Will Israel still exist in 2048 ?

It wasn't racist motivation, it was both a security and political motivation in a time of conflict. A conflict where the arabs were intent on eliminating the jews - pushing them into the sea whilst the jews were intent on establishing Israel as their homeland.

Guess some can't understand how ungenerous the jews were to the people whose objective was once again their elmination. Wow, such unnobility.

It is nothing like what the Afrikaners did, with completely different motivations, intentions and outcomes.

Your just upset that the Jews won in 1948 and they kicked out a number of palestinians. If the arabs had won, in 1948 there would be no jews in Palestine right now.

You wage a war with the intent to completely destroy your enemy and you lose, so when the enemy decides you are not welcome in the territory they won by force of arms, you call it ethnic cleansing, and evil. That's about as hypocritical as it gets. There are no jews in the Palestinian controlled areas, no jews in most of the surrounding arab countries, but 20% of Israel's population are arabs.

You cannot message the debate like you are attempting to do either. Its called hypocrisy.

 

REality is reality. Can't be denied.

Lame. truly lame. Where are the jews screaming about how different they are? Why include the US with the Jews? I suspect that your excuse for a different standard is not your real reason.

Really? where are these dastardly jews walking around with placards? How do they remind you of their jewishness? Why should they behave like you in the first place?

Nonsense. Human nature includes discrimination, as you well know. The only people I have found that actually think in terms of uber/untermensche are racist neo-nazi white power pinheads.

 

1993, started reading all about Islam. Entire Koran and bukhari hadith and most of the others. After 9/11, my Nephew at West Point helped research and write
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/militant-ideology-atlas
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Atlas-ResearchCompendium1.pdf
directing me to the Islamic Scholars most often quoted by the Islamic fundamentalists. Read the writings of Abu al-Mundhir (al-) Sa`idi, Abu Muhammad (al-) Maqdisi, Ayman (al-) Zawahiri, Hasan Abd Al-Rahman, Ibn Taymiyya, Marwan Hadid, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Sayyid Qutb and about 10 others. Everything written or recorded from Bin Laden....and I have developed a disdain for Islamic Doctrine. True, the views of the above are most popular among the Arabs, but I have equal disdain for the doctrine, no matter the race of the follower.

 

But that's just not true, is it?

It is all down to feeling so superior, usually an undeserving sense of superiority, that you feel others are lesser. When you get to that level, you can then justify almost any actions to yourself, that you carry out against those that have been dehumanised and depersonalised.

And that is precisely what Israel, rather this perversion that is Zionism has done to the people of Palestine - they have, without doubt, save for in the minds of Zionists themselves, totally dehumanised and depersonalised an entire people.

 

Hopefully - it will guarantee its security if it recognizes the Palestinians and ends the region's cause for conflict.

 

Funny how your conceptualization of 'Islamic doctrine' is entirely comprised of Islamist and radical writing. Last time I mentioned him, you didnt know who Mohammad Abduh or Al Afghani were. Not only this you paste slabs of cherry picked passages from the Quran that are all violent and then reject any and every call to contextualize them. No I think your alleged knowledge is nothing more than a joke. The problem with anti-Islamic folk like you is you think the only 'true' Islam is the radical or extremist type and are all to keen to mislead others through propaganda and ignorance.

 

Future generations of Israelis must move to this..

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...799-israel-needs-its-own-gandhi-flourish.html

 

first boooomp.

 

Id say that pretty accurately describes the Palestinians specifically, and Muslims generally when it comes to jews.

 

I wouldnt consider the koran or hadiths to be "radical writing" from the perspective of Muslims.

 

Yes but the "Muslims" you refer to are only some, and even then they are themselves radicals - all of them with specific agendas and within conditions that often explain their interpretation. Its interesting how the book you referred to concluded with a section on how such radical thought it lists could be combated WITHIN Islam itself - ie Islam and its theological and theoretical features could combat radical thought itself. I do not consider the Quran or hadith "radical" in any serious sense. All religion is heightened in its pursuits and often in its action but at the end of the day such backward or dangerous elements can be discarded as has occurred within all religions over time and place.

 

All faithful Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God. The word of God is not subject to reinterpretation by mankind. It transcends time. That fact alone prevents a Muslim Reformation.

 

LOL Total ignorance. Quran is the word of God, yes. Can Muslims use context and time to explain these revelations, HELL YES. Should they do so? Muhammad INSTRUCTED THEM to do this, so obviously yes. Can there be a Muslim reformation, of course. There is an interesting take about Ali and a Kharijite messenger relevant to this point about the Quran. I can tell it to you if you are interested.

 

The Jewish State as we know it will not exist. It cannot continue to be a Jewish Democraxy. The majority of people will soon be Palestinian and if given the opportunity would make it a Muslim state. So the Isreali's will have to either give up being a religious state or being a free state. And I would bet that they give up on the later much earlier.

