Ok, Ignore my Previous post.

Iridiel, if you understand whats going on so much, and this has nothing to do with Islamic culture, then please explain to me why Egypt just had a HUGE riot and destroyed the building of the Ferry company that lost a ship that caused 1,000 people to die.

I don't seem to remember Europe or America destroying the buildings that belong to the company that sailed the Titanic.

This post has nothing to do with this thread, however.. People seem to have been unable to read timestamps or understand how moving posts works, and therefore I have taken on my posts out of another thread with an earlier timestamp from Aikons, and put it here in this thread... so you can stop accussing me of things I didn't do!

If anyone can find the post that Aikon was refering to to mention the "Israel Problem" please tell me so I can put it here as I could not find any.

Daganev.. will you please try and get a sense of perspective.

And with regards the Israel problem.. it would do us all a lot of good to have a little look at Israel's ludicrous origins, and the outragous and arbitrary European nation-mongering that created this problem in the first place before we cast aspertions.

Well, you get and put in the middle of a lot of arab poor countries a rich artificial country of people of the opposite religion, hand them their sacred city (wich happened to be the sacred city of the arabs too!) and then remove all your troops there (that had already been occuping the place, so weren't much loved) so they can have a country. Then get surprised when rich jews of everywhere start injecting money into they return to the sacred city wich theoretically has some kind of religious significance. And then complain about religion getting in the way of politics in europe.

In favor of the israelites I must say they actually bought a lot of land there and paid for it, even if buying land doens't mean you anexionate that land to your nation.

All because british felt guilty about what happened in europe (turning a blind eye on hitler basically because hitler was better than comunism and couldn't be so bad) and you had a worthless colony you had to get rid of, very convenient to send the people you were feeling guilty about as out of the way as possible.

Edit:

Nevermind, I'm not going to have conversations with people who based thier information about Jewish History from a bunch of Anti-semetic websites.

You don't have to bother about appologizing, because I know it won't be sincere anyways.

You go ahead and support barbaric behavior and senseless violence, I really don't care anymore, because unlike when I opened this thread, the rest of the world has finally started to open thier eyes and arn't silent anymore.

This is a very controversial statement, and I doubt that it can be proven one way or the other. The brief history you posted is generally correct, but it starts with the second exile in 587 B.C. In fact, Jewish history dates back far before that. Moreover, in 587 B.C. there already was no Israel per se. Israel was destroyed by Assirians in 722 B.C. and its entire population was scattered throughout the region. The problem is that its population was comprised of 10 out of 12 original branches, the only two that resided in Judea were those of Judas and Levit (the original kingdom of David broke up somewhere around 930 B.C. during the rule of Solomon's heir). Those 10 missing branches were assimilated by the surrounding peoples and brought about what we today refer to as "semites" - the general genotype that includes both Arabs and Jews, who are thus very closely related.

So the question of who came first is an empty one - those who came first were neither Arabs nor Jews, they were Israelites who were a mother nation of both.

And Muslims didn't put a mosque in Jerusalem "to show that their religion was better than Judaism" - they put it there because Jerusalem to them is just as sacred as it is to the Christians and Jews. Muhammad considered arabs to be the direct descendants of Avraam, through his son Ishmael, and even prayed facing Jerusalem.

Although most of what you wrote is correct, much of it isn't.

The word "Jew" Comes from those who belonged to the tribes of Judah and Benjami. The actual name in Hebrew is Yehudi, which combines the nanme Yehudah, with the word Benyami.

So, You can argue over who has lived in Tiberias on that argument all you want, however, Jeruselem where Jews have ALWAYS lived (Since the time of King David) was located within the tribe of Judah.

Note, that Arabs make NO claim to Tzvat or Haifa or Tiberias, which are all the major cities in Northern Israel, where the 10 tribes were scattered from and the Assyrians conqured. The ONLY places Arabs claim as thiers are the places that members of the Tribe of Yehuda and Bejamin were from, namely Jeruselem and Hebron.

Semites, are people who decended from Shem, who is the ancestor of Abraham. Abraham never really made it to Israel to settle there. He came from Ur Kasdim, and lived much of his life in Egypt. His decendant Ishmael who fathered the "Arabs", not be confused with Persians, took over much of the lands including and seperated into many countries, however, they never went to Canan (Israel)

The only way you will find the truths in these things is if you read the histories from 1950 and prior, including the ones published by Arab countries.

