One state solution

  • HotCoach

    Posts: 247

    Mar 05, 2009 4:07 AM GMT
    Why a 2 state solution? Afterall both the Israeles and Arabs are all semitic peoples anyway. Remember Issac, Esau and Jacob? Palestineans were there 1st. Hebrews came later from Iraq. And why does Isreal need to be a "jewish" state anyway. After all, US is not a Christian state. Have 1 state and have the people elect their own government. Democracy! One man, one vote! Like it should be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 7:21 AM GMT
    HotCoach saidWhy a 2 state solution?...Democracy! One man, one vote! Like it should be.
    Let's take this further. No nations at all. Just one big happy planet. Shouldn't China merge with Japan? Because after all, just a couple thousand years ago, they were ALL Chinese. Japanese Shintoism is a total rip-off of Chinese animal worship anyway.

    I hope you're being facetious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 7:22 AM GMT
    What does this subject have to do with "All Things Gay"?


    Joe
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 7:28 AM GMT
    samerphx said
    mickeytopogigio said
    HotCoach saidWhy a 2 state solution?...Democracy! One man, one vote! Like it should be.
    Let's take this further. No nations at all. Just one big happy planet. Shouldn't China merge with Japan? Because after all, just a couple thousand years ago, they were ALL Chinese. Japanese Shintoism is a total rip-off of Chinese animal worship anyway.

    I hope you're being facetious.


    Japanese and Chinese they both are happy the way they are right now and there is no conflict like the Israelis and Palestinians over in Japan and China.
    Samer, I was also being facetious. I was answering the original poster's question with an absurd extension of his own reasoning. I'm sorry if the humor didn't translate well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 6:27 PM GMT
    samerphx said
    joecoolnv saidWhat does this subject have to do with "All Things Gay"?


    Joe


    I am a Gay PALESTINIAN... That surprise you?


    Why would that surprise me?


    Joe
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Mar 05, 2009 6:43 PM GMT
    because we're fully vested..

    the israel lobby, an interesting read..i'll give it half the day until "a-s" term is thrown out
    http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 7:03 PM GMT
    What we need is a Jewish-Palestinian alliance group. Samerphx, when can you come over? I have a Queen- size bed. Hope you don't mind cats. They're very friendly.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2009 11:28 PM GMT
    HotCoach saidWhy a 2 state solution? Afterall both the Israeles and Arabs are all semitic peoples anyway. Remember Issac, Esau and Jacob? Palestineans were there 1st. Hebrews came later from Iraq. And why does Isreal need to be a "jewish" state anyway. After all, US is not a Christian state. Have 1 state and have the people elect their own government. Democracy! One man, one vote! Like it should be.
    Simply answer, Hitler almost killed all the Jews and the British had a place they could come to ...thus Israel.
    The world is trying to keep the Jews alive, they deserve it. The world has attempted in more ways then one to kill them off. We own them. Europe is most guilty, but western civilization can share that guild. Therefore an independent Israel.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Mar 05, 2009 11:43 PM GMT
    samerphx saidHey HotCoach... Many Palestinians want only one-state solution, while the Zionist movement only want a "Jewish nation." Before the creation of Israel, the Palestinians (under the Ottoman Empire) told the United Nations that there should be a secular one democratic state for all. The Palestinians welcomed any foreign Jew to Palestine as long as they learned Arabic and tried to work together with the Palestinian (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) and not try to fight them. But the Zionists (European Jews) wanted to take over all of Palestine for themselves and get rid of the native people (Palestinians.) The Palestinians were willing to share but the Zionists weren't.

    I support Isratine proposal.

    * Creation of a binational Israeli-Palestinian state called the "Federal Republic of the Holy Land";
    * Partition of the state into 5 administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
    * Return of all Palestinian refugees;
    * Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
    * Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state; and
    * Recognition of the state by the Arab League.