 

There is a myth if you claim that most of the people that we call Palestinians today are offspring of people who immigrated to that area within the past century, like Joan Peters tried to do in her book "From time immemorial".

I am glad to read that you do not subscribe to this Myth.

 

When you create a country and you label it a Jewish State, that is racist by definition, and that view has got absolutely nothing to do with who started the 1948 war and who won it. Racism flows from the very definition.

How can you create a Jewish state if Jews are in the minority? You simply HAVE to clean out "the others" and that is exactly what happened. I am not interested whether it was the Zionist intention to do so; it is just to easy to massage original "intentions". I just know that they could not have achieved the Jewishness of Israel if they had not fomented the Arab exodus. So I am inclined to believe that they intended this exit of Arabs all along.

When you come to the comparison between the Afrikaners trying to create a country with a white majority, and the Israelis having created a country with a Jewish majority in order to achieve their goal, I see vastly more important similarities than differences. The Afrikaners failed because they had no propaganda machine. The Zionists have in turn been wildly successful. We see them at work with spin and myths regarding 1948 to this very day, and on this forum. In this regard see http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ict-truth-about-west-bank-10.html#post4556158 where I discuss who was responsible for the conflict in 1947/48, which touches on your point above, so I won't repeat it here.

 

Booomp. FYI

 

Tell me all about it. Ali was a heretic.

 

There's a third choice. War.

 

I'm waiting.

 

Can't see how a jewish state can be racist by its mere existence.

Jews aren't in the minority in the jewish state of Israel. They sure as heck did kick about a fair number of arabs as they fought the war. I tend to believe that forced evacuation was more a "strategy of opportunity" since all things considered, the war went surprisingly well for them.

If the Israelis also shared the same degree of intolerance and demeaning racial attitudes of the Afrikaners, there might be some justification to your argument, but they don't.

Better PR? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You want to play the blame game on who started the war of independence? No need, I'll gladly admit that Israel started the shooting war by declaring their independence. So what? Its not like the arabs didn't want to clean their clocks or anything.

 

you mean here?

lets first define what is a zionist, in this forum book a zionist is the anti christ, a real zionist is a person that wants to make a jewish homland in Israel, considering the first and geuine zionists worked with the native arabs - they had no border issue, it was clear that jewish settelments were for jews and arabs for arabs, the arab nation attack changed that, neighbors turned into enemies.

Your useage of the word for the founders of Israel as to describe the greatest catastrophy the world has yet seen is delibarate, you intend to de-legitemise our existance just like hamass headquertes instructed, it points to one thing:

your real intent - no peace , ever, that's cool but the world will sonner or later discover that, enjoy your support while it lasts,

If that's true, i have no disagrement with you, still you use the term for mockery

 

Romanticized horse-dung, the stuff of the Irgun and Stern Gang recruitment office. Catch up;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Zionism

 

Those are military organisations created after it was clear, throu ceasless attacks, that jews were not welcomed,

im talking about pioneers, ww1 and before

 

But those were not the Zionists who created Israel, Gilos....they were the mostly religious Zionists who generally arrived in Palestine legally in the time of the Ottoman empire, and who generally got along reasonably well with the Palestinians..... Zionists who were realising a personal dream, not the political dream which was the hallmark of the later arrivals.

If Zionist immigration had been in regular absorbable numbers as intended by the Mandate, and had not resulted in the deluge of secular European Zionists, using the book of the religion they did not practise as a spurious justification of entitlement and with the stated intention of taking the land over, violently if necessary...maybe by 2048 there would have been one state with Jews and non-Jews living side by side and getting on as well as the natures of some individuals within the communities allowed.

But Britain dropped the ball until it was too late to pick it up again, because by then the regular trickle had become a flood of Zionists, and the British were unable to stem the tide.........because when they tried Jewish Terrorism started.

I can do fantasy land as well as any Zionist.......and I can see one state being the case in 2048 anyway..but it is such a shame that there has been all the unnecessary deaths on both sides while both sides struggle to get their heads round the idea that neither will ever get exactly what they want and decide to compromise on the lines of the possible, and not continue to argue over dogma, self written entitlement claims..like political charters and words from a Bible the majority of the world does not view as historically accurate

I can see no reason for not having a secular single state, which is not Jewish, Christian or Islamic, but where all religions have the same rights...and all people have the same rights. Where Jewish settlers are entitled to live in the areas currently allocated to non-Jewish Palestinians...and non-Jewish Palestinians are as entitled to build and live anywhere in the areas currently mostly inhabited by Jews ....where aquifers are shared fairly among all who need water....a state where there are no "no-go" areas for anybody..and where there is discussion and agreement and not land stealing and oppression.

Maybe the first truly democratic state in the world?