The only reason why Palastians in the modern era are given land is because they happen to live there now, and are so violent and untrusworthy that Israel would rather have them live in a seperate contry then to have them as citizens. Palestians are really from Jordan and are still, to this day, kept as second class citizens in Jordan. Other Muslims and Arabs who live in Israel however are given full citizenship and all rights, which can not be said about any Jew living in an Islamic country. These people are known as Israeli Arabs, and they have many cities and towns in which they live happily and peacefully with the people around them, and who fall victim to Palaestian terrorism just as any other Israeli might.


Its Ironic to note, that when Israel was created some 3,000 years ago, the Philistines were the number one headache who tried often to take over parts of Israel. Also Ironic, is that in Arabic there is no sound for the letter P. So we should accutally be calling them Balastians... and Balastianain has no relation to Philistines, it just sounds close.

According to the Quran, Mohhamed went to the northern most Mosque, which was still in Saudi Arabia at that time, he never went to Jeruselem. When Arabs took over Israel around the year 1,000 the caliph declared, that this was a spot of worship and a new mosque should be built in its place. Just like in the modern Era when the Muslims destroyed the Giant Buddahs and replaced them with thier own Mosques.

This is similar to the practices of the Israelis when they came to Israel, where they would destroy the shrines to pagan gods and build thier own places of worship in its stead, and if anyone was still around who claimed to be a Cananite then there might be some argument there, but sadly, they don't exist anymore.

I am moving these posts as they are 100% off topic.

this is for Iridel and Avator and Aikon so they don't have to hijack the other thread.

You shouldn't have included me in the list. My only reason for posting was to show how your claim of Jews being in Israel before Arabs is wrong. I never intended to argue about whether Israel of today should be left as it is or burned to the ground, since I don't really see any argument there as Israel of today already exists. And I definitely never intented to argue over it on the basis of stuff that happened over 2,000 years ago.

However, I'll just point out a couple of things before I bail out of what seems to be turning into a real racist nightmare:



There is no letter "P", but there's a letter "F" or "Ph". And the language itself is called Pharsi (spelling?). Not to mention the "headache" part, considering the story of Israel's founding.



Talibs, not Muslims. Muslims were at the time sitting at the northen border of the country, waiting for someone to help them kick the Talibs out.

Sorry, my comment about the lack of letter P was in refrence to the modern "Palestians, and the PLO", which are going based on the Britis name of calling the place Palastine which is from the Romans, which has nothing at all to do with Philistines. Also, Farsi is not Arabic. Farsi is persian, Arabic is arab.

Philistines never lived in Israel, they lived on the eastern side of the Jordan river.


To the comments about Europoeans... I love the irony of Jews being pushed in to Europe, then raped by Europeans to force them to have 'christain blood' and then when the Jews go back home they say "Sorry, your europeans, you can't go back home"... How typical.. Hate us because we are poor, then when we are forced to work as money changers, hate us because we are rich... Thats why to this day I always put "other" when they ask me my race.


Oh, and Talibs are a sect of Islam, or just an ethnic group like Kurds...they are still Muslims... I don't see your point.

You are the one who should be apologising my silly friend.

I do not get my information from racist websites, oddly enough, I learn things from books. It's called academia. As is perfectly obvious from the rest of my posts on the thread, I have kept a fairly strict neutrality throughout. I do my best neither to care one way or the other about the Israel issue. It is an emotive one, and one cannot be of sound judgement if one has too much emotional involvement in any side of it.

Calling Israel a "problem" and saying it has "ludicrous origins" and then calling it "Arbitrary" Are NOT academic, unless you happen to go to Islam U.

I don't want to even be reminded about all the biggotry and anti-semetism I received from so called "Academics".. so please, leaver your B.S at the door.


Neutral my arse...

1) The Israel/Palestine issue is an international problem.

2) The Origins of Israel are, from the perspective of a historian of international history, moderately ludicrous. A poor choice of words however - that I conceed, and an insensitive.

3) The 1947 UN Partition Plan was, of course arbitrary. How on earth was anyone going to be able to partition a state into two parts in a way which would be mutually satisfactory?

Daganev, many of my very close friends are Jewish. Furthermore, I am capable of having many far more irreverant opinions of my own country. Culturally, I am used to a situation in which I poke fun at the history of my country, and that is the norm. We have done bad things, we have done good things. The same is very true anywhere. We Britains are not particularly patriotic... indeed, we find the American inclination in the other direction somewhat amusing as a result.