    Samer,

    I'm all for the need of this issue being resolved, but I do not see dissolving Israel as a country as a viable solution for MANY reasons. It's just not going to happen. Just because World War II is over and Hitler is dead doesn't mean that there are not forces out there looking to erase the Jewish people from the face of the planet.

    That said, there does need to be some sort of solution where Israel has land (and security) and Palestinians have land (and peace and prosperity). I also know both sides are going to have a tough time letting go of Jerusalem. Jerusalem must be neutral. It shouldn't belong to either side.

    As for removal of weapons of mass destruction, again I think Israel needs nukes to help guarantee its safety in their part of the world. I wish this were not the case, and it causes me great worry, but I think without nukes some other countries would invade Israel without hesitation.

    I think we agree on a great many things. While I am in support of Israel, they need to do more to find peace with the Palestinians. They need to stop claiming land that is not theirs. They need to provide Palestinians with land of their own and end their despicable treatment of the Palestinian people if they want Palestinians and others in the region to treat them with dignity and respect.
  • HotCoach

    Posts: 247

    Mar 13, 2009 2:07 AM GMT
    samerphx saidHey HotCoach... Many Palestinians want only one-state solution, while the Zionist movement only want a "Jewish nation." Before the creation of Israel, the Palestinians (under the Ottoman Empire) told the United Nations that there should be a secular one democratic state for all. The Palestinians welcomed any foreign Jew to Palestine as long as they learned Arabic and tried to work together with the Palestinian (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) and not try to fight them. But the Zionists (European Jews) wanted to take over all of Palestine for themselves and get rid of the native people (Palestinians.) The Palestinians were willing to share but the Zionists weren't.

    I support Isratine proposal.

    * Creation of a binational Israeli-Palestinian state called the "Federal Republic of the Holy Land";
    * Partition of the state into 5 administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
    * Return of all Palestinian refugees;
    * Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
    * Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state; and
    * Recognition of the state by the Arab League.


    I agree!
    1st, return the West Bank to Jordan,
    2nd, write a secular (non religious, non Zionist, non Pan Arab) constitution like ours here in US. No memtion of God no matter what you call your diety.
    3rd, honor the right of return to all dispossed Palestinians,
    4th, continue to accept all Jews who wish to come to the new country,
    5th each all children bot Hebrew and Arabic.
    6th, end the US subsidy of the new state. Make it a pay as you go place.

    Just for starters anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 2:25 AM GMT
    I say nuke the whole area and start from scratch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 2:35 AM GMT
    1 state. With atheists in charge so nobody can bitch.
  • HotCoach

    Posts: 247

    Mar 13, 2009 4:01 AM GMT
    andymatic said1 state. With atheists in charge so nobody can bitch.


    Make that #7.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 5:46 AM GMT
    HotCoach> both the Israeles and Arabs are all semitic peoples anyway

    H1. Languages are Semitic, people are not... unless you are a fan of Biblical anthropology.

    H2. In that case the Canaanites were Hamites, not Semites.


    HotCoach> Remember Issac, Esau and Jacob?

    You mean Ishmael, not Esau (he was allegedly the father of the Edomites).

    H3. That's Biblical mythology. If you believe that, then you must also believe that God gave this land to the Jews, right?


    HotCoach> Palestineans were there 1st.

    Really?

    H4. The earliest recorded use of the term "Palestine" comes about 800 years after the Jewish nation. (I don't think that Herodotus makes any reference to a "Palestinian" people.)

    H5. Perhaps you mean the Philistines? But they were an invading sea people, so no.

    H6. Did you mean the Canaanites? In this case you might be right... but read on


    HotCoach> Hebrews came later from Iraq.

    H7. Biblical mythology with no external evidence to support it. Israelite first settled the highlands at a time when no one was living there. Over several decades, the consumption of pork ceased as a new identity was formed. But the architecture and pottery were not "Iraqi" but Canaanite.

