Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Because we think that we're more important than them.

(closet racism in reality)


I actually agree with your Argument here.

Though my own conclusion is that no-one should have them, rather than that everyone should have them.

But yes, it is racist to say that ours is better than other cultures.
 
1974_eating_popcorn.gif
 
Because we think that we're more important than them.

(closet racism in reality)

True, we've been persecuting jews for near on a thousand years. For example

York Pogrom of March 16 1190 – The York Pogrom in England, Rehearsal of Crusaders’ Massacres

a tradition that has continued with little abatement, since.

If i were a jew, I'd be a little defensive about my neighbours trying to capture my house and family again.

The palestinians feel equally so, but a couple of generations rather than 40.

Blame Balfour, our foreign secretary of 1917....
 
With the rapid escalation of insults on this thread its not too difficult to see why nations go to war is it ? One of the great things about the human race is that we are all different . Unfortunately these differences also sometimes serve to engender hatred and hostility. As for one god , i think i will take the fifth on that .:p
 
I mean look at countries like North Korea with nuclear weapons. South Korea hates the North and through propoganda and persistent moaning (and provoking, like when they did military drills which were technically in the north) they got America involved. The north are now worried about America, though they pretend not to be and keep slagging off America as 'puppet masters' amongst other things. So the north go and develop nuclear weapons, just in case, because they know America has them and wants to use them one day. Now America are trying to force the north to get rid of their nuclear weapons. See my point yet? Countries like America want to be superior to everyone else, so threatening others and developing their own nuclear weapons helps achieve this. So why are they thinking of fighting Iran but just irritating North Korea? Firstly NK is harmless (they aren't actually planning to attack anyone except the south, who have their own propoganda and provoke anyway </controversial>) and secondly guess who has oil?
 
They do?

But...

"Jews are protected in the Iranian constitution and seat is reserved for a Jew in the Majlis.[12] Iran hosts the largest Jewish population of any Muslim-majority country.[18] After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East."

Persian Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL.

I'd stick 'declining' after 'second largest'.

And that's in a country with a relatively high population growth rate.
 
correct me if i'm wrong, but, were there not other locations ear-marked for the state of israel in 1946. i'm probably wrong but i'm sure i heard that somewhere in portugal or spain was proposed to parliament along with palastine and a few other locations.

although i think the israel/palestine situation has a part to play in this i'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the fact that iran is currently engaged in massive currency swaps with the chinese, the russians and the venezualins.

Before the iraq war saddam was contemplating selling his oil in euros which would have reduced the us influence. what iran are currently doing is similar to this.

i'm against the war whole-heartedly because the first people to suffer would be any british troops stationed in afganisthan (apart from the innocent iranians of course).
 
LOL.

I'd stick 'declining' after 'second largest'.

And that's in a country with a relatively high population growth rate.

however dryce, jewish people are treated much worse by our 'best friends' in the region Saudi Arabia.
 
the quote that is usually banded about when iran and israel are brought up is that Ahmadinejad said something along the lines of 'israel must be wiped off the map' however many farsi professors have said this hasn't been translated correctly and a closer interpritation would be 'zionism will be wiped off the pages of history'.

This would be similar to Thatcher saying 'communism will be wiped from the pages of history', it doesn't mean she wanted to kill all soviets or wipe there country from the face of the earth, it would have meant she opposed the political regime in moscow.

the same is true of Ahmadinejad, he doesn't want to kill all jewish people, if he did he could start with the 25000 currently living in iran.
 
however dryce, jewish people are treated much worse by our 'best friends' in the region Saudi Arabia.

Assuming there are any in the country to treat in any way at all .....

I wouldn't use the behaviour of one particularly unenlightened ME country as justification for excusing the not very nice behaviour of another.
 
Assuming there are any in the country to treat in any way at all .....

I wouldn't use the behaviour of one particularly unenlightened ME country as justification for excusing the not very nice behaviour of another.

I'm not, I'm just trying to highlight the double standards we have in the media visa ve the middle east.
 
I'm not, I'm just trying to highlight the double standards we have in the media visa ve the middle east.

It's not a double standard. It is *the* standard.

It starts something along the lines of "Hmmmm. We think you're not so nice but we want/need to do business with you so we'll quietly overlook any issues". When it gets to "we'll make any necessary excuses for you" as well then it's potentially rather unhealthy.

*The* standard applies to international relations, politics (oh the joy of coalitions), trading partners, friends, and family relationships.

The extreme form of *the* standard is the my enemy's enemy sort of stuff.
 
It's not a double standard. It is *the* standard.

It starts something along the lines of "Hmmmm. We think you're not so nice but we want/need to do business with you so we'll quietly overlook any issues". When it gets to "we'll make any necessary excuses for you" as well then it's potentially rather unhealthy.

