ITs illegal for those towns to exist. Then geneva conventions prohibits moving your population into occupied lands. A legal counsel for the foreign ministry(one Theador Meron unequivocally said so.)
Right because you understand them. You steal their land and than claim the reaction is due to blind hate.
1) Yes we understand them 2) It was never theirs to steal. If you are going down that road, Palestinians are the immigrants that were brought here by the turks or came here to work. Even the turks agreed it was our land they had to preserve until the return to Zion.
I think Judaism is an archaic ideology yes, same as I think the caste system is ready for the trash heap. I don't subscribe to blood based religions. Jews are entitled to it nevertheless just as Parsis are entitled to theirs, but I reserve the right to consider both Judaism and Zoroastrianism as being past their sell by date. Any religion which still clings to ethnocentrism is doomed to extinction - even Jews realise it of course, which is why most of the ones who live in civil society don't follow its rules - like not eating at the same table as a gentile - because its incompatible with civil society. I respect the people who recognise that and adapt their religious belief to accomodate civility But, and back on topic:
Best joke I have ever heard. They didn't steal it. that would be you, your family, and the rest of your faith. what kind of bullshit do they teach for histroy in Israel? arabs have been in palestine as long as the jews. Prove it with a non slavishly pro Israel source. any one in their right mind knows palestine should be given back to the palestinians.
They thank you, I am sure, for your tolerance. Ironically, and despite your ongoing portrayal of me as a racist (and what race is Islam again? We never got an answer to that question.), I don't think Islam is "ready for the trash heap". I do believe it needs revising, although the last time I suggested that I think you flipped out. Yes and no. You seem to at times, but when it comes to religious minorities suffering under Islamist oppression, your attitude seems more to be "shut up or ship out". So I think your respect is selective.
More on the lobby: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/harvard-prof-urges-popula_b_472191.html Even more on the lobby:
I think if the Palis had the common sense to unite under some kind of pacifist leader like Ghandi was in India, they'd win independence pretty quickly. The trouble is, it requires discipline, and getting every single faction in the whole nation to get behind it. If some palis are violent and some are not, then the whole movement looks violent.
What do you think Gandhis satyagraha movement was? According to him, nonviolent resistance was walking into the bullets fired by the British, lining up to take the knocks from their lathis. He understood however, that not everyone is brave enough to submit to violence in which case the option is not to do nothing, he would take violence over cowardice. There was no honor for Gandhi in not fighting the occupation. There were many militants in India at the same time and he never once spoke out against them. Meanwhile there are plenty of Palestinian Gandhis. They are all rotting in Israeli jails. http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/where-is-the-palestinian-gandhi-in-israeli-prison-of-course.html Lastly, if you expect the Palestinians to come up with a Gandhi, you are on the wrong side of history.
Hmmm. I guess this tells us something. If the British had the same level of control over world media as Israel does today, Gandhi probably would have lost. They'd have reported day and night on the atrocities committed by the militant factions, and we'd only be hearing about Gandhi's movement on the internet, or other fringe sources. Well, I'd have to say that ability/inability to produce a Gandhi is a pretty good measure of a culture's worth. Even the USA has had its Martin Luther King, which is about as good. Maybe he's a better one to follow. Strategic use of civil disobedience can do quite a lot, if you make sure and do it in front of the right audience, and with the right presentation.
I think even Martin Luther King on closer examination would probably look very different from his image.
the problem with that is pacifism only works when your opressors care if they kill you. the Israelis don't.
The Re-brand Israel campaign is going at full swing Oops no wait that wasn't it. Ah wait, here it is:
Yes, I utterly agree. Unity is strength. Adopting this (pacifist) position would give the Zionist regime no choice but to negotiate. To achieve unity and adopt pacifism also requires burying a heap of baggage that has accumulated over a hundred plus years. A good portion of that baggage is dead Palestinians. :m: Interesting piece from Ghassan Khatib:
or kill everybody. Indain pacifism worked because the british were worried about killing the indians. the Israelis have no such hang ups in regards to the palestinians
More to the point, nonviolent resistance (as opposed to "pacifism" per se) worked in India because the British needed the participation of Indians to make British India function. Without them, there's no state to administer, and killing people doesn't improve that situation. This does not apply in the case of Israel/Palestine. Israel does not need Palestinian participation to run their state; on the contrary. So the prospects for nonviolent resistance in Palestine are poor; Israel would be pleased as punch if they opted not to interact with Israel in any way, or engage in any violence.