    H8. The Israelite nation was formed from Canaanites, perhaps with the addition of regional migratory tribes (e.g. the Shasu) which led to the mythos of Abraham coming from Ur and escape from bondage in Egypt.

    H9. Consider, for example, the Tribe of Asher. It is known from earlier Egyptian records as a Canaanite tribe.

    H10. Over the centuries that followed, the rest of the Canaanite tribes assimilated into what became the dominant culture and Canaanites ceased to exist as a separate culture.

    H11. The Philistines met their end at the hands of the Babylonians in 604 BCE. Remnants fled to Judea (which held out for a couple more decades) and neighboring regions but ceased to exist as a distinct people.

    H12. So it is no surprise that foreign conquerors (e.g. Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans - even the Gospels) make no mention of "Palestinians". There was (still) no such group of people.


    HotCoach> why does Isreal need to be a "jewish" state anyway

    H13. Why is Syria the Syrian ARAB Republic?
    Why does Japan need to be a Japanese state?
    Why is France the French state?

    H14. Israel is the homeland of the Jews, just as Greece is the homeland of the Greeks.


    HotCoach> Have 1 state and have the people elect their own government. Democracy! One man, one vote!

    H15. Same is true of North America. Why have a 3 state solution here? Just merge Mexico, the US and Canada into 1 state with everyone (women, too) entitled to one vote.

    H16. Israel is a democracy. There is an Arab minority which accounts for roughly 20% of the population. They are full citizens with equal protection under the law. Israel Arabs (including women) vote and serve in the Knesset (parliament) - including as ministers in the ruling government coalition. They serve in the foreign office, including as ambassadors. They serve in the judiciary, including as justices on the High (supreme) Court - the only such Court in the mideast where an Arab citizen can sue his own government, live to tell about it, and win or lose solely based on the legal merits of the case. Israeli Arabs even serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, helping to defend their country, and achieving ranks as high as Generals.


    H17. Consider that the examples of successful one-state solutions used to be Lebanon (civil war left 150,000 dead) and Yugoslavia.

    H18. Extra credit: what happened to Czechoslovakia?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 6:05 AM GMT
    Samer> Many Palestinians want only one-state solution

    S1. They wish to do so by destroying Israel (as Samer does) and killing all the Jews (Hamas Covenant, Hizbullah).


    Samer> the Zionist movement only want a "Jewish nation."

    Pathological lie.

    S2. The Zionism movement accepted partition in 1923 (80% of "historic Palestine" was made into an exclusive Arab kingdom, no Jews allowed, known as Trans-Jordanian Palestine and today known as Jordan). In 1937, the Jewish Agency (the pre-state authority) accepted in principle the two-state solution first proposed by the Peel Commission. The Arab leadership (they still weren't called "Palestinians") rejected it. In 1947, the Jewish Agency accepted the UN partition compromise. The Arab High Committee (which represented the Arabs of Mandate Palestine) violently rejected it and began attacking the Jewish community, with neighboring Arab countries joining the attack following the departure of the British Mandatory forces.

    S3. After the 1948 war, Israel was willing to make peace, but the Arab parties rejected it. So too after 1956 and 1967. Most recently, Israeli Prime Minister Barak accepted the Clinton Compromise Parameters (which would have established Arab Palestine on a net 97% of the disputed territories, contiguous in Gaza and in the former so-called "West Bank" and including the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem and shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and the so-called "right of return" to the nascent state along with a $30 Billion fund to compensate and resettle the refugees and their descendants.


    Samer> the Palestinians (under the Ottoman Empire) told the United Nations that there should be a secular one democratic state for all

    S4. The UN didn't exist until 30 years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There was no group known as "Palestinians" under the Ottomen Empire and no such national movement.


    Samer> The Palestinians welcomed any foreign Jew to Palestine as long as they learned Arabic and tried to work together with the Palestinian (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) and not try to fight them.

