New Palestinian state would officially embrace racism

The majority of the world doesn't ultimately care about the Palestinians. I would argue the majority of the Middle East doesn't ultimately care about them either.



The last time Egypt attempted anything like that it ended quite poorly for them, and it was not because we attacked them.

Plus parts of the Palestinian territories have in the past come under Arab control, ie Jordan controlled portions for awhile etc, and they refused to create a Palestinian state despite being able had they wanted to at the time.

Time doesn't stand still. The world is different, and the fate of Palestinians is obviously a lot more of a concern for MANY people than it was even 25 years ago.

The fact that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians kills about 5X more Palestinians than Isrealis is also a very powerful statement that kind of water downs the often used "poor Israel lives in fear of the Palestinians' attacks."

The world loves an underdog!
 
Werbung:
Unlike the so racist policy of Israel

How cute. Americans who seemingly don't care about other Americans who disagree with them, but care about people in another country. Palestinians (the underdog) are liberal in their thinking. Lol.

Yep, Palestinians love us. You should dress yourself up in an American Flag and walk into the fray.

Don't worry. It's not like you'd be dealing with....Christians. You'll be fine...:rolleyes:
 
The world has not demonstrated any concern for these people. Its in the muslim world's best interest to maintain the status quo. Have to keep the zionist dogs as th4 great satan.

"Zionist dogs?"

I thought we were talking about human beings.

Racism is obviously not in your vocabulary, right? :rolleyes:
 
I thought Hitler was part of an Aryan race.

Well, he was certainly trying for one. :D

Bet you didn't know this, and will have a cow, considering how small your group of acceptable people are...

It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *ārya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian Ērān (šahr), "(Land) of the Iranians," from the genitive plural of Ēr, "Iranian"). The variant *ārya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, "honor," and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like "the honorable people." (This theory has since been called into question.) Thus "Aryan" came to be synonymous with "Indo-European,"
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/aryan#ixzz1YuJlBQuT

Hitler did express respect for what he considered to be true, pureblood Iranians. The Zoroastrians.
 
Time doesn't stand still. The world is different, and the fate of Palestinians is obviously a lot more of a concern for MANY people than it was even 25 years ago.

I do not agree that the world generally cares much about the fate of the Palestinians at this point.

The fact that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians kills about 5X more Palestinians than Isrealis is also a very powerful statement that kind of water downs the often used "poor Israel lives in fear of the Palestinians' attacks."

The level of death is not as relevant as the tactics employed and the group that initiates aggression in my opinion.

The world loves an underdog!

I have not seen that this is the case...especially when the "underdog" targets civilians, uses non-combatants as human shields etc etc.
 
I do not agree that the world generally cares much about the fate of the Palestinians at this point.

Is this why the there is so much problems with the international supply ships that Israeli have stopped (violently) last year, and plan on stopping again this year? Are those supply ships a sign that the rest of the world doesn't care?

The level of death is not as relevant as the tactics employed and the group that initiates aggression in my opinion.

And all this time I thought that human life was more important than politics! I guess the 1,463 palestinians children killed since 2000 are nothing next to the 124 Israeli children killed during that period . . .because. . .what?

I have not seen that this is the case...especially when the "underdog" targets civilians, uses non-combatants as human shields etc etc.

Oh that must be it! These Palestinians children must have been used as "human shields!"

Do you REALLY believe that?
 
Is this why the there is so much problems with the international supply ships that Israeli have stopped (violently) last year, and plan on stopping again this year? Are those supply ships a sign that the rest of the world doesn't care?

I'll skip the issue of why those ships were rightly stopped, and instead raise this issue.

If you take a few rag tag "supply" ships that lack international support to actually get to port, and lack international support to respond meaningfully to being stopped as "world support", then what issue exactly lacks world support?

And all this time I thought that human life was more important than politics!
I guess the 1,463 palestinians children killed since 2000 are nothing next to the 124 Israeli children killed during that period . . .because. . .what?

Death is death....which side is the main antagonist here? I would argue that it is and has mostly been the Palestinians.

Oh that must be it! These Palestinians children must have been used as "human shields!"

There is indisputable proof that Hamas etc operate in this fashion. Certainly not all the deaths you speak of are due to this, but it cannot be discounted.

Further, when one side intentionally starts fights in areas knowing it will cause civilian deaths, you cannot seriously place the blame for those deaths on the side that responds.

Your reaction just shows why Hamas does it, and will continue to do it. If Israel does not retaliate, they will continue their attacks and kill/terrorize more Israelis. If Israel does respond, Hamas scores a PR victory by parading for the cameras the bystanders who were killed (never mind that it was Palestinian action to begin with that often starts these exchanges)

Do you REALLY believe that?[/QUOTE]
 
Werbung:
Most Palastinians live in poverty and often in camps. No surrounding Nation really wants to deal with them but are inclined to use their plight as a call to arms againsed Israel. I do not look at the history of the Jews as an important factor in their dealing with the Palestinians today, I think religion should have nothing to do with politics as it is impossible to come to an agreement. But this is not the reality, both side use their history and their religion as weapons, both sides are equally guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Nothing the UN can do will bring peace to this area without the radicals from each side being purged from the political scene. In a larger sense, nothing the US will ever do short of creating a Palestinian State can ensure stability in the region and a change of leadership in hostile nations. The only hope I see has a chance is the long odds of a great leader arising in Israel and Palistine at the same time.
 
Back
Top