia these days to demonize all Israelis without considering individuals - if you are doing this you are in fact a racist; please stop being racist).
The Jews conducted terrorism against the British and the British decided to leave Palestine (it was also in an anti-colonial mindset and divesting itself of all colonies as well at that time, eg India etc). In 1948 the UN offered states for Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Jews accepted and Israel was formed. The Arabs rejected the UN plan and attacked with the armies of many neighbouring Arab states as part of the Arab League (and driven by several things; the lust for land and conquest and the intention to commit genocide of Jews as commanded in the Qur'an and hadiths). The Arab Legion told the Arabs in Palestine to move out of the area so that the genocide would be easier. These Arabs are the refugees that no Arab host country wants to integrate. The Jews also had to flee Judea, Samaria in the face of the Arab League armies and were expelled from Arab countries (eg. Egypt). The Jewish refugees were accepted as full citizens by Israel. The Arabs who remained in Israel were accepted as full citizens, and were given Members of the Knesset (eg. similar to Congressmen/Senators in the Israeli political system). There are about 1 million Arab Israelis (who fight for Israel, because they see themselves as citizens of *their* country) and have 3 Members of Knesset. After a year of fighting the Israelis won and their State survived.
After 1948 the Jordanians annexed Judea and Samaria and renamed it "The West Bank" [of the Jordan] to deflect any Jewish historical claim on it. The Egyptians occupied Gaza. The Arabs in Gaza did not call themselves "Palestinian" (a term used for Jews before 1948) but instead called themselves "Egyptian". The Arabs in the West Bank did
Israel used to be mostly ignored by the US until 1970 when Israel help save the King of Jordan from being overthrown by Palestinian terrorists. The US concluded that the Israelis were trustworthy allies and an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the region - which the US could use to further their interests (particularly against Soviet influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East). The US needed Israel more than the other way around (since before this the Israelis mostly got arms from the French and Russians-via-Czechoslovakia).
The loss of Israel would be very bad for US self-interest - which is why the US does what it does. Conspiracy theory fruitcakes always start frothing that the Jews control the White House this is utterly false. The Jews and Israelis have influence in the US, but are among many influences. The White House today is instead heavily infiltrated by racist Jew-hating Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, refer: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates. I'm digressing here because of all the bullshit spun about that the White House is controlled by Jews - this is false, ever since George W Bush it is the jew-haters that have excessive influence in the State Department and White House.
Note that the jihadi Arabs like the *Egyptian* Yasser Arafat caused murder and instability in Israel, Gaza[then illegally occupied by Egypt], Judea/Samaria/West Bank [then illegally occupied by Jordan]), Jordan proper, Lebanon, and globally (Munich, Pan Am, Achilles Lauro murder etc). Israel is a bulwark against these guys and it suits the US to do the heavy lifting. The Israelis also tend to take out nuclear weapons programmes, like Iraq, Syria and soon-to-strike Iran when it would be more politically difficult for the US.
The US 'aid' programme to the Israelis also benefits the US more than the Israelis. US tax dollars are used to pay US companies for equipment the Israelis use (including regional supplies and munitions the US intend to call on, if ever in a pinch).
The relationship between Israel and the US works for both parties. It turns out that the US receives far far more benefit from this than most in the US realize (and certainly much more benefits than the anti-Israeli left-leaning media would have you believe). I hope that gives some explanation as to why Israel gets so much attention from the US after the 1970's (replying to the parent AC's true statement by way of explanation).
That's right, keep attacking personally like you deluded Lefties always do. Never, ever look for facts or counter facts. That's the tactic, eh?
Actually, I gained my PhD over a dozen years ago working on this project: http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/moa/ where I contributed software and algorithms that were used to find extra-solar planets. So, let's examine your credentials, eh? See what your scientific backgrounds is. I bet you don't have a background in hard science, which is why your outlook is stuck somewhere in the 1960s and utterly anti-scientific.
No matter how many references and citations I have provided you still would not have looked at them. It is this that leads you to have a worldview out of touch with reality, coupled with a lack of any kind of reasonable or scientific outlook that would correct the flaws in your world model. That's why you defend insanity and don't listen to what people are *actually* saying - instead inventing strawmen in your tiny little mind (despite me explicitly making statements before you even invented the strawmen; it appears you have comprehension trouble with basic reading). This is all so you never have to think outside The Matrix you gladly inhabit.
You think your are morally correct but because you refuse to be evidence base you are instead immoral by supporting evil (the evidence is there for all to see at places like this, if you ever care to get fact based: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). Supporting evil makes *you* evil.
Goodbye anti-scientific dhimmi - your mind is closed and your life is wasted. It is a shame to throw away you life with a closed mind. It appears you'll never use objective evidence to decide how to stand up for personal freedoms and liberty and women's rights and homosexual rights and protection of *all* faiths on an equal basis (as misguided as they are) - which means standing against Islam and all its evil supremacist commands (eg. Sura 9:29 & 9:5). Go back under your bridge little troll that is massively under-endowed with any faculties of reason.