    S5. Jews in "Palestine" (no such place then existed) were brutally opressed as dhimmis. In the late 17th century, the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem was slaughtered. Jews (like Christians) had to turn to foreign powers for protections (part of the Capitulations imposed on the Ottoman Empire).

    S6. The Arab Muslims didn't seem to object to Arabs coming from Egypt, Mesopotamia (Iraq) or as far as Morocco, or for Muslims to arrive from Bosnia, Persia or Afghanistan, but if a Jew came from those same areas they were "foreign" "invaders". Today we call that Xenophobia.


    Samer> the Zionists (European Jews) wanted to take over all of Palestine for themselves and get rid of the native people (Palestinians.)

    Bunk.

    S7. The Arabs of Palestine (today known as "Palestinians") are not "native". Some date back to the Arab invasion of the 7th century, but most arrived in recent centuries.

    S8. Zionists included Mizrahi (middle eastern) Jews - as is still true today. As we already saw above, the Zionists were open to partition and the two-state solution


    Samer> The Palestinians were willing to share but the Zionists weren't.

    S9. Some were, but their leadership (known as the Arab High Command) was not - repeatedly choosing violence, terrorism and war over compromise. As we see to this day.


    Samer> If not for Hitler, there probably wouldn’t be an Israel at all

    LutherGooch> Hitler almost killed all the Jews and the British had a place they could come to ...thus Israel

    Not exactly.

    S10. The Palestine Mandate was established following WW I under the principle of self-determination for people. At the time "Palestine" was the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael and not a reference to an Arab group. Here is the purpose of the Mandate, 2 decades before hitler:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

    || The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions


    Samer> Israel has caused more Jewish deaths than anything else.

    S11. That is as illogically warped as claiming that opposition to hitler caused deaths rather than hitler causing them.

    S12. It is Arab violence, terrorism and war that has caused these Jewish deaths.


    Samer> I think colonialism is stupid and people should not go off claiming other people’s homes as their own

    Right.

    S13. The Arab dynasties who conquered and colonized the Jewish homeland had no business doing so.


    Samer> Israel keeps expanding over the years

    S14. Israel expands only after it is attacked - which is not a sign of aggression as you pretend and misrepresent.


    Samer> it won’t stop until the Palestinians have no land left in the area.

    S14. Odd, isn't it, that under the Oslo peace process Israel withdrew from land where 98% of the Palestinian Arabs in the territories reside, eh?


    Samer> There are many Jewish-Palestinian alliances, but never Zionist-Palestinian alliance.

    S15. http://arabsforisrael.com

    S16. http://www.shoebat.com

    S17. Are you saying that the Israeli Arabs who support Israel (and are thus Zionists) are not "Palestinians"?


    Samer> Zionist is the main root cause the Middle East conflict.

    S18. A sick delusion that parallels hitler blaming Jews as the cause of European conflict and blaming women for getting raped.

    S19. What is true in Samer's words is that Israel's existence (not anything Israel does) is the cause of conflct precisely because there are those Arabs who won't tolerate the existence of a Jewish state and will fight "forever" to destroy it rather than compromise and live in peace.


    Samer> There should be a secular country and a true democracy

    S20. Israel is a secular country and a true democracy.

    S21. Once again we see that you are more interested in destroying Israel than in building Arab Palestine.

    That is a tremendous insight for anyone who wants to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 6:28 AM GMT
    S20. Israel is a secular country and a true democracy.

    So marriage is a secular institution in Israel, or to put it more bluntly can you have none religiously attached marriage IN the state of Isreal? Just asking and wondering what you mean by a 'secular' country, and was Isreal ever intended to be a secular country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 6:48 AM GMT
    wrerick> So marriage is a secular institution in Israel, or to put it more bluntly can you have none religiously attached marriage IN the state of Isreal?

    Glad you asked. This pecularity was inherited by Israel from the British Mandate which put "family law" in the hands of each religion and failed to also put it in the hands of the civil authorities.

    Note that this doesn't make Israel a Judaic state - Muslim family law is governed by the Muslim courts, etc. It's a form of laissez-faire government if I can call it that.

    Note further that Israel (as I think you allude) does recognize secular marriages (including gay marriages) performed abroad. The problem is that there is no active mechanism or instrument by which to be married outside of religious governance.

    Note that Israeli law does recognize common law marriage, so a secular couple that lives together (and there is no time requirement) can (and has been) legally be treated as married.

    So while it is not as clean and easy as I (and others) would like, it is possible (can we say that about theocracies such as Iran?). It's probably also just a matter of time before this is reformed.


    Overall, though, while you make a good point it is a quibble. One could similarly attempt to dismiss that the USA is a secular country given that it is "one nation under God", "In God We Trust", courts make people swear on the Bible, Christmas is a national holiday, there are Sunday liquor laws [ok, state issues, but are these states not secular?] and if I had $1 for each time I've heard a President say "God bless" at the end of a speech..... (Yes, I'm aware of the history behind the first two. Still it is what is now.)


    wrerick> was Isreal ever intended to be a secular country.

    The majority of its founding fathers were secular so I think it's safe to say that it was founded as a secular country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 8:30 AM GMT
    After the Holocaust, the Jews deserve, and still deserve their own Jewish state!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 8:49 AM GMT
    HotCoach saidWhy a 2 state solution? Afterall both the Israeles and Arabs are all semitic peoples anyway. Remember Issac, Esau and Jacob? Palestineans were there 1st. Hebrews came later from Iraq. And why does Isreal need to be a "jewish" state anyway. After all, US is not a Christian state. Have 1 state and have the people elect their own government. Democracy! One man, one vote! Like it should be.


    False belief systems are not about truth, but, about power, oppression, conformance and control.

    In countries where the false belief system is over 85% Muslim, nearly all governments are parochial and anyone with opposing views faces dire consequences. False belief systems foster intolerance, and, there you go with the two state thing.

    False belief systems are the root of almost all evil.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 8:53 AM GMT
    GO Israel! I'm fucking pulling for the Israelis. DON'T USE CHILDREN AS HUMAN SHIELDS!
  • HotCoach

    Posts: 247

    Mar 13, 2009 1:09 PM GMT
    Maverick75 saidAfter the Holocaust, the Jews deserve, and still deserve their own Jewish state!


    Then they should have put it in Germany.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 5:12 PM GMT
    HotCoach, why are you ignoring what I said above?

    Odd that Samer felt a need to respond to what I said to you... but as we'll see he needs a lot of help:

    H1. Languages are Semitic, people are not... unless you are a fan of Biblical anthropology.
    H2. In that case the Canaanites were Hamites, not Semites.


    Samer> “Phoenician: a member of a Semitic people inhabiting ancient Phoenicia and its colonies.” – Dictionary

    Samer> “The Phoenicians of the Iron Age (first millennium B.C.) descended from the original Canaanites” - http://phoenicia.org/history.html

    Nice convolution (mixing) of sources. It is, historically, true that the Phoenicians were a northern Canaanite people, but you have chosen to abandon history and science (which state that Semitic is a group of languages, not people) in favor of biblical “anthropology”.

    So to be consistent, you have to use sources which use the term in the same sense.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic

    || Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites

    To preclude Samer from attacking Wikipedia's credibility as a source:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ham

    || The “curse of Ham” refers to the biblical story in which Ham, seeing his father drunk and naked, refused to turn away as his two brothers did. When Noah awoke, he cursed Ham and his son Canaan

    So either we use the Biblical “anthropology” and the Canaanites are Hamitic or we use the modern meaning and Semitic is a language group (not “race”).

    As is, you are just manipulating data to conform to your preconceived notions. This isn’t just illogical, it’s wrong. Pick one metric and stick to it rather than constantly contradicting yourself as needed in a desperate attempt to float your argument.


    H3. That's Biblical mythology. If you believe that, then you must also believe that God gave this land to the Jews, right?

    Samer> so what

    Of course you don’t get this and once again you see no problem with arguing from contradicting premises.


    H4. The earliest recorded use of the term "Palestine" comes about 800 years after the Jewish nation. (I don't think that Herodotus makes any reference to a "Palestinian" people.)
    H5. Perhaps you mean the Philistines? But they were an invading sea people, so no.
    H6. Did you mean the Canaanites? In this case you might be right... but read on


    Samer> I have already mention this to you before the Palestinians are mixed people. They have Judean, Philistine, Israelites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, Arabs, Turkish, Persians, and other group of people.

    It’s true, but not in the way you intend. The “mixture” came very late, in recent centuries. And the umbrella label of “Palestinian” didn’t come about until the middle of the 20th century. In the 19th century the Arabs living in “Palestine” (Eretz Yisrael) still identified their origins as either being Yamani (southern) or Qais (northern) Arabs. Other groups included Kurds, Persians, Turkomen, Circassians (but not “Philistines” or “Canaanites”, groups which were lost to history thousands of years earlier).

    Let me again point out how Samer’s arguments are self-contradictory. Arabs are “Semites” (assuming they descend from Ishmael, which is not historic/scientific but thus fits in perfectly with the mythical anthropology methods). Canaanites are “Hamites” (or Hamitic). Samer attempts to simultaneously argue that the “Palestinians” are more Canaanitic than Arabic (they were just “Arabized”)… and yet that they are Semites. Sorry, you can argue one or the other, but not both. Samer, however, has to argue both because his overarching argument otherwise goes to pieces.


    Samer> They became Arabized, because of Pan-Arabism against the Turkish Empire

    Pan Arabism, like the UN, post-dates the Ottoman Turkish Empire.


    H7. Israelites first settled the highlands at a time when no one was living there. Over several decades, the consumption of pork ceased as a new identity was formed. But the architecture and pottery were not "Iraqi" but Canaanite.

    H8. The Israelite nation was formed from Canaanites, perhaps with the addition of regional migratory tribes (e.g. the Shasu) which led to the mythos of Abraham coming from Ur and escape from bondage in Egypt.

    H9. Consider, for example, the Tribe of Asher. It is known from earlier Egyptian records as a Canaanite tribe.

    H10. Over the centuries that followed, the rest of the Canaanite tribes assimilated into what became the dominant culture and Canaanites ceased to exist as a separate culture.

    H11. The Philistines met their end at the hands of the Babylonians in 604 BCE. Remnants fled to Judea (which held out for a couple more decades) and neighboring regions but ceased to exist as a distinct people.


    Samer> [no contest]



    H12. So it is no surprise that foreign conquerors (e.g. Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans - even the Gospels) make no mention of "Palestinians". There was (still) no such group of people.

    Samer> The term Palestinian is a modern Identity like Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis. I don’t hear many Greek people call themselves Hellenes, Aegean, Athenians, Dorian, Thessalian, Arcadian and Ionians. I don’t hear many Italian people call themselves Romans. Just like Palestinians, you don’t hear them call themselves Israelites or Judean, or Philistine, or Canaanites.

    I’m glad to see that you finally admit that “Palestinian” is a modern concept. The difference, though, is that your other examples speak of sub-groups. The different Greek city-states were all Greeks, even if they were also citizens of their city (the same was true of just the Philistines in their pentapolis, and Canaanites, too).

    Of course, you missed the point. These different conquerors made no mention not only of “Palestinians”, but of “Canaanites” and later “Philistines”. They were gone. So how can you claim that these groups – which didn’t exist for hundreds and thousands of years – suddenly became part of the “Palestinian” grouping?

    H13. Why is Syria the Syrian ARAB Republic?
    Why does Japan need to be a Japanese state?
    Why is France the French state?
    H14. Israel is the homeland of the Jews, just as Greece is the homeland of the Greeks.