Whatever the fairness of the situation. Whether Jewry deserved the land of their ancestors, or whether it did not, the situation in which the State of Israel was born (with general arab fury which could have been averted) was a bit of a diplomatic disaster.. and indeed that was the fault of the Brits as they gave up the British Mandate of Palestine. My views concerned the FOUNDATION of Israel.. they did not attack any justification of its existence. If anything, I wondered whether the Diplomatic Ineptness of the British was not the cause of the long-running problems which we still see there today.

You will see that what I wrote could very well be taken as offensive, if (as you were) you were inclined to view it in that light. You will also (I hope) see that, they were not intended to be, and had I explained myself better, you would not have been offended..

He said there was a problem in Israel, not that Israel was a problem. The personal attack against Aiakon claiming he was a racist is unwarrented - could a moderator please change the name of this thread? Oh, wait...

The 1947 U.N. partitian plan was NOT arbitary. Its based on discussions going all the way back to the 1850s. The initial Balford delcaration, and subsiquent white papers were based off the claims of the Jews living in the area and the Arabs living in the area. Because Saudi Arabia refused to have any "Jewish area" the Saudi's rejected every an any deal made by the British. The ONLY deal that the Arab world was willing to accept was having all of Israel with Jews accepting Islamic law.

Because of lack of willingness to allow Jews to live in Muslim countries as normal citizens, the British were basically forced to create a mandate where they said, ok, if you won't agree to negotiate we will divide it up how we want.

This is why, to this day, Hamas and Iran call for the destructon of the state of Israel, they are not willing to accept any place for Jews to call home.

To this day, the UN does not give Israel a spot on any regional commitee because Arabs nations refuse to agnkowledge its existance, and Israel is not part of Africa.

I'm not quite sure how you can say thats a failure of British diplomacy, or aribtrary.

Now, if you want to talk about how the Ottomon empire divvied up its land, and how Europe after WWI decided who would get which sections, that was arbitary. However thats a discussion about Iraq and Afganistan not about Israel.

Jews in Israel were fighting the Ottoman empire for independance long before the English ever took over.

As for the "Israel problem".. That is a fairly biased remark, no matter how you ment it. Its not an "Israel problem" its an Arab problem with not willing to allow people to live in peace. The Palastians have thier own country, the Syrians and Lebonese have thier own country, however, they refuse to let Israeli's have thier own country. Its like calling the Catholic Priest scandals "Children problems"

Israel is the only country in the middle east that gives Muslim women any rights. Muslims and Arabs in general have more rights in Israel than any Islamic nation. (Well was untill America invaded Iraq) Jews however have 0 rights in Islamic nations, which is why the once large Jewish populations of Iraq, Iran and Afghanstan are practicaly non existant now. Jews often get arrested and tortured in Islamic nations for teaching hebrew.

I think its you who needs to get a perspective on things.

Because the area remains without peace. Had the situation been settled satisfactorily in 1947, this would not be the case. That is why. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your remarks about anti-semitism?

Really? Show me where he said "In Israel".. I can't seem to find it... Even in his appology he says the "Israel/Palaestine issue".. atleast its been demoted to an "issue" instead of a "problem" how thoughtfull.

When a child gets beat up by a bully in school, do we say we have a failure of diplomacy? Do we call this a "weak child problem?"

When a girl gets raped, do we call that a "woman problem"?

Apparently in your world, trying to survive is an inexcusable crime.

None of this changes the fact that you have abused your moderating powers to help support your personal biased opinion of Aiakon. As a forum moderator, you are expected to use your moderating priviliges objectively - this is anything but, and thuroughly disgusts me.

You mean, had Israel been pushed into the ocean? Because apparently thats the only "satisfactory" sollution. But who cares, its only Jews?

Divided by a common language, Daganev.

I'm not going into the mistake in your logic in your comment: "that's a fairly biased remark, no matter how you meant it", because I do not see that it would make the slightest bit of difference to your conviction that I am a racist, and for everyone else on this forum it is self-evidently nonsense.

However, perhaps when you calm down you might reconsider this argument. Perhaps you might wonder whether you misunderstood me. Perhaps you might wonder why it never crossed your mind to attempt to think that you might have misunderstood me.



You are making a fool of yourself.

I'll take your intollerance for what it is..

Perhaps you would be more understanding if he said "The gay problem" or "the black problem", but no, he is attacking a nation that appears to be based on religion, so its ok!




If when you had appologized, you hadn't added insult to injury, then I would have thought I missunderstood you, however your appologies and explanations are more insulting than you original comments.