Erdogan takes a stand or why the Goldstone Report won't go away

see and there is the problem pro-Israel people like to speak of the historical attachment of the jews to palestine but when you use any sort of normal metric to gauge attachment they don't meet it. They didn't comprise the majority of the population for any great length of time. They didn't try and move back there when when they could. They for the most part abandoned it. For 1700 hundred years they did nothing to stake a claim to palestine let alone try and regain it. The whole historical attachment argument falls flat on its face because as history shows the jews made almost no effort for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There was never a unifying influence that forced emmigration to Israel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean palestine. The term Israel is bullshit, ahistorical, and used to diminish the legal resident population. And I'm not talking of being forced to I am talking of having the choice to move to palestine and try and push the jewish claim to it and not doing so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The claim was just to live there, not to take over. That part happened out of necessity.

 

In ancient history, they apparently did.

I think you're confusing modern mobility and the ease of long-distance travel with the old world. Sam likes to make light of this, but it would have been extraordinarily difficult for a given Jewish family to pull up stakes and move back. And to what? A better life, oppressed only by different people? To what end? If they had gone then, would the argument then be that they should have come earlier?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Demonstrate your claim, either from demography, ability, or economic advantage. To which I toss in: illustrate how they religiously abandoned it. Most Muslims have probably never visited Mecca, nor Christians Bethlehem, nor Communists Stalin's Tomb. Have they then similarly abandoned their rights to such places?

See above; it is rather the objection to this claim that falls flat.

True, and regrettable.

 

No it wasn't necessary it was a choice. The resident arab population would have been happy to have them if they wouldn't have tried to take over.

 

You are aware that all Muslims are expected, in their lifetime, to make at least one Pilgrimage to Mecca - the Hajj? And that an absolutely surprising number of Muslims from all corners of the globe do?

 

but history is more than anciet history.

They managed to get europe and I'm not saying make the entire move all at once.

um demography is obvious, ability the jews rose to prominace as p[art of the merchant class. they had the money to get there as for the last i never said anything about that.

Irrelevant if they did or didn't. religion doesn't give you any claim to land.

Most muslims who could afford to have.

To visit no to control yes.

See what rambling that in no way refuted my claim?

False and evil

 

How do you know "most" have? Who keeps track?

Your comment was

Ancient or not, it was still a great length of time.

This seems a bit quibbling. The process of migration took a long time. And again: return to what? Exploitation by different people? Well, sign me up!

"They had the money" is kind of unqualified...and offensive, sort of.

It certainly does, if it's your cultural home, and as I've said many times. Would I deny the claim of Muslims (so nice to have a confirmed rule for capitalization here; my thanks to Samrage) to visit or occupy Mecca after any length of time if the islamic faith fell into disuse? Of course not.

Then here we differ again: those places belong to their respective philosophies, which are of long (or not so long, perhaps, in the case of Communism) history.

PJ, I'm not trying to be cruel here, but it did.

Then we differ. You will find my view difficult to change, although I am open to reason.

 

Pardon? Those Muslims who can afford it, are obligated. Its not a random choice. Ask your Muslim friends if they have gone on a Haj.

 

Pardon? "Obligated" doesn't mean they fulfill such obligation. I'm "obligated" not to eat red meat on Fridays, but I do, because the spiritual value of such a dictum is nil. I know Muslims who have gone on Haj, and those who have not, even though they could afford it. Do you consider it an absolute?

 

Ah. Here`s the rub. The average Muslim today, takes their faith way more seriously than the average Christian. They will happily work a lifetime to eventually be able to afford going on a Haj. Secularization of Islam is way behind secularization of Christianity, and I don`t believe comparable.

 

South Africans taking part in Gaza Massacre should be investigated:

Video report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlyV-tUr3sw&feature=player_embedded

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/200911113297855257.html

Apparently there is a South African law against its citizens engaging in foreign wars? Maybe someone else could clarify.

 

Yes, the Foreign Military Assistance Act of 1998 prohibits any SA citizen from rendering foreign military assistance to any state, person or entity, unless officially authorized to. This Act also prohibits any SA citizen to train, finance or engage in any mercenary activity.

The reason this has been legislated, is the glut of highly trained ex SADF soldiers, particularly in leadership roles, from the apartheid era, and the lure of huge earnings as mercenaries.

 

Sorry; wasn't the Goldstone Report initiated by the OIC?