    Samer> Arab is a culture. Japanese and French are nationalities. Jewish is a religion

    As has been discussed numerous times, Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. That Judaism exists doesn’t mean that Jews don’t exist as a people. That’s the ultimate anti-semitic argument… that Jews aren’t even Jews.

    Israel is the Jewish State in the same sense that Japan is the Japanese state, not in the sense that Iran is a Muslim state.

    Samer> Ancient Israel was not a "Jewish state," but was a secular state made up of many peoples and religions, and the majority of the population followed the Canaanite religions.

    Insanely wrong on both counts. Ancient Israel was a tightly coupled religious state even if at times some strayed from the religion. It is no coincidence, for one example, that the Temple was built by the king.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2009 5:13 PM GMT
    H15. Why not have a 1 state solution in North America? Just merge Mexico, the US and Canada into 1 state with everyone (women, too) entitled to one vote. Good?

    Samer> [silence]


    H16. Israel is a democracy. There is an Arab minority which accounts for roughly 20% of the population. They are full citizens with equal protection under the law. Israel Arabs (including women) vote and serve in the Knesset (parliament) - including as ministers in the ruling government coalition. They serve in the foreign office, including as ambassadors. They serve in the judiciary, including as justices on the High (supreme) Court - the only such Court in the mideast where an Arab citizen can sue his own government, live to tell about it, and win or lose solely based on the legal merits of the case. Israeli Arabs even serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, helping to defend their country, and achieving ranks as high as Generals.

    Samer> Israel is never a democracy country.

    I wonder if Samer can even tell us what is required for a country to be democratic, let alone tell us what Israel lacks to preclude it from being a democracy. As we’ve seen time and again, Samer can do no better than demagoguery, slinging slogans and soundbites… but never discussing anything in depth beyond such superficiality.


    Samer> Of course Israel have someone that run in the Knessent want to drive all Arabs and Palestinians out of Israel. His name is Avigdor Lieberman.

    Let’s for a moment assume that this is an accurate description of Lieberman (it isn’t). Does this mean that Israel is not a democracy? Does the election of David Duke mean that the US isn’t a democracy?

    For the record, note that Israel previously banned Kach, the party of Rabbi Kahane, on the basis that it was racist.

    So now, by Samer’s simpleton’s argument, Israel is a democracy.


    H17. Consider that the examples of successful one-state solutions used to be Lebanon (civil war left 150,000 dead) and Yugoslavia.

    Samer> [ignored, of course]


    H18. Extra credit: what happened to Czechoslovakia?

    Samer> [nobody home]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2009 4:31 AM GMT
    As usual, unable to address what I say in this topic, Samer has relegated himself to trying to snub me in other topics:

    samerphx saidsnubs? i am not a snub. I feel sorry for you because most of your posts are off the topic about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. Like when we talk about one-state solution. You start talking about Yugoslavia and other countries, which they have different situation than the Israeli and Palestinian conflict... Sometime you say something about me is not true.

    I don't hate you. I just can't stand you.

    I think we all realize that Samer isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but I didn't think I'd need to explain to him that those who previously made the argument for a one-state solution (they, not me) conjured Lebanon and Yugoslavia as examples to show that a binational Arab-Jewish state would be viable. Opps.

    Perhaps I also need to explain, for his sake, why I mentioned Czechoslovakia. Despite a lack of animosity between the Czechs, the Slovaks and Ruthenians, the country split into 3.

    There are 18 points above. Let's see if Samer can honestly address them. - here in this topic.. or if he'll just continue making petty personal attacks on me elsewhere on RJ - precisely because he can't stay on topic here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2009 11:19 PM GMT
    Once again Samer lashes out... elsewhere.

    samerphx> His posts wasn't very organize and clear.

    Really? Is that what you tell yourself?

    I have received many emails from other people who have found what I said clear and thanked me for countering your incessant and pathological lies.

    Now stop your petty personal vendetta and talk politics... if you can.