*The* standard applies to international relations, politics (oh the joy of coalitions), trading partners, friends, and family relationships.

The extreme form of *the* standard is the my enemy's enemy sort of stuff.

Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
 
True, we've been persecuting jews for near on a thousand years. For example

York Pogrom of March 16 1190 – The York Pogrom in England, Rehearsal of Crusaders’ Massacres

a tradition that has continued with little abatement, since.

If i were a jew, I'd be a little defensive about my neighbours trying to capture my house and family again.

The palestinians feel equally so, but a couple of generations rather than 40.

Blame Balfour, our foreign secretary of 1917....


...and in 1290 London Jews were drowned in the Thames near Queenborough following Edward's Edict of Expulsion.

But how far back do you want to take this?

Surely we should proceed from where we are now, rather than dwell on the past?

The Jews or Arab's history in the Middle East is a relevant as that of the Native American or the Aborigines.

The Jews are where they are now, and the Arabs are whre they are, let's try and work solution from that rather than move population around in an attempt to right a wrong with another wrong.
 
Last edited:
Assuming there are any in the country to treat in any way at all .....

I wouldn't use the behaviour of one particularly unenlightened ME country as justification for excusing the not very nice behaviour of another.

Last time I looked Isreali Arabs seem to be treated as second class citizens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

Turns out there are 600 churches in Iran too.
 
Last edited:
Last time I looked Isreali Arabs seem to be treated as second class citizens?


They are indeed. Which is why they should be Citizens of the long-overdue Palestinian State, and not Citizens of Israel, the Jewish State.

The solution is Palestine for the Arabs, Israel for the Jews.

But let's not move any more people around. You can't fix a Nakba with another Nakba. Every wave of forced population relocation leaves the last ones evicted with a feeling of injustice and simply perpetuates the conflict.

My view is that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be re-drawn based on existing population centres. The heavily Arab populated Galilee should go to the Palestinian State. The areas already heavily populated by Jews outside the 1967 border should remain Israeli.

Past injustices should be acknowledged, but not acted upon. This is why I mentioned the Native Americans and the Aborigines.
 
Last edited:
They are indeed. Which is why they should be Citizens of the long-overdue Palestinian State, and not Citizens of Israel, the Jewish State.

The solution is Palestine for the Arabs, Israel for the Jews.

But let's not move any more people around. You can't fix a Nakba with another Nakba. Every wave of forced population relocation leaves the last ones evicted with a feeling of injistruce and simply perpetuates the conflict.

My view is that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be re-drawn based on existing population centres. The heavily Arab populated Galilee should go to the Palestinian State. The areas already heavily populated by Jews outside the 1967 border should remain Israeli.

Why don't we just use the existing boarders, and accept that there's no harm in having a multi ethnic population (as has existed for 000's of years?)
 
Why don't we just use the existing boarders, and accept that there's no harm in having a multi ethnic population (as has existed for 000's of years?)


That would be nice, if it worked. But Israel is suffering from post holocaust traumatic syndrome, it perceives everything as a threat (and now Iran), and will shoot anything that moves in the long grass (including the Palestinians), asking questions later.

The Palestinians are fragmented and their various organisations compete for popular support based on who inflicts the most pain on Israel.

The result is an ongoing and very violent conflict. The two populations should be separated, if they can't live together.
 
Last edited:
That would be nice, if it worked. But Israel is suffering from post holocaust traumatic syndrome, and will shoot anything that moves in the long grass.

The Palestinians are fragmented and their various organisations comepte for popular support based on who inflicts the most damage on Israel.

The result is an ongoing and very violent conflict. The two populations should be separated, if they can't live together.

Well a good starting point would be to look at who's living where.

For example an Isreali Arab who happens to live (due to being there in 1948) in what's now Israel should no be booted out just because they're seen as the wrong race.

However the settlers - a group of people who seem to have deliberatly put themselves in a place where they aren't welcome or have any right to be in, should be posted back to Isreal.

There seems to be only one nation that is getting in the way of peace, and refuses to go back behind it's boarders.
 
...a group of people who seem to have deliberatly put themselves in a place where they aren't welcome or have any right to be in....

I think that's where we disagree. This argument - again - goes back to past injustices. I do not doubt that the Jews should not have settled in those areas after 1967, but they would say that there are now 300,000 of them living there, many already second generation.

This conflict will never get resolved on 'who's right' basis.

'everyone stop where you are' is the only practical way to get this resolved, in my view. And Israel will loose more land than it gains if the land is to be re-distributed based on current population concentrations.


PS - Apologies for editing my previous post after you started replying to it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom